Boldin trade revisited – and trades in general


I was very interested to read the comments by most of you re the fleeting thought of trading James Jones and a 2nd round pick to AZ for Anquan Boldin. Most of you opposed this idea quite strongly based not so much on the idea of giving up a valuable draft pick as much as giving up James Jones. As I have stated before, I think Jones is really really good and may end up leading the team in receiving this year because Rodgers loves him. So, I wrote that post reluctantly because frankly, I really don’t want to give up Jones either right now. And, I also question my own inclusion of a 2nd round pick – maybe a 3rd or 4th round pick would be more appropriate because with Jones, they’d be getting someone who could start opposite Fitzgerald no problem (or be a great #3).

That said, I don’t think Boldin has an attitude problem on par with the TOs or Mosses of the world. He is a hungry player who is no worse than the 4th best receiver in the NFL. The guy is an absolute beast. James Jones is very good with loads of potential, but Boldin is a superstar right now. Jones needs probably a few seasons before he can be on Boldin’s level. And Rodgers would get over the loss of Jones in a hurry when he realizes Boldin will catch everything thrown in his direction and then drag DBs down the field for huge gains. (Kind of like how Lav;wjfoahgoah Coles has warmed up to Favre despite his best bud Pennington getting cut). I do wonder if Favre were here if he’d be whining for TT to pick up Boldin (and then TT would communicate weirdly about it).

In the end though, as much as I like Boldin and think our passing game would go from very good to unstoppable with him, I too, as GM, would be reluctant to depart with Jones (and a 2nd round pick). I very well might spend some time analyzing Arizona’s needs to see if there were other Packer players and/or draft picks to offer, but I’m not sure how far I would have pushed something like this. (I suppose an even more impressive idea would be to trade someone else and then have Driver, Boldin, Jennings and Jones as the wide outs. That would simply be unfair – the team would probably get fined for “creating unfair playing conditions”).

But to me, the benefit of an exercise like this is to get us all thinking about possibilities for the Packers. It really makes me wonder what goes on behind the scenes at Packers HQ. When word leaks out that a Boldin or a Chad Johnson or a Mike Wahle or a Jason Taylor or anyone good, might be available, are there certain members of the Packers staff who are specifically tasked with sitting down right as these rumors start and thinking about a bunch of trade possibilities? Reggie McKenzie? John Schneider? TT? Does the team keep a list of priority positions that could be upgraded? I would certainly hope that the Packers at least consider these kinds of things and my guess is that they quietly do.

Of course, my wife would probably argue that what this Boldin exercise is really about me just wanting to suggest things. I am a suggester. I have problem with suggesting things. We may have decided on which restaurant to go to and we may even be in the middle of a great meal, and I’ll be sitting there talking about other restaurants that we could have gone to. (You may have noticed some of my other player-acquisition-suggestion-posts: Joe Horn last year, Jason Taylor, Mike Wahle, Warrick Dunn, Michael Turner at one point, Jeremy Shockey, Tony Gonzalez, Chad Pennington, calling back DeMond Parker, etc, etc, etc,). If the Packers are looking for a professional suggester, I may be their guy. But for now, it’s just a problem I’m working on.


3 Responses to “Boldin trade revisited – and trades in general”

  1. Ron La Canne Says:


    A trade should have significant benefit for the teams trading. It’s easy to see Arizona thinking Jones and a 2 would be a benefit. At best, I see GB breaking even. Jones and the loss of a high round (#2) draft pick is not is not going to be offset by aquiring Boldin.

    Now, Jones and a #2 for a defensive tackle or an offensive guard of first line caliber would be a benefit for GB. These are immediate and important needs to fill right now. Wideout/Split end is already a team strength. Boldin would not result in an incremental increase in team productivity that would justify the cost. A D-T or O-G would give an incremental value that could exceed the cost.

  2. ScottinDC Says:

    Andy, any suggestionitus aside, I still think acquiring Boldin would be a good idea. However, reading the comments to your previous post about Boldin, and your subesequent thoughts in this post, I’m sufficiently convinced that Jones wouldn’t be the guy to deal. What if we dealt (gulp)…Driver. I know I’m probably gonna get some flack for this suggestion, perhaps deservedly, but I think it would be well worth it. Donald Driver is a gifted receiver, but he is beginning to age. There’s no telling how many more years of effectiveness the Packers have left with him. Boldin is still very young, and he could fill in at #1 or #2 right away. The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that it’s not a bad idea. Anyone else agree or should my next stop be the loony bin?

  3. awhayes Says:

    Ron – good points. I agree that there are other positions presently of greater need and that Jones and a #2 would be too high. And I admit, I entered into this suggestion not fully committed to the idea. That said, I’m not aware of any quality O-Line or D-Line guys presently. And, if we were able to trade someone else and give up a pick and keep Jones, having that 4 receiver set would make the offense unstoppable. Even if the line was porous, Rodgers would only need 2 seconds to get rid of it. It would sort of be like if LT were suddenly demanding a trade. Grant is high quality, but acquiring LT would change the face of our offense and like Boldin, create defensive match-up problems all over the field.

    It’s interesting, brother Steve and I had a similar argument a few years ago when I wanted to acquire Randy Moss – noting the duo of Moss and Driver would have been dominant. Steve didn’t want Moss’ attitude, didn’t want to give up much and thought there were other needs to fill. I thought his presence could alter everything offensively and create mismatches all over the field.

    Scott, not sure if AZ would want Driver unless there were a super high draft pick involved because he may only have a couple elite seasons left. But I too am having a hard time completely ditching this idea. But so far, we appear to be the only ones believing it’s not a horrendous thought

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: