*SPECULATION* Rapoport: Panthers Among Potential Suitors For Trading For 16 Million Dollar Scatback Jarvis Landry

[top dawg]

2 minutes ago, Kevin Greene said:

This would be as stupid as trading away future #1s so we could select a hack in the 2nd round, we won't do that.

 

Wait...........

 

 

.

Anything more than a fifth,  and I'd curse Hurney myself.  That's part of my problem with Gettleman,  always trading picks. We have too many holes to be giving away picks,  especially for slot receivers. 

[Kevin Greene]

9 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Anything more than a fifth,  and I'd curse Hurney myself.  That's part of my problem with Gettleman,  always trading picks. We have too many holes to be giving away picks,  especially for slot receivers. 

I don't care if we got him fro free, smart NFL Franchises don't spend 16 million on players like Landry.

[peteywheatstraw]

16 minutes ago, stbugs said:

 

It's not just the money, it's the pick as well. Dolphins would want our 1st or some package close to that.

Watkins + Price (and likely Daryl Williams) > Landry

I also want a fast threat on the outside. We have CMC and Olsen roaming the middle, we don't need Landry in the slot and lose all of that. 

I definitely do not want him at that price, and most I'd give up is a late 3rd.  The people on here acting like he's not a good wide out I cannot even take seriously.  Like we have some juggernaut wide outs on this team or some poo.  It's absurd, and borderline retarded.  

[Moo Daeng]

2 minutes ago, Kevin Greene said:

I don't care if we got him fro free, smart NFL Franchises don't spend 16 million on the RB position.

I agree that the money is absurd but he's a wide receiver. 

[Kevin Greene]

4 minutes ago, Moo Daeng said:

I agree that the money is absurd but he's a wide receiver. 

Thanks, I had already fixed it.

[Moo Daeng]

4 minutes ago, Kevin Greene said:

Thanks, I had already fixed it.

I had seen some other comments referring to him as a RB. I thought that maybe people were saying that because he is used that way.  He gets some runs but certainly not anywhere near enough to warrant that label. Just one this past season.

[RetiredCollegeCoach]

WIde receivers still don't command that money unless they are, a.) ultra-elite, b.) overpaid. Hey, guess which Jarvis Landry would be.

We could overpay for a good WR, or we could underpay for an underappreciated one.

We could also use this thing called the draft, which gives you the young elite of tomorrow at costs so controlled they should (very literally) be made illegal.

 

[RetiredCollegeCoach]

Just now, Moo Daeng said:

I had seen some other comments referring to him as a RB. I thought that maybe people were saying that because he is used that way.  He gets some runs but certainly not anywhere near enough to warrant that label. Just one this past season.

That's what happens when people seize on something and take it completely out of control.

[Moo Daeng]

1 minute ago, RetiredCollegeCoach said:

That's what happens when people seize on something and take it completely out of control.

You have to verify everything said here. Roughly half is completely unfounded.

[Kevin Greene]

3 minutes ago, Moo Daeng said:

I had seen some other comments referring to him as a RB. I thought that maybe people were saying that because he is used that way.  He gets some runs but certainly not anywhere near enough to warrant that label. Just one this past season.

Yeah he essentially hasn't been a return man for 2 years either.

[top dawg]

17 minutes ago, Kevin Greene said:

I don't care if we got him fro free, smart NFL Franchises don't spend 16 million on players like Landry.

That's why I said that the only way I'd accept Landry is with a long term contract that absorbed that 16 mil.  Though I wouldn't necessarily like it, I couldn't really argue with a 5 year,  50 mil contract with 32 mil guaranteed, for example,  that included the 16 mil 

[t96]

3 minutes ago, top dawg said:

That's why I said that the only way I'd accept Landry is with a long term contract that absorbed that 16 mil.  Though I wouldn't necessarily like it, I couldn't really argue with a 5 year,  50 mil contract with 32 mil guaranteed, for example,  that included the 16 mil 

Problem is he's already been tagged at $16M by the Dolphins. That hugely complicates things for them trying to trade him because he and his agent know now that the Dolphins have valued him at $16M for one season. With that, he's not going to accept less than maybe $14Mish/yr on a long term deal because why would he when he's been valued at $16M already...? And no team will trade for him without a long term deal in place first. 

I agree with you if we could get him for $10M/year and a 2nd or 3rd rounder that could be okay but that's just not realistic. And that'd also mean we take McC out of slot duties, where he excelled as a rookie. Which wouldn't make a ton of sense to be honest.

[Palmetto]

He would agree to a long term contract before the trade

[panthers55]

4 hours ago, Saca312 said:

Sure, if Landry's as good as you say, who wouldn't want him. I can see your point.

However, I also am thinking about this on a money and logical basis as well. As enticing as it is to embrace Cam with a top tier WR, you also have to consider how much he costs alongside how much we can afford.

The issue is cap space. Sure, if there was an infinite surplus, I'd already be advocating us to grab every top tier FA option and pay them record deals.

But sadly, it's not. That's why even if Kelvin Benjamin lived up to the hype and demanded 16 million, I'd rather we let him go. Simply put, we have around 18 million or so to spend this offseason, and adding landry would be eating up 8/9 of that cap space.

You have to remember, we still have to consider keeping Gano or finding a new kicker, adding a veteran secondary piece, and trying to retain Norwell and/or Star alongside adding a WR. Sure, Landry's an enticing big name, but at this point with our cap it's better to find value guys who'll still contribute while having a solid reputation.

 

You would never trade for him.unless you had a long term deal done which would make his cap very manageable in year 1. Decent in year 2 and high in year 3. By then if he is great you restructure his contract or cut him if he disappoints. If Hurney has learned his lesson he would closely manage the guaranteed money. 

With that being said Hurney wasn't known for signing expensive free agents by the end of his first tenure. He tried that early on and it didn't work out that well. I would be very surprised if we even show that much interest.