Jerry Porter trade value (1 Viewer)

[LawFitz]

Okay, that seems a bit of a stretch, but hear me out...

- This year's draft class is very weak at WR compared to the last few years.

- This seems to be Javon Walker's value with a torn ACL. JP is healthy and they seem to be very similar WRs to me.

Porter has been an underachiever in Oakland and thus may not warrant such consideration, but do you really think guys like Santonio Holmes and Chad Jackson (who teams will use these types of picks on) are better at this point?

Seems to me that I'd rather have the underachieving, yet still young and very talented veteran over the completely unknown rookie at a similar price tag.

If they can get this kind of value the Raiders should jump on it. This would allow them to get another immediate starter on defense.

Yes I know there would be some cap acceleration, but they can overcome that and the hit would be off the books by next year.

In the mean time they have Doug Gabriel, Johnny Morant and maybe even Ron Curry to fill the void opposite Moss. Carlos Francis and Alvis Whitted are also around for further depth.

 

[Z-Dog]

If Porter brings a later first or early second, I'll vomit on my hat and eat it.

John Abraham was traded for #29... Jerry Porter hasn't even had a 1000 yard season. The most attractive thing about Porter is his low base salaries ($1 million through 2009). I figure Oakland is trying to package him to get that kind of value in a trade up, but I think he's actually worth about a late snd - simlar to what the Jets traded for Justin McCairens a few years back.

 

[BoltBacker]

Seems to me that I'd rather have the underachieving, yet still young and very talented veteran over the completely unknown rookie at a similar price tag.

If they can get this kind of value the Raiders should jump on it.

????If you'd rather have the "underachiever" then why should the raiders jump on it?

 

[massraider]

The difference between the cap acceleration and his salary would be a net -200 grand, so that's not a big deal. Straight up, I think they would top out at a 3rd rounder.

I think if he moves, it won't be a straight up deal for picks, I think it'd be more of a combo deal, if they moved up somewhere. Like their second and Porter to move into the first round, and maybe getting a lower rounder.

I'm not saying it's good value or whatever, but the raiders do have a history of moving into the late first.

 

[Donnybrook]

If Porter brings a later first or early second, I'll vomit on my hat and eat it.

John Abraham was traded for #29... Jerry Porter hasn't even had a 1000 yard season. The most attractive thing about Porter is his low base salaries ($1 million through 2009). I figure Oakland is trying to package him to get that kind of value in a trade up, but I think he's actually worth about a late snd - simlar to what the Jets traded for Justin McCairens a few years back.

Raiders would be responsible what is left of Porter's $ 10 M signing bonus. With the new salary cap, wouldn't this make Porter almost as cheap to sign as a late 1st rookie WR? I could see why a team that needs a WR would be interested in Porter at the price of a late first or early second. But I have also read that the last two years of his contract are voidable.

 

[LawFitz]

Seems to me that I'd rather have the underachieving, yet still young and very talented veteran over the completely unknown rookie at a similar price tag.

If they can get this kind of value the Raiders should jump on it.

????If you'd rather have the "underachiever" then why should the raiders jump on it?

Because the Raiders have several very capable backups to Porter and could use the pick on a defensive player where they have multiple holes.Teams with a lot less WR talent (Eagles, Falcons, Jets, Broncos, Chiefs) who would be considering spending their 1st or 2nd this year on a rookie WR, IMO should be more appealed by Porter as he has talent and NFL experience and will be more of a known commodity than a rook in a weak WR class. This is the main reason why I would see his value being so high. In the last two drafts, it would be very different.

Too bad the Broncos and Chiefs are in the same division... no way Davis trades Porter to a rival.

 

[LawFitz]

If Porter brings a later first or early second, I'll vomit on my hat and eat it.

John Abraham was traded for #29... Jerry Porter hasn't even had a 1000 yard season. The most attractive thing about Porter is his low base salaries ($1 million through 2009). I figure Oakland is trying to package him to get that kind of value in a trade up, but I think he's actually worth about a late snd - simlar to what the Jets traded for Justin McCairens a few years back.

Abraham wanted a much bigger salary than most wanted to pay, plus Porter would be compared to a very weak rookie WR class for a team making trade instead of using the pick on a WR.That's the only reason why I can see it happening.

I do agree though, that Abraham as a player should be much more valuable than Porter. But relative value with respect to the position and salary plays a huge role in the valuation process.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Wasn't TO only worth a 2nd rounder a while ago?

 

[Z-Dog]

If the salaries are comparable, wouldn't you rather have Sinorice Moss than Jerry Porter? Or how about one of those running backs late in the first? Jerry Porter is 27, which isn't old, but wouldn't you rather take an equally promising guy who is 22? Porter, btw, has two voidable years at the end of his deal, so he's only signed for two more years, and realistically, must be extended next year, at the latest (or paid $5.2 million and $6.4 million in the last years of his deal).