TransientTexan Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 4 minutes ago, snackattack said: Is this the case? I thought he had a $10M salary with about $2M guaranteed from us. If we traded him wouldnt the receiving team owe the full $10M, or would we have to pay the guaranteed amount? The guaranteed amount was already paid by GB in 2015 when he signed the contract, so it stays on GB’s cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBobGray Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 2 minutes ago, skibrett15 said: except that players with active FA markets are consistently dealt for draft picks in order to ensure that team gets the player. There are 4 teams right now disappointed Mike Daniels didn't pick them. That's your leverage - there's only 1 mike daniels and all these teams have cap room. All these teams might get a compensatory pick next year when daniels sigs a multi-year deal. Well this is not true at all. Players are very rarely dealt for draft picks, and you can count the number of 30+ year old players with a 10 mil cap hit traded for picks on one hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted July 26, 2019 Share Posted July 26, 2019 2 minutes ago, MrBobGray said: Yeah, and who wanted to pay Daniels that plus give up draft picks, that will each be incredibly cheap players for 4+ years? Why are we still discussing this? If Green Bay replaces his production no problem, it doesn't matter. If they don't they messed up. What is there left to talk about? again, you don't have to respond if you don't want to discuss. One of the teams that wanted to pay daniels 9.1+ and didn't land him, presumably, would be willing to give up a later round pick to ensure that they landed him. many teams often trade late round picks for players who are not 22-25. It's because the players they acquire in the deal are accomplished NFL players they believe will help their team. These teams choose to have a mix of rookies and veteran players, and are aware of the many undrafted free agents who are young and can take the similar salary slot of a 5th-7th round pick should such a salary be required to make the cap work. Do not attribute the number of words given to this debate to signify its relative importance to the team. The decision is somewhat marginal (moving on from daniels in some capacity is a good decision long term which sacrifices some short term upside). But the number of words devoted is simply due to the disagreement between myself and others as to whether or not the failure to trade him represents a failure by the FO. I say yes. Some say no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 6 minutes ago, MrBobGray said: Well this is not true at all. Players are very rarely dealt for draft picks, and you can count the number of 30+ year old players with a 10 mil cap hit traded for picks on one hand. 8 mil. I've already detailed the players dealt on expiring deals in 2019 a few pages back. Ryan Tannehill and the OT from Pitt to Ari are perfect age 30+ examples in the past 3 months. The fact that he is 30 is of almost no relevance to the conversation unless you think this player is good enough to use a franchise tag on to ensure you can extend him. I challenge anyone to find an example of a player who was released in the last year of their contract for cap purposes and then went on to sign for a higher deal than the cap savings achieved by the releasing team. I'm not sure it's ever happened! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg C. Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 4 minutes ago, skibrett15 said: I challenge anyone to find an example of a player who was released in the last year of their contract for cap purposes and then went on to sign for a higher deal than the cap savings achieved by the releasing team. I'm not sure it's ever happened! That does seem highly unusual, although I guess it's debatable whether it makes the Packers look bad or the Lions look bad. Maybe it's just a product of both teams reworking their rosters and changing their priorities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 31 minutes ago, skibrett15 said: this part is just wrong. What detroit paid daniels IS what he's worth. It's the only measure of what he's worth right now which indicates his trade value. Not his injury history, not his pro bowls, not his scheme fit with GB. I think you are associating contract value with trade value. They are not the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 If there are 13 teams that thought they could lure Mike Daniels for free, but decided they didn't need to trade a draft pick to get his rights, how did Gute blow it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snackattack Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 5 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said: If there are 13 teams that thought they could lure Mike Daniels for free, but decided they didn't need to trade a draft pick to get his rights, how did Gute blow it? I think this is kinda where im coming down on this. It seems odd that a player couldnt be traded but ended up making more money, but then again its the lions that paid him and maybe they never wanted to trade us anything regardless of whether they were ok with a 8 or 9 million cap hit for him. Other teams interested in him but not biting on any trades means they thought they could have paid him less and signed him off the street. im sad to see him go and dont really like the timing for a few reasons, but hope this means blake and/or kenny are getting locked up soon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 @skibrett15 Do you know if teams were willing to both trade a pick AND take on the Daniels $8+M contract? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kepler Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 4 minutes ago, squire12 said: @skibrett15 Do you know if teams were willing to both trade a pick AND take on the Daniels $8+M contract? Yes of course he knows. He knows for really sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 1 hour ago, skibrett15 said: 8 mil. I've already detailed the players dealt on expiring deals in 2019 a few pages back. Ryan Tannehill and the OT from Pitt to Ari are perfect age 30+ examples in the past 3 months. The fact that he is 30 is of almost no relevance to the conversation unless you think this player is good enough to use a franchise tag on to ensure you can extend him. I challenge anyone to find an example of a player who was released in the last year of their contract for cap purposes and then went on to sign for a higher deal than the cap savings achieved by the releasing team. I'm not sure it's ever happened! It happened, I remember it. Because I bet someone it would. Maybe 3 years back. Lemme see if I can figure it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 clearly they didn't get an offer otherwise they'd have done the deal right? I'm not sure what you mean by difference in contract value vs trade value? Fit/scheme things? The contact on hand vs the contract that was signed after he was cut were the same - 1 year deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 13 minutes ago, skibrett15 said: clearly they didn't get an offer otherwise they'd have done the deal right? I'm not sure what you mean by difference in contract value vs trade value? Fit/scheme things? The contact on hand vs the contract that was signed after he was cut were the same - 1 year deals. The contracts were the same, yes. That does not mean that DET (or any other team) was willing to give up a draft pick for Daniels at the contract of $8+M. Those 2 assets (draft picks and cap space) are not the same and need to be factored in separately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted July 27, 2019 Author Share Posted July 27, 2019 2 hours ago, skibrett15 said: because they butchered the trade and incorrectly assessed his value. I'm not sure there's a more cut and dry scenario. This makes no sense. Supposedly, there were multiple teams interested in Daniels. GB was apparently willing to give him away for free (as they did) - meaning - to them, Daniels had zero value. Why would they possibly play hard ball for a guy they were willing to give away for free? That makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted July 27, 2019 Share Posted July 27, 2019 7 minutes ago, squire12 said: The contracts were the same, yes. That does not mean that DET (or any other team) was willing to give up a draft pick for Daniels at the contract of $8+M. Those 2 assets (draft picks and cap space) are not the same and need to be factored in separately. Would teams play a million bucks for an extra 5th round pick? I think yes. And maybe there isn't this magical free following communication network that allows every team to know what everyone might pay a guy. So they passed they they would get it cheaper but then poof all these teams start bidding. I know guys like Stephen A in the NBA pretend they know every GM's thoughts but I doubt it's that clear. End of the day, we lost a late pick. Maybe. And I've been on skibretts side. Hated Randall move. Was like um okay with Lowry. WTF with the Daniels cut. And even sarcastically berated him for not getting anything for sitton because nobody else did. I'm still like yeah whatever 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.