Saints release G Larry Warford

[Soko]

1 hour ago, MookieMonstah said:

You keep giving examples of guys on big contracts that weren’t worth the money. This isn’t one of those situations. 

I gave one example, lol. 

And I don’t need to go through the list of players cut. Not getting a 7th = / = player is worthless or not worth a 7th round pick. 

[Dome]

Just now, Yin-Yang said:

Not getting a 7th = / = player is worthless

who has said he’s worthless though?

is anyone arguing that?

 

[Soko]

4 minutes ago, Dome said:

who has said he’s worthless though?

is anyone arguing that?

Not a quote, but not being worth a future conditional 7th is about as close to worthless as you can get as an NFL veteran, no? But if that is a misrepresentation, you can pretty easily make the small leap: not getting traded for = / = not being good enough to be worth a 7th round pick. I mean, you even excluded the or part of that post.

[MookieMonstah]

21 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

I gave one example, lol. 

And I don’t need to go through the list of players cut. Not getting a 7th = / = player is worthless or not worth a 7th round pick. 

You’re giving examples of totally different situations. Revis isn’t comparable to this. Revis was coming off a bad season after a torn ACL and was on a 16M contract. No one traded for him specifically because of the horrible contract.

Warford was on a super reasonable 1 year 8.5M deal, it’s not a comparable situation. 

[Dome]

27 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Not a quote, but not being worth a future conditional 7th is about as close to worthless as you can get as an NFL veteran, no? But if that is a misrepresentation, you can pretty easily make the small leap: not getting traded for = / = not being good enough to be worth a 7th round pick. I mean, you even excluded the or part of that post.

I was just making sure I didn’t miss someone making a claim like that... Warford being worthless, that is.

 

I excluded the last part of your post because I thought it was a typo and didn’t want to ninja reply before you edited... If it wasn’t a typo then I just disagree I guess 

 

what determines a players worth, if not the other 31 coaches with assets they could trade away to squire him ? 

31 coaches decided their 7th round pick was more valuable than guaranteed rights to Warford, so I’d say he’s worth less than a 7th to 31 coaches

thats a pretty good gauge on his value IMO.... if nobody is willing to give up a 7th, he’s decidedly not worth a 7th.

Edited May 11, 2020 by Dome

[Soko]

2 minutes ago, Dome said:

I was just making sure I didn’t miss someone making a claim like that... Warford being worthless, that is.

 

I excluded the last part of your post because I thought it was a typo and didn’t want to ninja reply before you edited... If it wasn’t a typo then I just disagree I guess 

 

what determines a players worth, if not the other 31 coaches with assets they could trade away to squire him ? 

31 coaches decided their 7th round pick was more valuable than guaranteed rights to Warford, so I’d say he’s worth less than a 7th to 31 coaches

thats a pretty good gauge on his value IMO

I mean, was Sammy Watkins worth his contract on the basis that a team gave it to him? Was Walker worth those picks because the trade was completed? Was Peyton not worth a 7th because he was released? 

I don't think looking at deals or the lack thereof, is a good way of measuring a player’s worth. Teams make good/bad decisions all the time, sometimes for good reason and other times for not. 

[Soko]

14 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said:

You’re giving examples of totally different situations. Revis isn’t comparable to this. Revis was coming off a bad season after a torn ACL and was on a 16M contract. No one traded for him specifically because of the horrible contract.

Warford was on a super reasonable 1 year 8.5M deal, it’s not a comparable situation. 

No, I gave one, lol. 

No situation is 100% identical. But Warford is far from the only quality player to be cut and not traded for - and I think you know that, unless I’m drastically overestimating you. 

[Dome]

16 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

I mean, was Sammy Watkins worth his contract on the basis that a team gave it to him? Was Walker worth those picks because the trade was completed? Was Peyton not worth a 7th because he was released? 

If a team gives money to a player, or gives draft picks up for a player, that is what the player was worth to them. Whether or not that translates on the field doesn’t change how they were valued by the team when they were acquired.

Warford on a reasonable salary wasn’t valued high enough to be worth a 7th round pick, teams didn’t think he was worth it so they didn’t make the deal.

Quote

I don't think looking at deals or the lack thereof, is a good way of measuring a player’s worth. Teams make good/bad decisions all the time, sometimes for good reason and other times for not. 

It’s not the end all be all, no, but it’s an aspect.

I don’t think folks throwing out names like Revis, Gurley or Manning gets us anywhere in the discussion either because Warford is nothing like those guys at all. Those were superstars, Warford has never been a superstar. It’s apples to oranges. 

Like you said, no situations are 100% comparable, but some are much more comparable than others. At this point in his career Warford is more of an Andy Dalton than Peyton Manning.

Edited May 11, 2020 by Dome

[MookieMonstah]

11 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

No, I gave one, lol. 

No situation is 100% identical. But Warford is far from the only quality player to be cut and not traded for - and I think you know that, unless I’m drastically overestimating you. 

Of course...but again, you gave a situation that wasn't remotely comparable to this one. Warford was on a reasonable contract so the only reason for him not being valued in a trade is that teams simply don't value him that highly, would you agree?

[MookieMonstah]

4 minutes ago, Dome said:

If a team gives money to a player, or gives draft picks up for a player, that is what the player was worth to them. Whether or not that translates on the field doesn’t change how they were valued by the team when they were acquired.

Warford on a reasonable salary wasn’t valued high enough to be worth a 7th round pick, teams didn’t think he was worth it so they didn’t make the deal.

It’s not the end all be all, no, but it’s an aspect.

I don’t think throwing out names like Revis, Gurley or Manning gets us anywhere in the discussion either because Warford is nothing like those guys at all. Those were superstars, Warford has never been a superstar.

Its just completely different situations. Manning was released because the Colts didn't think he'd play again, I also think they respected him enough to allow him to choose where he wanted to play. Revis and Gurley like I've previously stated weren't traded for because they had massive salaries attached to them, that isn't the case with Warford.

[Dome]

5 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said:

Its just completely different situations. Manning was released because the Colts didn't think he'd play again, I also think they respected him enough to allow him to choose where he wanted to play. Revis and Gurley like I've previously stated weren't traded for because they had massive salaries attached to them, that isn't the case with Warford.

IIRC trading him would’ve resulted in a $28m cap hit as well... based on what I read on some Colts fans saying in a forum after the fact

not sure if that is accurate but the $28m sticks with me 

Edited May 11, 2020 by Dome

[Soko]

3 minutes ago, Dome said:

If a team gives money to a player, or gives draft picks up for a player, that is what the player was worth to them. Whether or not that translates on the field doesn’t change how they were valued by the team when they were acquired.

Warford on a reasonable salary wasn’t valued high enough to be worth a 7th round pick, teams didn’t think he was worth it so they didn’t make the deal.

With that logic, there’d be no such thing as an overpay, right? If they’re worth whatever the team gives them, then there can’t be steals, overpays, etc. 

Even excluding how the deal pans out down the road, you don’t need to be a football aficionado to identify a an egregiously bad deal or a crazy steal it it happens. 

3 minutes ago, Dome said:

It’s not the end all be all, no, but it’s an aspect.

I don’t think folks throwing out names like Revis, Gurley or Manning gets us anywhere in the discussion either because Warford is nothing like those guys at all. Those were superstars, Warford has never been a superstar. It’s apples to oranges. 

Like you said, no situations are 100% comparable, but some are much more comparable than others. At this point in his career Warford is more of an Andy Dalton than Peyton Manning.

I use those examples because my point was that these types of things happen. If you check my first post ITT, I purposely put “100%” in there. Just for clarity’s sake - and I ask because there seems to be push on my statement without a hard stance - you’re saying that all players who are cut must be worth less than 7th rounders? Because if they were actually worth that, then a team would’ve done traded for them?

[Dome]

Just now, Yin-Yang said:

With that logic, there’d be no such thing as an overpay, right? If they’re worth whatever the team gives them, then there can’t be steals, overpays, etc. 

No... 

Let’s say you pay a guy $4m, then it doesn’t pan out. It was an overpay.

You still valued him at $4m when you paid him that. That’s still what he was worth to you.

No team thought securing rights to his contract was worth a 7th round pick. They’re willing to risk losing him to another team if it means keeping their 7th... that’s what he’s worth to teams.

[Soko]

9 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said:

Of course...but again, you gave a situation that wasn't remotely comparable to this one.

My original statement was that just because a player is cut, that doesn’t make them not worth a 7th rounder. And I specifically used “100%” as a qualifier. So yeah, Revis qualifies there. 

9 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said:

Warford was on a reasonable contract so the only reason for him not being valued in a trade is that teams simply don't value him that highly, would you agree?

No, I wouldn’t. That is far from the “only” reason that may or may not be in 31 GM’s heads.

Sometimes players get cut, that doesn’t always mean they have virtually zero trade value - would you agree?

[Soko]

1 minute ago, Dome said:

No... 

Let’s say you pay a guy $4m, then it doesn’t pan out. It was an overpay.

You still valued him at $4m when you paid him that. That’s still what he was worth to you.

No team thought securing rights to his contract was worth a 7th round pick. They’re willing to risk losing him to another team if it means keeping their 7th... that’s what he’s worth to teams.

I’m not talking about after the fact. At the time of the deal. Watkins was an overpay, as soon as he signed. That’s what he was worth to the Chiefs, but he wasn’t worth that contract (again, before even playing a down). To use your example, what my $4M employee is worth to me isn’t necessarily what he’s actually worth. If that’s my window washer or my shoe shiner, it doesn’t matter how I value him, you can pretty objectively say he isn’t worth that. The market determines what the player can or cannot get but it isn’t necessarily indicative of their actual worth.