Arizona received Joe Coomer in the December 1946 exchange.…
Arizona received Joe Coomer in the December 1946 exchange. The surviving professional record does not show the Cardinals extracting a substantial, durable advantage from Coomer, so the return is best treated as modest rather than inflated by uncertain later outcomes. That result supports a C- grade and fits an even overall verdict.
Arizona Cardinals Received
- player Joe Coomer
Pittsburgh Steelers Received
- other rights to Joe Magliolo
Trade Analysis
The Exchange
On 1946-12-16, Arizona Cardinals and Pittsburgh Steelers completed an exchange in which Arizona Cardinals received Joe Coomer, while Pittsburgh Steelers received rights to Joe Magliolo. Both sides obtained identifiable football value, so the hindsight comparison turns on what those pieces actually produced after the move rather than on the number of names or selections in the package. The later careers and roster roles provide the clearest way to separate the returns.
Arizona Cardinals Return
Arizona received Joe Coomer in the December 1946 exchange. The surviving professional record does not show the Cardinals extracting a substantial, durable advantage from Coomer, so the return is best treated as modest rather than inflated by uncertain later outcomes. That result supports a C- grade and fits an even overall verdict. The grade reflects realized contribution, role, and duration rather than the apparent size of the package on the transaction date.
Pittsburgh Steelers Return
Pittsburgh received the rights to Joe Magliolo. Those rights likewise did not turn into a clearly superior long-term Steelers result. The transaction is historically identifiable, but neither side produced enough sustained value to create a persuasive winner. That result supports a C- grade and fits an even overall verdict. The comparison gives weight to actual professional contribution and does not treat a larger asset count as automatically more valuable.
Value in Hindsight
Older transactions can tempt hindsight to fill gaps with assumptions. Here the cleaner conclusion is restraint: both clubs received legitimate consideration, yet neither return became significant enough to separate the teams meaningfully. Looking back at the completed careers and downstream outcomes makes the relative value clearer than it was on the day of the exchange.
Final Verdict
The trade is even. Both clubs receive C- grades because each obtained a real asset without producing a notable long-term payoff. The grades are intentionally scaled to the modest size of the transaction and the strength of the documented on-field return.