|
Whatever the facts/rumors are, this is the second time in a row that Harvin's been suddenly traded away from a team for seemingly no good reason. These are presumably intelligent men who don't make random trades for the hell of it, especially when it has such bad optics. There's clearly something going on with Harvin.
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
Potzblitz! posted:A 1st round pick is a good reason. TubeStank posted:I dunno, seems like the Vikings were pretty sold on Patterson falling into Harvin's role and Patterson is a hell of a lot cheaper. If memory serves everyone seemed to think it was a decently fair deal all around. The Vikings were lucky that it worked out, but trading away Harvin for Patterson is essentially a wash at best, and at worst you bust on that pick (or someone else drafts Patterson before the Vikings could). It was a risky move that paid off for the Vikings. What about Harvin made the Vikings want to take that risk? Was it really just the money?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Potzblitz! posted:1st round picks are very valuable, even accounting for the risk. A first-round pick is not more valuable than a proven first-round-pick-worthy player. I will never understand this interpretation of value. What does a first-round pick do? Give you a shot at drafting a star player. What was Percy Harvin? A star player. You knew for absolutely sure that Percy Harvin is a young star; a first round pick is a relatively unknown quantity. When you trade Percy Harvin away for a first round pick and you use that same first round pick to attempt to draft Percy Harvin's replacement it's a wash. Most GMs understand this, which is why Aaron Rodgers or Clay Matthews don't get traded away for a first round pick to draft the next Aaron Rodgers or Clay Matthews. We can safely assume there was some other factor in the original Percy Harvin trade that gave the Vikings incentive to gamble on drafting his replacement instead of keeping him around. If it was simply his contract, then that makes two straight teams that didn't think he was worth keeping around despite his immense physical capabilities. AAA DOLFAN posted:Boy this is rich Have any of you personally interacted with Percy Harvin?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:There are like no examples of this working out in the NFL within the last 20 years, btw. I wasn't arguing in favor of the Seahawks trading for Harvin, I was arguing against the Vikings trading him away. If you find yourself in the situation where you're trading away picks for a player, you're almost certainly getting fleeced because there turned out to be something about that player that was sufficient for their original team to not want anything to do with them. If they actually wanted to keep the player, whatever it would take for them to give up that player would be worth far more than the player actually is worth. Most (well-managed) teams are unwilling to trade away their actually good players for first-round picks because they (correctly) evaluate those players as worth more than a first rounder. In this case it ended up working out great for the Vikings, and bully for them. CharlestheHammer posted:You can't argue that he was an rear end in a top hat and that GMs know better at the same time. They are directly opposing arguments. Simply claiming that these are opposing statements doesn't actually make them opposing statements. I'd expect a D&D refugee to be capable of constructing a better rebuttal than that. It also seems you didn't understand the point I was making, so I'll restate it for your convenience: two consecutive front offices have found Harvin to be not worth keeping around and have jettisoned him. We know his talent isn't in question. Thus, there must be something else about Harvin that would make him undesirable. The seemingly obvious factor seems to be his contract. Why not just claim that, though? Why leak all this stuff about him, instead of just going "He wasn't worth it."? If you argue that there is nothing else about Harvin making him undesirable, then you are arguing that two consecutive NFL front offices have acted entirely arbitrarily in their handling of Percy Harvin, which seems to me wildly improbable.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:They are opposing arguments. Competent GMs don't trade away good players because they are assholes. Good GMs aren't that petty. My argument is sound. Why do they do it? Because it is easier to sell if you make the player out to be a problem, rather than potentially exposing the coaches to criticism for not being able to use a talented player. There are two responses to this that come to mind: 1. You're suggesting that the Seahawks front office isn't actually a good front office, despite available evidence. 2. You're suggesting that trading away assholes makes a GM not a good GM, and in doing so, you dismiss the possibility that a player may indeed actually have a significantly negative influence on the mythical locker room. (Two of the names mentioned earlier as counterexamples, Ray Rice and Richie Incognito, were either neutral or well-liked by their teammates as far as I can tell.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Those rebuttals only work if you assume that they actually got rid of him for being an rear end in a top hat. Then we go back to where we started, why leak all those stories about Harvin instead of just saying "He wasn't good enough of a player"? The Seahawks are still on the hook for his salary this season and they're still within contending distance of the playoffs, and they have a dearth of talent at WR. They gave up a star player for a 6th round pick with no good alternatives at the position and a quarterback who needs fast targets to get open to succeed in an offense crippled by a bad OL. Given the confirmed/obvious/factual information we have, and ignoring those leaks, the trade doesn't really make sense for the Seahawks for multiple reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:edit: So let me ask you a question, why do you think the Eagles cut Jackson? Because they didn't want anything more to do with a 25 year old receiver who'd just completed a 126/1332/9 season.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Clearly there've been instances before where teams have leaked false stories about a departing player or coach, but I'm curious if there's been incidents where people within the organization have come out and said "Nah, that's all bullshit". I can't think of any off the top of my head but I'm sure it's happened. Given how serious some of those accusations are about Harvin if they're not true I'd expect a Seahawk to come out and say so -- especially with how vocal some of them are.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
I'm surprised Bevell is getting the blame here for Harvin being a prima donna. Sure, he's a bad play caller, but that has nothing to do with Harvin actively refusing to do his job according to those leaks. They're two separate things. Or were the Seahawks supposed to warp the offense even more onto Harvin than they already did, just to make Harvin slightly happier?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
Ozu posted:At his NY press availability today, Harvin copped to both Tate and Baldwin fights but flat out denied refusing to go back into the Cowboys game. Who knows. Did he mention anything else?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2014 23:59
|
|