Speculating on Tony Romo's trade value **merged**

[Section446]

It won't happen.

I really don't understand why this is even something people think might happen.

There are a myriad of reasons why not.

I guess some people feel it is important to start threads with hot takes that are actually ice cold.

Definitely not happening, which is why we'd be nuts not to take an offer if it came.

 

[Section446]

i dont think anyone will trade a first rounder for Romo at this time, but maybe the jets will trade muhammad wilkerson for romo, similar contracts and boot wins

Why would the Jets give up one of the most dominant DL's in the league, who's just entering the prime of his career for a guy who's well past his prime?

 

[marius]

Why would the Jets give up one of the most dominant DL's in the league, who's just entering the prime of his career for a guy who's well past his prime?

because the jets need a real QB, and the muhammad contract its to expensive, for 1.5 sacks in 4 games, von miller in 4 games have 5.5 that its dominant

 

[NoLuv4Jerry]

The last thing teams want to do is help Dallas....so I would guess a 2nd or 3rd rounder at most. Still shaking my head on how Philly got the 1st rounder the traded to get Wentz.....back with the trade of SAM BRADFFORD! Heck the Colts traded a first round pick for TRENT RICHARDSON. After the Herschel Walker trade...I guess teams don't want to take the chance of potentially being part of a punchline one day.....

 

[KJJ]

I didn't complicate anything. I pointed out you tried to guarantee something you can't guarantee. Pretty straightforward.

As far as trading Romo goes, multiple teams would be interested if he were on the market today, and they'd easily put a conditional trade in place based off of future productivity. It won't happen, because he's too valuable to trade, but any number of deals could be put in place.

Joe Namath guaranteed a win in SB III and my guarantee that no will offer or give up a first round pick for Romo IF he's traded is a lot more assured than his guarantee. Anyone can make a guarantee when it comes to sports, it's not a formal guarantee you're making way too much of it. I'm not saying no one would be interested in trading for Romo that hasn't been my argument, I'm saying no one will give up a first round pick for him if he's traded. If Dak's game continues to get better and we continue to win and make the playoffs there is a possibility Romo could be traded if someone made the Cowboys an enticing enough offer. Drew Bledsoe had just signed a then record $103M contract with NE in March of 2001 and got injured in week 2 of that season. Brady took over and Bledsoe lost his job and was traded that offseason to Buffalo.

Joe Montana missed the entire 91 season with an elbow injury and most of the 92 season but by the time he was healthy, Steve Young established himself as the starter and Montana was traded to KC. I could see a scenario where Romo is traded if Dak plays so well this season that he takes the job. Romo's value has gone down due to repeated injures that have made him a liability. He's missed the Cowboys last 16 regular season games and counting. Hard to go forward with him putting in the work it takes to prepare him to be the starter if something is going to break every time he gets planted. Someone could offer a #3 and a #5 for Romo and the Cowboys might bite knowing that his time is nearly up and seeing an opportunity to get something for him.

He's not going to want to backup Dak but for him to garner any value in a trade he's going to have to play some this season and show he can still play and can take a hit. Montana got to play one half of football when Young got injured in 92 and played brilliantly showing he still had it which made him enticing to KC. Bledsoe got to play the entire 2001 AFC title game when Brady was injured and showed he recovered from his injury and could still play. If Romo doesn't get on the field this season and Dak takes the job, some team is bound to offer the Cowboys something for Romo to see if they would bite but it won't be much.

 

[Idgit]

Joe Namath guaranteed a win in SB III and my guarantee that no will offer or give up a first round pick for Romo IF he's traded is a lot more assured than his guarantee. Anyone can make a guarantee when it comes to sports, it's not a formal guarantee you're making way too much of it. I'm not saying no one would be interested in trading for Romo that hasn't been my argument, I'm saying no one will give up a first round pick for him if he's traded. If Dak's game continues to get better and we continue to win and make the playoffs there is a possibility Romo could be traded if someone made the Cowboys an enticing enough offer. Drew Bledsoe had just signed a then record $103M contract with NE in March of 2001 and got injured in week 2 of that season. Brady took over and Bledsoe lost his job and was traded that offseason to Buffalo.

Joe Montana missed the entire 91 season with an elbow injury and most of the 92 season but by the time he was healthy, Steve Young established himself as the starter and Montana was traded to KC. I could see a scenario where Romo is traded if Dak plays so well this season that he takes the job. Romo's value has gone down due to repeated injures that have made him a liability. He's missed the Cowboys last 16 regular season games and counting. Hard to go forward with him putting in the work it takes to prepare him to be the starter if something is going to break every time he gets planted. Someone could offer a #3 and a #5 for Romo and the Cowboys might bite knowing that his time is nearly up and seeing an opportunity to get something for him.

He's not going to want to backup Dak but for him to garner any value in a trade he's going to have to play some this season and show he can still play and can take a hit. Montana got to play one half of football when Young got injured in 92 and played brilliantly showing he still had it which made him enticing to KC. Bledsoe got to play the entire 2001 AFC title game when Brady was injured and showed he recovered from his injury and could still play. If Romo doesn't get on the field this season and Dak takes the job, some team is bound to offer the Cowboys something for Romo to see if they would bite but it won't be much.

We've reached the point where you're posting just to have the last word. Have at it. I just wanted to make the singular point that your guarantee wasn't really a guarantee of anything, so I'm content.

 

[Nightman]

It won't happen, because he's too valuable to trade

You are right to a degree......he is too valuable to trade but he is also too valuable to sit on the bench

Peyton was coming off a terrible neck injury and then took DEN to 2 SBs...doing it over IND probably messed that one up....they could have tagged him and demanded some picks OR and I said it at the time.....they could have kept Peyton and traded the rights to Luck for the WAS haul.....3 1sts and a 2nd

Add those picks to INDY and maybe they go to 2 SBs since DEN would be a lot weaker without Manning......3 years out of Peyton vs 5 years of Luck is tough but hindsight says different....

Vet QBs like Peyton, Brady, Brees and Romo just take their teams to another level....it is going to be a wild ride

 

[Nightman]

The last thing teams want to do is help Dallas....so I would guess a 2nd or 3rd rounder at most. Still shaking my head on how Philly got the 1st rounder the traded to get Wentz.....back with the trade of SAM BRADFFORD! Heck the Colts traded a first round pick for TRENT RICHARDSON. After the Herschel Walker trade...I guess teams don't want to take the chance of potentially being part of a punchline one day.....

It isn't about helping DAL......QBs like Romo just don't hit the market that often....he could be the missing piece to a playoff team or he could be a name to sell to the fans and other FAs

I think it all comes down to Romo's back......if he comes back this year and plays well it will lead to a lot of chaos in the off-season....it is a fun mid-week thread but we have the rest of this season to deal with

 

[KJJ]

We've reached the point where you're posting just to have the last word. Have at it. I just wanted to make the singular point that your guarantee wasn't really a guarantee of anything, so I'm content.

I don't post to have the last word but you're making an issue about something silly and pointing out Romo has trade value when I never denied he had trade value. I've made myself clear that no one will offer or trade a #1 pick for him.

 

[Idgit]

I don't post to have the last word but you're making an issue about something silly and pointing out Romo has trade value when I never denied he had trade value. I've made myself clear that no one will offer or trade a #1 pick for him.

You've made your opinion on that clear, yes.

 

[KJJ]

You are right to a degree......he is too valuable to trade but he is also too valuable to sit on the bench

Peyton was coming off a terrible neck injury and then took DEN to 2 SBs...doing it over IND probably messed that one up....they could have tagged him and demanded some picks OR and I said it at the time.....they could have kept Peyton and traded the rights to Luck for the WAS haul.....3 1sts and a 2nd

Add those picks to INDY and maybe they go to 2 SBs since DEN would be a lot weaker without Manning......3 years out of Peyton vs 5 years of Luck is tough but hindsight says different....

Vet QBs like Peyton, Brady, Brees and Romo just take their teams to another level....it is going to be a wild ride

Manning had 3 neck surgeries in a span of 19 months. He was due a $20M roster bonus that I believe the Colts would have had to eat even had they traded him. At 36 with no assurances that he could ever play again the Colts had to cut him. It was a somewhat similar situation the Cowboys had with Aikman. Troy was due a lot of money, had injury issues so we had to cut him. About 1/3 of the Colts salary cap was in dead money so they were having serious cap issues. They were a bad team and needed a young QB to build with. They couldn't risk paying Manning that bonus with the cap issues they had and with Luck available it made a very difficult decision and little easier. Had the Colts did what you're saying and kept Manning and traded the rights to Luck, Manning likely would have gotten killed behind their OL. Their OL has gotten Luck sacked 100 times the past 3 seasons. They wouldn't have a QB now had they kept Manning and passed on Luck.

Luck was one of the highest rated QBs to come out in years. it would have been foolish for the Colts to pay a 36 year old Manning who hadn't played in a year due to a serious neck injury that roster bonus with the cap issues they had and with no assurances he could still play and pass on Andrew Luck. Teams were willing to take the risk on Manning because he was a free agent and wouldn't cost them a draft pick. Denver was willing to take the gamble and pay Manning because they felt they were a QB away from a SB and they were right. Manning had 3 solid seasons in Denver, he wouldn't have been worth the risk and the serious cap ramifications the Colts would have had to endure paying him that roster bonus while passing up a great project like Andrew Luck. Do a google search and see if you can find anything that claims the Colts made a mistake by releasing Manning and drafting Luck.

 

[Nightman]

Manning had 3 neck surgeries in a span of 19 months. He was due a $20M roster bonus that I believe the Colts would have had to eat even had they traded him. At 36 with no assurances that he could ever play again the Colts had to cut him. It was a somewhat similar situation the Cowboys had with Aikman. Troy was due a lot of money, had injury issues so we had to cut him. About 1/3 of the Colts salary cap was in dead money so they were having serious cap issues. They were a bad team and needed a young QB to build with. They couldn't risk paying Manning that bonus with the cap issues they had and with Luck available it made a very difficult decision and little easier. Had the Colts did what you're saying and kept Manning and traded the rights to Luck, Manning likely would have gotten killed behind their OL. Their OL has gotten Luck sacked 100 times the past 3 seasons. They wouldn't have a QB now had they kept Manning and passed on Luck.

Luck was one of the highest rated QBs to come out in years. it would have been foolish for the Colts to pay a 36 year old Manning who hadn't played in a year due to a serious neck injury that roster bonus with the cap issues they had and with no assurances he could still play and pass on Andrew Luck. Teams were willing to take the risk on Manning because he was a free agent and wouldn't cost them a draft pick. Denver was willing to take the gamble and pay Manning because they felt they were a QB away from a SB and they were right. Manning had 3 solid seasons in Denver, he wouldn't have been worth the risk and the serious cap ramifications the Colts would have had to endure paying him that roster bonus while passing up a great project like Andrew Luck. Do a google search and see if you can find anything that claims the Colts made a mistake by releasing Manning and drafting Luck.

You say foolish....I say Super Bowl.......Manning in 2013 had 5500 yds and 55 TDs.....he obviously wasn't as bad as your portray it.......he played 4 seasons with DEN and threw 17000 yds and 140 TDs....he also got sacked 75 times in DEN, not exactly protected

Of course you will disagree, so send your wall of text, but I am done with this string

 

[KJJ]

You say foolish....I say Super Bowl.......Manning in 2013 had 5500 yds and 55 TDs.....he obviously wasn't as bad as your portray it.......he played 4 seasons with DEN and threw 17000 yds and 140 TDs....he also got sacked 75 times in DEN, not exactly protected

Of course you will disagree, so send your wall of text, but I am done with this string

You've said some things where it's obvious you didn't bother to do any research. The Colts didn't have the team Denver had and if the Broncos could have gotten Andrew Luck they would have taken him. Seeing you decided to respond to this post and ignore my other post that slammed everything you said earlier in this thread, allow me to refresh your memory. You claimed earlier that there were plenty of teams that would give up a #1 AND multiple picks for Romo. You then said you could name a dozen teams that would. When I asked you to name those dozen teams, you claimed you already did. When I checked your posts you only listed 8 teams and said everyone of them would trade for Romo BEFORE his injuries. lol You made no reference to any of them giving up a #1 pick for him, you began backing off on everything you said previously.

 

[DandyDon52]

Wow. Bradford was a shock thats for sure. Never know what other FO's are thinking.

Well so far they are loving bradford !! they are 4-0 with him at qb, and if he has a good season,
I think he will become their main qb, they wont go back to bridgewater.

I am kind of rooting for bradford, as he has never been in a good situation and was dumped by 2 teams, so if he goes on to win a SB
That would make the eagles and rams look kinda stupid.

 

[Section446]

because the jets need a real QB, and the muhammad contract its to expensive, for 1.5 sacks in 4 games, von miller in 4 games have 5.5 that its dominant

You realize that they are two guys that play two totally different positions, right?

 

[egn22]

Would you be open to trading him for a 1st and combining that with our other 1st to maneuver up to the top spot to draft Myles Garrett DE from Texas A&M?

We'd probably need to give up more than just two 1sts but we'd be coming away with a stud DE to pair up with DLaw and we'd potentially have Jaylon smith coming around by then as well.

Offense is set, and defense is well on its way.
Thoughts?

 

[WillieBeamen]

I would do the trade for the first, but not to move up for Myles. We have too many holes on this roster to be packaging picks.

 

[egn22]

I would do the trade for the first, but not to move up for Myles. We have too many holes on this roster to be packaging picks.

I hear you but im hearing comparisons of him to Von Miller and Khalil Mack. Seems like a can't miss prospect at a position that is incredibly difficult to find elite talent for.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

If we had 2 first im not trading both for any player that's not a QB. Would rather come away with DL and LB in first depending on value there

 

[ghst187]

I'd need more than just a first for Romo after seeing Bradford net more than that but generally in principle yes I'd agree with that as well as using the picks to move up for Garrett. Who knows where we'll end up drafting whether two firsts would get us high enough to get him.
But I'd want another pick or two and I'd want the suitor to take the entirety of Romo's contract and guaranteed money off our hands if that is possible.
In a case like that we'd end up with an amazing edge rusher, a few extra mid round picks plus our own picks, and enough money to sign ANY FA we wanted this offseason, the next offseason, and the one after that because both Dak and Zeke are still on rookie contracts (although Martin is due a big payday soon).
We could transform our defense drastically almost overnight with some young talent already in the fold (Jaylon coming back strong would be a coup).