BRAYLON trade rumors.....
by AaronD on Mar 2, 2009 9:05 AM EST
51 comments
Ok, does anyone beleive Mangini was actively shopping K2 since he arrived in Cleveland?
I have a feeling he has been shopping Mr Dropsy Edwards and when Tampa was called on about a trade they said "No thanks, but we wouldn't mind having K2"
Regardless, I think there is a solid chance both of Cleveland top offensive targets could be done in Cleveland soon.
I have heard rumors of the Giants wanting Braylon for Mathias Kiwanuka.
I am torn because I think it would be great to get Kiwi but can we afford to lose both of our top two recieving threats?
0 recs |
51 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Check this out:
http://www.allproblogger.com/?p=985#more-985
No way they retain all of those stud!!
by AaronD on Mar 2, 2009 10:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Ok, does anyone beleive Mangini was actively shopping K2 since he arrived in Cleveland?
Yes. In fact, the answer is “of course.”
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Mar 2, 2009 10:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
If the Browns trade Braylon I will be very, very upset. Who would be left to catch passes — Stallworth, Heiden, and a gimpy Joe J? No way. Braylon is a very talented reciever who had a bad year in ‘08. I think he will bounce back next year and be a solid #1 reciever again. We can’t trade both him and Winlsow, that would put a huge hole in our offense.
by Buckeye Brad on Mar 2, 2009 10:46 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
brad, i’m going to go ahead and disagree with you here. i’m not saying that i’m actively in favor of trading braylon, but if we were to move him (ARPOC…hat tip to danvail) i can’t say that i’d be that upset, even in the wake of moving K2 out.
he’s our best playmaker at this point, but that’s a little bit like saying he’s the skinniest kid at fat camp. given his statements about cleveland at the end of last year, his fickle play and attitude, and the likelihood of having to fork out for him next year, if we can get a defensive stud and/or a nice collection of picks, i’m all for it. the receiver position is just not as critical, in my mind…and, shit, our offense can’t get any worse.
by DontCallMeJoey on Mar 2, 2009 8:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Stud receivers are worth the money. Braylon in 2007 form is worth the money.
Stallworth is not worth the money.
by rufio on Mar 3, 2009 3:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
sure…studs at all positions are worth the money.
however, given the current state of things with the browns, wouldn’t you agree that having a top flight receiver is far down on the list of things this team needs to succeed? said differently, if we could turn braylon into a big time LB (not sure if kiwi is “big time”, but you get my point) and a pick or two to take a shot at other positions of need, then we should move him. we can overspend for a big time FA receiver when we’re farther down the road.
by DontCallMeJoey on Mar 5, 2009 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with Brad. However, I think the only people on the team that are completely safe are quinn, thomas, and cribbs. I think mangini would trade anyone else if felt he was getting enough (in his mind). I think he’ll make changes for the sake of change, he just seems like that kind of guy.
by Dawg Nuts on Mar 2, 2009 10:48 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
any other year I might be for it
but we’re still trying to break in a young QB, and bartering off our best receiving threats hardly seems like an effective way to do that.
im not impressed with your performance
by troy145 on Mar 2, 2009 11:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Selling low is always a bad idea.
Carmona for Cy Young 2009
by danvail on Mar 2, 2009 11:45 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
tell that to my clients.
busier today than i’d like to be. whoever this Dow Jones guy is, I’d like to kick him square in the balls.
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
by rolub on Mar 2, 2009 12:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He’s just a dude that measures how much more money the already fabulously wealthy are getting. For the other 95% of us, it’s a good thing when that dude is low. Kick away.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Mar 2, 2009 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Uhhh…you know, regular people have money in the stock market, too. You don’t have to be super rich to have a 401(k) or contribute to a pension plan.
by Buckeye Brad on Mar 2, 2009 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
401k – aka 2009 money pit
Baseball fans are junkies, and their heroin is the statistic. - Robert S. Wieder
by jerseywahoo on Mar 2, 2009 3:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Haha, yes Brad, I know this and many more things.
The point remains.
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Mar 2, 2009 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What point remains — that it’s a good thing when the stock market is low? Why is that?
by Buckeye Brad on Mar 2, 2009 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My guess is that ‘woog is pointing to the large disparity in wealth between ordinary people with 401k’s and super rich people who get super-er rich when the market does well, brokers who make ridiculous money while people can’t find jobs, etc.
Probably best for another blog.
by rufio on Mar 2, 2009 5:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn’t trying to get political or anything, and I didn’t want to get a long discussion going, but I just think it’s ridiculous to say that the stock market falling only affects 5% of the population. I don’t know how anybody could say that this is a good thing for most people.
by Buckeye Brad on Mar 2, 2009 5:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would think anyone rooting for the stock market to fall is ill intentioned
by Roger Dorn on Mar 2, 2009 6:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not best for this blog. My point was only a little joke about what the Dow Jones measures. It doesn’t measure the economic quality/strength of the wide majority of Americans. There are very, very smart men who have been saying for decades that the kind of unencumbered bubble-and-bust growth we’ve experienced does more harm than good, especially when less than 10% of trading has anything to do with funding real businesses. The other 90% is just exchanging paper, and that is not creating wealth.
In this context, it is actually ill intentioned to wish for a recovery to previous illegitimate levels.
Go Browns!
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Mar 2, 2009 7:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
moar funny pictures
im not impressed with your performance
by troy145 on Mar 2, 2009 7:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Friedman is literally one of the most evil men to ever walk the planet, but i digress…
www.lowbrowsophisticate.com
by kwoog on Mar 9, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some of what you’re saying may be true. After all, the Dow only consists of 30 stocks — the S&P 500 is a much better indicator of the stock market. And you are correct that prices have been overvalued for many things (real estate chiefly among them). But I don’t want to get in to an economic discussion here.
My only point is that many regular folks have their retirment savings and college savings in the stock market, so the idea that this only affects rich people is ludicrous. That doesn’t even consider the fact that many people are losing their jobs because businesses are losing money. And while the average person may not have as much money in the market as a rich executive, to that person it may be a significant amount of money that they are losing because of this decline.
by Buckeye Brad on Mar 2, 2009 8:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you Brad, my point exactly
"Have You heard of the Boom on Mizar 5?"
by Grockcubs on Mar 2, 2009 7:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What if they make this trade and they draft Crabtree?
Baseball fans are junkies, and their heroin is the statistic. - Robert S. Wieder
by jerseywahoo on Mar 2, 2009 12:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones
Edward Jones, Charles Dow, and some other shmuck.
Baseball fans are junkies, and their heroin is the statistic. - Robert S. Wieder
by jerseywahoo on Mar 2, 2009 12:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Please use the reply button, it helps people know who you’re responding to.
Also, I’m pretty sure rolub was joking.
by Buckeye Brad on Mar 2, 2009 12:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Braylon for Kiwianuka wouldn’t work. He would need to move back to outside linebacker here, and at this point in his career, that is moving him the wrong way.
by gahnki on Mar 2, 2009 4:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. He didn’t do all that well as a LB, and regardless of if he is in a 2 point stance or a 3 point, he is at his best rushing the passer, probably decent at stopping the run, and a liability in coverage. In my mind he doesn’t have the skill set to play DE or OLB in (what I hope will be) our scheme.
by rufio on Mar 2, 2009 5:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I love what Mangini and Co. are doing. The KW2 trade sent a signal that noone is safe and nothing is the same. Kellen was a microcasim of the Browns’ team in general. Talented with internal issues. I would move Edwards in a heartbeat. The team has a young quarterback who needs targets but he also needs a running game to threaten defenses with. Move Edwards for a defensive starter and use one of the 2nd runders on a RB
by bigtroutak on Mar 2, 2009 6:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Looking at the depth chart, I’m pretty sure Noone got cut.
Carmona for Cy Young 2009
by danvail on Mar 2, 2009 11:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no one ever gets out!!
garrrrr
im not impressed with your performance
by troy145 on Mar 4, 2009 5:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Couldn’t agree more. I’m old enough to have seen a number of teams make it to the super bowl and even win the thing with an average to poor receiving corps. If the Giants were crazy enough to ship a stud defender for Edwards, you take that deal in a heartbeat.
(The previous comment is in no way meant to imply that the Browns are good enough to make the Super Bowl. Merely saying that a one time pro bowl receiver is not a building block for a team in flux.)
by Pruitt on Mar 3, 2009 9:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course, teams have won the Super Bowl with average recievers. They’ve also won with average QB’s (Dilfer), average RB’s (the Pats first two SB), average DL, average CB’s, average everything. But that doesn’t mean those parts of the team aren’t important. There is not team that is great in every position (at least not in the past couple decades).
But that doesn’t mean you just give up on Edwards. It’s impossible to have a good offense without good recievers to throw the ball to. Especially when you’re trying to break in a young QB like Quinn. Do you really want our recievers to be Stallworth, Steptoe, Heiden, Rucker, and an old/injured Jurivicous? How are we supposed to have a good offense with those recievers? Even if we draft Crabtree, that still doesn’t make a good recieving corps.
by Buckeye Brad on Mar 3, 2009 10:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And I’m sorry – with Edwards in there, this is still not a good receiving corps. Get what you can for him – this team HAS to start over.
by Pruitt on Mar 4, 2009 9:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Braylon was fantastic in ‘07. I don’t see why so many people want to give up on him. Trading him down would be selling low. And what do you mean by we need to start over — don’t we want to keep our good players?
by Buckeye Brad on Mar 4, 2009 10:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That is ridiculous. Do you not remember 2007? How about this year when Tennessee fans said they would like to get Braylon above all other Browns—including Rogers—this year, even when he was dropping everything? If you are going to trade the kid, you shouldn’t just “get what you can” because if people know you want to move him no matter what they aren’t going to offer you anything worthwhile.
Explain to me why this team HAS to “start over” by getting rid of talented young players?
by rufio on Mar 4, 2009 11:33 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Thank you. I don’t get all the negativity by some people against our players. Some people are in a “trade everybody” mode, which is a ridiculous. Of course, whoever we trade for or draft, in three years they’re going to want to trade them for somebody else again. It never ends.
by Buckeye Brad on Mar 5, 2009 8:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Plus! It’s a contract year and I have a feeling Braylon is motivated about a new contract. I expect a massive season
by Roger Dorn on Mar 5, 2009 12:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If there’s one thing you can learn by looking at the way successful teams are run – it’s that they get rid of players once they pass their “best by” date. Look at the Pats, The steelers, the Colts…
Listen, I hope Edwards has 5 more pro-bowl seasons… but I doubt he will. And since there was something horribly wrong with his play last year, I figure the team is better off moving forward.
This team finished last, beaten by a Bengals team led by Ryan Fitzpatrick. Read that sentence again and try to come up with a single reason why the Browns don’t need to start over. Because the chemistry was so great?
by Pruitt on Mar 5, 2009 9:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you realize how many injuries we had last year? I don’t even care what happened in the games Ken Dorsey started because he shouldn’t be in the NFL and will never start a game again.
This team also won 10 games two years ago. It’s not as good as that team, but it’s not as bad as last year’s team also. I don’t know why you think Braylon is on the downside of his career — he’s not that old. He had one bad year and he can bounce back from that. It would be different if he was 32 and losing his skills.
When the Steelers have a bad year, they don’t trade all of their good players and start over. They retool by bringing in replacement where necessary, but you don’t trade away your core players for nothing just to get rid of them.
by Buckeye Brad on Mar 5, 2009 10:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I do see where you’re coming from concerning Edwards. And while I am in a “dump em all” mood, There certainly are bigger holes to fill on the team.
I guess ours is a phiisophical difference. Whereas you point out that the team won ten games in 2007, I look upon that season as being an anomaly in what has been a steady parade of 4 and 5 win seasons.
I hope you’re right and this team has the nucleus that can keep one day soon win in double digits. Certainly axing Romeo was a big step in that direction.
by Pruitt on Mar 5, 2009 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i’d say there are bigger holes to fill on the team, for sure, and if we can use edwards to get a shot at filling several of those holes (kiwi and a pick, for example), then i’d say that’s something we should do. taking one difference maker and turning him into 2 or 3 difference makers sounds like an easy “yes” to me.
however, to “dump him” just b/c we’re frustrated about last year is the farthest thing from a good tactic. the strategy here has to be to build the team intelligently, and maximize the value of all the players (which may mean to trade them). bailing on edwards for a box of balls is not smart.
edwards has certainly not reached his peak as a pro, and to suggest otherwise is shortsighted.
by DontCallMeJoey on Mar 5, 2009 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So Braylon’s “best by” date was the age of 25?
by rufio on Mar 5, 2009 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So far, it looks that way.
No doubt, we’ll continue this discussion in September.
by Pruitt on Mar 5, 2009 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am not ready to consider Kiwanuka a “stud”.
by rufio on Mar 4, 2009 12:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Part of me thinks that if Edwards were to be traded it would be better to trade for picks rather than a vet. I know that would leave the team awfully young, and i seem to recall that was a problem several years ago, but the younger guys might take better to the more disciplined approach that Mangini is supposed to have. So they could compete the first year primarily on talent and the following years with growing experience.
Of course, that assumes that all of the high picks would turn out well and that the coaching they get is good coaching. If nothing else, it makes for an interesting mental exercise.
by JustBob on Mar 2, 2009 11:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
It probably also assumes that a few late round picks make an impact. If Kokinis can hit on one or two of our second day picks, that will be a great start.
by rufio on Mar 3, 2009 3:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
TRADE B EDWARDS
HELL THERES PLENTY OF WR. IN THIS DRAFT, THAT CAN HOLD ONTO THE FOOTBALL’’’
Go Browns 09!!!
by deemac3248 on Mar 16, 2009 5:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Non-stop coverage of the team with the best fans in the NFL, the Cleveland Browns.
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Browns Links
Browns News/Information
Pro Football Critics
Official Browns Site
Orange and Brown Blogs
Orange and Brown Report
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Akron Beacon Journal
Browns Communities
The Watercooler
Dawg Talkers
Dawg Bones
The Browns Board
Waiting for Next Year
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
