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!

     

Rams Offering Two (Future) Firsts for Burns

OnlyPantherFaninMaine

By OnlyPantherFaninMaine,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

Panther'sBigD Mentor

Panther'sBigD

Posted
Posted (edited)

An elite pass rusher in the hand is worth two in the (future)draft. 

If Fitterer takes this deal, then the tank is in full effect. You don't trade away a player like Burns for future picks if you think you'll be able to compete next season. 

Edited by Panther'sBigD
  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SetfreexX Mentor

SetfreexX

Posted
Posted

You don't take future 1sts in 24, and 25 for a Star caliber player that is ascending. Some of ya'll make no sense at all pass rush is a PREMIUM it's why they're willing to part with the 1st's in the first place. 

If you are gonna even consider the trade it can't be from a team that is likely to make the playoffs both of those seasons. Then you're trading our best pass rusher for some guys in the mid 20's....

You can trade a CMC, as paying a running back 19M-21M on avg is INSANE. That money, or that caliber of money is reserved for PREMIUM positions. 

QB / T / EDGE / WR / DB

 

  • Pie 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snake Grand Master

Snake

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Jaxel said:

Your gonna have to add some sweetners to that deal for me. Maybe that 2nd and third this year since those picks are 2 and 3 years from now.

I doubt they would trade that. My understanding is the Ram's don't have many picks next year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaxel Veteran

Jaxel

Posted
Posted
Just now, Snake said:

I doubt they would trade that. My understanding is the Ram's don't have many picks next year. 

They don't, but they just went cheap on McCaffrey and got their asses whooped by him, so if they want to compete they are going to have to pay out.

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

Snake

Posted
Posted
Just now, Jaxel said:

They don't, but they just went cheap on McCaffrey and got their asses whooped by him, so if they want to compete they are going to have to pay out.

I would say two firsts for a guy who isn't a all pro is pretty high and desperate if you ask me. Those picks could set us up nicely in the future. Especially since Burns will be playing for a rebuild team the next two years. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
zacka77ack Rising Star

zacka77ack

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Panther'sBigD said:

An elite pass rusher in the hand is worth two in the (future)draft. 

If Fitterer takes this deal, then the tank is in full effect. You don't trade away a player like Burns for future picks if you think you'll be able to compete next season. 

Brian Burns is not elite.

  • Pie 6
  • Flames 1
  • Poo 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaxel Veteran

Jaxel

Posted
Posted
Just now, Snake said:

I would say two firsts for a guy who isn't a all pro is pretty high and desperate if you ask me. Those picks could set us up nicely in the future. Especially since Burns will be playing for a rebuild team the next two years. 

Sure, but we have the leverage. They are in a position where they need pieces to compete, they have limited capital and several team in their division are well ahead of them right now. Just because it's 2 first round picks doesn't mean it's the best deal. Use your leverage and take what you can. We need to stop being a candy store for teams to pick off our best player for cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaxel Veteran

Jaxel

Posted
Posted
Just now, glenwo2 said:

Multiple 1st round picks?

 

From a team that is not guaranteed to go to the heights it did when it went on its SuperBowl run with a QB that is hot-and-cold?

 

I'll take that deal and run away with it.

If it was this years and next years maybe. But 2 and 3 years from now does not hold the same value - squeeze them for more or say no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hepcat Grand Master

hepcat

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, CRA said:

I mean you take that deal.  You say goodbye to Burns. 

is Burns talented? Yes.  But to date he has been an incomplete DE.  A pass rush specialist that has never hit double digit sacks. 

Especially when your win horizon is down the road and have to draft a QB to build up. 

Burns sucks against the run. Trade him for two picks, try and get a mid round 2023 pick to seal the deal.

  • Poo 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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...