NFL Trade Verdict

Pittsburgh and the Cardinals exchanged Gern Nagler and Ken…

Pittsburgh and the Cardinals exchanged Gern Nagler and Ken Hall around September 2, 1959, amid a quick sequence of late-summer player movement. Historical player records support the swap but do not reveal a durable value gap between the two returns. With neither side gaining a clearly superior long-term payoff, an Even Trade and matching C grades remain appropriate.

Trade Analysis

The Exchange

Pittsburgh and the Cardinals completed a Gern Nagler-for-Ken Hall exchange in early September 1959. The player histories support the transaction, although Hall's rapid movement around that period creates some adjacent-day ambiguity in the chronology. That timing wrinkle does not change the basic identity of the deal or justify splitting it into multiple trades.

Arizona Cardinals Return

Pittsburgh and the Cardinals exchanged Gern Nagler and Ken Hall around September 2, 1959, amid a quick sequence of late-summer player movement. Historical player records support the swap but do not reveal a durable value gap between the two returns. With neither side gaining a clearly superior long-term payoff, an Even Trade and matching C grades remain appropriate.

Pittsburgh Steelers Return

The Cardinals received Ken Hall as Pittsburgh acquired Gern Nagler in the 1959 exchange. The surrounding player histories contain slight timing differences, but the underlying swap is supported. Neither Hall nor Nagler created enough sustained value for his new club to establish a decisive winner, so the Cardinals receive a C alongside Pittsburgh's C in an Even Trade.

Value in Hindsight

This is the kind of smaller historical exchange where restraint matters. Both clubs received a documented player, the surrounding chronology has minor variance, and neither return became sufficiently important to separate the teams by a full grade tier. The evidence supports the trade itself much more strongly than it supports a dramatic winner.

Final Verdict

Even Trade. The Cardinals receive a C and Pittsburgh receives a C. The matching grades reflect two modest, supportable returns and avoid manufacturing a winner where the realized football value remained close.

Sources