Colbert Confirms Steelers Are Trying To Trade Morgan Burnett

[Mojouw]

There's not much to wrap your head around.

"Why say anything?" That's really all there is to it.

You can argue at length about how it's probably not that harmful and other teams probably do it all the time. But tell me - what is the advantage of saying "we're about to release this guy, any trade offers?" instead of simply "we're listening to trade offers for this guy?" There isn't any. Why not just keep your mouth shut about the releasing part until you do it.

Maybe the other GMs are all smart enough to figure it out, maybe not. The folks that get paid to do this for a living fuck up ALL the time. Is it really outside the realm of possibility that all 31 other teams might not have the right read on EVERY player's value and his odds of being released/traded/extended/some other move? As many people love to say, "all it takes is one team dumb enough to make an offer."

I just don't see why if you were a GM, you wouldn't take any chance you could get of gaining an advantage, even if it's a slim one. You get paid oodles and oodles of money to do this for a living, after all.

it is the same statement. We are going to release this guy if we can't trade him. We are going to trade this guy and if that doesn't work, he's getting cut.

This is like when this place explodes about the draft based on a reality that has never taken place where NFL teams regularly draft 7 home run picks each year.

Every.single.team.does.this. Why is it a big deal then?

When the Steelers coaching staff does something as perceived as off the beaten path it is bad. When they follow the standard blueprint it is bad. When the franchise directly answers a question it is bad. When they dodge a question it is bad. It makes me wonder if the evaluation criteria being used are an ever shifting target that is totally unrealistic.

[steelreserve]

it is the same statement. We are going to release this guy if we can't trade him. We are going to trade this guy and if that doesn't work, he's getting cut.

This is like when this place explodes about the draft based on a reality that has never taken place where NFL teams regularly draft 7 home run picks each year.

Every.single.team.does.this. Why is it a big deal then?

When the Steelers coaching staff does something as perceived as off the beaten path it is bad. When they follow the standard blueprint it is bad. When the franchise directly answers a question it is bad. When they dodge a question it is bad. It makes me wonder if the evaluation criteria being used are an ever shifting target that is totally unrealistic.

I just don't think we are any good at trades. I mean, name even one trade in like, the past 15 years where we clearly came out the winner. No, really:

https://steelersdepot.com/2018/03/tr...kevin-colbert/

Maybe the McDonald trade if he stays healthy?

(No, lucking into Antonio Brown with a 6th-round pick does not mean we "won" the Holmes trade, it means we straight-up dumped a high-profile player for junk draft picks and got incredibly lucky after the fact. One other trade not on that list is Martavis Bryant, which happened after the article was posted - but let's face it, any value we got for him was largely based on the fact that we knew he was going to get suspended and the other team didn't (and in any case we had to use a higher draft pick than we got in return for a replacement WR (whose odds of replacing him look kind of shaky.)))

So anyway, the point being, when you have a pretty uninspiring track record at something, people will question how you're doing it, including any little things that, while minor, still could be mistakes. And all this in the shadow of a big-time mistake that was just made a couple of weeks ago.

[Mojouw]

I just don't think we are any good at trades. I mean, name even one trade in like, the past 15 years where we clearly came out the winner. No, really:

https://steelersdepot.com/2018/03/tr...kevin-colbert/

Maybe the McDonald trade if he stays healthy?

(No, lucking into Antonio Brown with a 6th-round pick does not mean we "won" the Holmes trade, it means we straight-up dumped a high-profile player for junk draft picks and got incredibly lucky after the fact. One other trade not on that list is Martavis Bryant, which happened after the article was posted - but let's face it, any value we got for him was largely based on the fact that we knew he was going to get suspended and the other team didn't (and in any case we had to use a higher draft pick than we got in return for a replacement WR (whose odds of replacing him look kind of shaky.)))

So anyway, the point being, when you have a pretty uninspiring track record at something, people will question how you're doing it, including any little things that, while minor, still could be mistakes. And all this in the shadow of a big-time mistake that was just made a couple of weeks ago.

Fair enough. But name an NFL trade that the team giving up the player "won". The NFL is not a league where guys get traded for "good reasons" all that often. Guys get traded in situations where the trading team is by definition going to take it in the teeth.

Herschel Walker trade was good for the team trading the player.
Brandon Cooks trade was good for the team trading the player.
Khalil Mack trade was good for the team trading the player.
Maybe the Beckham trade, although I would argue that Beckham is worth more.

Honestly, most of the rest of them suck for the team trading the player. Once you reach the point in the NFL that you are trading a guy, you are doing it for a small set of reasons (distraction, can't afford the guy, guy got pushed out of his starting spot by a better player and now he makes too much money, or the dude sucks now) that all point towards you having little leverage. What's the point in farting around and arguing over semantics?

Everyone knows Burnett was getting cut. Everyone knows that you can have him in trade for anything above a box of kicking tees. Standard NFL operating procedure for releasing/ridding yourself of a player you simply no longer want on your roster.

[fansince'76]

I just don't think we are any good at trades. I mean, name even one trade in like, the past 15 years where we clearly came out the winner.

Getting a 3rd for Bongtavis was pretty good, I thought.

[steelreserve]

Fair enough. But name an NFL trade that the team giving up the player "won". The NFL is not a league where guys get traded for "good reasons" all that often. Guys get traded in situations where the trading team is by definition going to take it in the teeth.

Herschel Walker trade was good for the team trading the player.
Brandon Cooks trade was good for the team trading the player.
Khalil Mack trade was good for the team trading the player.
Maybe the Beckham trade, although I would argue that Beckham is worth more.

Honestly, most of the rest of them suck for the team trading the player. Once you reach the point in the NFL that you are trading a guy, you are doing it for a small set of reasons (distraction, can't afford the guy, guy got pushed out of his starting spot by a better player and now he makes too much money, or the dude sucks now) that all point towards you having little leverage. What's the point in farting around and arguing over semantics?

Everyone knows Burnett was getting cut. Everyone knows that you can have him in trade for anything above a box of kicking tees. Standard NFL operating procedure for releasing/ridding yourself of a player you simply no longer want on your roster.

Jay Cutler. The Broncos made a killing on that one. Richard Seymour or any number of times the Patriots or other teams fleeced the Raiders. Jimmy Graham .. I mean, there are examples of it.

It's true most of the trades are the other kind, dumping players you don't want for some reason in exchange for low-round junk. The "winning" trades where you give up the player are rare unless it's a big-name star (but we got shit on in one of those too).

I would've hoped we would be on the winning end of more of the "we give up a fifth-round pick, you give us a player you don't want" trades, but mostly we seem to be the ones giving up talent for junk, and the players we get for our junk barely even get on the field.

Anyway, the point of arguing over semantics is that while the stakes for Burnett are certainly the lowest of the penny-ante shit - there is still a non-zero chance that you could have gotten a shitty draft pick but now will get no draft pick at all. Unless we're saying those draft picks don't matter, but I thought we were saying they do.

[Mojouw]

Jay Cutler. The Broncos made a killing on that one. Richard Seymour or any number of times the Patriots or other teams fleeced the Raiders. Jimmy Graham .. I mean, there are examples of it.

It's true most of the trades are the other kind, dumping players you don't want for some reason in exchange for low-round junk. The "winning" trades where you give up the player are rare unless it's a big-name star (but we got shit on in one of those too).

I would've hoped we would be on the winning end of more of the "we give up a fifth-round pick, you give us a player you don't want" trades, but mostly we seem to be the ones giving up talent for junk, and the players we get for our junk barely even get on the field.

Anyway, the point of arguing over semantics is that while the stakes for Burnett are certainly the lowest of the penny-ante shit - there is still a non-zero chance that you could have gotten a shitty draft pick but now will get no draft pick at all. Unless we're saying those draft picks don't matter, but I thought we were saying they do.

The draft picks do matter. But I just can not be convinced the order of operations with Burnett makes a lick of difference. Hell, you can likely mess around with the structure of an Eric Berry deal and get him for the same cap hit that Burnett would carry in a trade. It isn't like anyone was going to beat a path to their door when they said, "Burnett for sale! Oft injured 30ish safety for sale!". Burnett had 2018 to prove he was healthy and back to being a playmaker. He and the Steelers lost that gamble and it is unlikely that another NFL team is going to sign up for the same gamble until after the draft. Tre Boston still doesn't have a home, and he had a far better year than Burnett.

I think more important things to worry about for the Steelers is whether or not they are going into this draft season understanding why seemingly good draft picks fail to flourish consistently in their system.

Dupree has all the tools and by all accounts works hard, but it just hasn't happened for him. He has developed into above average, but you want more from a #1 pick.
Burns has just disintegrated. Okay, blame scouting and say the mentality and the fundamentals were simply never there.
What about Sutton? By all accounts a fundamentally sound, high football IQ player, and a hard worker. Who, right now, doesn't belong on an NFL field.
What about Sean Davis? Blessed with abundant physical ability. Supposed to be a quick study. Often looks like he has ZERO situational awareness.

The development of Watt, Tuitt, Hargrave, Juju, Shazier (he got better every year), Heyward, AB, Bell, Conner, etc. demonstrates to me that this group of coaches can develop players. But why not some of them? That is the key question for the franchise. Now maybe it is just the "luck of the draw" and the draft is an inexact science and all that. Or maybe there is a hidden issue or issues. I don't really care, but the team should and should work towards getting more bang for their buck.

[hawaiiansteeler]

Getting a 3rd for Bongtavis was pretty good, I thought.

that was definitely a win for us.

Bongtavis and Mr Big Chest for Mason Rudolph, a 3rd and a 5th doesn't sound nearly as one-sided though.

[teegre]

With all due respect for Burnett, any "bidding war" for his services is going to be more like a race to the bottom. I don't think anyone in their right mind is going to give him more than the hefty salary increase that is already on his contract this year.

The comp picks do not come into play here, I believe - that's only for players with expiring contracts. (edit: oh yeah, and if <1% of R6-7 picks made the team, that would be like 1 player every 2 years in the whole league. It's probably more like 10%, but I get it, they suck.) The only part tthat makes sense is the certainty of getting the player.

I mean, this is not exactly high stakes we are talking about in this case, I just don't think we have done ourselves any favors this offseason by announcing "we are done with player X" ahead of actually trying to get anything of value for that player from other teams. Well, if I know that, of course I'm going to start by throwing you junk and hoping you swing at it, just like we did with Brown. That's the real example of this backfiring. At least keep up the pretense, dumbasses.

It’s what they did with Marcus Gilbert. I’m not talking about a huge bidding war and/or high stakes, but if Burnett wants to play for the Cowboys, and the Saints want him, trading away a R6 pick (who’s likely to get cut anyway) ensures that the Saints get their guy (for a set price).

The Cardinals “could” have waited for Gilbert to hit free agency, but they made sure that they got him. Maybe the Saints do the same, maybe they don’t.

[tube517]

Please change title of this thread to "Colbert confirms Steelers are trying to trade a hostage"

[steelreserve]

It’s what they did with Marcus Gilbert. I’m not talking about a huge bidding war and/or high stakes, but if Burnett wants to play for the Cowboys, and the Saints want him, trading away a R6 pick (who’s likely to get cut anyway) ensures that the Saints get their guy (for a set price).

The Cardinals “could” have waited for Gilbert to hit free agency, but they made sure that they got him. Maybe the Saints do the same, maybe they don’t.

Well, this is really a lot of debating over something that matters very little ... I personally think that, like, maybe 1 out of 5 times you might cost yourself a R6 or R7 pick by announcing your intentions first. And whatever team with low-level interest decides they'd rather make their own low-stakes gamble on getting a better deal signing him outright. But most of the time it'll work out like you said. Not the hugest deal in the world.

I think a variation of this same strategy, however, got us absolutely bent over on the Brown trade. Our posture there - "Hey everybody, we are going to get rid of this guy come hell or high water" - did us no favors. Just say "Hmm, we're listening to offers, but are prepared to go to the mat with the player if we don't get something we like." Even if you're just saying that publicly and behind the scenes it's completely different - don't turn over all your fucking cards at the start of the hand. We probably cost ourselves a first-round draft pick that way.

Oh yeah, and certainly don't call other teams and lead with a lowball offer yourself, like Colbert did with the Raiders. "Hey, I see you've got three first-round draft picks, including two late ones that are just begging to be traded - will you give us something lower?" I mean, really, what the fuck is that? You learn to negotiate better than that when you're an 8-year-old trading baseball cards. That's why I'm really mad - not the Burnett thing, but that it brings up the vaguely related stupid tactics we used in the other, much more important trade.

[munchy]

id hold on to burnett until the last possible moment just to screw him over to sign with another team for decent money

[hawaiiansteeler]

id hold on to burnett until the last possible moment just to screw him over to sign with another team for decent money

Steelers are a classy organization, we don't operate that way.

[steelreserve]

id hold on to burnett until the last possible moment just to screw him over to sign with another team for decent money

Steelers are a classy organization, we don't operate that way.

Yeah, he didn't do anything wrong, just wasn't a very good signing.

[86WARD]

I’m not sure he was used correctly either...

[st33lersguy]

Standard practice from teams, usually though it doesn't work out and I can't see the upside in trading for Morgan Burnett and his contract

[teegre]

Well, this is really a lot of debating over something that matters very little ... I personally think that, like, maybe 1 out of 5 times you might cost yourself a R6 or R7 pick by announcing your intentions first. And whatever team with low-level interest decides they'd rather make their own low-stakes gamble on getting a better deal signing him outright. But most of the time it'll work out like you said. Not the hugest deal in the world.

I think a variation of this same strategy, however, got us absolutely bent over on the Brown trade. Our posture there - "Hey everybody, we are going to get rid of this guy come hell or high water" - did us no favors. Just say "Hmm, we're listening to offers, but are prepared to go to the mat with the player if we don't get something we like." Even if you're just saying that publicly and behind the scenes it's completely different - don't turn over all your fucking cards at the start of the hand. We probably cost ourselves a first-round draft pick that way.

Oh yeah, and certainly don't call other teams and lead with a lowball offer yourself, like Colbert did with the Raiders. "Hey, I see you've got three first-round draft picks, including two late ones that are just begging to be traded - will you give us something lower?" I mean, really, what the fuck is that? You learn to negotiate better than that when you're an 8-year-old trading baseball cards. That's why I'm really mad - not the Burnett thing, but that it brings up the vaguely related stupid tactics we used in the other, much more important trade.

Exactly... people are making a big deal out of something that is like a fart in the night: unless your sheets get covered with sh!t, you probably wouldn’t even notice.

Burnett : AB :: apples : oranges

[steelreserve]

Exactly... people are making a big deal out of something that is like a fart in the night: unless your sheets get covered with sh!t, you probably wouldn’t even notice.

Burnett : AB :: apples : oranges

Well, we're covered in shit already, and we're still slapping out farts. (Thank you for putting this in relatable terms.)

The Burnett situation and the AB trade are for completely different reasons with completely different expectations, but the one thing in common is the mistake that we made, which is giving away all our information up front. It won't hurt us in the Burnett thing, but it KILLED us in the Brown trade.

Similarly, NOT making that mistake is what let the Bryant trade to be so arguably "good" by comparison. What do you think would have happened if we'd come out and said "We're tired of this guy's shit and are pretty sure he'll get another drug suspension, so we're trying to get rid of him at any price - ANYONE WANT TO GIVE US A THIRD-ROUNDER FOR HIM?" But instead, we actually got almost the same for that dickhead as for Brown.

It's like, if it's to your benefit to be secretive, and you know that, why not be? The Burnett thing is like a ninja sneaking into the compound to kill some yakuza underling, and doing one of those wall-corner-hang things over the doorway, and right as the guy walks in, the ninja cuts a loud dirty fart and blows his cover, and he has to run away. The AB trade was the same thing, only the mob boss walks in with all his henchmen, and right as they're passing underneath, the ninja pulls out a megaphone and shouts "I'M GOING TO FART NOW," and then he has explosive diarrhea and they all get poop on their heads, and they look up at him and all draw their guns and empty a full clip into him. Which I guess is funny if you're watching it happen to someone else, but man I wouldn't want to be the ninja.