What is prime trade bait worth now? GMs name their price

Simple question: Let's say you're a team that is interested in Miami's Jason Taylor or Cincinnati's Chad Johnson. What would you be willing to pay for them?

The Dolphins dangled Taylor before the draft, looking for a middle-to-low first-round pick in return, and found no buyers. The Bengals haven't done anything with Johnson, other than tune out his rants on radio-talk shows and insist he's not for sale.

But let's say he is: What would you offer to make him yours?

Jason Taylor: How much tread is one or two seasons worth? (US Presswire)

I posed that question to a handful of general managers and personnel directors, only I didn't limit it to Ocho Cinco. I threw in Taylor, Philadelphia's Lito Sheppard, Dallas Cowboys safety Roy Williams and Oakland running back LaMont Jordan -- players who either are on their way out or could be headed in that direction.

Here's what they said:

Jason Taylor, defensive end, Miami

Miami said it wasn't shopping Taylor before the draft when, in fact, it was. So much for the credibility of Bill Parcells. Now, the question is: What's in Taylor's future? Dolphins coach Tony Sparano says he wants Taylor back, but Sparano isn't the obstacle here; Parcells is. So what do you offer to get Taylor away from him?

GM No. 1: "If I were a team that finished 9-7, 10-6 or 11-5, was looking to take the next step and thought this guy could put me over the top, I'd probably be willing to give up a third-rounder. He's starting to drop off, but he could still help someone. The problem is that it would be for one or two years, and that's it. So he's not going to help someone in the middle of the pack or someone trying to build for the future. He can still be a dominant player, but not for long."

GM No. 2: "You're talking to the wrong guy. I wouldn't be interested in him because I don't think he's a player I want in my locker room. Second, he's talking about playing one or two more years. So that's an issue. Yeah, he can still play, but I've never really trusted him. He can rush the passer, but I'm not sure he's not a disruptive force on your team -- someone who works quietly behind the scenes in the locker room. And those guys are dangerous to me.

I can't imagine Bill Parcells paying him $8 million for one year, which means I can't envision him playing there this year. But I don't know where he goes. I guess if you're a team that's near the top you make a push for him, but I wouldn't give anything higher than a fourth-rounder. I think his making that statement about playing one year was a mistake because it's going to limit the teams interested in him. And I wouldn't be one of them."

GM No. 3: "I'd probably be willing to give up a third-round pick. You have to remember you're getting a player who averages 12½ sacks the past eight years. But he's also someone who's a leader and who has the intangibles you're looking for. You're going to get a good football player. My only question would be: How long do you have him?"

GM No. 4: "From what I understand, he wants to play only one more year, so that skews things. That would temper my interest, which means I wouldn't pay anything higher than a fifth-rounder for him. The guy can still play and is effective going after the passer off the edge. But because I'd have to pay him as one of the top five defensive ends in the game, it would temper my interest in terms of what I would give up for him."

Chad Johnson, wide receiver, Cincinnati

He says he will attend next weekend's minicamp. Nope, check that, he now says he might not. Perfect. You never know what's going on with Chad Johnson, but, guaranteed, whatever it is it's always about Chad Johnson. Sure, he's a talented wide receiver, but he's also a pain in the keister. He reminds me of that Dolly Parton quote: "The way I see it, if you want the rainbow you gotta put up with the rain." So how much rain are you willing to take?

GM No. 1: "I wouldn't touch this guy with a 10-foot pole. Now, that doesn't mean I don't think he's an elite receiver. He is. He's one of the top five in the game. But it's what he brings to your locker room with his antics and his attitude. It's all about him. Now if you're someone like New England with a veteran locker room that can handle a guy like this, yeah, it might be worth a shot. He's a Randy Moss-Terrell Owens kind of guy, if you know what I mean, so I could see someone that thought it could handle him giving up a two (second-round pick) for him. But you have to know what you're getting, and that's a disruptive, talented, productive jerk."

GM No. 2: "I wouldn't have him if he was offered for free. He's like David Boston, Terrell Owens and Jeremy Shockey. They're all quality players, but you have to put up with all this other stuff, and, I'm sorry, I'm not interested. I'll take a lesser player in talent who has a solid work ethic and won't be a distraction. I'll be honest: I loved the statement Marvin Lewis made about Johnson after putting up with this nonsense for years. Now the Bengals are on the right path because if he comes back, goes to training camp, then starts acting up, they can get him for 'conduct detrimental.' Believe me, the Bengals have a file accumulated on this guy. But if you're asking me what I'd give for him, I wouldn't take him on under any circumstances. There's too much of a risk to the rest of the team."

GM No. 3: "I'm a little different. I might be willing to give up a first-rounder based on his production. But you absolutely must be sure he can fit into your locker room before you make a move. Talent never has been the question with him; it's all that other stuff that's the concern."

GM No. 4: "I wouldn't give you two cents for him because of the headaches he causes the organization, the people upstairs and the guys in the locker room. I don't argue that he's talented, but he brings too many problems with him for me to be remotely interested."

Roy Williams, safety, Dallas

He's a five-time Pro Bowl choice who's on the hot seat because, frankly, he might have trouble covering you. And he knows it. He went on Michael Irvin's radio show this spring and admitted that sometimes he wishes opponents wouldn't throw in his direction. Great. Maybe that's why one teammate conceded that Williams "gets a deer-in-the-headlights type of reaction" when it comes to defending the pass. Which makes you wonder: If Dallas were to shop Williams, what would it take to get him?

GM No. 1: "Probably a third-rounder. He's a box safety who's limited in coverage. In my estimation he's overrated because there are certain things he can't do -- though tackling isn't one of them. He's a good, physical player, but, like I said, he's limited. Now when you're looking at what you could get in the third round at safety, there's no comparison. He's better. Much better. Still, I wouldn't give up much more than that."

GM No. 2: "He's always been a talented player, but he's more of a linebacker than a safety who can cover. Someone like John Lynch. It's been documented how much trouble he has covering receivers, but he's very active and very physical. The guy has problems now, so how do you deal with it? The Cowboys do it by taking him off the field. From what I know of him he has no character issues, but now you have some of his teammates popping off and you wonder where it goes from here. But, I'll be honest with you, I don't know enough about the guy to know what I would give for him. All I know is he's limited, and that would make me wary."

GM No. 3: "I wouldn't want him because he can't cover. He has to find a defense that suits him because the closer he is to the defensive line the better he is, and the farther away he is the more he becomes a liability."

GM No. 4: "You'd have to fit him to the right scheme because he's more of a box safety than he is someone who can help you in the passing game. He's still young and healthy, so that's good. And if you find the right club -- say, like a New England, where Rodney Harrison was a good fit -- he can be productive and make big plays. If I'm that team I might be interested in dealing a low second- or a third-round pick."

Lito Sheppard, cornerback, Philadelphia

When the Eagles signed free agent Asante Samuels to a gazillion-dollar deal, Sheppard became expendable. The club tried to package him in trades before the draft but without luck, so now Sheppard returns to the Eagles as their third cornerback. But for how long? Philadelphia insists he plays there this year, but tell me the Eagles wouldn't jump if someone made them a decent offer. So what's your definition of decent?

GM No. 1: "I wouldn't give you anything for him. I mean that. He's a zone corner who can't play in Cover Two because he won't tackle. He doesn't like to hit. Plus, he gets hurt too much, and he's limited in his coverage skills. He reacts to things, he's instinctive and he has ball skills. But he hasn't played a complete season in the last three years, and he's someone who doesn't want to tackle."

GM No. 2: "Now this is a guy I like. I think he's a terrific player, and I'd be willing to give a third or a future second for him. I don't know that I would look at him as a starter, but he would be no worse than my third cornerback -- and in today's game I think you need three good ones. Anyway, I like him. The downside is that he wants a new contract, and that's a concern. So are the injuries.

One thing I always admired about teams like the Eagles and the Patriots is they do what they want to do, not what the player wants them to do. If the Eagles want to trade him, and they get the right price, he's gone. If they believe they can win with him, they'll keep him. And if they believe he's a distraction they'll cut him. But if you're going to make the deal you better have the contract settled first. No way would I make the trade, then try to work something out."

GM No. 3: "I wouldn't want him, and one reason is that he missed an average of five games over the last three years. So he's always getting hurt. But he's not physical, and he wants a new contract. So you're looking at $6 million to $7 million a year for a guy who plays 10 or 11 games a year and doesn't hit anybody? No thanks."

GM No. 4: "I look at Sheppard as a solid cornerback, maybe the 10th or 11th best guy out there, but he's not someone you build a defense around. Which means I wouldn't be able to pay what I think he's asking. But I would be willing to deal a third-rounder for him because he's young, and he can step in and start for you tomorrow. He's not a physical player, so that will limit his options. He's not going to play for a Tampa-2 defense where your cornerbacks must support the run. But he can play."

LaMont Jordan, running back, Oakland

OK, I admit it, Jordan belongs in another zip code than the others. But when the Raiders told him to stay away from their voluntary camps it was his cue to start looking for a new address. Oakland says it will entertain trade offers, but why trade for the guy when the Raiders almost surely will cut him? Better ask Denver, which is one team that should be interested. Anyway, let's say you don't want to risk losing him to another suitor; what do you pay to get him?

GM No. 1: "He's just a journeyman who's been hurt the last couple of years, so I'd be careful what I'd give for him. If I thought I needed someone for a rotation or someone to back up my starter I'd probably give a late-rounder for him -- a sixth- or seventh-round draft pick. If you're an 11-5 team he might make sense to come in and serve as the backup to the starter. But if you're asking me if you can win with him as your starting back, the answer is 'No.'"

GM No. 2: "He's not in the same conversation as these other guys. I look at him as a third-tier guy who didn't meet the challenge when the Raiders brought him in from the Jets. Plus, he's been hurt the last couple of years. I guess you might give a seventh-round pick for him if you were interested, but I'd wait for them to cut him."

GM No. 3: "I have no interest. There is nothing that excites me about him. But if there were, I still think I'd just wait for the Raiders to cut him. I wouldn't waste a draft pick on him."

GM No. 4: "He's really been a disappointment since coming over from the Jets. When he was there I thought he was a solid No. 2 to Curtis Martin. But, in my opinion, I'd rather have a young back as my second guy than someone like Jordan. He can't be your lead back. We know that. But he could fit in somewhere as the No. 2 guy. I just wouldn't be willing to pay anything higher than a late second-day pick for him. More than likely, I'd wait for the Raiders to cut him."