When has a blockbuster NFL trade worked out for the team who gives up everything?

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, TheCasillas said:

These ARE blockbuster trades bc they are trades for the best players at their position that cost a lot of capital for a team to get......

I'm not trading away the kind of package we're talking about just to get the best player at the position.

If the answer to the question doesn't include championships, then no it's not good enough.

[TheCasillas]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

I'm not trading away the kind of package we're talking about just to get the best player at the position.

If the answer to the question doesn't include championships, then no it's not good enough.

That's a little naive to think a team trades for a player just so they can say "hey, we arent gonna win championships with this player, but he is the best at his position..." 

Is that what you are stating?

[ForJimmy]

15 minutes ago, Daddy_Uncle said:

The individual has been a great player but what have the Falcons really done with him?

They made it to a Super Bowl when they had Shanahan calling plays for him.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, TheCasillas said:

That's a little naive to think a team trades for a player just so they can say "hey, we arent gonna win championships with this player, but he is the best at his position..." 

Is that what you are stating?

I'm saying only blockbuster trades that helped a team win championships can truly be called a success.

If all you can say is "we gave up a sh-tload for this player and afterward we were...pretty good", then you didn't reach the goal.

[onmyown]

If we would’ve traded 2 firsts for Brian Burns or 2-3 for cam in 2011 we’d all be happy and say it turned out alright....

but it turned out alright anyways without having to trade anything. Don’t know what you coulda had since it was traded.

seems to me all the recent franchise qbs were drafted not traded for

I’d rather have confidence the FO can find an good qb with 3 years worth of first and second round picks, considering some sort of strategy of moving up to get their guy with those combination of picks than just trade them

something tells me if they’re too inept to do that with all that capital - we’re screwed regardless

Edited February 24, 2021 by onmyown

[Sheldonyoung]

What has doing nothing done for us? We have 0 Super Bowls , trade the farm for watson

[Sheldonyoung]

We have 0 to lose 

[OneBadCat]

The game has become so athletic now that I don’t think overtrading is worth it but Watson is a really good blend of natural talent and QB skills. 
 

I’m sure he would want to play with CMC. So I think you either package some firsts with Burns or you bite the bullet and trade CMC and then resign Samuel.
 

But you don’t trade both of those cats. CMC has a shot at the HOF and Burns is the best pass rusher we’ve had since Hardy.

Edited February 24, 2021 by OneBadCat

[TheCasillas]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

I'm saying only blockbuster trades that helped a team win championships can truly be called a success.

If all you can say is "we gave up a sh-tload for this player and afterward we were...pretty good", then you didn't reach the goal.

No one said that.... not a single team has said that. Also, the players mentioned in this thread are still active and have a chance to win a SB with their respective teams... really can't call them failures either.... 

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, TheCasillas said:

No one said that.... not a single team has said that. Also, the players mentioned in this thread are still active and have a chance to win a SB with their respective teams... really can't call them failures either.... 

It was a hypothetical example.

Teams don't generally come out and say "we made bad decisions and had a sh-tty season", but they still do so pretty frequently.

[Mother Grabber]

Eli to the gints worked out

[Stumpy]

29 minutes ago, Happy Panther said:

This is an honest question. It seems like this never works out for the team in the Panthers situation. Comfort me with an example please.

Too many unknown variables in your equation there homie. 

What is a "blockbuster trade?"

- An established All-Pro player

- A Pro Bowler in their prime

- Anyone who nets multiple picks

- Multiple 1st round picks

- Perceived overpayment

What is considered working out? 

- Tangible improvement in a specific personnel grouping

- Improved W/L record

- Future All-Pro/Pro Bowl noms

- Playoff performance

- Super Bowl

What position are the Panthers in for your scenario? 

- If we trade Teddy to Chicago for a 1st and 3rd, and they win a ring dinking and dunking for 3 yards here and 4 yards there and say 15 passing TDs, who won the trade? Was it a blockbuster?

- If we trade 3 1sts for Watson and are perennial contenders for the next 10 years but, never hoist the Lombardi, did the trade "work out" in our favor? 

[Cpt slay a ho]

Julio trade def worked in the falcons favor

[Stumpy]

17 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I'm saying only blockbuster trades that helped a team win championships can truly be called a success.

If all you can say is "we gave up a sh-tload for this player and afterward we were...pretty good", then you didn't reach the goal.

Why stop at blockbusters? Under your terms, why wouldn't any aquisition that didn't lead to a Super Bowl be considered a failure. 

We gave up a 3rd for Olsen and had an overall losing record during his tenure. We never reached the goal. But he might reach the HOF. Did we lose that trade?