Cassel Trade Poll

[Hoyo de Monterrey]

Just wanted to gauge reaction... Personally, I'm not thrilled.

[SShorefan 4.0]

unless there is something that hasn't been announced.

[Toine43]

I'm gonna pass on voting until we get the whole story about this. I just have weird vibes about it, kind of like when the Celtics traded for Ray but didn't have KG yet. I have no idea what is going on except that I know something else is going to happen soon that's related to this.

[Cman]

Fair value.

[twistedrico]

Its gonna really suck for the Pats if Brady doesn't come back the same player. Really bad.

[SShorefan 4.0]

I don't buy into Mike Reiss's take on the trade.

Patriots fans might be asking "that's it?"

It's an understandable question given that Matt Cassel has proven to be a capable NFL starting quarterback, and those are hard to find, and Mike Vrabel is a do-it-all veteran who is a "glue" guy in the locker room.

But given what the market had to bear, this is a solid deal for the Patriots.

In situations like these, it's all about market conditions, and reacting accordingly.

There wasn't a large market for Cassel, which was a result of three main factors: 1) Not every team needed him; 2) Economics-wise, not every team could afford him; 3) Compensation-wise, not every team was willing to part with what it would take to acquire him.

The Patriots figure to take a hit in opinion polls on this deal, but from this perspective, the main questions to answer are these:

# Would the Patriots have been better off letting Cassel walk as an unrestricted free agent, and receiving a 2010 third-round compensatory pick in return?

# Or is this scenario better, getting a high 2009 second-round pick (No. 34 overall, second in the round), while adding a savvy veteran like Vrabel -- whose contract expires after 2009 and probably wouldn't have been back in 2010 -- to close the deal?

In the end, the feeling here is that the Patriots turned a 2005 seventh-round draft choice -- a player many felt would be cut at the end of training camp (me included) -- into a valuable 2009 second-round pick.

It hurts to lose Vrabel, but that's the risk the team took in placing the franchise tag on Cassel in the first place. They knew that if the market didn't generate, there would have to be some sacrifices.

So in the end, the Patriots adjusted well to what the market dictated.

This isn't the mega deal some were hoping for, perhaps even the Patriots themselves. But it's still a solid trade.

[Hoyo de Monterrey]

I don't buy into Mike Reiss's take on the trade.

Patriots fans might be asking "that's it?"

It's an understandable question given that Matt Cassel has proven to be a capable NFL starting quarterback, and those are hard to find, and Mike Vrabel is a do-it-all veteran who is a "glue" guy in the locker room.

But given what the market had to bear, this is a solid deal for the Patriots.

In situations like these, it's all about market conditions, and reacting accordingly.

There wasn't a large market for Cassel, which was a result of three main factors: 1) Not every team needed him; 2) Economics-wise, not every team could afford him; 3) Compensation-wise, not every team was willing to part with what it would take to acquire him.

The Patriots figure to take a hit in opinion polls on this deal, but from this perspective, the main questions to answer are these:

# Would the Patriots have been better off letting Cassel walk as an unrestricted free agent, and receiving a 2010 third-round compensatory pick in return?

# Or is this scenario better, getting a high 2009 second-round pick (No. 34 overall, second in the round), while adding a savvy veteran like Vrabel -- whose contract expires after 2009 and probably wouldn't have been back in 2010 -- to close the deal?

In the end, the feeling here is that the Patriots turned a 2005 seventh-round draft choice -- a player many felt would be cut at the end of training camp (me included) -- into a valuable 2009 second-round pick.

It hurts to lose Vrabel, but that's the risk the team took in placing the franchise tag on Cassel in the first place. They knew that if the market didn't generate, there would have to be some sacrifices.

So in the end, the Patriots adjusted well to what the market dictated.

This isn't the mega deal some were hoping for, perhaps even the Patriots themselves. But it's still a solid trade.

That's why Reiss gets all the local scoops on the Pats... He's their mouthpiece.

[xmuscularghandix]

the whole point was to free up money for free agents, and get patriot type draft picks.

[Toine43]

I don't buy into Mike Reiss's take on the trade.

Patriots fans might be asking "that's it?"

It's an understandable question given that Matt Cassel has proven to be a capable NFL starting quarterback, and those are hard to find, and Mike Vrabel is a do-it-all veteran who is a "glue" guy in the locker room.

But given what the market had to bear, this is a solid deal for the Patriots.

In situations like these, it's all about market conditions, and reacting accordingly.

There wasn't a large market for Cassel, which was a result of three main factors: 1) Not every team needed him; 2) Economics-wise, not every team could afford him; 3) Compensation-wise, not every team was willing to part with what it would take to acquire him.

The Patriots figure to take a hit in opinion polls on this deal, but from this perspective, the main questions to answer are these:

# Would the Patriots have been better off letting Cassel walk as an unrestricted free agent, and receiving a 2010 third-round compensatory pick in return?

# Or is this scenario better, getting a high 2009 second-round pick (No. 34 overall, second in the round), while adding a savvy veteran like Vrabel -- whose contract expires after 2009 and probably wouldn't have been back in 2010 -- to close the deal?

In the end, the feeling here is that the Patriots turned a 2005 seventh-round draft choice -- a player many felt would be cut at the end of training camp (me included) -- into a valuable 2009 second-round pick.

It hurts to lose Vrabel, but that's the risk the team took in placing the franchise tag on Cassel in the first place. They knew that if the market didn't generate, there would have to be some sacrifices.

So in the end, the Patriots adjusted well to what the market dictated.

This isn't the mega deal some were hoping for, perhaps even the Patriots themselves. But it's still a solid trade.

That's why Reiss gets all the local scoops on the Pats... He's their mouthpiece.

He may be their mouthpiece, but he has a point. I'm not saying I agree with it, but his take is a valid one.

[Jon]

I voted that they got fair compensation, but I will say I would've liked to seen them get more.  Still, I'm imagining if they could've gotten more, they would've.  Moreover, I think some teams were asking the question, what will Matt Cassell look like if he's not throwing to Randy Moss and Wes Welker and playing in Bill Belicheck's system?  For as great as Brady is, look how his numbers skyrocketed in 2007-2008 when he got Moss and Welker.  To be brutally honest, I wouldn't be surprised to see Cassell fall on his face next year on a pretty bad K.C. team. 

[Cman]

I think Mike Reiss has a pretty solid take on the situation.  

Frankly, I get a little exasperated by the mainstream media when they discuss the whole Cassel situation at a very superficial level.  For example, Don Banks has a new piece out saying that the Patriots could have gotten "much more" in the Cassel trade, but then he doesn't even bother to speculate what else the Patriots could have gotten.  Does he think there was another team that would have offered a higher pick?  Would KC have thrown in a 4th round draft pick (and if they had, would he still have written the "much more" story?  for that matter, does a 4th round pick qualify as "much more"?)

[Eja117]

I don't blame BB for taking a safe trade, but I would have gambled more and held out I think. I just woulda been like "Fine. Draft Mark Sanchez".  I agree that we are better off with the 34th pick than the 3rd, but I think we should have also asked for their 3rd especially if we sent Vrabel as well.  The failure rate for 1rst round QBs is intolerable, especially when you consider the money. We're basically sending them a better prospect than anyone in the draft, and a vet linebacker, and they get to keep their top pick. If I'm the Chiefs I'm jumping up and down with happiness and that right there tells me that we screwed up. I have a very hard time believing that if BB had said "We also want a 6th rounder OR we want to keep Vrabel) that the Chiefs are like "Oh forget it then. Screw that".  So I wonder what exactly happened.

[yall hate]

I don't blame BB for taking a safe trade, but I would have gambled more and held out I think. I just woulda been like "Fine. Draft Mark Sanchez".  I agree that we are better off with the 34th pick than the 3rd, but I think we should have also asked for their 3rd especially if we sent Vrabel as well.  The failure rate for 1rst round QBs is intolerable, especially when you consider the money. We're basically sending them a better prospect than anyone in the draft, and a vet linebacker, and they get to keep their top pick. If I'm the Chiefs I'm jumping up and down with happiness and that right there tells me that we screwed up. I have a very hard time believing that if BB had said "We also want a 6th rounder OR we want to keep Vrabel) that the Chiefs are like "Oh forget it then. Screw that".  So I wonder what exactly happened.

except waiting to make the trade would have hamstrung them from any FA signings (Fred Taylor, james sanders, shawn springs, leigh bodden, galloway, etc...)

moving Vrable sucked, but they were going to cut him...this way he didnt end up with the jets, dolphins, etc...

[Eja117]

I don't blame BB for taking a safe trade, but I would have gambled more and held out I think. I just woulda been like "Fine. Draft Mark Sanchez".  I agree that we are better off with the 34th pick than the 3rd, but I think we should have also asked for their 3rd especially if we sent Vrabel as well.  The failure rate for 1rst round QBs is intolerable, especially when you consider the money. We're basically sending them a better prospect than anyone in the draft, and a vet linebacker, and they get to keep their top pick. If I'm the Chiefs I'm jumping up and down with happiness and that right there tells me that we screwed up. I have a very hard time believing that if BB had said "We also want a 6th rounder OR we want to keep Vrabel) that the Chiefs are like "Oh forget it then. Screw that".  So I wonder what exactly happened.

except waiting to make the trade would have hamstrung them from any FA signings (Fred Taylor, james sanders, shawn springs, leigh bodden, galloway, etc...)

moving Vrable sucked, but they were going to cut him...this way he didnt end up with the jets, dolphins, etc...

I didn't think of Vrable that way although he wasn't making much money. They could still have signed those guys, but they would have had to cut someone or something if they hadn't traded Cassell. I'd have gone with the assumption that they would have traded him before the draft.

The only other thing I could think of was if the Chiefs or other teams were also talking trade with other teams...like say the Cards for Leinart, which is something I hope we think of and wouldn't be surprised if we did.

[yall hate]

I don't blame BB for taking a safe trade, but I would have gambled more and held out I think. I just woulda been like "Fine. Draft Mark Sanchez".  I agree that we are better off with the 34th pick than the 3rd, but I think we should have also asked for their 3rd especially if we sent Vrabel as well.  The failure rate for 1rst round QBs is intolerable, especially when you consider the money. We're basically sending them a better prospect than anyone in the draft, and a vet linebacker, and they get to keep their top pick. If I'm the Chiefs I'm jumping up and down with happiness and that right there tells me that we screwed up. I have a very hard time believing that if BB had said "We also want a 6th rounder OR we want to keep Vrabel) that the Chiefs are like "Oh forget it then. Screw that".  So I wonder what exactly happened.

except waiting to make the trade would have hamstrung them from any FA signings (Fred Taylor, james sanders, shawn springs, leigh bodden, galloway, etc...)

moving Vrable sucked, but they were going to cut him...this way he didnt end up with the jets, dolphins, etc...

I didn't think of Vrable that way although he wasn't making much money. They could still have signed those guys, but they would have had to cut someone or something if they hadn't traded Cassell. I'd have gone with the assumption that they would have traded him before the draft.

The only other thing I could think of was if the Chiefs or other teams were also talking trade with other teams...like say the Cards for Leinart, which is something I hope we think of and wouldn't be surprised if we did.

you didnt...and neither did any pats fans.  but the pats did.  they have basically come out and said that.

Who else are you going to cut that would have cleared enough room?  the guys we signed werent for the minimum - they needed cap room.  you can say we'll wait and sign them a month from now, but who knows if the player would have waited.  that is the patriot way...maybe you lose the best player in the exchange, but you get a few players who fill needs making the team better.  http://www.patscap.com/ has all of the cap info.  if you can come up with a way to have cleared 10-12 million that would have been better, i'd love to hear it.  I dont think you will be able to.