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!

     

Tell me if you think this trade is even


Killa Cam 69

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Killa Cam 69 said:

Yeah I couldn’t wrap my head around it the guy that got cam Evans and Elliot is in fourth the go who got shafted is in ninth in a 12 man league.. I’m all for trades and of coarse they will never be perfect but I couldn’t believe it went through no problem 

It's a trade that doesn't look very smart but if there isn't any collusion, no reason to cancel it IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2018 at 4:59 PM, Killa Cam 69 said:

Eziquel Elliot cam newton and mike Evans for McCaffrey Jon brown and Kerryon Jonson... 

Maybe it depends on scoring format but in my league Cam is the #4 QB and only 4 points behind Luck for #3 and Luck is on a Bye so Cam Newton will pass him. Zeke is RB#9 in my league. McCaffrey is RB#10, only .5 points behind Zeke. Kerryon Johnson is RB#27. Mike Evans is WR#10. Brown is WR#16. 

So one way to view the trade is:

Player A is giving up QB3, RB9 and WR10

Player B is giving up RB10, RB27 and WR16. 

A second way"

Player A is losing 17.5 points for Evans to Brown. 

Player A is losing .5 points for Zeke to McCaffery

Player A is losing 89.5 points for Cam to Johnson. 

Not sure what the format is in your league but unless player A has Mahomes or Ryan it seems like a stupid trade just to get rid of Cam in this. Zeke and CMC are a wash. Evans to brown is a massive downgrade as well. At no point is this dude winning and I would start to suspect collusion if this is a pay league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...