Skip to content

The Trade: After further review

Jul 23, 2008, 1:35 AM EDT

Comments Off on The Trade: After further review

This isn’t about to become all Jason Taylor all the time, but with things settling back to normal at Redskins Park as the grind of training camp sets in, it’s a good time to take one last look back at the trade that brought him to Washington.

The more I think about it, the more I like it.

I’m not yet drinking the Kool-Aid, but it’s better than I thought it was at first blush. What I like is that it makes the Redskins better right now. And, if you look at what they gave up the way that the NFL’s movers and shakers do on draft day, it’s not as steep as it seems.

When trades involving draft picks are made, selections in future years are devalued by a round. For example, when the Redskins traded for the pick to draft Chris Cooley, they gave up a 2005 second-rounder to get the 2004 third. That’s standard practice since the receiving team gets the use of the player for a year before having to pay for him.

So, since there is a football season in between now and the time that the Redskins will pay for the pickup of Taylor, you could say that the Redskins gave up the equivalent of a third-round pick (the ’10 sixth gets devalued down to an undrafted free agent) for Jason Taylor.

That’s a homeristic slant, no doubt, but there is some legitimacy to it.

The Redskins are now in a box

The major negative in the deal is that it’s the only one the Redskins can make this year. They are out of cap room. Their stock of ’09 draft picks is drying up. Should they find themselves in need at another position, such as cornerback, they’re stuck either making do with what they have or they will have to put street free agents into uniform and give them meaningful playing time.

Then again, maybe it’s a good idea for this bunch to have its hands tied, what with Brett Favre actively being shopped by the Packers. Plus you never know when the Bengals will tire of Chad Johnson’s antics. The Taylor trade wasn’t disastrous and now Vinny Cerrato and company don’t have any more matches with which to play.

Time will tell

Of course, we won’t definitively know if this was a good deal or a colossal blunder until sometime in the future. If Taylor plays for three years and he gets double-digit sacks each year the feeling will be that the Redskins got a reasonable return on their investment of picks and money. If they get less than that out of Taylor, the view will be that they, once again, paid a high price to bring on an aging star just as he started to hit the downside of his career.

  1. Anonymous - Jul 23, 2008 at 2:31 PM

    I don’t completely agree that the redskins need to get 3 years of double digit sacks for this trade to be a good one. If this trade pushes them over the top either this year or next, then it should be considerd an excellent move. Double digits for 2 years should be considered a good trade. Only a complete failure or a one and done should mark this as a failure.

  2. redman - Jul 23, 2008 at 3:23 PM

    I agree with the first comment. If Taylor is a difference maker for even two years, then that’s a good return on investment. Honestly, how many draft picks can you say were difference makers at all, even if they ended up becoming starters?

    Also, Rich, something not said enough is that even though they traded away multiple draft picks, this is a team that had 10 draft picks this year and IIRC still has 7 next year. 17 draft picks in two years is a lot, and if they all or even most of them stick on the roster it will be hard to say that this team mortgaged its future.

  3. Rich Tandler - Jul 23, 2008 at 9:47 PM

    I didn’t word the last part very well. If they get the three years of double-digit sacks, no question, no brainer, it was a great deal. Something less than that, it’s good. One and done, or six sacks in two years, it’s a bust.

    Redman, I know that the Redskins don’t have their fifth next year due to the Kendall trade and their seventh will go to Minnesota if James sticks on the roster. So they’re down to five, probably four picks in 2009 (first, third, fourth, sixth). Archives

Follow Us On Twitter