Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Hypothetical Trade for Deshaun Watson


Jeremy Igo

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I think the Texans get a good laugh out of that suggestion, given that they've already said it would take three firsts, three seconds and a player in order to even "start the conversation".

Won’t that change if the player refuses to play and demands a trade? I know it can’t be done for peanuts, but surely their asking price would have to go down right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Lobo said:

Won’t that change if the player refuses to play and demands a trade? I know it can’t be done for peanuts, but surely their asking price would have to go down right?

Not necessarily. And just for the record, Watson's contract has a "no trade" clause that can only be waived by the team.

As to that team, they know what they have in Watson. They also know what trading him does to their cap, their quarterback position and their ability to keep future players who might be unhappy with their contract or whatever. If they don't get a ridiculous return in a trade, they not only look like idiots, they'd actually be idiots.

For now though, the Texans aren't listening to any offers. And even if they were, Bill O'Brien isn't making the deals anymore. The guy who is doing that is a graduate of the Bill Belichick School of Negotiation, so good luck making any sort of offer that doesn't make the Herschel Walker trade look like a good deal by comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

Not necessarily. And just for the record, Watson's contract has a "no trade" clause that can only be waived by the team.

As to that team, they know what they have in Watso. They also know what trading him does to their cap, their quarterback position and their ability to keep future players who might be unhappy with their contract or whatever. If they don't get a ridiculous return in a trade, they not only look like idiots, they'd actually be idiots.

For now though, the Texans aren't listening to any offers. And even if they were, Bill O'Brien isn't making the deals anymore. The guy who is doing it is a graduate of the Bill Belichick School of Negotiation, so good luck making any sort of offer that doesn't make the Herschel Walker trade look like a good deal by comparison.

So, you’re saying there’s a chance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, bythenbrs said:

So, you’re saying there’s a chance

I mean, Nick Caserio could get replaced by an imposter clone who hates the Texans and wants to destroy them, so there's that.

And I suppose Bill O'Brien getting himself surgically altered to look like Caserio is an equally viable option.

Maybe that second one's more realistic. You guys have probably seen "Face Off". That could happen, right? :thinking:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • When we drafted Luke, we already had Cam, Smith, Olsen, Stewart, Deangleo, Gross, Kalil, CJ, Hardy, Beason, TD, Gamble (and maybe more I'm forgetting), we had a lot of great pieces in place. Going pure BPA for a player with Luke's potential when the LB you already have is different when you already have all those pieces in place.  Our OL right now is probably in a better shape than that team and our RBs and TE have potential compared to proven vets back then, but after that, the 2012 roster was in a far better shape than we are right now. We need a #1 WR, DEs, LBs, DBs, C, and depending who you ask a QB.  Going BPA at pick #5 when that player is a DT and your current best player on either side of the ball is a DT, seems irresponsible. If he's the only player they like that high left, then you trade back and go with position of more need at a slot that makes sense for the player while adding other picks.  If you trade back and he falls because other teams don't need/want a DT, then you consider him at that point because of the value.    
    • This sounds like the same back and forth when we drafted a LB when we already had a LB or as mentioned prior back to back DLs. I want the BPA, if it is another DT so be it. (No not a kicker/punter for those people that think they are funny))
    • I’m hoping SMU messes it all up and wins out. Imagine the SEC & BI0 would crap themselves trying to “fix” the problem.
×
×
  • Create New...