Ray Reed Posted January 13, 2019 Share Posted January 13, 2019 Yeah, not a fan of trading Jimmy at all. God forbid Carr falls off next year (not absurd to think considering his age) or either him or Marlon get injured. Then we're relying on Averett or Canady as a starter on the perimeter. And while i like Averett a lot, i'd be muuuuch more comfortable with Jimmy manning that spot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baltimoreRebel Posted January 13, 2019 Share Posted January 13, 2019 7 hours ago, diamondbull424 said: I’ve honestly moved into the “keep Jimmy” camp anyway. Unless some team offers something crazy for him that is. He’s proven to be back to a high level. Probably not pre-injury, and he may never be back to that level, but he’s still at a high level. Hungry veterans are what make SB runs possible. Jimmy has been here, like Suggs, on some great defenses as a young player and wants to leave his mark as a Raven. I feel he sees this as HIS team and wants to make his own waves like the veterans did before him. That’s a powerful motivation to have. I’d rather we hone that and look to cultivate such motivation into a playoff run. He has more value to our squad considering his play dipped for the first half of last season and he’s been injury prone throughout his career. So I’d rather we just continue to keep him. I can’t see many players we sign providing better value. Perhaps Earl Thomas, but I get the feeling that he’s going to want to play for his home town team, the Dallas Cowboys. The only way I'm trading Jimmy is if the Jags have truly had enough of Jalen Ramsey and the whispers of trade rumours during the season had some legs. Offer up Jimmy and a Pick. Whatever it takes really. Highly unlikely but stranger things have happened. Jimmy is a more than suitable replacement for them if they do indeed want to move on from Jalen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusMcFife Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 On 1/12/2019 at 6:28 PM, Danand said: Quit acting like you're a victim of anything. Several of us made posts, where we said something along the lines of "based on similar trades (alex smith for instance) we think Flacco could net a 3-4 round pick and X team could very well be a possibility due to a current need". What you did was "we won't get what you guys think, because I read something on the internet". We made assumptions, you said "this is how it is". There is a difference. You then compared Bortles to Flacco, and even though fans in general thinks way too less of Flacco, comparing him to Bortles is an argument most will struggle to back up. Quit misrepresenting what I say, and I won't get annoyed. Your ability to summarize is poor. Anyhow, the Jags fans felt Flacco would have been a marginal improvement from Bortles, not worth cutting Bortles and taking on Flacco's big salary. They also need money free to lock-up their young defensive talent. But Jags posters were in a consensus that Bortles can be decent with good offensive line play, same as Flacco. So why use all that money on Flacco, especially when they are cash strapped? If the line isn't fixed, neither QB will succeed. If Flacco is willing to take a pay cut, then maybe his value would increase. But $18.5 mil is a tough swing for Jags, Dolphins, and Redskins given their cap now. Keenum looks like he's staying in Denver. So I'm not seeing much leverage on the Ravens side right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusMcFife Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 On 1/12/2019 at 6:44 PM, diamondbull424 said: 1. Well I guess that means that your suggestion of Flacco for Fournette wouldn’t work then since you’re assuming that the Jags would want to give up Fournette when they’re only willing to give up a 6th round pick. Thus making your suggestion and the assumption built on it quite absurd. One would then have to question why you would offer such an absurd suggestion? A suggestion similarly absurd as the suggestions you assume everyone else has been making to this point. Thus in the above scenario presented you convolute your own logic presented within this thread. Did that answer your question? 2. Agreed. Which is why I stated that I wasn’t a fan of the Jaguars as a potential landing spot for Flacco. You’re the one who brought up Flacco to the Jags for Fournette. And I responded to said statement. Well when Fournette got his guaranteed $ voided, some speculated he could be cut or traded. Same with Flacco, some think he will be either cut or traded. I've seen both linked to a 3rd round pick. So I think the range of value of each player is hard to determine right now. 3rd round pick to no pick at all is a wide range of outcomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diamondbull424 Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 27 minutes ago, AngusMcFife said: Well when Fournette got his guaranteed $ voided, some speculated he could be cut or traded. Same with Flacco, some think he will be either cut or traded. I've seen both linked to a 3rd round pick. So I think the range of value of each player is hard to determine right now. 3rd round pick to no pick at all is a wide range of outcomes. You were still assuming, like the rest of us. Thus regardless of your above explanation, using your prior established logic, it’s similarly invalidated. You either need to discount your logic or discount your excuse above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coordinator0 Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 39 minutes ago, AngusMcFife said: Quit misrepresenting what I say, and I won't get annoyed. Your ability to summarize is poor. Anyhow, the Jags fans felt Flacco would have been a marginal improvement from Bortles, not worth cutting Bortles and taking on Flacco's big salary. They also need money free to lock-up their young defensive talent. But Jags posters were in a consensus that Bortles can be decent with good offensive line play, same as Flacco. So why use all that money on Flacco, especially when they are cash strapped? If the line isn't fixed, neither QB will succeed. If Flacco is willing to take a pay cut, then maybe his value would increase. But $18.5 mil is a tough swing for Jags, Dolphins, and Redskins given their cap now. Keenum looks like he's staying in Denver. So I'm not seeing much leverage on the Ravens side right now. The thing here is Jags posters =/= Jags front office. Just like Ravens posters =/= Ravens front office. Actual teams end up making moves that fanbases don't agree with all the time. For what it's worth I don't think Bortles is a factor at all for Jacksonville. He's done there regardless of what other moves the Jags make at QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danand Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 5 hours ago, AngusMcFife said: Quit misrepresenting what I say, and I won't get annoyed. Your ability to summarize is poor. Anyhow, the Jags fans felt Flacco would have been a marginal improvement from Bortles, not worth cutting Bortles and taking on Flacco's big salary. They also need money free to lock-up their young defensive talent. But Jags posters were in a consensus that Bortles can be decent with good offensive line play, same as Flacco. So why use all that money on Flacco, especially when they are cash strapped? If the line isn't fixed, neither QB will succeed. If Flacco is willing to take a pay cut, then maybe his value would increase. But $18.5 mil is a tough swing for Jags, Dolphins, and Redskins given their cap now. Keenum looks like he's staying in Denver. So I'm not seeing much leverage on the Ravens side right now. My ability to summarize might be poor, but that doesn't take away the point. Some of us put out a scenario and discussed why that could happen. You then jumped in and said that won't happen, because you read something different on a fan board. If you can't see that, then I guess someone with a better ability to summarize might have difficulties as well explaining the difference. And yes, we all know there will be some cap management for a team interested in flacco, but with the increased cap space, it becomes easier for teams to fit players under the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berlin calling Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 imagine a team signing Flacco as bridge gap to cover a season while they develop Kyler Murray. would basically be his last season in Baltimore repeated. Groundhog day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danand Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 1 hour ago, berlin calling said: imagine a team signing Flacco as bridge gap to cover a season while they develop Kyler Murray. would basically be his last season in Baltimore repeated. Groundhog day. I think I wrote it somewhere else, but it will be exciting to see what market there is for Flacco and how he is viewed. As a veteran 3 year solution for a team in win now mode, as a bridge QB as you mentioned or as a veteran piece at QB for a team that is building for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavensfanRD Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Joe Flacco is a franchise QB that will play for another 10 years and win 4 more Superbowls. I seent it! I SEENT IT! *weeps... slowly* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danand Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 53 minutes ago, RavensfanRD said: Joe Flacco is a franchise QB that will play for another 10 years and win 4 more Superbowls. I seent it! I SEENT IT! *weeps... slowly* From reading around the web, it seems some of the teams "interested" is trying to set a discourse, where they are only interested in Flacco if he is released. This could indicate, that our FO will have to do some work to "create" the market for Flacco if we want draft capital from a trade rather than having to cut him. It would be preferable to trade him now, but if we have to wait and get a draft pick(s) for 2020 then I don't think it would be a problem for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp6488 Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 On 1/17/2019 at 2:26 AM, Danand said: From reading around the web, it seems some of the teams "interested" is trying to set a discourse, where they are only interested in Flacco if he is released. This could indicate, that our FO will have to do some work to "create" the market for Flacco if we want draft capital from a trade rather than having to cut him. It would be preferable to trade him now, but if we have to wait and get a draft pick(s) for 2020 then I don't think it would be a problem for us. Not sure if that's necessarily the case. If two teams are interested, then he'll be dealt for compensation. Also, as you mention, we have the flexibility that we don't have to trade/cut him before camp, which obviously helps our position. As far as cap, acquiring teams would essentially have two options: (1) roll with his current contract with base salaries of $18MM/$20MM/$24MM IIRC and no guarantees (2) turn his 2019 salary into bonus to fit him in if there's a tight cap. Ultimately his number is pretty reasonable for an acquirer (as they are freed of any dead money component). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.