Trade Deadline Targets

[Dantés]

I am not really expecting a trade at the deadline for the Packers. However, it is interesting to look around the league and see who might be a viable option. Here are the guys who I think might legitimately be on the table. As I look for likelier candidates, I'm focusing on edge and DL players. The edge need has been obvious for some time, while the DL could now use another body after Wilkerson's injury. I don't see them trading assets to upgrade at OG, they're set at the skill positions, they aren't going to replace Martinez or stunt Burks, they have a lot of young players that they're willing to play at corner, and they have a lot of bodies at safety (and I don't see any safety trade candidates that would be likely to rise above the log jam). So here are the players that occur to me as guys who could potentially be on the block.

• Bruce Irvin, ED, Raiders: The Raiders are 1-4, Irvin is primarily a rush linebacker and OAK now runs a 4-3, he's 31, and his deal runs out after next year. He'd be a nice pick up for the Packers in that he's still useful as an edge rusher, but they can get out of his contract for next season with 0 cap implications if it doesn't work out.
• Arik Armstead, DL, 49ers: This has become a lost season for SF, but this trade still only makes sense if they aren't planning on extending Armstead (so please note that as a caveat). But they've made other investments on the DL, he and Solmon Thomas fit the same role in the defense, and they really like rookie Jullian Taylor. Armstead would give Pettine another big, talented DL to work with after losing Wilk.
• Jabaal Sheard, ED, Colts: Sheard is another older (29) edge rusher playing for a 1 win team who only has a year left on his deal. He isn't going to be part of the future there, and carries no 2019 financial risk for a team that acquires him.
• Jerry Hughes, ED, Bills: Having ripped off a couple of impressive wins, I think it's less likely that the Bills sell players off at the deadline, but Hughes also fits the profile: older (30), still effective, one year left on his deal, etc.

What do people think of these options? What others occur to you?

 

[LambeauLombardi]

I'd love to bring in Bruce Irvin. Obviously liked what Fackrell did against Buffalo but at this point it's safe to say Clay and Perry aren't dependable starters.

I'd be cool with Armstead. Pretty close to waiving the white flag on Montravius Adams.

Sheard and Hughes feel like aging guys that would be nice to have far down on the depth chart. Won't complain if they take a flyer on them either.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

As I look for likelier candidates, I'm focusing on edge and DL players. The edge need has been obvious for some time, while the DL could now use another body after Wilkerson's injury.

What do people think of these options? What others occur to you?

I don't think the Packers are in the market for a defensive lineman. I haven't had enough time to come up with a list of players who might be available and make sense to the Packers so far.

 

[Dantés]

I'd love to bring in Bruce Irvin. Obviously liked what Fackrell did against Buffalo but at this point it's safe to say Clay and Perry aren't dependable starters.

I'd be cool with Armstead. Pretty close to waiving the white flag on Montravius Adams.

Sheard and Hughes feel like aging guys that would be nice to have far down on the depth chart. Won't complain if they take a flyer on them either.

Jerry Hughes has been playing fantastic this year.

 

[Dantés]

I don't think the Packers are in the market for a defensive lineman. I haven't had enough time to come up with a list of players who might be available and make sense to the Packers so far.

I think you’re probably right, but Armstead would be kind of unique in terms of age and talent if he really wasn’t part of the 49er’s future plans.

 

[rodell330]

Ziggy Ansah should’ve been a name on this list. That’s who I want. A true edge rusher is needed desperately.

 

[Dantés]

Ziggy Ansah should’ve been a name on this list. That’s who I want. A true edge rusher is needed desperately.

While it's always unlikely than a trade deadline deal happens for any particular team, an intra-division trade seems near impossible.

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

With Cobb and Alison out is it super crazy to consider giving Dez Bryant a glance? Dude seems committed to play. For a cheap one year maybe? Or is that thought just crazy? Yes I know we have 2 good rookies.

 

[C-Lee]

With Cobb and Alison out is it super crazy to consider giving Dez Bryant a glance? Dude seems committed to play. For a cheap one year maybe? Or is that thought just crazy? Yes I know we have 2 good rookies.

I think that ship has sailed.

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

I think that ship has sailed.

You are probably right. Can you smell the desperation for something exciting on me?

 

[C-Lee]

You are probably right. Can you smell the desperation for something exciting on me?

I would have brought in Dez if I was Gute

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

I would have brought in Dez if I was Gute

Might as well have. Maybe having someone like Arod throwing him the ball and not having to deal with Cowboys drama would cut down on his locker room antics as well. But the fact he isn't on a team may have taken care of that problem already.

 

[Dantés]

With Cobb and Alison out is it super crazy to consider giving Dez Bryant a glance? Dude seems committed to play. For a cheap one year maybe? Or is that thought just crazy? Yes I know we have 2 good rookies.

I don’t think it’s crazy, but I’ve been encouraged by MVS and EQ on the field and wouldn’t want a veteran coming in to take snaps away from them— especially as neither Cobb nor Allison are dealing with issues that will keep them out several weeks.

 

[Dantés]

You are probably right. Can you smell the desperation for something exciting on me?

This is just me, but I find our talented trio of rookies more exciting than Dez, who I perceive to be broken down.

 

[PackAttack12]

There's a reason 31 teams have said no to Dez.

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

This is just me, but I find our talented trio of rookies more exciting than Dez, who I perceive to be broken down.

,
That is a fair assessment. I was thinking short term as opposed to big picture. Plus we need speed to get separation, so I suppose its accurate to say that wouldn't come from Dez.

 

[elcid]

There is no way we shouldn't look into Dez if Cobb or Allison were to miss more time. An article by the NFL had a top 10 trade candidates. Those that peaked my interest were LeSean McCoy, but most notably Shane Ray. The latter would I believe only count 2M to our salary cap.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Ziggy Ansah should’ve been a name on this list. That’s who I want. A true edge rusher is needed desperately.

The Packers don't have enough cap space to trade for Ansah.

With Cobb and Alison out is it super crazy to consider giving Dez Bryant a glance?

There's no reason to bring in Bryant as both Cobb and Allison practiced yesterday and MVS and EQ showed some promise vs. the Lions.

Those that peaked my interest were LeSean McCoy, but most notably Shane Ray. The latter would I believe only count 2M to our salary cap.

Actually Ray would only count $1.18 million towards the cap for the rest of the season but I'm not intrigued by the idea of acquiring him.

 

[elcid]

The Packers don't have enough cap space to trade for Ansah.



There's no reason to bring in Bryant as both Cobb and Allison practiced yesterday and MVS and EQ showed some promise vs. the Lions.



Actually Ray would only count $1.18 million towards the cap for the rest of the season but I'm not intrigued by the idea of acquiring him.

Thank you for the precise numbers. However, I'd like to hear your reason why we wouldn't pick up Ray on a 1 year rental for only 1.18M. He'd immediately be our third best rusher, and probably wouldn't cost us more than a 5th rounder. And while MVS and EQ showed promise, they are not going to be able to contribute significantly this year if any of the starters were to go down again. If Dez were to be had for 3M or less, Im all for signing him. Not sure if we have the cap space (for both) though

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Thank you for the precise numbers. However, I'd like to hear your reason why we wouldn't pick up Ray on a 1 year rental for only 1.18M. He'd immediately be our third best rusher, and probably wouldn't cost us more than a 5th rounder. And while MVS and EQ showed promise, they are not going to be able to contribute significantly this year if any of the starters were to go down again. If Dez were to be had for 3M or less, Im all for signing him. Not sure if we have the cap space (for both) though

Ray is an average pass rusher at best not having a clue about Pettine's scheme. I don't consider him to be a significant upgrade over Gilbert or Fackrell, therefore I would be hesitant to give up anything in a trade for him.

MVS and EQ combined for 10 receptions for 157 yards and a touchdown vs. the Lions. I highly doubt Bryant would put up better numbers than that.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

I think that ship has sailed.

Yes, and apparently not just for Packers. Over a quarter of the season gone, and if Dez's phone has been ringing, he hasn't picked it up.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I am not really expecting a trade at the deadline for the Packers. However, it is interesting to look around the league and see who might be a viable option. Here are the guys who I think might legitimately be on the table. As I look for likelier candidates, I'm focusing on edge and DL players. The edge need has been obvious for some time, while the DL could now use another body after Wilkerson's injury. I don't see them trading assets to upgrade at OG, they're set at the skill positions, they aren't going to replace Martinez or stunt Burks, they have a lot of young players that they're willing to play at corner, and they have a lot of bodies at safety (and I don't see any safety trade candidates that would be likely to rise above the log jam). So here are the players that occur to me as guys who could potentially be on the block.

• Bruce Irvin, ED, Raiders: The Raiders are 1-4, Irvin is primarily a rush linebacker and OAK now runs a 4-3, he's 31, and his deal runs out after next year. He'd be a nice pick up for the Packers in that he's still useful as an edge rusher, but they can get out of his contract for next season with 0 cap implications if it doesn't work out.
• Arik Armstead, DL, 49ers: This has become a lost season for SF, but this trade still only makes sense if they aren't planning on extending Armstead (so please note that as a caveat). But they've made other investments on the DL, he and Solmon Thomas fit the same role in the defense, and they really like rookie Jullian Taylor. Armstead would give Pettine another big, talented DL to work with after losing Wilk.
• Jabaal Sheard, ED, Colts: Sheard is another older (29) edge rusher playing for a 1 win team who only has a year left on his deal. He isn't going to be part of the future there, and carries no 2019 financial risk for a team that acquires him.
• Jerry Hughes, ED, Bills: Having ripped off a couple of impressive wins, I think it's less likely that the Bills sell players off at the deadline, but Hughes also fits the profile: older (30), still effective, one year left on his deal, etc.

What do people think of these options? What others occur to you?

The Packers current cap space is $6.8 mil per the NFLPA. Assuming these teams even want to move these players and the trade is made after week 6 and before week 7:

• Irvin: His cap number is $8 mil after Oakland assumes his workout bonus. $8 mil / 17 x 11 = $5.2 mil Packer 2018 cap cost- approx. $300,000 for the savings in cutting a close to minimum salary rookie. That's shaving it awfully close for this season and the cap situation for next year is not auspicious. Would Irvin be a game changer? No. I could not endorse this even if he were free. With a $9.25 mil cap number for 2019 that's too much cost for a rent-a-player.

• Armstead: Cheap for the balance of this year, $1.2 mil cap cost to the Packers for the remaining 11 weeks minus that $300,000 for the guy they cut. SF must absorb the prorated signing bonus. He's on a $9+ mil 5th. year option for next year. It would have to be a rent-a-player for the balance of the year. With Daniel's contract and Clark in line for an extention in lieu of the 5th. year option (as with Adams at the end of his 3rd. year), the idea of keeping Armstead around past this season would be an overallocation of cap to the position group. I would not have a problem with this given the nominal cap cost but the trade cost would need to be no more than 6th. round pick. I doubt SF is spending much time thinking about saving $1.2 mil for a peanut in return. If they were of a mind to make a trade the likely candidates would be teams in need for a playoff run or a team that would see him as longer term investment with an extension.

• Sheard: As with Irvin, the $4.5 mil cap cost to the Packers for the balance of the season is too much for this rent-a-player who would not be a game changer.

• Hughes: $10.4 mil cap number - $5.8 remianing roster bonus proration - $1.15 in other 2018 bonuses paid = $3.45 mil / 17 x 11 = $2.2 mil Packer cap cost for 2018 - $300,000 for the guy cut. That's a modest cost for a rent-a-player. His 2019 cost to the Packers would be $7.5 mil after the Bills aborb the $2.9 mil signing bonus for 2019. You'd have to envision him as a starter for 2019 to see him as your player past this season, say a Matthews replacemnt.

Before considering one year rent-a-players, the question that has to be asked are:

• Is this a borderline playoff team and will the player get you over the top? Personally, I don't care if the Packers make the playoffs if they get bounced before the Super Bowl. None of these players takes you from borderline playoffs to the big game. Certainly others see making the playoffs do-or-die. I see this as a solid playoff contender as it is. Management might care in light of the fan angst if the team fails to make the postseason. If one must, Hughes would be the best option among the ones presented and given the need. In terms of snap distribution, I don't think you want to take away Gilbert's snaps from a performance and developmental perspective. That means you have to like Hughes better than Fackrell and maybe taking some snaps from Perry and/or Matthews. Again, it would have to be in exchange for a lower round pick.

• If one's perspective is that roster building should progress toward a bona fide Super Bowl contender, which is my perspective, rather than hope for playoff opponents having critical injuries or getting a series of luck bounces (or FG kicker brain farts ), then spending cap on rent-a-players is that much less that you'll have next year.

 

[Dantés]

The Packers current cap space is $6.8 mil per the NFLPA. Assuming these teams even want to move these players and the trade is made after week 6 and before week 7:

• Irvin: His cap number is $8 mil after Oakland assums his workout bonus. $8 mil / 17 x 11 = $5.2 mil Packer 2018 cap cost- approx. $300,000 for the savings in cutting a close to minimum salary rookie. That's shaving it awfully close for this season and the cap situation for next year is not auspicious. Would Irvin be a game changer? No. I could not endorse this even if he were free. With a $9.25 mil cap number for 2019 that's too much cost for a rent-a-player.

• Armstead: Cheap for the balance of this year, $1.2 mil cap cost to the Packers for the remaining 11 weeks minus that $300,000 for the guy they cut. SF must absorb the prorated signing bonus. He's on a $9+ mil 5th. year option for next year. It would have to be a rent-a-player for the balance of the year. With Daniel's contract and Clark in line for an extention in lieu of the 5th. year option (as with Adams at the end of his 3rd. year), the idea of keeping Armstead around past this season would be an overallocation of cap to the position group. I would not have a problem with this given the nominal cap cost but the trade cost would need to be no more than 6th. round pick. I doubt SF is spending much time thinking about saving $1.2 mil for a peanut in return. If they were of a mind to make a trade the likely candidates would be teams in need for a playoff run or a team that would see him as longer term investment with an extension.

• Sheard: As with Irvin, the $4.5 mil cap cost to the Packers for the balance of the season is too much for this rent-a-player who would not be a game changer.

• Hughes: $10.4 mil cap number - $5.8 remianing roster bonus proration - $1.15 in other 2018 bonuses paid = $3.45 mil / 17 x 11 = $2.2 mil Packer cap cost for 2018 - $300,000 for the guy cut. That's a modest cost for a rent-a-player. His 2019 cost to the Packers would be $7.5 mil after the Bills aborb the $2.9 mil signing bonus for 2019. You'd have to envision him as a starter for 2019 to see him as your player past this season, say a Matthews replacemnt.

Before considering one year rent-a-players, the question that has to be asked are:

• Is this a borderline playoff team and will the player get you over the top? Personally, I don't care if the Packers make the playoffs if they get bounced before the Super Bowl. None of these players takes you from borderline playoffs to the big game. Certainly others see making the playoffs do-or-die. I see this as a solid playoff contender as it is. Management might care in light of the fan angst if the team fails to make the postseason. If one must, Hughes would be the best option among the ones presented and given the need. In terms of snap distribution, I don't think you want to take away Gilbert's snaps from a performance and developmental perspective. That means you have to like Hughes better than Fackrell and maybe taking some snaps from Perry and/or Matthews. Again, it would have to be in exchange for a lower round pick.

• If one's perspective is that roster building should progress toward a bona fide Super Bowl contender, which is my perspective, rather than hope for playoff opponents having critical injuries or getting a series of luck bounces (or FG kicker brain farts ), then spending cap on rent-a-players is that much less that you'll have next year.

To be clear, Irvin and Sheard could be released at the end of the zero with zero cap implications. The last years of their respective deals are functionally team options. So the cap commitments to these players almost amounts to nothing beyond this season. I know what you're saying regarding roll-over, so that's part of what would need to go into the FO's calculation. I don't see any of these guys are must-have players, or a trade as being altogether likely. The OP is merely my attempt to identify guys that would help the Packers and could possibly be on the block.

I don't see any of them as players who, on their own, take this team from a non SB contender to a SB contender. However, I am of the opinion that this Packers team is a Super Bowl contender if and when the offense starts clicking. So I see adding defensive talent to an area of weakness more in the vein of strengthening their chances, as opposed to creating a chance where there previously was none.

I disagree on Armstead. Daniels is entering the final year of his deal in 2019. A one year overlap between him and the aforesaid trade target would be manageable, as Clark's cap number would not jump until 2020. So you would have Daniels and Armstead making serious money for one season, and then Clark and Armstead (assuming the latter would get extended post-trade). I see nothing prohibitive about paying two veterans on the defensive line, especially considering that Pettine's defenses have always emphasizes that position group.

 

[HardRightEdge]

To be clear, Irvin and Sheard could be released at the end of the zero year with zero cap implications.

I'm well aware. In fact, all 4 of the players you mentioned can be released after the season with no dead cap going forward.

 

[McKnowledge]

In my opinion, these players would provide depth and/or upgrade via trade before the deadline:

DT/DE-David Irving (Probably won't happen, but if Cowboys lose Week 6 vs Jax, they should consider it, depth replacement for Wilkerson) **

DE-Brandon Graham (contract talks between both teams have stalled possibly marking the end, can still be an impact player) **

ILB- Deonne Bucannon (immediate upgrade over Oren Burks, who can also provide versatility with experience playing Safety as well) ***

SS- Landon Collins (chances are slim, but is in last year of rookie deal. Giants going nowhere. Why not trade for him and see if he'll stick around with a dark horse contender, ahead of unrestricted free agency?) ****

RB- David Johnson ( I don't think Arizona is gonna pay Johnson the deal he deserves and is seeking. Obviously an immediate upgrade over all the running backs currently in uniform, he is an elite runner, blocker and pass catcher. He instantly makes the offense Top 5, and ensures a productive offense independent of No. 12. He also lessens the amount of throws and exposure to re-injury for Rodgers. I think Gute should call and inquire. This move mitigates the flaws on defense a little too.) *****