Jump to content

Saints release G Larry Warford


RaidersAreOne

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Think about it like this - you're buying a car. You have $25,000 budgeted for this purchase. You walk into a dealership, see a car you like, a $30,000 car. Do you pay that price or negotiate down to your budget? If you can't negotiate the price down, do you go outside your budget or do you look for another alternative - look at a used model?

That depends on a lot of things...

Is there someone else there at the dealership offering an unknown amount for the car? What if they're offering more than the $25k I thought I could get the car for?
How badly do I need a car? Am I shopping because I want an upgrade or because I need an upgrade?
What if there are several people there and I can't tell who wants that car and who is just hanging out?
Are there other comparable cars in the area? What are people paying for those?

This analogy is a bit iffy and impossible to answer in any meaningful way without going down a pretty wild rabbit hole.

 

17 minutes ago, ET80 said:

8.5mm might seem reasonable for a G (and it is) but if I'm only allocating $6.5mm to that position, there's no reason I should overpay, even if it's a reasonable deal. It's still over my budget, and it would be irresponsible for me to pursue - especially when I know I can wait it out, offer a deal in line with budget and not lose any additional capital in the process.

And you're risking missing out on the player in order to pinch pennies. That's a fine plan to have, and it's not a bad way to run a football organization, but it shows what teams think of Warford. They'll know they'll survive if he's not on the roster and they'd rather keep looking for a better deal than pay a guy what you seem to think is reasonable. 

If you don't want to look at the lack of a trade as an indication of what teams think of Warford, look at the point you are making. Teams are willing to sit back and let things play out to save a bit of cash that they likely don't even need this year anyways, even if that means he goes somewhere else, maybe even a rival.

Edited by Dome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bucsfan333 said:

Schefty said the salary cap could actually drop next year. I'd imagine teams are aware of that and are planning accordingly.

FWIW, Warford had 1 year left on his deal.

So not sure how much that was at play here.

Edited by Dome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dome said:

This analogy is a bit iffy and impossible to answer in any meaningful way without going down a pretty wild rabbit hole.

The point is - if you have a budget, stick to it.

You know that, too. 

1 hour ago, Dome said:

And you're risking missing out on the player in order to pinch pennies. 

"Pinching pennies" is the name of the game with a hard cap. There is no Bird rule, no soft cap to exploit. You have a set figure, you budget towards it - full stop. You don't make exceptions to that unless you're landing an elite player (which Warford isn't - and that's fine, nobody is arguing that he's elite, we're just arguing that nobody trading for him isn't some grand tell). 

1 hour ago, Dome said:

They'll know they'll survive if he's not on the roster and they'd rather keep looking for a better deal than pay a guy what you seem to think is reasonable. 

It's not reasonable if it's past your budget. Full stop. 

1 hour ago, Dome said:

If you don't want to look at the lack of a trade as an indication of what teams think of Warford, look at the point you are making. Teams are willing to sit back and let things play out to save a bit of cash that they likely don't even need this year anyways, even if that means he goes somewhere else, maybe even a rival.

Assuming it's "cash they likely don't even need" is a dangerous precedent you're setting, ones that franchises don't really like to test outside of theory. What if a starter gets hurt and you need to sign someone mid-season? That "cash they likely don't even need" would be the difference between bringing in a veteran who could acclimate quickly, or bringing in a UDFA who has to learn with a very short window before game day.

Ultimately, your stance is extrapolating how teams behave based on your personal take on how a salary cap is managed. Which isn't grounded in anything reasonable. You're looking at this strictly in black/white, not even trying to acknowledge the many shades of grey that currently exist, and has existed in several other examples cited.

1 hour ago, Dome said:

FWIW, Warford had 1 year left on his deal.

So not sure how much that was at play here.

It's not specific to Warford. It's Jadevion Clowney, Cam Newton, Carlos Hyde, Cordy Glenn, Ron Leary, Everson Griffen and several other guys who should be signed by now... but are waiting. 

Teams are hesitant to bring in anyone with this potential development, so Warford actually getting teams bidding on him is actually a better indication of how he's viewed. The NFL might lose money for the first time in decades... and Warford is still getting conversations about signing a contract.

That's moreso telling... even the worst economic downturn since the 1920s isn't going to stop Warford from getting his paper. xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, ET80 said:

The point is - if you have a budget, stick to it.

You know that, too. 

Feels like we’re just moving goalposts so there is something else to argue about. What does this have to do with your initial issue, which was mental gymnastics Saints fans were using to downplay Warford’s ability?

 

32 minutes ago, ET80 said:

"Pinching pennies" is the name of the game with a hard cap. There is no Bird rule, no soft cap to exploit. You have a set figure, you budget towards it - full stop. You don't make exceptions to that unless you're landing an elite player (which Warford isn't - and that's fine, nobody is arguing that he's elite, we're just arguing that nobody trading for him isn't some grand tell). 

They’d rather stick to their budget and work with what they have than overpay a guy like Warford who isn’t elite. That’s fair.

They don’t value him enough to give up a 7th, nor pay him an average salary. They want him cheaper. That’s fair.

They OK missing out on him, if another team offers him more they’re probably gonna get him.  That’s fair.

And what did I say about him that was so bad again? It doesn’t feel like we’re that far apart.

 

32 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Assuming it's "cash they likely don't even need" is a dangerous precedent you're setting, ones that franchises don't really like to test outside of theory. What if a starter gets hurt and you need to sign someone mid-season? That "cash they likely don't even need" would be the difference between bringing in a veteran who could acclimate quickly, or bringing in a UDFA who has to learn with a very short window before game day.

Sure. 

And what happens if they miss out on the guy cause they were trying to save every cent?

If they decide they can live without him and another team can have him as long as it means saving 2% of the cap then he probably wasn’t seen as that big of an upgrade anyways. Right?

 

32 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Ultimately, your stance is extrapolating how teams behave based on your personal take on how a salary cap is managed. Which isn't grounded in anything reasonable. You're looking at this strictly in black/white, not even trying to acknowledge the many shades of grey that currently exist, and has existed in several other examples cited.

I’ve absolutely made statements to acknowledge other perspectives.

Just because I’m putting more weight into what I believe to be true and don’t just agree to see things a different way just because someone says doesn’t mean I’m not acknowledging it.
 

what do you believe I’ve failed to acknowledge? 
cause I’m sure I could use your own parameters to find things you’ve failed to acknowledge as well.

Edited by Dome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, ET80 said:
2 hours ago, Dome said:

FWIW, Warford had 1 year left on his deal.

So not sure how much that was at play here.

It's not specific to Warford. It's Jadevion Clowney, Cam Newton, Carlos Hyde, Cordy Glenn, Ron Leary, Everson Griffen and several other guys who should be signed by now... but are waiting. 

If teams were worried about the 2021 cap, bringing Warford in on a 1 year deal for a 7th would’ve been ideal... assuming they think he’s going to be a good player for them and worth bringing in. Then they have no ties to him beyond this season, and have a non-guaranteed salary they can turn into a bonus for him if they decide to extend.

If they’re planning on signing him to a cheaper one year deal anyways, then the 2021 cap doesn’t work into their negotiations too much regardless.

Edited by Dome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dome said:

Feels like we’re just moving goalposts so there is something else to argue about. What does this have to do with your initial issue, which was mental gymnastics Saints fans were using to downplay Warford’s ability?

It's a reminder that nobody is going to trade for a guy who is making more than what I want to pay for him.

I want Larry Warford. I do not want him at $8.5mm. I don't have to get him at $8.5mm, because the Saints will cut him and I can start up a negotiation with him to terms that I agree to.

1 hour ago, Dome said:

They don’t value him enough to give up a 7th, nor pay him an average salary. They want him cheaper. That’s fair.

This is not fair. They could value him at those figures, but they don't have to value him at these figures because the Saints will lower both in due time.

And everyone knows that.

1 hour ago, Dome said:

And what happens if they miss out on the guy cause they were trying to save every cent?

Then they miss out on him - but at least they took their shot on terms they felt were in their favor. If I set my maximum and that maximum is not good enough, then I miss out for all the right reasons. That doesn't dictate anything about how I perceive him, it just means I set my terms and I stuck with my terms, and I now have to rely on my BATNA (Best AlTernative Negotiated Agreement - Jesus, you just made me cite old Capstone courses from college, I hope you choke on something...)

1 hour ago, Dome said:

what do you believe I’ve failed to acknowledge? 
cause I’m sure I could use your own parameters to find things you’ve failed to acknowledge as well.

How the Saints were DOA on any trade offer because everyone knew what was going to happen next - Warford was dead weight to the Saints, and the other 31 teams knew it. 

You mentioned it initially, but you've ignored it for the duration of our argument. You've held firm to this being telling on a player and that being the ONLY outcome. 

Use my parameters against me all you want, but I'll make it easy for you:

I, EliteTexan80, absolutely fail to acknowledge that cutting Larry Warford as opposed to trading him for a 7th round pick is something telling of Warford as a player to other GM/FOs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said:

15 pages of argument because I said its telling that nobody traded for this guy is insane.

Because... It's not?

2 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said:

Quarantine got some of you straight BUGGIN

Yep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ET80 said:

It's a reminder that nobody is going to trade for a guy who is making more than what I want to pay for him.

He'd be making an average salary on your roster, and you want to pay him less than that. That's a start, and I like it.

 

1 minute ago, ET80 said:

I want Larry Warford. I do not want him at $8.5mm.

Fair. You don't want him at an average (and what you called reasonable for a guard) salary. Good good good.

 

1 minute ago, ET80 said:

I don't have to get him at $8.5mm, because the Saints will cut him and I can start up a negotiation with him to terms that I agree to.

Correct. If you viewed him as a significant upgrade, or an important piece, you could've given up a 7th and average salary to ensure no other teams could negotiate with him.

This is obviously not the case. You feel like he is a player you can risk losing, so you don't mind the competition for him. You'll allow him to join another team if it saves you 2-3% of the cap and a 7th.

I'm on board this train still. Choo choo.

 

1 minute ago, ET80 said:

This is not fair. They could value him at those figures, but they don't have to value him at these figures because the Saints will lower both in due time.

And everyone knows that.

A team could have had him locked up for that. Done deal, he's theirs, no questions asked, it's guaranteed. Teams that are pursuing him now gave up the guarantee to his rights for what may amount to 2-3% of the total cap and a 7th round pick.

That's not a bad move and I'm not criticizing them for it. But it shows what those teams thought of him, he's a non-necessity.

You're failing to acknowledge that a trade eliminates any chance of missing out on him, you're assuming the team that wants him is going to get him. What if more than one team want him? If a team valued him as an important piece or quality starter, the ability to lock him up for a 7th is a no-brainer right?

 

1 minute ago, ET80 said:

Then they miss out on him - but at least they took their shot on terms they felt were in their favor.

OK.. now we're getting somewhere.

We're weighing bringing him in for +2-3% of the cap and a 7th round pick vs missing him completely... so how do we view a player that we're talking about in those kinds of terms?

If we miss him, we miss him. We can't give up a 7th and give him an average salary outright. How does that read?

 

1 minute ago, ET80 said:

If I set my maximum and that maximum is not good enough, then I miss out for all the right reasons. That doesn't dictate anything about how I perceive him, it just means I set my terms and I stuck with my terms

 

You're willing to wiggle on your terms a bit for elite talent, and probably sometimes for great talent too if I had to guess.

And I bet in the right circumstances you could be worked a bit more if you felt like you were in a tough spot and really needed help (like when you traded what people thought was lot for Tunsil and Stills last year).

And if you were really in a bad spot and were getting desperate you might even have the tables turned on you completely.

So it's all subjective and can change from team to team and how they deal with filling holes on their rosters.

 

Obviously in this scenario, the maximum teams were willing to give up to lock him up was lower than a 7th round pick and an average salary. 

 

1 minute ago, ET80 said:

How the Saints were DOA on any trade offer because everyone knew what was going to happen next - Warford was dead weight to the Saints, and the other 31 teams knew it. 

I did acknowledge that though. It also demonstrates that whatever teams want him were fine with the possibility of missing out on him to save a 7th round pick and 2% of the cap, regardless of what they knew about his status with the Saints.

 

1 minute ago, ET80 said:

You mentioned it initially, but you've ignored it for the duration of our argument.

How is mentioning something different than acknowledging it?

His lack of trade value is something I joked about the night we drafted Ruiz, we've been over this in this thread again as well.

But I'm not acknowledging it?

 

1 minute ago, ET80 said:

You've held firm to this being telling on a player and that being the ONLY outcome. 

100% false. I opened the thread talking about his conditioning being poor, and looking like he was on autopilot and tired of putting in the hard work. The fact that nobody wanted to give up a 7th and give him an average salary is just another piece of evidence in my argument.

 

1 minute ago, ET80 said:

Use my parameters against me all you want, but I'll make it easy for you:

I, EliteTexan80, absolutely fail to acknowledge that cutting Larry Warford as opposed to trading him for a 7th round pick is something telling of Warford as a player.

Cop out. Absolute cop out after accusing me of failing to acknowledge something I've brought up multiple times.

 

Later man. I think we both need a break. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said:

The battle between Warfords former teams fans and the fans who hope they'll be Warfords new team is really all this thread has been

Didn't know the Patriots or Falcons were in the running. Hmm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Didn't know the Patriots or Falcons were in the running. Hmm.

Well, I don't think we know of any teams in the running. It's just a funny observation.

Also, recent report is that Warford is demanding around $7M per.

Edited by MookieMonstah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...