Joe_is_the_best Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 If trade value was solely based on ability, then yes Warford is worth less than a 7th. That’s never the case, though. There are always additional considerations such as cap room, positional depth, financial benefits of a draft replacement, opportunity cost of taking on the contract, balancing ability & contract demands, whether anything is gained from a trade, whether trading anything for an unneeded or unwanted player is wise, etc. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 54 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said: Well, I don't think we know of any teams in the running. It's just a funny observation. We know of two. One of 'em is close to me. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2890946-report-larry-warford-drawing-interest-from-bears-texans-after-saints-release 54 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said: Also, recent report is that Warford is demanding around $7M per. Less than $8.5mm. That's what I call fiscally responsible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MookieMonstah Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 50 minutes ago, ET80 said: We know of two. One of 'em is close to me. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2890946-report-larry-warford-drawing-interest-from-bears-texans-after-saints-release Less than $8.5mm. That's what I call fiscally responsible. I bet teams are stressing super hard over that 1.5M. Going to be tough if he chooses a team over Texans and Watson continues to get massacred because BOB wouldn’t move a 7th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 11 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said: I bet teams are stressing super hard over that 1.5M. If they were interested in paying $1.5mm extra, they would have. 12 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said: Going to be tough if he chooses a team over Texans and Watson continues to get massacred because BOB wouldn’t move a 7th. I'm sure that Warford is the difference between a safe Watson and "continuing to get massacred..." I mean it's telling that BoB didn't trade anything... right? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MookieMonstah Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 1 minute ago, ET80 said: If they were interested in paying $1.5mm extra, they would have. I'm sure that Warford is the difference between a safe Watson and "continuing to get massacred..." I mean it's telling that BoB didn't trade anything... right? The fact that people are so disturbed by the word telling is so odd to me. This is honestly one of the most ridiculous arguments I’ve seen on this site, I’m chalking 50% of it up to people just being bored out of their minds but never in a million years did I think an average - above average OG would command such support Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 3 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said: This is honestly one of the most ridiculous arguments I’ve seen on this site Pshhh, this isn't even top 10. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 6 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said: ...never in a million years did I think an average - above average OG would command such support As long as you can admit to the bold, I'm good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MookieMonstah Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 10 minutes ago, ET80 said: As long as you can admit to the bold, I'm good. ...I don't think I've ever said differently? I said its telling, that doesn't mean I'm saying he's some unplayable sack of lard. I've said numerous times I could see him getting some motivation back and having a good season. Again, this is people arguing because they're bored and because apparently saying something is "telling" is some slap in the face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said: Again, this is people arguing because they're bored and because apparently saying something is "telling" is some slap in the face. So - to clear up the air - what does it "tell" us? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MookieMonstah Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 1 minute ago, ET80 said: So - to clear up the air - what does it "tell" us? That he's not a Pro Bowl level OG anymore...Which is the same stance I've held this entire time...You telling me we just argued for 16 pages because people literally didn't read my posts? I've said this entire time that Warford is not as good as once was (obviously), but could very well get motivated by this release and have a good season. If we're all agreeing that he's average-above average, why are people so pressed? Y'all need to hike or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dome Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 19 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said: That he's not a Pro Bowl level OG anymore...Which is the same stance I've held this entire time...You telling me we just argued for 16 pages because people literally didn't read my posts? I've said this entire time that Warford is not as good as once was (obviously), but could very well get motivated by this release and have a good season. If we're all agreeing that he's average-above average, why are people so pressed? Y'all need to hike or something. I’d say above average is a stretch based on the back half of the season. I can’t say he’s good, and above average sounds good. Average? I suppose. Opened the thread with a post saying he looked great “at times” ... but I can’t give ‘em above average unless you’re talking scheme specific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 I had a longer post thrown together last night, and opted not to throw it in because I didn't want to get stuck in this argument, but I really want to contribute at least one thing I was going to say in that post. On the topic of teams trading for Warford, potentially, it really needs to be said that at this point in the offseason, like half of the league literally couldn't have traded for Warford. 9 teams straight up do not have $8.5M in cap space right now. Another like 7 are within ~$5M of that number, meaning they likely couldn't trade for Warford, and sign their draft picks. Whether or not $8.5M is reasonable for a good G is irrelevant when most of the market doesn't have $8.5M to spend. In a fantasy world where the Seahawks announce they're trading Russel Wilson, you'd see a bunch of teams bow out because they literally have no liquidity. And generally, trade value for just about any player at this point in the offseason is going to be basically as low as ever. It's why cutting a player early in the offseason is considered player friendly, and cutting them late is sometimes a **** move. Teams just brought in a full draft class where they likely patched several of their holes. The bulk of free agency has run it's course, and most teams have spent the majority of the money they're going to spend this year. So many teams are already near their final 2020 cap number, short just their draft classes or any late internal extensions. I've seen Dome say that 31 teams knew he was available and no one went for it. But if half literally couldn't afford him, that's a big difference. So let's say you're down to 16 teams. How many of them actually need a G? The Eagles, the Colts, the 49ers, they all could afford him, but they all have excellent OLs. No reason for them to invest there. Then you have your rebuilding teams. Do the Dolphins really want to invest money in a year contract for a vet interior lineman after they just jettisoned much of their roster a year or two ago to rebuild? Maybe the Lions could use a G, but they just drafted two. Washington has money but they also have Scherff. There are a host of reasons that would have excluded the vast majority of the NFL from being interested in trading for Warford, before even getting to Warford's actual talent or value. It's why you don't see more player trades in the NFL in general, is it takes a perfect storm of fit, value, and leverage, and that just isn't there often. By the time you get through the teams that don't have the money, the teams that don't see a scheme fit, the teams that like their OL as is, the teams that just drafted Gs or have young Gs they want to develop, and the teams that are in a phase where they don't want one year contact vets (think rebuilds), you probably only have 2 or three teams that are eligible to trade for him at all, for no reason pertaining to his own talent as a G, and at that point those teams will just wait for the cut since they know it's inevitable. I wound up making a long post anyway. Damnit. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, Jakuvious said: I had a longer post thrown together last night, and opted not to throw it in because I didn't want to get stuck in this argument, but I really want to contribute at least one thing I was going to say in that post. On the topic of teams trading for Warford, potentially, it really needs to be said that at this point in the offseason, like half of the league literally couldn't have traded for Warford. 9 teams straight up do not have $8.5M in cap space right now. Another like 7 are within ~$5M of that number, meaning they likely couldn't trade for Warford, and sign their draft picks. Whether or not $8.5M is reasonable for a good G is irrelevant when most of the market doesn't have $8.5M to spend. In a fantasy world where the Seahawks announce they're trading Russel Wilson, you'd see a bunch of teams bow out because they literally have no liquidity. And generally, trade value for just about any player at this point in the offseason is going to be basically as low as ever. It's why cutting a player early in the offseason is considered player friendly, and cutting them late is sometimes a **** move. Teams just brought in a full draft class where they likely patched several of their holes. The bulk of free agency has run it's course, and most teams have spent the majority of the money they're going to spend this year. So many teams are already near their final 2020 cap number, short just their draft classes or any late internal extensions. I've seen Dome say that 31 teams knew he was available and no one went for it. But if half literally couldn't afford him, that's a big difference. So let's say you're down to 16 teams. How many of them actually need a G? The Eagles, the Colts, the 49ers, they all could afford him, but they all have excellent OLs. No reason for them to invest there. Then you have your rebuilding teams. Do the Dolphins really want to invest money in a year contract for a vet interior lineman after they just jettisoned much of their roster a year or two ago to rebuild? Maybe the Lions could use a G, but they just drafted two. Washington has money but they also have Scherff. There are a host of reasons that would have excluded the vast majority of the NFL from being interested in trading for Warford, before even getting to Warford's actual talent or value. It's why you don't see more player trades in the NFL in general, is it takes a perfect storm of fit, value, and leverage, and that just isn't there often. By the time you get through the teams that don't have the money, the teams that don't see a scheme fit, the teams that like their OL as is, the teams that just drafted Gs or have young Gs they want to develop, and the teams that are in a phase where they don't want one year contact vets (think rebuilds), you probably only have 2 or three teams that are eligible to trade for him at all, for no reason pertaining to his own talent as a G, and at that point those teams will just wait for the cut since they know it's inevitable. I wound up making a long post anyway. Damnit. ... you had me at "I had a." 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWATcha Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) Not sure if I hate all of you for the last 9 pages of nonsense, or if I hate myself for actually reading thru it....damn you Covid. PS: Warford is still above average to good imo. He's slow, not the hardest worker, and had an abysmal playoff stretch of games though. Saints opted for a new direction instead of taking the chance he has another abysmal stretch should they make the playoffs again this year. He'll be serviceable for someone. Edited May 13, 2020 by SWATcha 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MookieMonstah Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 It’s pretty telling that nobody has signed Warford yet huh 😏 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.