Howie Roseman and Nick Sirianni spoke with the media on Tuesday, the typical pre-draft session where nothing truly interesting is said. Howie, however, was asked about trading Haason Reddick and did offer this:

“Great player. Haason had a great two years in Philadelphia, obviously. Camden kid, played at Temple, couldn’t have been more excited to sign him. So it’s bittersweet to lose a player and a person like that. As the offseason went along and we added Bryce (Huff), who we’re incredibly excited about, brought back Josh (Sweat), drafted Nolan Smith in the first round, B.G. came back, we have some young guys at that position we’re excited to develop – and through conversations with the Jets we felt like it was a win/win situation. But always hard to get rid of players and people like Haason.”

It’s a win/win in terms of getting younger and cheaper, sure. But trading your best pass rusher and maybe your best defensive player going into the season for a conditional third rounder that doesn’t cash for another two years isn’t going to be seen as a win/win for most of the fan base.

Howie was asked about that in a follow up question from Dave Uram at KYW:

Uram: “A follow up on Haason, you referred to it as bittersweet and a win/win, what do you think the upside is in trading Haason for a conditional pick a couple of years down the line?”

Roseman: “Well the pick’s not conditional, we’re getting a pick. So I don’t really think I understand the question.”

Uram: “From a third round to a second-round pick. So what do you think the upside is for trading Haason, with a year left in his deal, in his prime, for (inaudible)”

Roseman: “Well I think you’re asking a question in a vacuum without all the other factors. If we want to go into all of the factors that go into building the team, and the resources we put into each position, we can do that, but I don’t think the question’s fair and accurately describes the transaction.”

Huh? That answer makes no sense. He seemed annoyed by the question, which is completely legitimate and a good follow up to one of the biggest stories of the offseason. You traded one of your best players for a 2026 third rounder with a conditional attachment. What about the question is being asked “in a vacuum?” What is not fair about the question? Why not just say “we got an asset in return and some cap flexibility“? That’s a strange response from Roseman and is only going to fuel the thought that something else was going on between Reddick and the Eagles.

At face value, we know you can’t pay everyone, and Reddick was producing at a $20+ million level in the final years of his twenties. He turns 30 in September and Bryce Huff is about four years younger. Nolan Smith is a sophomore. Josh Sweat is 27. You gotta get younger and cheaper, even if you’re Howie Roseman and tacking on a bazillion void years to a cap-friendly deal.

I just don’t understand that answer. That’s an oddly combative answer to an innocuous question and off-brand for Howie.