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!

     

Panthers might trade up according Jason loc aflorla if they can't get Watson

Panthers316

By Panthers316,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

ForJimmy Grand Master

ForJimmy

Posted
Posted
Just now, SizzleBuzz said:

So who is the best option in a trade-up scenario?

 

Because the Watson scenario is a complete non-starter....

Miami? I doubt the Falcons will trade with us. Cincinnati is an option is a QB is still available since they don’t need one.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SizzleBuzz Grand Master

SizzleBuzz

Posted
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, mickeye76 said:
12 hours ago, Jon Snow said:

It reeks of desperation.

I disagree I feel the Watson trade would be desperate. 

It's laughable really...

...akin to a toll-taker on the Cross-Bronx-Expressway thinking he has a shot at the Uptown Girl just because his office is "uptown"...

...LOL.

The incessant pining for DW is rooted in pure fantasy and literally nothing more....

Edited by SizzleBuzz
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaveThePanther2008 Grand Master

DaveThePanther2008

Posted
Posted

To be honest, I think this is the only way we get a QB in the draft.  There are many teams that will be willing to trade up and snag one of those QBs.  If one team moves up with a team like Cincinnati or even Miami than you can bet at least 4 will be gone.  

We have to have Watson before draft day, if not, than we need to be the aggressor and make a move.

I hate trading up and would rather trade down and get more picks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MHS831 Grand Master

MHS831

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Aquemini said:

How does trading the farm for QB, then paying that QB top money instill any optimism in you when Newton, for 14 mil is going to have NE a SB56 winner?

So you are basing an argument on some improbable vision of the future that is not at all based on recent history (the Patriots missed the playoffs for the first time in 20 years)? 

Nice.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MHS831 Grand Master

MHS831

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

To be honest, I think this is the only way we get a QB in the draft.  There are many teams that will be willing to trade up and snag one of those QBs.  If one team moves up with a team like Cincinnati or even Miami than you can bet at least 4 will be gone.  

We have to have Watson before draft day, if not, than we need to be the aggressor and make a move.

I hate trading up and would rather trade down and get more picks.  

Over the next few days we will see what people think of Trubiski.  I have no idea where he might land-or what he will get-but that is a good barometer. 

I have mixed feelings about the run on QBs in the draft.  First, yes we are going to have to move up (But we beat the WTFs!) and there will be a lot of competition for the pick, so we have to pay top asking price. 

 

Edited by MHS831
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MHS831 Grand Master

MHS831

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, TrevorLaurenceTime22 said:

Lmfao keep believing that..m Also read the contract structure its a 3.5-7M dollar deal the rest is fluff.

Last year, I think, he could have earned about $7m with incentives.  He did not make them.

I would kinda love to see Cam regain some form of his old self because I pull for him, but that seems unlikely.  And if he does, there will be Camolites on here saying, "We should have re-signed him!! What were we thinking?  Well, he has had 1 good season (2017) since the Super Bowl (50).  He wanted in the $30-35m range.  Yeah, that would have been smart.

  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...