LeotheLion Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 35 minutes ago, ET80 said: Does Watson want it? No trade clause means he has final say. At some point though if he really wants out, he'd probably waive it to facilitate the trade. If he is just saying it's only Miami and a few teams then he clearly doesn't out bad enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJC33 Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: This is why Watson is effectively untradeable tbh. The only teams that have enough draft picks/players to make it work are all going completely in. If you're going all the way in, it's worth the gamble to ride out the guy on his rookie deal instead of having a huge cap hit for Watson, plus all of the holes on the roster that can't be solved with draft picks. You've already gone all in, no sense in taking your chips down (which is what trading for a known quantity in Watson instead of gambling on a 1st round QB is). Jets could conceivably make it work without mortgaging the future. Hypothetically, say they offer #3, both of Seattle's 1s and maybe a conditional pick? Assuming they would then flip Darnold for a 2nd or 3rd - that leaves them with potentially six picks in rounds 2-4 this year, while retaining their first in each of the next two drafts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 2 minutes ago, NJC33 said: Jets could conceivably make it work without mortgaging the future. Hypothetically, say they offer #3, both of Seattle's 1s and maybe a conditional pick? Assuming they would then flip Darnold for a 2nd or 3rd - that leaves them with potentially six picks in rounds 2-4 this year, while retaining their first in each of the next two drafts. Just because they could doesn't mean they should. Spending a ton of draft picks and cap space on a known quantity when the whole point of tanking is to gamble with assets you get for "free" (by sucking) doesn't fit into the rebuilding plan for the organization. Patience dudes. Look at Cleveland. It just takes time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-ALL-DAY Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 11 hours ago, ET80 said: So - in addition to landing a top 3 QB - you're expecting a salary dump? Yeah, a lot more picks need to be thrown in for the Texans to give up their crown jewel PLUS take on a bad contract. I'm thinking RG3/Jared Goff haul + player of value (Aiyuk, Deebo, McGlinchey) is the bare minimum starting point. Adding Jimmy G should add additional picks to the math - it's a contract nobody wants. It's a contract any team can get rid of with minimal dead money. Still a solid cap hit in 2021 but adding him doesn't mean you add more picks. Because the 49ers don't need to add him to any Watson package as they can just get rid of him. Trading him to the Texans would be due to the Texans wanting him not the other way around. This isn't a NBA trade where a team is trying to get rid of a big salary player and have to add draft picks along with it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET80 Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 35 minutes ago, Matts4313 said: Ahem, I am pretty sure you are missing a few teams. Absolutly not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 1 minute ago, ET80 said: Absolutly not. You are either blind about Watson or blind about other teams. But you are 100% blind in this scenario. Teams that would have no interest in trading and giving up capital for Watson isnt a huge list, but there are more than 3 teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWil23 Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 47 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: This is why Watson is effectively untradeable tbh. The only teams that have enough draft picks/players to make it work are all going completely in. If you're going all the way in, it's worth the gamble to ride out the guy on his rookie deal instead of having a huge cap hit for Watson, plus all of the holes on the roster that can't be solved with draft picks. You've already gone all in, no sense in taking your chips down (which is what trading for a known quantity in Watson instead of gambling on a 1st round QB is). I have always wondered if the NFL would look at exempting one player from your cap %, or more likely at least you could allocate a % of that contract that wouldn’t count against it. It can be a quarterback, DE, or whoever you want, but you’d have to name that player your cap deferred dude for the entire life of his contract, otherwise the hit comes into play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWil23 Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 39 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Patience dudes. Look at Cleveland. It just takes time. Yep. And even then, Cleveland will have some decisions to make ahead of them, with guys like Denzel Ward, Wyatt Teller, Jedrick Wills, and of course Nick Chubb. Re-signing Baker is a done deal barring a year 4 step backwards. The last half of 2020 was great for him. Theres a window for when you’re on a rookie quarterback deal if you have other star or superstar players. Just look at Philly and Denver post Super Bowl. Even the Saints are about to be in cap Armageddon, and it may take them 3-5 years to recover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 44 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Patience dudes. Look at Cleveland. It just takes time. Is Cleveland the model you want for tanking? I hope if I suck that bad that I end up with a better QB than Baker Mayfield. And that's coming from someone who likes to root for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 4 minutes ago, MWil23 said: I have always wondered if the NFL would look at exempting one player from your cap %, or more likely at least you could allocate a % of that contract that wouldn’t count against it. It can be a quarterback, DE, or whoever you want, but you’d have to name that player your cap deferred dude for the entire life of his contract, otherwise the hit comes into play. The owners are definitely not going to look into ways to spend more money on players tbh. And it wouldn't be good for the league. Exempting a player just means the potential gap between team spending grows, which should be less parity. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 Just now, CWood21 said: Is Cleveland the model you want for tanking? I hope if I suck ttha No, Miami is the model for tanking. Cleveland is the model for starting to tank, being too impatient to wait it out, and then still having it work because tanking is really effective. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWil23 Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said: The owners are definitely not going to look into ways to spend more money on players tbh. And it wouldn't be good for the league. Exempting a player just means the potential gap between team spending grows, which should be less parity. That’s why I wonder about a % of one player designated specifically for a %. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 Just now, MWil23 said: That’s why I wonder about a % of one player designated specifically for a %. Same thing, the Chiefs gets more $ out of their % exemption than anybody else since Mahomes makes more money than anybody else. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWil23 Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said: Same thing, the Chiefs gets more $ out of their % exemption than anybody else since Mahomes makes more money than anybody else. I’m saying that you can only allocate a % over the cap, and that number would be universal, for a single player. Not a % of that contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWil23 Posted January 18, 2021 Share Posted January 18, 2021 Just now, MWil23 said: I’m saying that you can only allocate a % over the cap, and that number would be universal, for a single player. Not a % of that contract. Or a hard number. 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.