Renting McNabb for one season makes no sense
If a team is interested in trading for Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, they don't just need coach Andy Reid or team president Joe Banner to make the deal go through.
| Analysis |
|
|
| Related links |
Clark JudgeThose two may have the power inside the Eagles building, and they control who goes or stays, but they don't have power in any potential McNabb trade.
McNabb does.
He is dictator in this decision.
Don't think so? Take a look at the facts. He has one year left on his contract and would become an unrestricted free agent after the season. Who in their right mind would trade draft picks to have a player for one year?
Rent a player just doesn't make sense.
If a team wants McNabb, it would likely cost them a second-round pick and most likely, that would be a high second. That's a high price to pay for a player you might only have for a year. McNabb then can basically veto a trade by not agreeing to a long-term deal with the supposed trading partner.
"It's just foolish to make a deal without a contract," one NFC personnel director said. "Why would you do that? It just doesn't make fiscal sense."
"It could be a one-and-done," said an AFC personnel director. "What's the point?"
|
|
| Sure, Donovan McNabb is a proven winner with a strong resume, but he might go elsewhere after one season with a new team. (Getty Images) |
The Oakland Raiders, rumored to be a trade partner, dealt a first-round pick to get Richard Seymour from the New England Patriots last year, even though he had one year left on his contract. Seymour played the one season with the Raiders, and they franchised him to keep him around this season.
Oakland could trade for McNabb without a new deal, have him play the season and then put the franchise tag on him in 2011. But there's a chance the tag might not be available based on the rules of CBA. If there is a tag, and McNabb got it, the price would be steep.
"Nobody knows what the heck Al Davis will do," said the AFC personnel director. "That's the unknown."
In a sampling of NFL personnel men, the answer was no from all of them as it related to making a trade for McNabb without a long-term contract.
"Most GMs wouldn't take that chance," said the AFC personnel director.
There is a chance that McNabb could go to a team reluctantly and then decide he likes it after the season. That's happened before with players. If he did, then maybe the team could work out a long-term deal with him to keep him off the market.
If he went to the Raiders, he would be working with Hue Jackson, the new offensive coordinator, who is a distant cousin of his. Jackson is a very likable coach so maybe McNabb would enjoy his year there and then decide to stay.
But then the Raiders would have to be willing to give him a lucrative long-term deal at the age of 34 -- and there's risk there as well.
The other factor is the value of draft picks; it's hard to part with them for a one-year rental.
Oakland did trade away a third-round pick to get linebacker Kamerion Wimbley from the Cleveland Browns this year. Wimbley only has one year left on his contract, so the Raiders aren't afraid to make that move, having done it now two consecutive years.
It would be hard to imagine another team making the same type of move with McNabb. That's why he's calling the shots.
Fletcher Smith, McNabb's agent, did not return a phone call Wednesday. No matter what happens, Smith will be getting McNabb a big, juicy contract in the next two years. Either a team trades for him and he agrees to one or he's an unrestricted free agent.
The Eagles could opt to keep him, and then he would bolt next season when Kevin Kolb takes over. That's unlikely since they wouldn't get anything if he left via free agency.
That's why they're peddling him now. The time is right.
The only problem is they aren't calling the shots.
McNabb essentially has veto power on any deal because renting a player for a year -- unless you're the Raiders -- just doesn't make sense.
