Monday Money Matters

Very good read, Andrew -

I was met with some resistance in the comments section after this one initially went down in saying that I believe Chicago got the better end here -

Two numbers ones, a third and a starting quarterback (basically another second-third) to me means that Cutler has to be one of the top quarterbacks over the next eight to ten years to make this work for Chicago -

A risky trade for the Bears in many ways, just look at the Javon Walker trade you spoke of and how injury was the factor in who won there -

Cutler had the benefit of playing in a Mike Shanahan offense which has made statistical giants out of quarterbacks such as Bubby Brister, Brian Griese and Jake Plummer - Obviously Cutler has a better skill set here, but there are still questions to be answered - Intangibles etc -

As you alluded to, Cutlers salary combined with the three first day picks and Orton - I will take the Broncos side in this one -

:)

Andrew
I agree that a good time to re-evaluate the trade will be a few years down the road. The Packer trades that netted rookies were most favorable for the last total of 6 years of service by Collins and Jennings.

My view is that Cutler will be clamoring for a new deal. If the current salary structure of the nfl remains into the 2011 cba uncapped year, how will that affect the Cutler contract? Does that push him up to 6 years before eligible for FA? If so chicago got the better end of the deal.

Andrew
Was it a cumulative 5 years of service and not 6?
I believe I was wrong about that one.

Great read Andrew. The outcome of this trade will hinge on what players the Broncos end up drafting with those extra picks.

Bill Parcells: The Walker trade was influenced by injuries, but remember Javon was clamoring for a new contract coming off a season in which he missed 15 games with torn knee ligaments, so essentially they swapped a disgruntled, injured (but talented) WR for a 2nd round pick that turned into Greg Jennings.

The Walker-Jennings comparison is quite interesting in that at THIS TIME their respective careers with the Packers are fairly congruent.

Both played for the Packers for three years (Walker played one additional game but injured his ACL).

In those three year time frames, Walker caught 157 passes for 2400 yards and 22 TD's, and Jennings caught 178 passes for 2800 yards and 24 TD's.

But, in the first game of his fourth season with the Pack, Walker tore his ACL and was placed on IR.

Jennings has yet to play a fourth season with the Pack. If he continues his current level of play, then Mr. Brandt's thesis will be proven. If not, then it will be seen that Brandt's overall point--that the jury remains out on many trades for several years--will be shown to apply with equal force to the Walker for Jennings trade.

BigJohn -
That doesn't make sense. You trade for future performance not past performance.
You have to compare what the players involved have done since the trade.
Jennings is the clear winner the past three years.

Everyone commenting on this trade seems to be overlooking Kyle Orton. I am really looking forward to seeing him play behind a good Oline and with some real talent around him. I watched several Bear games the past few years and saw a real improvement in his level of play in 2008 but saw too many dropped balls at critical times, even on well thrown passes. This trade really sets up the argument of whether the talented qb makes his team better or the talented team makes the qb better.

I'm with Boilermaker Jim. There seems to be an unwarranted assumption that Kyle Orton can't play. I believe Orton is going to surprise some people as the Broncos QB.

Interesting points about Orton, it reminds me of an article in the Chicago Tribune I saw back around October/November, when Orton and Rodgers were both at about their peak performance for the season. The article was an interview with 3 anonymous NFL scouts, and while they all said they liked what they saw from both quarterbacks, 2 of the 3 said they would take Orton over Rodgers, which is somewhat surprising IMO

I don't think you can look at the person that was selected with a draft choice and say it was or was not a success. What if the Packers had gotten a number one for Javon Walker and the player had been a bust. Would that have made it a bad trade? You're trading for the oppportunity to draft a player, and you have to hope that you do a good job on the selection.

I'll go further than that: not only will Orton outplay Cutler this year, but I predict that Cutler's 2009 stats end up worse than Orton's '08. I really never saw what everyone else sees in Cutler. He doesn't win, and he doesn't put up good stats. Am I missing something?

Maybe he'll be great someday, but I predict he's out of the league in three years.

Ryeguy812: If you recall, Walker had two average if not disappointing years before he absolutely tore it up in his third year. He started clamoring for a new contract after that third year, and GM Thompson called that ridiculous bluff (that was the same off-season that Philly called the Owens-Rosenhaus bluff). Walker said all kind of nasty things about the organization after that, and, though I don't wish injury on anyone, him tearing his ACL in Week One of his fourth year was karma. Jennings is probably a better talent than a healthy Walker and he is 100 times a better person.