🤮

  • 0ddmanrushB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I disagree. They were in need of a good young franchise QB. That trade guaranteed they were going to draft one of the top 3.

    • Struggle2RealB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So, OP speaks to the arod deal as though it is done fully in hindsight. Applying the same benefit to the darnold deal, I think there’s no question that deal was worse.

      Iirc, the Sam price was #6 overall and three years worth of 2nds to move to #3. This was an unproven prospect, and the price was signifigantly more via draft capital.

      Vs a 2 time MVP, at the cost of moving back 2 slots in the first and two 2nds.

      If the a rod deal doesn’t work out, it looks to be a reasonable gamble even in retrospect. The Sam deal in hindsight isn’t a disaster, but it’s worse imo.

      • 0ddmanrushB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You have to consider the situation at the time of these deals.