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!

     

Would it be stupid to offer a draft pick (mid round) for an established solid kicker?

YourLastThought

By YourLastThought,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

YourLastThought Mentor

YourLastThought

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 minutes ago, hepcat said:

Who is even offering a reliable kicker for trade more importantly?

Probably nobody. I guess my thoughts were in hoping to entice a team by throwing a 4th out there but as was brought to my attention with the shortage of good kickers in the league right now that probably wouldn't get us anything anyhow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snake Grand Master

Snake

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, YourLastThought said:

Very true, I guess it was just wishful thinking on my part. And yep Gano or Butker sure do look like nice options these days don't they! I admit I was on the Gano hate train and am now eating my words.

Its why a handfull of us said we would never be successful until Hurney was gone. He was a horrible GM and even Tepper admitted he fugged up. Moving forward I have faith in our FO to improve that position going forward.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yeah, sorry. As others have mentioned, teams that have a good kicker aren't likely to let them go. And nobody I know of is carrying two on the main roster (not even Washington).

Shopping for a kicker at this time of year likely means trying to pluck somebody up and coming off a practice squad (like what happened to us with Butker) or find a surprising free agent (a lot less likely).

Edited by Mr. Scot
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vorbis Community Regular

vorbis

Posted
Posted

it's hard to agree to this hypothetical, to be honest. you'd have to know that a particular kicker was available. and really, there's only a handful of kickers who would be worth that kind of compensation.

it's too easy to get replacement level production by scouring the waiver wire and plucking off practice squads like the Panthers have been doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SetfreexX Mentor

SetfreexX

Posted
Posted

Said team would have to be WILLING to give up said kicker. You're not gonna trade for a Gano, Butker, or a Tucker. 

Prior and even current management screwed the pooch at this position. If memory serves, Gano was cut in favor of Slye under Rhule / Marty as a cap casualty so there may not have been a choice. 

Rivera / Marty lost Butker off the PS, they should have assigned a ghost injury and set him on the IR (see Fletcher). 

  • Beer 1
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...