Getty BR's Brad Gagnon argued the Dallas Cowboys would have a hard time turning down a Pittsburgh Steelers trade proposal for CeeDee Lamb.
Bleacher Report’s Alex Ballentine suggested at the end of May that the Pittsburgh Steelers could pursue All-Pro wide receiver Justin Jefferson. But since then, Jefferson landed a massive contract extension with the Minnesota Vikings. But perhaps the Steelers could pursue another All-Pro receiver aiming to sign a new deal — CeeDee Lamb.
On June 6, Ballentine’s colleague at Bleacher Report, Brad Gagnon, argued the Steelers could offer the Dallas Cowboys a package they might not be able to refuse.
Gagnon proposed the Steelers trade third-year receiver George Pickens and a 2025 second-round pick to the Cowboys for Lamb.
“George Pickens is established in the NFL despite being just 23. Still, the Steelers could opt to maximize their weapons for Russell Wilson and Justin Fields,” wrote Gagnon.
“Because Pickens is coming off a 1,000-yard sophomore season, this would be slightly closer to a player-for-player deal, with Dallas saving money and gaining some draft capital and Pittsburgh doing everything in its power to get this right.
“This move makes quite a lot of sense considering the Steelers are in better cap shape than the Cowboys.”
Lamb made first-team All-Pro last season with a league-high 135 catches. He also had 1,749 receiving yards and 12 touchdowns.
Lamb has posted at least 74 receptions and 935 receiving yards in all four of his NFL seasons. He has also had more than 1,100 receiving yards each of the past three years.
But the 25-year-old didn’t attend Cowboys mandatory minicamp this week. Dallascowboys.com’s Nick Harris wrote that Lamb is hoping his holdout results in a new contract.
Lamb would be a significant upgrade for the Steelers offense. But is it the type of upgrade the Steelers need most?
Why a Steelers-Cowboys Trade Involving CeeDee Lamb Makes Sense
The trade package Ballentine proposed the Steelers send to Minnesota to land Jefferson also included Pickens. But it also required Pittsburgh to ship two draft selections, including a first-rounder, to Minnesota.
Gagnon’s suggested package is more realistic from the Steelers perspective. It makes sense on a couple different levels too.
The Cowboys have about $10.4 million in cap space remaining. They also have several key players, including quarterback Dak Prescott, who will be free agents next year.
That could make it tricky for Dallas to end Lamb’s holdout this summer with a new contract.
The Steelers are roughly $15.8 million under the salary cap, giving them a little more wiggle room to offer Lamb an extension. They also need to upgrade receiver. Pickens is the only wideout the Steelers currently have under contract who had more than 209 receiving yards last season.
A Lamb-Pickens swap would give the Steelers one of the best receivers in the league to boost their wideout room. It would also provide the Cowboys with a tremendously talented receiver still on an affordable rookie deal for two more years.
Pickens led the NFL with an 18.1 yards per reception average in 2023. He has recorded 115 catches for 1,941 receiving yards and 9 touchdowns over two seasons.
WR Trade Options for the Steelers That Don’t Involve George Pickens
While a Lamb-Pickens trade makes sense on some level, there are also reasons it probably won’t happen.
The top reason is it’s not the type of receiver upgrade the Steelers really need.
Sure, adding Lamb to the Pittsburgh offense would be tremendous. But the Steelers very likely prefer to keep Pickens. Taking Pickens out of the offense and adding Lamb would then make Lamb the only wideout in Pittsburgh who had more than 209 receiving yards.
A more ideal move would be for the Steelers to add a receiver to support Pickens or move Pickens back into the WR2 role.
The Cowboys probably aren’t too interested in trading Lamb anyway. A messy holdout could change the organization’s mind, but in April, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones made it clear that the team would be all-in for 2024.
Trading Lamb, even for Pickens, would be the opposite of going all-in.
