Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

How much is to much for Micheal Floyd?

micnificent28

By micnificent28,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

AceBoogie Veteran

AceBoogie

Posted
Posted

 

You want to give up a mid-round pick for a one year rental of a guy who hasn't shown much in the league in his first 3 years (13 career TDs in 3 years)?

As a GM, you'd make that trade?

As a GM I wouldn't have to because I'd still have my HOF WR on the roster. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
micnificent28 Mentor

micnificent28

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Brandon Marshall was gotten for a 5th rounder right? Anything more than a 7th for Floyd is stupid. 

Brandon Marshall is 30 and also a proven locker room headache. If he was as awesome as his play on the field he wouldnt have been traded from the Broncos or last year. Floyd is still on his rookie contract. Again unless some disgruntled randy moss harvin marshall fire sale opens up a 5-7 for a recent first rounder is decent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tiger7_88 Experienced

tiger7_88

Posted
Posted

It makes sense so it won't happen.

I keep pointing this out yet people keep ignoring it, so I'll ask again:

Is it your opinion that giving a mid-round draft pick for a one-year rental for an proven mediocre WR (13 career TDs in 3 years) is a wise move at this point?  Because he's under contract for two more years... and (as I keep pointing out) his contracted salary and cap hit for next year is over $7 million.

So we either:

- Trade a mid-round pick for a proven mediocre WR in order to pay him over $7 million next year.

or

- Trade a mid-round pick for a proven mediocre WR just to cut him at the end of the year, thus giving up the mid-round pick for a one-year rental.

Which of the above moves do you think a wise GM would make?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
t96 Grand Master

t96

Posted
Posted

 

So some of you want to give up a 3rd-5th round draft choice for a one-year rental for an utterly average receiver?

I can smell the panic from here.

He's not "an utterly average receiver" and wouldn't be a one year rental unless he really stunk it up here. 3rd to 5th rounders usually don't amount to anything other than depth. It would definitely be worth it to give up a mid rounder for a bonafide starter at WR, even if there's a possibility we only get him for a year. With KB back we would have KB and Floyd outside with Funch in the slot. That would be a very strong WR group. The thing is though, I highly doubt that they'd trade him for anything less than a 2nd maybe even a 1st. Which is too much for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
t96 Grand Master

t96

Posted
Posted

 

I keep pointing this out yet people keep ignoring it, so I'll ask again:

Is it your opinion that giving a mid-round draft pick for a one-year rental for an proven mediocre WR (13 career TDs in 3 years) is a wise move at this point?  Because he's under contract for two more years... and (as I keep pointing out) his contracted salary and cap hit for next year is over $7 million.

So we either:

- Trade a mid-round pick for a proven mediocre WR in order to pay him over $7 million next year.

or

- Trade a mid-round pick for a proven mediocre WR just to cut him at the end of the year, thus giving up the mid-round pick for a one-year rental.

Which of the above moves do you think a wise GM would make?

Your logic is flawed because he's not a mediocre WR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Car123 Proficient

Car123

Posted
Posted

 

I keep pointing this out yet people keep ignoring it, so I'll ask again:

Is it your opinion that giving a mid-round draft pick for a one-year rental for an proven mediocre WR (13 career TDs in 3 years) is a wise move at this point?  Because he's under contract for two more years... and (as I keep pointing out) his contracted salary and cap hit for next year is over $7 million.

So we either:

- Trade a mid-round pick for a proven mediocre WR in order to pay him over $7 million next year.

or

- Trade a mid-round pick for a proven mediocre WR just to cut him at the end of the year, thus giving up the mid-round pick for a one-year rental.

Which of the above moves do you think a wise GM would make?

Floyd is an above average WR. 841 yards (17.9 ypc) with Lindley and Stanton as your QB is impressive. I wouldn't mind giving up a 5th. Won't Carolina receive a comp pick next year for Hardy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tiger7_88 Experienced

tiger7_88

Posted
Posted

He's not "an utterly average receiver" and wouldn't be a one year rental unless he really stunk it up here. 3rd to 5th rounders usually don't amount to anything other than depth. It would definitely be worth it to give up a mid rounder for a bonafide starter at WR, even if there's a possibility we only get him for a year. With KB back we would have KB and Floyd outside with Funch in the slot. That would be a very strong WR group. The thing is though, I highly doubt that they'd trade him for anything less than a 2nd maybe even a 1st. Which is too much for us.

He's a receiver that in his career 48 games, he is averaging 3 catches per game, 50 receiving yards per game, and one receiving TD every *four* games.

He is UTTERLY AVERAGE.

And he WOULD be a one-year rental unless you want to pay him over $7 million in salary next year in the final year of his contract.  I don't know which would be worse... surrendering a mid-round pick for a one-year rental... or surrendering a mid-round pick for an utterly average NFL WR and then paying him over $7 million in salary in 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MadHatter Rookie

MadHatter

Posted
Posted

Michael Floyd's salary this year is $1.75 million with a cap hit of $3.1 million.

Next year his salary and cap hit blow up to $7.32 million.  For a guy who has averaged 800 yards a season and has caught 13 total TD passes in 3 years.

So... no.

But, but, but....he is a name I have heard of and that means we must overpay for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...