Dolphins extend Chubb

[kungfoodude]

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

Yeah, the franchise tag is really only a two year option.

144% of the second year tag is bananas. 

[Toomers]

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Yes. Because other teams will also be vying for him. A player demanding a trade only reduces the number of potential suitors by one.

As opposed to the 31 teams that could/could have traded for a cheap version of him this year. And didn’t. 

[mrcompletely11]

Just now, Toomers said:

As opposed to the 31 teams that could/could have traded for a cheap version of him this year. And didn’t. 

Couple that with the fact that we arent winning this year and highly likely we are doing anything next year so I will stand firm that we should have taken the deal, it just made too much sense for the timeline of this franchise

[LinvilleGorge]

4 minutes ago, Toomers said:

As opposed to the 31 teams that could/could have traded for a cheap version of him this year. And didn’t. 

Cheap for one year. Any team trading significant assets for Burns would've been planning to extend him. They didn't trade for him due to a lack of effort.

[frankw]

23 minutes ago, Toomers said:

How are they going to get a nicer offer now? The Rams wanted him cheap(1M) this year. His value went down when the deadline passed. 

I mean nicer as in picks that aren't 2 years away minimum. They weren't offering two firsts just to let him walk. He's getting paid  big after next season regardless.

Edited November 3, 2022 by frankw

[PappyMay]

Let's all remember the turned down picks were 2024 and 2025 picks. I really am getting tired of watching us get beat and like the GM I hope we are competing by then.  If it was 2023 pick I hope we would have pulled the trigger.

[mrcompletely11]

1 minute ago, stbugs said:

Huh? Chubb’s deal is $24M per year and Kirk’s was $18M per year. Burns has better stats than Chubb, so he’s going to be in the $25-30M range.

something like a 5 year 150mill with 80ish guaranteed? 

[Toomers]

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Cheap for one year. Any team trading significant assets for Burns would've been planning to extend him. They didn't trade for him due to a lack of effort.

That cheap for this year is why the Rams offered at all. He easily fits into salary table without making room by cutting/restructuring other players. Why did no other teams offer more significant assets. 

[UpstatePantherfan]

I’m not a fan of signing any players to big money contracts unless they are franchise QBs. When players get paid they lose their drive and production falls off big time, or suddenly they become “injury prone.” Think D Will, J Stew, Mccafrey, Beason and Thomas Davis among countless others around the league, Suh, Donte Jackson, even Russell Wilson are others that comes to mind.

The best way to build a team is have rookies or Young hungry guys ball out for you for a few years then either A. trade them if you get a good enough deal (Burns) or B. Simply let them walk in FA and let another team dumb enough to sign them to a mega deal and watch them get complacent and not play as hard before signing that big contract. 

[Growl]

the notion that the team has to trade him RIGHT NOW is stupid, people are so consumed with DRAFT PICKS that they forget the actual point of football teams

moving Burns is only desirable if you need extra pieces to move into the top 2 for a QB. That option will still be there come season’s end.

more ideally you lose out and acquire your QB organically

if you need to move Brian Burns to get your QB you’re still a Brian Burns away from a super bowl roster

[Toomers]

4 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Huh? Chubb’s deal is $24M per year and Kirk’s was $18M per year. Burns has better stats than Chubb, so he’s going to be in the $25-30M range.

Until the other team decides to run at Burns. The Reddick question is valid. 

[Snake]

I'm holding this one against Fitt. He should have pulled the trigger on the Burns trade. 

[LinvilleGorge]

19 minutes ago, Toomers said:

That cheap for this year is why the Rams offered at all. He easily fits into salary table without making room by cutting/restructuring other players. Why did no other teams offer more significant assets. 

They didn't offer two 1sts for a one year rental. They would've extended Burns. There's always going to be a highest offer in any trade situation. Did you expect someone to offer more than two 1sts?

[d-dave]

13 minutes ago, PappyMay said:

Let's all remember the turned down picks were 2024 and 2025 picks. I really am getting tired of watching us get beat and like the GM I hope we are competing by then.  If it was 2023 pick I hope we would have pulled the trigger.

I wish people would think about that.

If we traded with the Rams two future firsts, we would be without our best pass rusher.  Where does the production make up come from?  Not just for this year?  But in the future?

Also, the Rams will typically be pretty decent.  So the picks will be in the late first.  Are we going to get someone who can replace Burns at either point?  

The draft is crapshoot.  There are no sure things in a draft class.  We've seen and learned this lesson time and time again.  Burns turned into a good player, and good players get paid.  He's a team leader and a quality player, though still young at 24 years of age.  In two or three years, once those draft picks are made, will they be better than a 26-27 year old Brian Burns?  Who knows?

What is it they say about birds in the bush versus your hand?  Again, if the picks were 2023, then there's a MUCH stronger argument for trading Burns.  But they weren't.  So fug it.

Brian will get paid, and that's what happens in the NFL.  It will make your eyes water, but that's just the cost of doing business.  Also, it's not my money, it's Tepper's millions   Who really cares because the salary cap is a myth, right?