[cardcrimson]

It almost certainly went something like this:

The Giants were offered ostensibly greater value than a compensatory draft pick if both guys didn't sign after getting qualifying offers. Why else would the Giants trade them if the trade offer wasn't better than the value of a QO compensatory pick would give them? Makes zero sense to trade otherwise and the buyers know this. But the Giants wanted a premium higher than any team was willing to pay.

I'd guess on a scale of a 1-10 price, the Giants wanted at least a 9 for Bum and they would have taken a 6 for Smith, but they weren't going to trade Smith if they kept Bum, or keep Bum if they traded Smith. The Giants were offered a 7 or 8 for Bum, but nothing more, so they walked away.  Let's assume for argument's sake, that a compensatory pick is valued at 5.

Translation: The Giants valued Bum way more than the market. This is exactly the problem the Giants have had that got them into the mess they are now in. They overvalue their players to their detriment, lots of times for sentimental reasons.  Bill Walsh and Bill Belichick would not approve, and neither do I.

Walsh always used to say that it was better to trade a player a year early than a year late, which led to him trading a 30 year old Ronnie Lott who promptly led the NFL in interceptions with eight in his first year with the Raiders.  Lott had half of his career forced fumbles after he left the 49ers.  He also had more annual tackles every single year after he was traded than in the four years prior to the trade.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/p...ttRo00.htm

Statistics. . . .Lott also played in an average of 15.75 games per year his last four seasons in the league, but only 11.75 in his last four seasons with the 49ers, so his season tackle stats are a bit misleading. Similarly, the Niners won an average of 12.75 games and two Super Bowls over that stretch, and probably weren't relying on safeties to make tackles. The Jets and Raiders won an average of 7.75 games while he played for them and methinks there's a good chance, their d-lines and linebackers weren't so hot. Finally, Lott's "approximate value" listed in the stats you referenced dropped pretty significantly after he left the Niners, especially after his first year with the Raiders.

[cardcrimson]

It almost certainly went something like this:

The Giants were offered ostensibly greater value than a compensatory draft pick if both guys didn't sign after getting qualifying offers. Why else would the Giants trade them if the trade offer wasn't better than the value of a QO compensatory pick would give them? Makes zero sense to trade otherwise and the buyers know this. But the Giants wanted a premium higher than any team was willing to pay.

I'd guess on a scale of a 1-10 price, the Giants wanted at least a 9 for Bum and they would have taken a 6 for Smith, but they weren't going to trade Smith if they kept Bum, or keep Bum if they traded Smith. The Giants were offered a 7 or 8 for Bum, but nothing more, so they walked away.  Let's assume for argument's sake, that a compensatory pick is valued at 5.

Translation: The Giants valued Bum way more than the market. This is exactly the problem the Giants have had that got them into the mess they are now in. They overvalue their players to their detriment, lots of times for sentimental reasons.  Bill Walsh and Bill Belichick would not approve, and neither do I.

Walsh always used to say that it was better to trade a player a year early than a year late, which led to him trading a 30 year old Ronnie Lott who promptly led the NFL in interceptions with eight in his first year with the Raiders.  Lott had half of his career forced fumbles after he left the 49ers.  He also had more annual tackles every single year after he was traded than in the four years prior to the trade.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/p...ttRo00.htm

Statistics. . . .Lott also played in an average of 15.75 games per year his last four seasons in the league, but only 11.75 in his last four seasons with the 49ers, so his season tackle stats are a bit misleading. Similarly, the Niners won an average of 12.75 games and two Super Bowls over that stretch, and probably weren't relying on safeties to make tackles. The Jets and Raiders won an average of 7.75 games while he played for them and methinks there's a good chance, their d-lines and linebackers weren't so hot. Finally, Lott's "approximate value" listed in the stats you referenced dropped pretty significantly after he left the Niners, especially after his first year with the Raiders.