Cleveland turned Spergon Wynn, Travis Prentice and a…
Cleveland turned Spergon Wynn, Travis Prentice and a seventh-round selection into a 2002 fifth-round pick. Minnesota needed immediate depth, but Wynn struggled in two starts, Prentice contributed little as a runner, and Chad Beasley provided no meaningful NFL return. Without assigning the fifth-rounder to a disputed downstream selection, Cleveland still extracted the stronger asset value.
Cleveland Browns Received
- pick 2002 5th round pick
Minnesota Vikings Received
- package Spergon Wynn, Travis Prentice and 2002 7th round pick (218th overall, Chad Beasley)
Trade Analysis
The Documented Exchange
On September 2, 2001, Minnesota sent a 2002 fifth-round pick to Cleveland for Spergon Wynn, Travis Prentice and a 2002 seventh-round pick. Pro Football Reference records the same package from both team perspectives, and the seventh-rounder became Chad Beasley at No. 218. The exact downstream identity of Cleveland’s fifth-round selection is not clean enough to attribute here, so the verdict rests on the documented asset and the production Minnesota actually received.
What Minnesota Received
The Vikings were buying inexpensive depth at two offensive positions, but the players supplied little on-field value. Wynn appeared in three games and started twice in 2001. He completed 48 of 98 passes for 418 yards, one touchdown and six interceptions, producing a 38.6 passer rating. Prentice played 14 games but carried only 14 times for 13 yards, although he scored two short rushing touchdowns. Beasley, the seventh-round selection included in the package, did not develop into a meaningful NFL contributor.
What Cleveland Received
Cleveland consolidated three low-value pieces into a fifth-round selection. Even without attaching that selection to a specific later player, a fifth-round choice carried more flexible roster-building value than the seventh-rounder Cleveland surrendered. More importantly, the Browns did not lose meaningful production: Wynn and Prentice were already expendable, and neither became a productive Viking. The trade therefore functioned as a successful asset-upgrade move for Cleveland.
Final Verdict
Minnesota’s need for depth made the gamble understandable, but the return failed to solve either position in a meaningful way. Cleveland gave up players it could spare, moved down only one late pick in the accompanying draft compensation, and came away with the stronger selection. The Browns earn a B for converting expendable depth into useful draft capital. Minnesota receives a D+ because the acquired players produced too little to justify surrendering the fifth-rounder.