Minesotta

Dphins

Seasoned Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
666
Reaction score
0
How about there two first round picks a second and Michell Bennett. I think Linehan wants Bennett anyway. We give them the #2 overall pick.
 

Bowl_Bound

Starter
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
2,450
Reaction score
0
Location
Rochester, NY
I would DROOL over that, even though I am not in love with Bennet. However I cant see them giving up three 1st day picks and a RB for Edwards...or whomever.
 

caneaddict

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
1,185
Reaction score
0
Maybe we can get them to throw in their 3rd as well as their 1st and 2nd in 2006. Oooh we could probably get that Culpepper guy too cause I know they really want Edwards.
 

Dphins

Seasoned Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
666
Reaction score
0
caneaddict said:
Maybe we can get them to throw in their 3rd as well as their 1st and 2nd in 2006. Oooh we could probably get that Culpepper guy too cause I know they really want Edwards.
I heard they were shopping Bennett for a third round Pick is there two first a second and a third that out of whack to trade up to the number two pick. I think we would come out slightly ahead on according to the deal according to the chart. So there is no reason to be such a wise ***.
 

Phinsdude

Pro Bowler
Joined
Mar 14, 2004
Messages
2,099
Reaction score
2
We should swap Gordon. He's on the last year of his deal anyway. If we got Bennet, we would now have too many backs. We are drafting a back. We have no Franchise backs right now, and frankly need one.
 

caneaddict

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
1,185
Reaction score
0
Dphins said:
I heard they were shopping Bennett for a third round Pick is there two first a second and a third that out of whack to trade up to the number two pick. I think we would come out slightly ahead on according to the deal according to the chart. So there is no reason to be such a wise ***.
Yes it is out of whack. Sorry if I was too much of a wise a**.

In all seriousness, they are supposedly offering SF both #1's their #2 and then SF and Minny would switch spots in the 3rd (Currently Minny picks significantly later than SF in the 3rd). So in order to give up both #1's and a #2 Minnesota is asking SF to throw something else in besides just the #1 pick (SF would need to move back in the 3rd).

Minny isn't willing to give up 2 1sts and a 2nd to move up to #1 without getting something extra in return so there's no way they would give it up straight up to move up to #2. Now you want them not just to give up what they aren't willing to right now. You want them to also throw in a 3rd and a starting RB.
 

Dphins

Seasoned Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
666
Reaction score
0
caneaddict said:
Yes it is out of whack. Sorry if I was too much of a wise a**.

In all seriousness, they are supposedly offering SF both #1's their #2 and then SF and Minny would switch spots in the 3rd (Currently Minny picks significantly later than SF in the 3rd). So in order to give up both #1's and a #2 Minnesota is asking SF to throw something else in besides just the #1 pick (SF would need to move back in the 3rd).

Minny isn't willing to give up 2 1sts and a 2nd to move up to #1 without getting something extra in return so there's no way they would give it up straight up to move up to #2. Now you want them not just to give up what they aren't willing to right now. You want them to also throw in a 3rd and a starting RB.
Yes but according to the chart Minny would have to throw a first round pick in next year to make it fair to SF and that is why the trade won't happen. I really was't that far off. Especially to go to the extreme of saying they should throw Culpepper and there third in too.
 
Top Bottom