Last week, we asked our readers to weigh in on the trade of WR Lee Evans. (If you spent last week in Greenland or something, Evans was traded to Baltimore for a future fourth-round draft pick Friday.) You voted, and the results are in.
So do BLD readers approve of the trade?
Not according to our poll.
It was close, but 55% of voters disapproved of the trade, with 45% approving.
I have to say that I’m a bit surprised, as I actually thought even more people would disapprove. After all, for the second time in less than a year the Bills turned a first-round pick into a fourth-round pick. (Marshawn Lynch being the first instance of this happening.)
I was initially on the fence about the Evans trade, but the more I think about the more I approve. I realize that Evans was a good player and by all accounts an even better guy. Losing him for a “just” a fourth-round pick sucks.
However, here’s the real question you have to ask: Will not having Lee Evans really cost the Bills any games this year or next year? The Bills are very deep at wide receiver, and some combination of David Nelson, Donald Jones, Roscoe Parrish, and Naaman Roosevelt should be able to produce at a similar level to Evans. And even if there is some drop-off, it’s not like it will be the factor that keeps this from being a Super Bowl contender.
Also, trading Evans prevents the Bills from having to cut a young prospect. If Evans were still here, you’d have five receiver roster spots basically locked up (Evans, Stevie Johnson, Nelson, Jones, Parrish) and you’d have to cut most or all of these guys: Roosevelt, Marcus Easley, Craig Davis, and Felton Huggins.
Basically, at least one receiver had to go. Why not jettison the one with the biggest salary and most trade value? Makes sense to me.