Detroit Lions quarterback Matthew Stafford should have gone about getting traded a different way. The team may have lost their negotiating leverage.
I’m not happy with Matthew Stafford asking for a trade. And if you’re a Detroit Lions fan, you shouldn’t be, either. Yes, I’m the guy who wanted the Lions to trade Stafford to the New England Patriots for Tom Brady three years ago. How silly of me. Stafford was still a spry 30-year-old with so much great football left in him, while Brady was a fading,40-year-old quarterback playing on his last legs. Silly, silly me. But this is different. I recently advocated trading Stafford, and I still do. But that action, and that decision, needed to come from the team, not the player. Why? It hurts the Lions’ negotiating power because there’s a huge difference between a team putting out feelers about trading their star quarterback and the star quarterback essentially demanding a trade. DEAL OR NO DEAL?: Ranking Stafford’s suitors, and what Lions might get in a trade SHAWN WINDSOR: Lions are about to set Stafford free. It may hurt, but makes sense JEFF SEIDEL: Trading Stafford sounds like ‚Same Old Lions‘ but that’s wrong Every potential trading partner now knows the Lions must get rid of Stafford, because the Lions can’t have a disgruntled QB leading their team, especially as a new regime embarks on establishing a kumbaya, all-for-one, new culture. Here’s how the trade process should have happened. The Lions should have quietly explored options for trading Stafford while indicating they would be happy to keep Stafford around as a bridge to a younger quarterback during this rebuild. Not only would that be plausible, it would also be a good idea. It would give the Lions better leverage, making it seem like they don’t have to trade Stafford. Now? Now they have to trade Stafford, and that kills their leverage. The big deadline comes five days after the new league year starts, tentatively set for March 17. That’s when Stafford is owed a $10 million roster bonus.
