NFL Trade Deadline

Las Vegas Raiders Discussion.
Born from RF.net ruins, resurrected as RF.com, now arriving at Raiderstation.
The #1 Las Vegas Raiders site on the web!
User avatar
LayneStaley
Posts: 4,523
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:29 pm
Has given High Fives: 346 times
Received High Fives: 878 times

NFL Trade Deadline

Unread post by LayneStaley »

Ok maybe this doesn’t need its own thread but the deadline is 5 weeks away. I know the next couple weeks will determine if we are buyers but let’s say we get to 5-2 do we make a move?

I really wish we still had Jakobi here but it sounds like a few guys might be available…

Brian Thomas Jr
Marvin Harrison Jr
Jerry Jeudy

Thoughts?
User avatar
Jeevo
SnakeMad Stork
Posts: 14,893
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:24 am
Location: Canada
Has given High Fives: 426 times
Received High Fives: 812 times

Unread post by Jeevo »

Jeevo wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2026 12:17 pm Early grade: SI gives the Vikings a B and the Raiders an A-.
ESPN - not Barnwell - Vikings A and Raiders B+

Despite posturing that they might hold Cousins, this was always the best move for the Raiders. Had they not dealt Cousins, he likely would have played a couple more games before they turned the keys over to Mendoza. Was keeping that plan worth a third-round pick and $10 million? Surely not.

There's an argument that starting Mendoza's career with games against the Seahawks and Broncos defenses will stunt his development. I don't really buy that, but if the Raiders are concerned they could play Aidan O'Connell for a few weeks and let Mendoza take over after, perhaps following their Week 13 bye. Either way, it made sense for them to get the third-round pick (and save the money).
User avatar
16 to 88
Posts: 19,228
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 10:23 pm
Location: Dog House
Has given High Fives: 450 times
Received High Fives: 309 times

Unread post by 16 to 88 »

Jeevo wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2026 1:28 pm ESPN - not Barnwell - Vikings A and Raiders B+

Despite posturing that they might hold Cousins, this was always the best move for the Raiders. Had they not dealt Cousins, he likely would have played a couple more games before they turned the keys over to Mendoza. Was keeping that plan worth a third-round pick and $10 million? Surely not.

There's an argument that starting Mendoza's career with games against the Seahawks and Broncos defenses will stunt his development. I don't really buy that, but if the Raiders are concerned they could play Aidan O'Connell for a few weeks and let Mendoza take over after, perhaps following their Week 13 bye. Either way, it made sense for them to get the third-round pick (and save the money).
What this fails to mention or intentionally leaves out is we acquired him for nothing and received a 3rd in return.
User avatar
mstrbass2000
SnakeThe AssassinBo KnowsMad StorkBowersFernandoJeantyMan from Mars
Posts: 2,409
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2026 10:49 am
Has given High Fives: 851 times
Received High Fives: 1115 times

Unread post by mstrbass2000 »

16 to 88 wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2026 2:14 pm What this fails to mention or intentionally leaves out is we acquired him for nothing and received a 3rd in return.
exactly, the raiders got max value (3rd rd pick) for a guy they got for 650k, plus the deal with the vikes clears the raiders of 10 million against the cap next yr too
User avatar
16 to 88
Posts: 19,228
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 10:23 pm
Location: Dog House
Has given High Fives: 450 times
Received High Fives: 309 times

Unread post by 16 to 88 »

As I had written before around here somewhere, I wonder if they are going to trade him, that they may believe or already realize that Maxx might be worth more in the offseason than now? New year, new hope and teams looking for a disruptive DE.
These users gave a High Five to the author 16 to 88 for the post:
GoodTimeCharlie
User avatar
raider_kin
SnakeThe AssassinThe JudgeGhostMad StorkPurple Drank
Posts: 4,446
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 8:01 am
Has given High Fives: 2726 times
Received High Fives: 1198 times

Unread post by raider_kin »

Attyla wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2026 1:13 pm Safe to say we did not. That level of trade would have been announced immediately.
Or leaked
User avatar
Attyla
Gold JacketSnake3 Mile Lyle
Posts: 52,866
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:31 pm
Has given High Fives: 1269 times
Received High Fives: 3050 times

Unread post by Attyla »

For the "we should have gotten more" crowd take into consideration that no other QB came off the board today so that should tell you that the QB market was very light. Vikes were literally competing against themselves which always makes it tougher. And I know some of you think Cousins was the crown jewel among available QBs and while that might be the case, the drop off after Cousins is really not that significant. While Cousins has some very nice stats, he is coming off one of his worst games in recent history, his good games came against some of the worst in the league and against good teams he has struggled. And there is that pesky 10M the Vikes are eating to get him. This is not Madden, there is no "trade" button that you can push. The Vikes and the Raiders did a deal both needed to do. That also factors into this. We needed to ditch the contract for next year and we needed to offload Cousins to get our guy onto the field without a safety net. Our run game and our receivers need a guy who can push the ball comfortably. This was a win all the way around.
These users gave a High Five to the author Attyla for the post:
GoodTimeCharlie
User avatar
GoodTimeCharlie
Posts: 5,095
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:26 pm
Location: Atop the commode
Has given High Fives: 1662 times
Received High Fives: 1699 times

Unread post by GoodTimeCharlie »

Xramfan wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2026 10:34 am I have no idea if Kamakazi is reputable or not but if dufus dumbf[raiders_icon]ck Davis is still hands on regarding personnel, Ill want to scream. I truly have been believing this year was a new day because Mark has backed off completely.
It’s the one area he’ll still meddle in imo. Not a shocker at all. Infuriating, yes, but just because he’s stepped away from f[raiders_icon]cking up the franchise doesn’t mean he got smarter. He is, and will always be, both in the players’s pockets and stupid.
User avatar
GoodTimeCharlie
Posts: 5,095
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:26 pm
Location: Atop the commode
Has given High Fives: 1662 times
Received High Fives: 1699 times

Unread post by GoodTimeCharlie »

NoThanksSir wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2026 10:54 am I'm sure plenty of teams have interest in Maxx. But to suggest that Mark Davis is personally holding up a trade for the guy doesn't really make sense considering he allowed the first trade to go down. I think the meddling narrative is largely a fabrication. The only thing we know for sure he's had a hand in is the deciding of head coaches. We were told Kubiak was Spytek's selection and Mark has admitted defeat with selecting coaches.. There's zero evidence he is telling Spytek that Maxx can't be traded.
Big difference is Maxx wanted to go then. Now he doesn’t.
User avatar
Rabidraider
SnakeMan from MarsSeabass
Posts: 2,978
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2023 4:45 pm
Has given High Fives: 2075 times
Received High Fives: 1314 times

Unread post by Rabidraider »

The 3rd rounder for Kirk is destined to be a guard to help help his little bro in the future. Call it a parting gift to his understudy.
User avatar
Attyla
Gold JacketSnake3 Mile Lyle
Posts: 52,866
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:31 pm
Has given High Fives: 1269 times
Received High Fives: 3050 times

Unread post by Attyla »

Cousins did his job
These users gave a High Five to the author Attyla for the post (total 2):
chucker, raider_kin
User avatar
Cruisin with Tooz
Posts: 1,808
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2024 11:43 am
Has given High Fives: 240 times
Received High Fives: 539 times

Unread post by Cruisin with Tooz »

16 to 88 wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2026 2:20 pm As I had written before around here somewhere, I wonder if they are going to trade him, that they may believe or already realize that Maxx might be worth more in the offseason than now? New year, new hope and teams looking for a disruptive DE.
2.5 years under contract is worth more than 2 years under contract. Youre also taking the risk of injury and/or declining stats over the next 1/2 year.
User avatar
DanKD
Posts: 3,802
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:18 pm
Has given High Fives: 44 times
Received High Fives: 1498 times

Unread post by DanKD »

Cruisin with Tooz wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2026 5:06 pm 2.5 years under contract is worth more than 2 years under contract. Youre also taking the risk of injury and/or declining stats over the next 1/2 year.
One change is you go from a handful of teams who think they can compete for the superbowl to 20 teams.
User avatar
16 to 88
Posts: 19,228
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 10:23 pm
Location: Dog House
Has given High Fives: 450 times
Received High Fives: 309 times

Unread post by 16 to 88 »

DanKD wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2026 6:56 pm One change is you go from a handful of teams who think they can compete for the superbowl to 20 teams.
Which was exactly what I was driving at. Maybe, just maybe they are thinking during the offseason they can get more for him because the entire league is starting over. New hope new year.
User avatar
chucker
Gold JacketThe JudgeBowersFernando
Posts: 17,206
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 7:53 am
Has given High Fives: 2249 times
Received High Fives: 2960 times

Unread post by chucker »

User avatar
chucker
Gold JacketThe JudgeBowersFernando
Posts: 17,206
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 7:53 am
Has given High Fives: 2249 times
Received High Fives: 2960 times

Unread post by chucker »

I don't know who the Chargers social media person is, but they have fun with it. It's the highlight of that team.
These users gave a High Five to the author chucker for the post (total 2):
Opoponax50, dred
Post Reply