What is prime trade bait worth now? GMs name their price

GM No. 2: "I wouldn't have him if he was offered for free. He's like David Boston, Terrell Owens and Jeremy Shockey. They're all quality players, but you have to put up with all this other stuff, and, I'm sorry, I'm not interested. I'll take a lesser player in talent who has a solid work ethic and won't be a distraction. I'll be honest: I loved the statement Marvin Lewis made about Johnson after putting up with this nonsense for years. Now the Bengals are on the right path because if he comes back, goes to training camp, then starts acting up, they can get him for 'conduct detrimental.' Believe me, the Bengals have a file accumulated on this guy. But if you're asking me what I'd give for him, I wouldn't take him on under any circumstances. There's too much of a risk to the rest of the team."

GM No. 3: "I'm a little different. I might be willing to give up a first-rounder based on his production. But you absolutely must be sure he can fit into your locker room before you make a move. Talent never has been the question with him; it's all that other stuff that's the concern."

GM No. 4: "I wouldn't give you two cents for him because of the headaches he causes the organization, the people upstairs and the guys in the locker room. I don't argue that he's talented, but he brings too many problems with him for me to be remotely interested."

Roy Williams, safety, Dallas

He's a five-time Pro Bowl choice who's on the hot seat because, frankly, he might have trouble covering you. And he knows it. He went on Michael Irvin's radio show this spring and admitted that sometimes he wishes opponents wouldn't throw in his direction. Great. Maybe that's why one teammate conceded that Williams "gets a deer-in-the-headlights type of reaction" when it comes to defending the pass. Which makes you wonder: If Dallas were to shop Williams, what would it take to get him?

GM No. 1: "Probably a third-rounder. He's a box safety who's limited in coverage. In my estimation he's overrated because there are certain things he can't do -- though tackling isn't one of them. He's a good, physical player, but, like I said, he's limited. Now when you're looking at what you could get in the third round at safety, there's no comparison. He's better. Much better. Still, I wouldn't give up much more than that."

GM No. 2: "He's always been a talented player, but he's more of a linebacker than a safety who can cover. Someone like John Lynch. It's been documented how much trouble he has covering receivers, but he's very active and very physical. The guy has problems now, so how do you deal with it? The Cowboys do it by taking him off the field. From what I know of him he has no character issues, but now you have some of his teammates popping off and you wonder where it goes from here. But, I'll be honest with you, I don't know enough about the guy to know what I would give for him. All I know is he's limited, and that would make me wary."

GM No. 3: "I wouldn't want him because he can't cover. He has to find a defense that suits him because the closer he is to the defensive line the better he is, and the farther away he is the more he becomes a liability."

GM No. 4: "You'd have to fit him to the right scheme because he's more of a box safety than he is someone who can help you in the passing game. He's still young and healthy, so that's good. And if you find the right club -- say, like a New England, where Rodney Harrison was a good fit -- he can be productive and make big plays. If I'm that team I might be interested in dealing a low second- or a third-round pick."

Lito Sheppard, cornerback, Philadelphia

When the Eagles signed free agent Asante Samuels to a gazillion-dollar deal, Sheppard became expendable. The club tried to package him in trades before the draft but without luck, so now Sheppard returns to the Eagles as their third cornerback. But for how long? Philadelphia insists he plays there this year, but tell me the Eagles wouldn't jump if someone made them a decent offer. So what's your definition of decent?

GM No. 1: "I wouldn't give you anything for him. I mean that. He's a zone corner who can't play in Cover Two because he won't tackle. He doesn't like to hit. Plus, he gets hurt too much, and he's limited in his coverage skills. He reacts to things, he's instinctive and he has ball skills. But he hasn't played a complete season in the last three years, and he's someone who doesn't want to tackle."

GM No. 2: "Now this is a guy I like. I think he's a terrific player, and I'd be willing to give a third or a future second for him. I don't know that I would look at him as a starter, but he would be no worse than my third cornerback -- and in today's game I think you need three good ones. Anyway, I like him. The downside is that he wants a new contract, and that's a concern. So are the injuries.

One thing I always admired about teams like the Eagles and the Patriots is they do what they want to do, not what the player wants them to do. If the Eagles want to trade him, and they get the right price, he's gone. If they believe they can win with him, they'll keep him. And if they believe he's a distraction they'll cut him. But if you're going to make the deal you better have the contract settled first. No way would I make the trade, then try to work something out."

GM No. 3: "I wouldn't want him, and one reason is that he missed an average of five games over the last three years. So he's always getting hurt. But he's not physical, and he wants a new contract. So you're looking at $6 million to $7 million a year for a guy who plays 10 or 11 games a year and doesn't hit anybody? No thanks."

GM No. 4: "I look at Sheppard as a solid cornerback, maybe the 10th or 11th best guy out there, but he's not someone you build a defense around. Which means I wouldn't be able to pay what I think he's asking. But I would be willing to deal a third-rounder for him because he's young, and he can step in and start for you tomorrow. He's not a physical player, so that will limit his options. He's not going to play for a Tampa-2 defense where your cornerbacks must support the run. But he can play."

LaMont Jordan, running back, Oakland

OK, I admit it, Jordan belongs in another zip code than the others. But when the Raiders told him to stay away from their voluntary camps it was his cue to start looking for a new address. Oakland says it will entertain trade offers, but why trade for the guy when the Raiders almost surely will cut him? Better ask Denver, which is one team that should be interested. Anyway, let's say you don't want to risk losing him to another suitor; what do you pay to get him?

GM No. 1: "He's just a journeyman who's been hurt the last couple of years, so I'd be careful what I'd give for him. If I thought I needed someone for a rotation or someone to back up my starter I'd probably give a late-rounder for him -- a sixth- or seventh-round draft pick. If you're an 11-5 team he might make sense to come in and serve as the backup to the starter. But if you're asking me if you can win with him as your starting back, the answer is 'No.'"

GM No. 2: "He's not in the same conversation as these other guys. I look at him as a third-tier guy who didn't meet the challenge when the Raiders brought him in from the Jets. Plus, he's been hurt the last couple of years. I guess you might give a seventh-round pick for him if you were interested, but I'd wait for them to cut him."

GM No. 3: "I have no interest. There is nothing that excites me about him. But if there were, I still think I'd just wait for the Raiders to cut him. I wouldn't waste a draft pick on him."

GM No. 4: "He's really been a disappointment since coming over from the Jets. When he was there I thought he was a solid No. 2 to Curtis Martin. But, in my opinion, I'd rather have a young back as my second guy than someone like Jordan. He can't be your lead back. We know that. But he could fit in somewhere as the No. 2 guy. I just wouldn't be willing to pay anything higher than a late second-day pick for him. More than likely, I'd wait for the Raiders to cut him."