Why not just draft Mark Sanchez
by Wildcatmo21 on Apr 16, 2009 9:47 AM CDT
24 comments
that way you take the quess work out of the draft. Any team that whats him now has to deal with the Chiefs. Get the best deal and trade him during the first round. Does the same thing as trading down, and adding picks. I think that having the player in the hand makes it easier to get the most out of the other teams, You aren't under the time restaints, and I think you'll get a better deal.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.
0 recs |
24 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Interesting . . .
but very risky. Only an option if no team is willing to trade up before we select. I do like it as abackhanded way to trade down though.
by Dallas Chief on Apr 16, 2009 9:52 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
noooooooooo waaay
waaaaaaaaaaay to risky
FOUR F'S FIND UM FEEL UM FUGUM FORGET UM.
by sexassassin on Apr 16, 2009 9:52 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Because:
If you don’t find a buyer or the deal you think you have falls apart, you’re stuck with the player you didn’t want. You also destroy your trade leverage. You go from trading out of a position of strength (holding the pick another team wants) to a position of weakness (desperate to get rid of the player you don’t want)
by KCSatchmo on Apr 16, 2009 9:53 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yep
Pretty much says it all right there.
Way too big of a risk this early in the draft. Usually when you play games you get burned.
by Joel Thorman on Apr 16, 2009 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even if you're Don Pioli?
=)
Marley will be walking soon...she could probably play Linebacker better than some of the guys we had.
by PVChiefsfan on Apr 16, 2009 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would you ever draft a player instead of dealing the pick?
That’s super crazy. They won’t offer us anything for Sanchez becasue they know we don’t want him.
"...Said he couldn't go on the American way"
by Jux on Apr 17, 2009 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
and he is bust must material
teams would probably forget about him if we got him just because they know how much money we would have to pay him and we would have two qbs making big cash
FOUR F'S FIND UM FEEL UM FUGUM FORGET UM.
by sexassassin on Apr 16, 2009 9:53 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
If a team won't trade up to make the pick...
why would the trade after?
by saskwatch on Apr 16, 2009 10:06 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It happened with the Eli Manning pick but...
it was San Deigo’s choice. They wanted to ensure philip Rivers was available at the Giants spot. The sanchez has no more trade value to the chiefs than the #3 pick. No team would take this risk unless the deal was in place when the pick is made.
by saskwatch on Apr 16, 2009 10:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we had the need for Sanchez it is a good move.
Not needing him then the other teams would have the leverage in any deal.
by Helmets on Apr 16, 2009 10:47 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
My goodness
this post reoccurs way too much. We cannot draft Sanchez and get good value out of him because we have no need for him. A team isn’t going to put up a high bid price if tey know we don’t need the player! We;d get screwed picking up MAYBE a late first and a late third, not exactly the trade of the century.
For all of you who plan on posting this again realize that the Eli Manning trade only happened because the Chargers expressed a need for a QB.
Time is a great teacher... unfortunately it kills all it's pupils.
by 808NaNz808 on Apr 16, 2009 11:07 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Also, Eli stated that he clearly dd not want to play for SD and asked to be traded.
by Chiefsfan1970 on Apr 16, 2009 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can't blame him
Who would wanna play for those chumps? Oh yeah, other chumps…. Phillip Rivers, I’m looking in your direction.
by Sudden on Apr 16, 2009 7:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Still risky but more likely if Stafford falls in our laps...
but still almost too risky to try and pull off. What would make it happen is if we are willing to lose a couple hundred points in trading him, just get a couple picks for him instead of 4.
by Your_Moms_Boyfriend on Apr 16, 2009 12:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Wow..need to put my sunglasses on :)
Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."
"My job is not to collect talent, but to build a team. Individuals make the Pro Bowl. Teams win championships. That is our goal."—Chiefs GM Scott Pioli.
by THE_TRUTH on Apr 16, 2009 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lol
I think that’s two bombs Parade’s dropped on fanposts today.
Gawd, I can’t wait for something to happen so we can get out of this never ending “what-if” hell.
Braccae illae virides cum subucula rosea et tunica Caledonia-quam elenganter concinnatur!
by Buck'O on Apr 16, 2009 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Drafting Sanchez (the one year wonder) in a hopes of trading him is equivalent....
To screwing a known HIV positive Top Model in a hopes that you don’t get infected just because you used a condom…..and a condom that has been sitting in your wallet for 2 years at that……
No way on Sanchez…!
Opinions are like A--holes, everyones got one.
by aPacificChief on Apr 16, 2009 3:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
No Kidding
That’s an entertaining way to say it’s a huuuuuuuuuuuuuge risk…
by criticalmass on Apr 16, 2009 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is he better than Cassel?
Why not pick him and trade Cassel?
by TerribleTerry on Apr 17, 2009 7:57 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
