bostonfred
Footballguy
Spike what it comes down to is this.
Cooks > a late first and a future second.
You could value Goff more than a late first and value cooks a lot less than most people here and it would still be a little overpay - a lot of people here would prefer cooks to 1.5 and a future second, and you'd be crazy to take Goff at 1.5 if it's not a super flex.
You've got a strong team and you've earned the right to overpay for a guy you really want. But the flip side of that is that you don't have to decide if you really want goff until you see him play. Maybe you really want Wentz, or you really want tannehill, or some other guy who emerges this year. You can almost certainly trade cooks for any of them after a good year. The real question isn't whether it's a close trade, but why commit to the rookie before they do well. It's not that it's necessarily a really bad trade, it's that it's an unnecessarily kind-of-bad trade.
Cooks > a late first and a future second.
You could value Goff more than a late first and value cooks a lot less than most people here and it would still be a little overpay - a lot of people here would prefer cooks to 1.5 and a future second, and you'd be crazy to take Goff at 1.5 if it's not a super flex.
You've got a strong team and you've earned the right to overpay for a guy you really want. But the flip side of that is that you don't have to decide if you really want goff until you see him play. Maybe you really want Wentz, or you really want tannehill, or some other guy who emerges this year. You can almost certainly trade cooks for any of them after a good year. The real question isn't whether it's a close trade, but why commit to the rookie before they do well. It's not that it's necessarily a really bad trade, it's that it's an unnecessarily kind-of-bad trade.
)is a good return for him IMO