The problem with Cooks is his production seems to be replaceable, or at least it seems to be replaceable for all of the former teams that he has been a part of. With his level of production, you would think that teams would hold on to him once he was on their roster.
Not sure replaceable is the right word. It's a little like us deciding to trade Cooper. We had spend a No. 1 draft pick on a receiver (Lamb), who is heading toward a big deal, and we had a choice to keep paying Cooper or pay less for Gallup, a younger receiver we viewed as a more than capable No. 2 despite his injury.
We were paying Cooper No. 1 money, but he didn't play like a No. 1 receiver the year before we traded him. So we traded him for relatively little to get out from under his contract. We took a gamble that Cooper was replaceable, but it didn't work out that way.
I don't think the teams that have traded Cooks have ended up better off productionwise, but they had reasons that they decided they might be better off without him than with him. For example, I've read that New Orleans traded him because it wanted to beef up its defense. The team had the No. 1 offense and one of the worst defenses, so Loomis thought the offense would be OK, but having a first to use on defense was needed.