woahfraze

He's playing Melo a bunch now.... Maybe the more logical answer is that the young bigs aren't ready.

Well, only if the Eagles view it that way. And in any case, the contract is so large, that I honestly have no interest in trading for him even if it's for peanuts. If we could get him for a 3rd round pick and Teddy, I still wouldn't want to. His cap hits for the next four years: $35MM, $31MM, $36MM, and $32MM. And with the way the contract is structured, the dead money if you were to cut him (I'll exclude this year, because if we trade for him, we'd be auditioning him): $24MM, $15MM, and $6MM. That means if he bombs this year, and you cut him in the 2022 offseason, you're on the hook for $24MM in dead cap (post June 1 cut would be hits of $9MM and $15MM in consecutive years). Cutting him the following year is still fairly unpalatable at $15MM. I don't want that sort of financial risk when our roster is on the upswing.

Wentz's contract has to change the package. For that salary, and the risk that his recent regression was toward the mean rather than a temporary dip in performance, means we shouldn't be giving up a huge package.

It's the NBA, so a 17 point lead isn't safe, particularly after one quarter. But it looks like we may be getting put in our place tonight lol.

This is where the buck stops for me.

I think Jimmy is better than Teddy, but not by a wide margin and that's only when he can stay on the field. Contractually, both have two years remaining. Teddy has got 2yr/$49MM with dead cap hits associated with cutting him this year or the next of $20MM and $5MM respectively. Jimmy has got 2yr/$53.4MM, but the dead cap hits are only $2.8MM and $1.4MM. So Jimmy has a more attractive deal in that he can be cut with less pain than cutting Teddy if he doesn't perform well. If we trade Teddy, we still incur the dead cap hit. So if this happens, we'd take a $20MM hit this year, and then if Jimmy sucks a $1.4MM hit next year after cutting him. If you don't view Jimmy as an upgrade, it'd be better to just hold onto Teddy and take the $5MM dead cap hit for him next offseason. Basically the deal only works if Jimmy works. It can't be a swapping of spare parts. EDIT: Looks like the cap rules are different for trades vs. cuts. Spotrac showing that trading Teddy would actually only be a 10MM dead cap hit for us, either all at once (Pre June 1) or spread over two years (Post June 1). Not sure why that's the case. I was under the impression trading vs. cutting was the same. That would make the swap more worth the risk IMO.

If Malik Monk is going to play like this, I don't think I want to trade him lol. Or maybe it would make sense to sell high?

He deserves it, but the only reason he's actually starting is because Rozier was ruled out with an ankle injury.

That depends on what return we can get for their expiring versus what we think we can resign them for. We can definitely improve a the C/PF position over what Zeller currently brings, but he also won't (or at least shouldn't) command a $15MM salary again. He'd be worth bringing back as a depth piece for significantly less. If you don't feel that he will resign for less than half his current salary, I think he's more valuable as a trade chip. With such a large amount expiring, he's a pretty attractive piece for other teams. I lean toward using him as a trade asset rather than resigning him. Monk will likely be viewed as a salvageable young player, so I think he could fetch a decent return. If we feel differently or the relationship has soured too much, I'd definitely unload him at the deadline. Borrego has been playing him more of late and he's been relatively effective. I'm on the fence here, but I'd lean toward trading him. Biyombo has literally zero trade value other than as an expiring. Throw him in a deal to make salaries match. We should try to retain Graham as a microwave instant offense scorer off the bench/heavy rotation guard. I'd look to sign him to a 3 or 4 year deal at $10 MM per deal. I don't think he'd garner much as a trade chip because his expiring contract is so small. Unless the receiving team has it worked out that the trade is contingent on him signing an extension, he's not all that valuable as a rental or expiring contract.

40 times aren't indicative on athleticism. Just because Jones can accelerate and run in a straight line in a comparable time to other QBs doesn't mean he has the same sort of escapability, movement behind the line of scrimmage, or balance, functional strength, and arm talent to throw the ball effectively on the move that the really good ones have.

Because in real life, everything is on a spectrum. There aren't just big semi trucks and full length trailers in the league. There are some QBs that are F-150s or 250s, and they are capable of hauling average rosters (a boat trailer or small pop-up camper for example) behind them, but they can't tow a full trailer (e.g. the Detroit Lions).

OK. I'm just not certain you can fully evaluate those things given the offense around him this year. In any case, what you are describing is a Kirk Cousins type QB, and if we're drafting a QB at 8, I want a guy who is better than that. You need a guy that get you over the hump, and as much as I like Kirk Cousins--I actually think he's a bit underrated--he isn't that guy IMO.

Does he have those things though? I'm not certain.

This is a very reasonable take IMO: https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/news/2021-nfl-draft-mac-jones-despite-gaudy-statistics-at-alabama-lacks-in-key-areas-as-a-prospect/ Can he be successful in the NFL? Yes, if he's in the right situation. But it doesn't look like he has the tools to elevate an offense around him, and to me that means he can't be a "franchise" QB. Honestly, I don't want to waste time with a QB that can't be that guy, so I'd prefer to avoid Mac Jones even in the 2nd round. Now if he falls to the 3rd, the value is probably there to roll the dice and hope he can improve on those areas of weakness.

I wonder if Detroit would accept next year's first, and since there's no guarantee for them that it would be as high as 8th overall, we'd also throw in this year's 2nd rounder.

Moton is a free agent. He isn't our's to trade.

This isn't about the stats, which were pretty close between the two. Yes, both got to play on loaded offenses, but Burrow flashed a lot more tools than Jones over the course of the year. More of Jones' throws weren't high difficulty throws and he didn't demonstrate the same level of mobility, pocket escapability, improvisation, and ability to throw on the run. Burrow was super aggressive pushing the ball down the field, even when on the run, and any of his deep throws were into tight coverage. He demonstrated insane ball placement on his throws. His high completion percentage is much more impressive than Mac Jones because of those types of throws.

I definitely like the idea of pick conditionality, but I'm not sure Detroit would agree to it. And then there's the issue of Teddy. I'm of the belief that including him in a trade means we will have to include more draft capital, not less. Yes, that's right, I think Teddy has negative value. His contract is not super onerous in a vacuum, but including him in a trade is basically asking a team to give up a player of value and accept a salary dump, because Teddy doesn't have very much positive value/isn't worth his contract.

This is my reserve price on him. I think he's a very good QB. And even though the positional value for QBs is sky high, especially given the sort of turnover we're going to see among that group this offseason, I'm not giving up a 1st for Stafford. EDIT: I could maybe be persuaded that Stafford is worth a late first round pick. But definitely not 8. And I doubt Detroit would accept a future 1st. And there's no guarantee that if we traded a future first, that it would end up being that much later in the round.

The money works out, so the trade works under NBA cap rules. Indiana gets cap relief in the form of Zeller's expiring and a young guard that can be a microwave scorer off the bench. Hornets get a competent big man who can provide some rim protection and stretch the floor a bit (albeit on an inconsistent basis). I think it's a win-win. Only question I'd have is whether the 1st round is too much for Charlotte to give up. I'd try to do it with a 2nd rounder. If the Pacers insist, make sure you've got good protection on the pick--lottery protected next year, top 10 the year after, etc.

I re-read my post. It did come off like I'm an a-hole. No need to treat Jon Snow that way, even if he knows nothing.

I wasn't speaking to what we would need to trade to get Watson. Simply pointing out that cap space arguments like that shouldn't be used to prevent us from making/exploring the trade. Roster management must occur regardless of whether our QB is DeShaun Watson or in a couple years, a QB like a Zach Wilson that could also require a large contract.

Less concerned about the turnovers--it's the NBA, and with a fast paced style like Lamelo plays, you can live with some TOs that come from being aggressive and pushing the ball. Where I think Borrego and the staff are concerned is the defense. They feel it's bad enough that the trade off between a better offense with Lamelo on the floor isn't worth the porous defense. I don't have the on/off +/- and other advanced stats to back it up, but that's what they eye test says. It's what I was concerned about before the draft. I was saying Lamelo couldn't be a star if he didn't improve his defense because it would cancel out his offense. For what it's worth, I've been willing to eat crow on my Lamelo stance, because his offense has been better than I expected even with inconsistency with his shooting. And he's doing much better at such a young age than I expected. He's got a lot of time to improve on all aspects of his game.

This is silly. We'd be in the same situation with any franchise QB, not just Watson. To win in the NFL, you have to have a franchise QB. To have a franchise QB (unless they are on a rookie deal, in which case you're probably only getting a year or two of high level play before you have to pay them), you have to pony up the cap space to keep them on the roster. And allocating that cap space to a franchise QB means having to make tough decisions about other players that also need to get payed. You can either pay all the top guys and skimp on depth, only keep the QB and try to spread around the remaining cap around a larger of mid-level guys, try to stagger and structure deals so that the cap hits vary year to year to fit it all in under the cap, or hope to draft well enough that you're constantly getting outsized contributions for your dollars from players on rookie deals. Usually it's a combination of these strategies. TL/DR, your logic is dumb.

I don't understand how people aren't willing to give up a young talent to get Watson. The importance of a good QB cannot be overstated. The QB position is just so much more valuable than a WR, DE, or RB (yes, even when you have a do-it-all talent who does heavy lifting in the passing game too). Thought exercise: if you swap any one of DJ Moore, Brian Burns, or CMC for Watson and then compare the two rosters (pre-swap vs. post-swap) side by side, which roster would you rather have. You rather have the one with Watson 10 times out of 10. And yes, 1st round picks are important. And we've been pretty good at picking impact players with ours. But there's no guarantee that we find a star player or even a competent one with our first round picks moving forward. I'd rather invest that draft capital in a proven commodity at the most important position in football. No, I wouldn't trade two of our young talented core players for Watson. And yes, there is a limit on how much draft capital I am willing to unload for him. But some of you are really overvaluing our players and picks.