New York sent Al Bloodgood to Green Bay in March 1929 for…
New York sent Al Bloodgood to Green Bay in March 1929 for consideration that remains unidentified in the surviving transaction record. Because the Giants' return cannot be measured beyond that unknown compensation, their side is best treated as uncertain rather than as a documented gain or loss. The limited evidence fits the existing C grade.
Green Bay Packers Received
- player undisclosed consideration
- player Al Bloodgood
New York Giants Received
- player undisclosed consideration
Trade Analysis
The Exchange
Green Bay acquired Al Bloodgood from the New York Giants on March 14, 1929. Historical transaction sources identify Bloodgood as the player moving to the Packers, but the consideration going back to New York is not identified. That uncertainty limits how precisely either side's cost can be measured.
New York Giants Return
New York's compensation remains undisclosed in the surviving transaction record. With no supported player, pick, or cash amount to evaluate, there is no basis for assigning the Giants a stronger realized return than the evidence allows. The existing C grade reflects that uncertainty rather than assuming value that cannot be documented.
Green Bay Packers Return
Green Bay received Bloodgood, an established back who had already played for Kansas City, Cleveland, and the Giants. He later appeared in three games for the Packers in 1930 and was part of a championship season. His Green Bay tenure was short, so the acquisition produced some identifiable value without becoming a major long-term piece.
Value in Hindsight
The clearest fact is that Green Bay received a player who reached the field, while New York's compensation remains unknown. Bloodgood's brief Packers tenure prevents the deal from looking like a major win, and the missing return detail prevents a confident downgrade of the Giants' side.
Final Verdict
An Even Trade remains the most defensible result. Green Bay can point to limited on-field value from Bloodgood, but the unknown consideration sent to New York leaves too much uncertainty for a stronger conclusion. Matching C grades appropriately reflect a transaction with modest documented impact and incomplete compensation detail.