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!

     

Incoming LT?


TheCasillas
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

If we get him then we are out on Watson right?  Also I would assume we go QB in the draft then?

no, we are spending like we got this. There are outbound players, and the money we dont have to spend on the draft this year if traded away. 

Pending who is part of the deal, we would most likely pockett anywhere from 5-16 million in the trade, plus  the 6/7 million from the worth of the first round pick.

Wherever D4 goes, he is going to extend or restructure. You dont trade that capital and leave that contract as is. Thats just bad for the business.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

If we get him then we are out on Watson right?  Also I would assume we go QB in the draft then?

Not at all.  Good chance any deal involving Watson sends Sam and his 18 million to Houston

Edited by Smithers
  • Pie 3
  • Beer 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

If we get him then we are out on Watson right?  Also I would assume we go QB in the draft then?

What's interesting to me is that if we don't trade for Watson, we can easily grab a good LT in the draft.  But if we trade for Watson, we need to go hard after a LT in free agency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheCasillas said:

no, we are spending like we got this. There are outbound players, and the money we dont have to spend on the draft this year if traded away. 

Pending who is part of the deal, we would most likely pockett anywhere from 5-16 million in the trade, plus  the 6/7 million from the worth of the first round pick.

Wherever D4 goes, he is going to extend or restructure. You dont trade that capital and leave that contract as is. Thats just bad for the business.

Just trying to figure out how we shell out the money for a top Guard, big money on LT, and huge on QB...  If we can ditch Darnold's cap hit then it makes sense.  Man that was a dumb move extending him...

  • Pie 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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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
    • 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.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...