Which trade targets make sense for the Packers (and which ones don't)?

The NFL trade deadline has rarely spurred much activity in Green Bay, but the Packers do have some viable options this year.

For years, the Green Bay Packers would generate more jokes than deals as the NFL trade deadline approached. Former head coach Mike McCarthy summarized the lack of activity best during an exchange with local reporters in 2016.

"I thought it was next week, no?" McCarthy said when asked about the team's conversations about the deadline.

"No," the reporter responded.

"That's what it's like," McCarthy quipped before cracking a smile.

The Packers haven't technically ignored the trade deadline. They made a few such deals like the 2010 acquisition of safety Anthony Smith. However, the most notable trades involved players leaving Green Bay such as the pre-deadline departures of Ha Ha Clinton-Dix in 2018 and Rasul Douglas last season.

Still, the Packers have changed with the times even if that development has come more slowly than it has for other franchises. They once abstained from the first wave of unrestricted free agency, especially under former general manager Ted Thompson's watch. His predecessor, Brian Gutekunst, has taken the plunge on multiple occasions, most recently this past March when he paid top-of-the-market money to land star safety Xavier McKinney.

So, while the Packers haven't historically felt the same compulsion to make deadline moves as others, one shouldn't dismiss the idea entirely. They have surprised before and, at some point, they will again.

At the same time, not every player who might become available makes sense for Green Bay. Some will carry a higher price than the team can justify. Others might make sense in the short run but could create complications down the line due to an onerous contract, blocking a younger player from snaps, or both. The Packers must consider these factors and others with any potential trade.

With all that in mind, the Packers do have some viable options as the 2024 trade deadline approaches, just not necessarily the ones that will fill the A block of Sports Shouting.

Unrealistic and/or infeasible trade targets

Maxx Crosby

The Las Vegas Raiders, currently 2-6 and without a clear path to contention in the near future, might not have a good reason to hold onto Maxx Crosby. Though not an old player at 27, he probably won't remain in his prime by the time the team becomes relevant again. Crosby might also demand a new contract as soon as next offseason, putting Las Vegas in a bind.

That doesn't mean the Raiders will trade him, however. They stubbornly hung onto Davante Adams throughout the offseason when the All-Pro wideout could have garnered the maximum possible return, and the team's decision-makers seem even more committed to retaining Crosby. One can poke holes in that approach, but Las Vegas doesn't seem willing to budge.

But even if Crosby did become available, that doesn't make him a reasonable trade target for the Packers. He would significantly raise their 2024 costs as well as those over the next two seasons, and while he has played more than well enough to validate that cost in a vacuum, much of their future salary cap space needs to go toward extensions for young cornerstones like Zach Tom.

For those reasons and more, don't expect Crosby to show up at 1265 Lombardi Ave. (or anywhere else) in the coming days.

Myles Garrett

No matter how many internet rumors circulate about possible Myles Garrett trades or how badly various fan bases would love to see him moved, the Cleveland Browns simply do not have adequate incentive to comply. Garrett competes for the Defensive Player of the Year award on an annual basis, has plenty of good football ahead of him, and remains under contract for multiple seasons beyond 2024. None of that adds up to a compelling reason for the Browns to trade him.

Tre'Davious White

Unlike Crosby and Garrett, Tre'Davious White has actually received permission from his current team to seek a trade. A plausible scenario exists where the Los Angeles Rams receive a late-round pick or player of comparable value in exchange for the veteran cornerback.

From the Packers' perspective, the case for a White trade more or less ends there. The veteran hasn't played since Week 4, spending the subsequent three games as a healthy scratch. Given the state of the Rams' secondary, the coaching staff's decision to leave White inactive speaks volumes.

Green Bay also presumably wouldn't sacrifice an asset to bring in a corner with White's injury history. He spent part of each of the previous three seasons on either injured reserve or the physically unable to perform list, appearing in just 21 out of a possible 57 games including the playoffs.

Even if the Packers need reinforcements at cornerback -- and they might -- White doesn't check enough boxes at this point in his career.

Reasonable trade targets