A-Rod's New team (if traded), what can Packers get in trade?

[incognito_man 6,959]

1 minute ago, cannondale said:

Like I'm gonna read that. 

I stand by my original opinion. Trading for players in not good value - especially when you consider the timeline.

You're a troll. You trolled my height weight in the Van Lanen thread, you were the ultimate Capers troll for years, and you tried trolling now with the 5th year option comment. I get it - its your schtick. Do what you do best.

yes. go through life thinking those people kind enough to correct your misunderstandings are "trolls". Good for personal growth

[cannondale 1,652]

9 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

yes. go through life thinking those people kind enough to correct your misunderstandings are "trolls". Good for personal growth

Thank you for correcting me that the 5th year option exists when I already knew that. Thank you trolling my height weight as if I'm a liar. My personal growth thanks you as well. 🙄

Edited May 5 by cannondale

[squire12 5,570]

1 hour ago, cannondale said:

Realistically plot a timeline. Fant is gone before he matters

Fant's entering his 3rd year.  So 2 years on rookie contract + 5th year option.  Franchise tag if needed.  Thats 4 years.  Seems like a fair timeline.

[incognito_man 6,959]

9 minutes ago, cannondale said:

Thank you for correcting me that the 5th year option exists when I already knew that. Thank you trolling my height weight as if I'm a liar. My personal growth thanks you as well. 🙄

you said he had only 2 years left. I corrected you. I have no idea what you're talking about regarding your height and weight lol

[squire12 5,570]

25 minutes ago, cannondale said:

Like I'm gonna read that. 

I stand by my original opinion. Trading for players in not good value - especially when you consider the timeline.

You're a troll. You trolled my height weight in the Van Lanen thread, you were the ultimate Capers troll for years, and you tried trolling now with the 5th year option comment. I get it - its your schtick. Do what you do best.

Draft pick are less certain to get quality vs a known commodity in a player like Fant.

[cannondale 1,652]

8 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

you said he had only 2 years left. I corrected you. I have no idea what you're talking about regarding your height and weight lol

He has 2 years left on his rookie contract.  And there's no denying the other troll - it's there in black and white

[cannondale 1,652]

3 minutes ago, squire12 said:

Draft pick are less certain to get quality vs a known commodity in a player like Fant.

I can agree to that idea - and your timeline is technically correct - but I don't agree that is provides great value

[incognito_man 6,959]

1 minute ago, cannondale said:

He has 2 years left on his rookie contract.  And there's no denying the other troll - it's there in black and white

i mean, why not double down on your wrongness, right?

keep maintaining a death-grip on that, fella

Still no clue about what other troll you are talking about or what they said and where and why it's black and white

[cannondale 1,652]

Just now, incognito_man said:

i mean, why not double down on your wrongness, right?

keep maintaining a death-grip on that, fella

Still no clue about what other troll you are talking about or what they said and where and why it's black and white

Go away

[incognito_man 6,959]

1 minute ago, cannondale said:

Go away

while i'm there, i'll look for your facts

Edited May 5 by incognito_man

[squire12 5,570]

14 minutes ago, cannondale said:

I can agree to that idea - and your timeline is technically correct - but I don't agree that is provides great value

I'm factoring in a few things. 

1.  Good/great TE are harder to find.  Whether Fant will be a great TE is unknown, but I would take the shot given what he was in his first 2 years.

2. TE take a little longer to develop and hit their stride in the NFL.   Getting Fant after he has had a little seasoning seems like a better value.  

3.  MLF offense seems less reliant on the WR position.  

[squire12 5,570]

17 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Still no clue about what other troll you are talking about or what they said and where and why it's black and white

 

[incognito_man 6,959]

2 minutes ago, squire12 said:

 

She looks like one of my neighbors kids. I think about this meme every time I see them walk by lol

Is she the troll?

[cannondale 1,652]

14 minutes ago, squire12 said:

I'm factoring in a few things. 

1.  Good/great TE are harder to find.  Whether Fant will be a great TE is unknown, but I would take the shot given what he was in his first 2 years.

2. TE take a little longer to develop and hit their stride in the NFL.   Getting Fant after he has had a little seasoning seems like a better value.  

3.  MLF offense seems less reliant on the WR position.  

My factoring comes from a different angle.

Year 1: Barring a miracle it's a throw away year. Playoffs ? Are you talking playoffs ? 

Year 2: One can hope - but it's still very early in Love's career and development

Year 3: You can use the 5th year option - but he's gonna be looking for a long term deal

Edited May 5 by cannondale

[ricky 28]

This may have been suggested before. Because I'm not going to read through seven pages of comments, especially when so many now are veering off topic. So, what should Denver give up for Rodgers? Surtain and Bridgewater. And throw in two firsts. In effect this gives the Packers three firsts (including Surtain, who I believe was drafted with a Rodgers trade in mind). And Bridgewater would be either the backup or starter, depending on how ready Love is. In effect, Teddy would be that "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" (sorry, I couldn't resist). Because I truly believe Rodgers will be gone after June 1. And the Broncos will also have to take on at least a portion of his contract to ease the cap hit for the Packers. Can it be done? Of course. Will it? Stay tuned, but my instincts tell me that this is going to play out in a way that Rodgers forces his way out of GB.