Houston is gonna drop the ball on Watson

[TecmoSuperJoe]

Just gotta wait until the draft. 

[ET80]

3 hours ago, Roninho said:

Difference is that when you get cut the franchise still is acting within what was agreed: Player gets a guaranteed $ amount and upside in $ if the team decides to keep the player on the roster. When a team cuts a player they still kept their part of the contract. 

Same applies with a trade - any guarenteed money is still paid out by the team trading away the player. In the case of the Texans, they'll still have to pay a significant portion of Watson's guarenteed money. 

[KimuraGod]

3 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

I thought you were brought up from the Napoli ranks, Fabio ?

My father was!! Unfortunately I have lived in sunny England all my life 😬

[Soko]

9 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

PFF would do this;

 

TRADE! Houston trades quarterback Deshaun Watson to Denver for the ninth overall pick, a 2021 second-rounder, 2022 first-rounder, 2022 second-rounder, 2023 first-rounder

Would be such a Texans thing to do

[raffy15]

11 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Would be such a Texans thing to do

that is a good return on Watson.

[Soko]

19 minutes ago, raffy15 said:

that is a good return on Watson.

Highly disagree. You have contract-needy DBs going for multiple firsts. Stafford was trade for two firsts and Goff. Two seconds and a future-future third on top of that shouldn’t be enough for a top 5ish QB (that the Texans are still going to have cap ramifications for).

Having a guaranteed top 10 pick is nice but still something I’d laugh at Houston for doing. 

[Turnobili]

last time a team playing this kind of hardball actually worked out was when the bengals eventually traded palmer

[ThatJaxxenGuy]

Rich Eisen going on this morning about how he wouldn’t trade Herbert for Watson. 40 million dollars in cap makes me inclined to agree 

Edited March 9, 2021 by ThatJaxxenGuy

[Blue]

On 3/3/2021 at 2:33 PM, Yin-Yang said:

Highly disagree. You have contract-needy DBs going for multiple firsts. Stafford was trade for two firsts and Goff. Two seconds and a future-future third on top of that shouldn’t be enough for a top 5ish QB (that the Texans are still going to have cap ramifications for).

Having a guaranteed top 10 pick is nice but still something I’d laugh at Houston for doing. 

There are fairly minor cap ramifications for the Texans if they trade Watson, as far as I can tell on Spotrac. Shouldn't be a major factor.

You say "Stafford was traded for two firsts and Goff" as if Goff was viewed as an asset by either team. 3 1sts, 2 2nds, and a 3rd is likely a better offer than the Texans will ultimately end up taking.

[ET80]

On 3/3/2021 at 3:11 PM, Turnobili said:

last time a team playing this kind of hardball actually worked out was when the bengals eventually traded palmer

Palmer has to retire to get this wheel rolling - that would cost Watson upwards of $21mm.

Not saying it's not on the table, just that it's going to hit Watson financially in a significant way. If he's good losing eight figures, then this is the path to go.

33 minutes ago, Blue said:

There are fairly minor cap ramifications for the Texans if they trade Watson, as far as I can tell on Spotrac. Shouldn't be a major factor.

A rational person would agree. I agree. The Texans? They're not ran by rational people.

34 minutes ago, Blue said:

You say "Stafford was traded for two firsts and Goff" as if Goff was viewed as an asset by either team.

I think @Forge covered this - but based on the trade, there was positive value behind Goff.

I'll let him explain in greater detail.

36 minutes ago, Blue said:

3 1sts, 2 2nds, and a 3rd is likely a better offer than the Texans will ultimately end up taking.

I don't disagree (rational people and whatnot) but I think it's more likely the Texans let him sit out for a season.

Think Trent Williams in WFT - Cleveland and Houston had some pretty big offers on the table (if you believe the media) but Washington operated out of spite as opposed to logic. San Francisco managed to pick up Williams at a steep discount, but this was after Williams had to sit for a year.

[Forge]

22 minutes ago, ET80 said:

1 hour ago, Blue said:

You say "Stafford was traded for two firsts and Goff" as if Goff was viewed as an asset by either team.

I think @Forge covered this - but based on the trade, there was positive value behind Goff.

I'll let him explain in greater detail.

Correct. It's just based on the value presented by the other offers they received.

We know that according to Breer, Carolina offered #8, a fifth I believe, + Teddy B, which is the offer a lot of people thought they should take. 

The rams two future picks have to be believed to be mid to late round picks. They are also both *future* years picks which discounts them right from the jump. Two mid to late round future first round picks are simply not equal in value to #8 if you're quantifying them according to any of current value charts. If the Rams offered the niners those two picks for pick #12, I wouldn't want the niners to take it. #8 is basically worth 2 of any pick made in the mid 20's give or take (may require minor moving parts in addition), and that's if those picks were this year. You're talking a pick one and two years out. The idea that one of the firsts that they gave was to take Goff is just not right. The rams had to offer those up just to keep up with the #8 offer from Carolina. At worst, he contributed no real value to the trade, but there's no way he's a negative asset in the deal. I do believe that he had positive value in the deal - I'd rather have Goff than Teddy B, and given Holmes scouted and helped draft Goff with the Rams, it's reasonable to assume that he did carry some positive value there for Holmes and the lions specifically, even if nobody else in the league felt that way (not saying the rest of the league felt that way, just saying that it doesn't matter if they did...the lions are the one spot where it makes sense that he had positive value) 

[Blue]

2 minutes ago, Forge said:

Correct. It's just based on the value presented by the other offers they received.

We know that according to Breer, Carolina offered #8, a fifth I believe, + Teddy B, which is the offer a lot of people thought they should take. 

The rams two future picks have to be believed to be mid to late round picks. They are also both *future* years picks which discounts them right from the jump. Two mid to late round future first round picks are simply not equal in value to #8 if you're quantifying them according to any of current value charts. If the Rams offered the niners those two picks for pick #12, I wouldn't want the niners to take it. #8 is basically worth 2 of any pick made in the mid 20's give or take (may require minor moving parts in addition), and that's if those picks were this year. You're talking a pick one and two years out. The idea that one of the firsts that they gave was to take Goff is just not right. The rams had to offer those up just to keep up with the #8 offer from Carolina. At worst, he contributed no real value to the trade, but there's no way he's a negative asset in the deal. 

I don't know if you're just copying and pasting, but I didn't say that the Rams gave up a 1st to get rid of Goff. I do think they upgraded a pick from Day 2 to a 1st to get rid of him, though.

I don't agree with your argument on several levels, although I don't think you're unreasonable in your assessment. First is that you don't actually know where the Rams will be picking in future years and neither does anybody else. They're probably not gonna fall off a cliff, but they're in salary cap hell and haven't had a 1st round pick in four years (soon to be 6 or 7). That takes a toll eventually. It'll be worse if Stafford misses time again. I don't agree it's a given that those picks will be in the back half of the first round.

Second, two 1sts are better than one. I really don't care what an arbitrary trade chart made in the 1980s (or even the recent-ish Harvard trade chart) says on that count, I would rather have two lottery tickets than one. If they're planning to take a QB in this draft, they don't need the 7th and 8th overall picks to do that. If they do take a QB this year, they'll want to surround him with more talent--and more 1st round picks to do that in the future is ideal. All of that is assuming they even like any of the QBs in this class outside of the top two, whomever those two are in Detroit's eyes. If they view their roster as a bottom-five unit for next year, they may have a better shot at a QB they like in the next two drafts than this one.

Then there's the question of whether Bridgewater was viewed as an asset, either. I don't think anybody in the league really does, friendly contract notwithstanding. Including him in the deal feels like a throw-in from a team that knows they don't need him and are clearly trying to get rid of him. So realistically, the Panthers were basically offering the 8th overall pick straight up for Stafford, which isn't nothing but not as valuable as two firsts in my mind.

Lastly, your comparison of trading those two picks for 12th overall is irrelevant because it's not the same thing. That's essentially a trade of one first round pick for two picks, potentially much lower in the round. That's not the same as trading away a player for future assets. Detroit's draft position didn't change like San Francisco's would in your example.

[Forge]

50 minutes ago, Blue said:

I don't agree with your argument on several levels, although I don't think you're unreasonable in your assessment. First is that you don't actually know where the Rams will be picking in future years and neither does anybody else. They're probably not gonna fall off a cliff, but they're in salary cap hell and haven't had a 1st round pick in four years (soon to be 6 or 7). That takes a toll eventually. It'll be worse if Stafford misses time again. I don't agree it's a given that those picks will be in the back half of the first round.

 

The assumption should be that they are picking middle to the back. If you're assuming best case scenario as opposed to worst case scenario, you're doing it wrong. The fact that they could end up high is a compensating factor for choosing that offer, nothing more. You shouldn't be banking on an injury 

Also, they aren't in salary cap hell. Its fairly easy to navigate their cap in truth. Restructures on Donald and Ramsey are no doubt coming. I thought they would restructure Stafford and give him an extension. The reports are they aren't doing that yet, but tha'ts another easy way to free up money. 

For all their lack of first round picks, they are one of the youngest teams in the NFL. 

50 minutes ago, Blue said:

Second, two 1sts are better than one. I really don't care what an arbitrary trade chart made in the 1980s (or even the recent-ish Harvard trade chart) says on that count, I would rather have two lottery tickets than one.

So you'd take picks 32 and 31 over #1. That's certainly one way to go about building a roster. To each their own though. 

You may not like the trade value charts, but recent ones, such as the harvard one or the Rich Hill one are evaluating their worth based previous trade history, I believe (that could be wrong, but I Think that's the case). So it does ostensibly provide a barometer of value for these choice in a vacuum across the league. Obviously there are additional variables that come into play and not everyone has the same value...it's basically an approximation. In your case, you seem to value #8 much lower...I don't know that its necessarily a sentiment that is popular or not when compared against the value of these two specific future firsts.  I know some people in that thread felt they should have taken #8. I Thought it was pretty close (which makes sense...as I said, these two offerings are reasonably comparable in value). 

50 minutes ago, Blue said:

If they're planning to take a QB in this draft, they don't need the 7th and 8th overall picks to do that. If they do take a QB this year, they'll want to surround him with more talent--and more 1st round picks to do that in the future is ideal. All of that is assuming they even like any of the QBs in this class outside of the top two, whomever those two are in Detroit's eyes. If they view their roster as a bottom-five unit for next year, they may have a better shot at a QB they like in the next two drafts than this one.

This is not relevant to anything I'm saying, so I'm moving forward. It doesn't change value in a vacuum...it is a matter of preference, which is fine. 

50 minutes ago, Blue said:

Then there's the question of whether Bridgewater was viewed as an asset, either. I don't think anybody in the league really does, friendly contract notwithstanding. Including him in the deal feels like a throw-in from a team that knows they don't need him and are clearly trying to get rid of him. So realistically, the Panthers were basically offering the 8th overall pick straight up for Stafford, which isn't nothing but not as valuable as two firsts in my mind.

 

Why wouldn't Bridgewater be an asset? The washed up corpse of Joe Flacco at 20 million got a 4th round pick in a trade. 

The Goff + mid rounder / Teddy + mid rounder basically washes out, however. 

50 minutes ago, Blue said:

Lastly, your comparison of trading those two picks for 12th overall is irrelevant because it's not the same thing. That's essentially a trade of one first round pick for two picks, potentially much lower in the round. That's not the same as trading away a player for future assets. Detroit's draft position didn't change like San Francisco's would in your example.

Of course it's relevant. I was saying if the Rams offered those same exact two picks for the 9ers #12 this year, I'd say no, nevermind 8. Detroit's current selection is not applicable to this trade as it doesn't impact the value of selection #8. It may change their preference. They made a choice between #8 this year and two future firsts. They chose the latter. Probably not what I would have done, but I get the gamble. 

Basically, as I said... I don't believe that Goff was a negative asset in this deal. I'd guess that he had some appeal for the Lions. A lot? Probably not. I don't think he was a negative asset though, which is why ET called me to explain why. The rest of whatever you guys are talking about I have no idea on though. I don't even really know what you're trying to convey besides what you told me here. I was simply called in to express why I thought Goff had positive value in the trade. 

***edit***

Going back and looking through some of what you said prior to my explanation on Goff, I don't have a problem with what you are saying. LIS, I do believe that the Lions assigned some positive value to Goff because of Holmes and his relationship with the QB, but I have no problem saying that he wasn't an "asset" in the deal and was a neutral value. I am just an ardent opponent of the idea that he had negative value in the deal which doesn't seems like what you said. 

[Blue]

52 minutes ago, Forge said:

The assumption should be that they are picking middle to the back. If you're assuming best case scenario as opposed to worst case scenario, you're doing it wrong. The fact that they could end up high is a compensating factor for choosing that offer, nothing more. You shouldn't be banking on an injury 

Also, they aren't in salary cap hell. Its fairly easy to navigate their cap in truth. Restructures on Donald and Ramsey are no doubt coming. I thought they would restructure Stafford and give him an extension. The reports are they aren't doing that yet, but tha'ts another easy way to free up money. 

For all their lack of first round picks, they are one of the youngest teams in the NFL. 

So you'd take picks 32 and 31 over #1. That's certainly one way to go about building a roster. To each their own though. 

You may not like the trade value charts, but recent ones, such as the harvard one or the Rich Hill one are evaluating their worth based previous trade history, I believe (that could be wrong, but I Think that's the case). So it does ostensibly provide a barometer of value for these choice in a vacuum across the league. Obviously there are additional variables that come into play and not everyone has the same value...it's basically an approximation. In your case, you seem to value #8 much lower...I don't know that its necessarily a sentiment that is popular or not when compared against the value of these two specific future firsts.  I know some people in that thread felt they should have taken #8. I Thought it was pretty close (which makes sense...as I said, these two offerings are reasonably comparable in value). 

This is not relevant to anything I'm saying, so I'm moving forward. It doesn't change value in a vacuum...it is a matter of preference, which is fine. 

Why wouldn't Bridgewater be an asset? The washed up corpse of Joe Flacco at 20 million got a 4th round pick in a trade. 

The Goff + mid rounder / Teddy + mid rounder basically washes out, however. 

Of course it's relevant. I was saying if the Rams offered those same exact two picks for the 9ers #12 this year, I'd say no, nevermind 8. Detroit's current selection is not applicable to this trade as it doesn't impact the value of selection #8. It may change their preference. They made a choice between #8 this year and two future firsts. They chose the latter. Probably not what I would have done, but I get the gamble. 

Basically, as I said... I don't believe that Goff was a negative asset in this deal. I'd guess that he had some appeal for the Lions. A lot? Probably not. I don't think he was a negative asset though, which is why ET called me to explain why. The rest of whatever you guys are talking about I have no idea on though. I don't even really know what you're trying to convey besides what you told me here. I was simply called in to express why I thought Goff had positive value in the trade. 

***edit***

Going back and looking through some of what you said prior to my explanation on Goff, I don't have a problem with what you are saying. LIS, I do believe that the Lions assigned some positive value to Goff because of Holmes and his relationship with the QB, but I have no problem saying that he wasn't an "asset" in the deal and was a neutral value. I am just an ardent opponent of the idea that he had negative value in the deal which doesn't seems like what you said. 

I'm not assuming any scenario. I'm saying that it's wrong to assume the worst-case scenario.

They have to restructure the top four contracts on their sheet just to get close to the cap this year-which then makes it more difficult to clear cap space in the future. I suppose that's not a huge deal given they have no first round picks to extend, but it's still a factor. One assumes they would prefer to sign Stafford to an extension this year, but given his recent run of injuries, I don't know if they want to do that before he plays a snap for them.

I never said I would take 31 and 32 over No. 1, that's a gross misrepresentation of my position, and you know it.

Bridgewater hasn't won a playoff game, let alone a Super Bowl, at any point in his career. I know Flacco when he was traded wasn't that player anymore, but he had a vastly better resume than Bridgewater has had at any point in his career--and didn't have the serious leg injury in his past that Teddy does. As much as I like Teddy, there's no reason to believe he's an asset to anyone when it comes to a trade.

I do understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree that the Panthers made a better offer.

[Broncofan]

3 hours ago, Forge said:

 

Why wouldn't Bridgewater be an asset? The washed up corpse of Joe Flacco at 20 million got a 4th round pick in a trade. 

 

I don't think Bridgewater has much value at all at 17M, given we know how limited he is.   But let's just agree that Elway acquiring Flacco was a move of utter desperation and misguided win-now philosophy on team that isn't even close to winning (back then).   And that generally smart ppl can still commit acts of sheer stupidity every now and then.   I don't know that it helps the argument for QB value in markets where the QB choices are far greater than they were back then.

I'm pretty sure Ozzie Newsome still sends Elway a card each Holidays for that one.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Broncofan