trading down...then making an offer to Wallace

[aggiebones]

Re: trading down...then making an offer to Wallace

Sorry my point wasn't about no.5 trading down to no.32.
But someone could trade from say mid 20s, get something and the 30-32nd pick. Then make a big offer for Wallace.

They'd get something for trading down and only lose the +/-30th pick.

It would be a foolish GM that signs Wallace with a pick between 15-25 for instance.

[Shoe]

Re: trading down...then making an offer to Wallace

That is the reality. No team is giving up a top 5 or even a top 10 pick, plus huge money for Wallace. That would be nuts.

While I do agree with you, you do realize the Raiders gave Cincinnati a bushels of picks for a guy who I wouldn't trade a 7th for.

[RuthlessBurgher]

Re: trading down...then making an offer to Wallace

Sorry my point wasn't about no.5 trading down to no.32.
But someone could trade from say mid 20s, get something and the 30-32nd pick. Then make a big offer for Wallace.

They'd get something for trading down and only lose the +/-30th pick.

It would be a foolish GM that signs Wallace with a pick between 15-25 for instance.

In order for a team to trade down in the first round and then give us a lower 1st round pick as compensation for signing Wallace to an RFA offer sheet, such a trade would have to occur well before draft day (the RFA signing period ends a week before the draft). Teams aren't going to be willing to move up in the first round unless they know the guy that they are targetting is going to be there. That is why teams move up on draft day itself, when that particular pick is on the clock, so that they can be sure to get their guy. Why would a team want to trade up a week or more prior to the draft if they can't be sure at that point that they will get the guy they want?