The Jason Taylor Trade: After Further Review
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 Jason Taylor 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.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?