Gardner, the draft, and Trade Rumours: What's your theory?

offiss · 03-31-2004, 06:09 PM

I said in an earlier post that marty may have some interest in gardner, and this is just confirmation that management is listning, [as I wrote in a previous post

] and there it is, no sooner said than the san diego rumor start's swirling, [unless pasta belly is stealing my material and staring rumors

] Joe Red you have my head spinning with that first one, but I like where your coming from, I say we keep our #5 which should net us taylor, then see if we can nail the #1 from san diego for gardner, trotter, [who I think would be very productive in marty's system, and I believe marty would be thinking that as well] as well as our #6 this year and our #1 next year, I feel we would be dealing from strength with the ubundance of WR as well as LB's, I feel next year's #1 pick will be a low one as well, if we have to kick in another pick next year we do it, then we open up trade discussion's for the #1 pick, we get another top 10 pick plus a #2 or a #3 rd. pick, which would net us taylor, and a real shot depending on the trade, winslow, as well as a #2 [hopefully which is the going rate for a #1] and we grab the big tackle we need that is the direction I would go if I was GM, I am not concerned with next year's draft our pick's won't be that high to begin with and you won't come across the talent of taylor or winslow for at least another decade if we get this done our team is set for the forseeable future.

Shane · 03-31-2004, 08:24 PM

I heard that in a Washington Times article, sources from the team indicated they would not trade Rod Gardner. As I think about it, this makes a certain amount of sense. We have a lot of talent but not a lot of experience at wide receiver after our starters. I think that the staff is going to use this as a judgment year about Gardner and if they decide that Jacobs or McCants can more ably fill the #2 position, then we won't sign Gardner when his contract expires. Meanwhile we will have a full year to see more about what McCants and Jacobs can do.

This is a contract year for Gardner, but we aren't in a position to risk trading him now. He may prove to be crucial for us. Decision time is after the season.

SmootSmack · 03-31-2004, 08:31 PM

Well I don't know either way what the Skins want to do with Gardner. But, it's in their best interest to say stuff like "we have no interest in trading him" "Rod's a very important part of our team, etc." That way you potentially drive the price up.

Riggo44 · 03-31-2004, 08:56 PM

I hope we keep him. But if we can trade him away for more eraly round pick's. I say go for it. We are loaded a WR.

EEich · 03-31-2004, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shane

I heard that in a Washington Times article, sources from the team indicated they would not trade Rod Gardner.

I remember them saying alot of flowery stuff about Bryan Johnson ten minutes before they traded him too.

03-31-2004, 08:56 PM	#4
Riggo44 The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: San Clemente CA Age: 52 Posts: 2,390	I hope we keep him. But if we can trade him away for more eraly round pick's. I say go for it. We are loaded a WR. __________________ Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. Benjamin Franklin

03-31-2004, 06:09 PM	#1
offiss Registered User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: sparta, new jersey [ northern jersey ] Age: 62 Posts: 3,097	I said in an earlier post that marty may have some interest in gardner, and this is just confirmation that management is listning, [as I wrote in a previous post ] and there it is, no sooner said than the san diego rumor start's swirling, [unless pasta belly is stealing my material and staring rumors ] Joe Red you have my head spinning with that first one, but I like where your coming from, I say we keep our #5 which should net us taylor, then see if we can nail the #1 from san diego for gardner, trotter, [who I think would be very productive in marty's system, and I believe marty would be thinking that as well] as well as our #6 this year and our #1 next year, I feel we would be dealing from strength with the ubundance of WR as well as LB's, I feel next year's #1 pick will be a low one as well, if we have to kick in another pick next year we do it, then we open up trade discussion's for the #1 pick, we get another top 10 pick plus a #2 or a #3 rd. pick, which would net us taylor, and a real shot depending on the trade, winslow, as well as a #2 [hopefully which is the going rate for a #1] and we grab the big tackle we need that is the direction I would go if I was GM, I am not concerned with next year's draft our pick's won't be that high to begin with and you won't come across the talent of taylor or winslow for at least another decade if we get this done our team is set for the forseeable future.

03-31-2004, 08:24 PM	#2
Shane Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 277	I heard that in a Washington Times article, sources from the team indicated they would not trade Rod Gardner. As I think about it, this makes a certain amount of sense. We have a lot of talent but not a lot of experience at wide receiver after our starters. I think that the staff is going to use this as a judgment year about Gardner and if they decide that Jacobs or McCants can more ably fill the #2 position, then we won't sign Gardner when his contract expires. Meanwhile we will have a full year to see more about what McCants and Jacobs can do. This is a contract year for Gardner, but we aren't in a position to risk trading him now. He may prove to be crucial for us. Decision time is after the season.

03-31-2004, 08:31 PM	#3
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	Well I don't know either way what the Skins want to do with Gardner. But, it's in their best interest to say stuff like "we have no interest in trading him" "Rod's a very important part of our team, etc." That way you potentially drive the price up. __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

Gardner, the draft, and Trade Rumours: What's your theory?

Locker Room Main Forum