If we traded Burns

[Waldo]

10 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Yeah that 2023 2nd moved the needle for me as well.  We would have 3 second round picks this year plus those two future 1sts.  Our goal is to find a QB over everything else.  That kind of draft capital can help up move up in the draft/drafts as needed to get our guy.  We are cap strapped this year and having 3 2nds plus our 1st and the Niners 3rd could really help us add some pieces for cheap as well...

The 2nd was a game changer and was no brainer territory. I doubt we see a deal like that in the offseason for him unfortunately. 

[Shotgun]

13 minutes ago, Waldo said:

The 2nd was a game changer and was no brainer territory. I doubt we see a deal like that in the offseason for him unfortunately. 

I'm not sure we will ever see that amount for any player. Have we ever gotten 2 1st and 1 2nd for any player in franchise history?  

[mav1234]

31 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Yeah that 2023 2nd moved the needle for me as well.  We would have 3 second round picks this year plus those two future 1sts.  Our goal is to find a QB over everything else.  That kind of draft capital can help up move up in the draft/drafts as needed to get our guy.  We are cap strapped this year and having 3 2nds plus our 1st and the Niners 3rd could really help us add some pieces for cheap as well...

I'm very surprised we didn't take the deal when it included a 2nd rounder in 2023. Yeah that's basically 2 2nds and a 3rd, but that's still excellent value overall.

I wonder if Tepper wouldn't allow the trade or something since he needs some decent players in the roster to get butts in seats?  Doesn't make sense for Fitt not to have done it given his wheeling and dealing generally.

[45catfan]

What is crazy is a ran a simulation where if we had two first rounders this year we got Stroud AND Michael Mayer.

[Waldo]

4 minutes ago, Shotgun said:

I'm not sure we will ever see that amount for any player. Have we ever gotten 2 1st and 1 2nd for any player in franchise history?  

No but 2 future 1sts and a 2nd is good enough for most players. I was just saying that usually the offseason trades are for less than in-season trades because there are more options on the table for any team. We may get a 1st and a future 2nd but I doubt we see 2 first for him let alone the total 3 pick package. He is a good player but he isn't nearly that good. Sounds like the Eagles were going hard for a SB this year.

JR was pretty conservative. The Gilbert trade was for 2 1st and I think that made him even more conservative. I always want to be a seller and not a buyer in those deals. If you don't have good enough people to find a replacement with those kinds of picks then you have a lot larger issues than losing 1 player. Maybe not QB but not always. 

[Toomers]

5 minutes ago, mav1234 said:

I'm very surprised we didn't take the deal when it included a 2nd rounder in 2023. Yeah that's basically 2 2nds and a 3rd, but that's still excellent value overall.

I wonder if Tepper wouldn't allow the trade or something since he needs some decent players in the roster to get butts in seats?  Doesn't make sense for Fitt not to have done it given his wheeling and dealing generally.

  Why would Tepper approve of trading the face of the franchise for much less if he cared about filling seats? 

[mav1234]

1 minute ago, Toomers said:

  Why would Tepper approve of trading the face of the franchise for much less if he cared about filling seats? 

I suspect there were things behind the scenes there. And trading one player, especially a RB, isn't the same as trading two - especially a DE (or WR in Moore's case, tho that deal didn't sound as good).

The idea Fitt decided to hold Burns to save his job this year is odd, which is why I don't buy that explanation, and the yield seemed like something he'd take.

[Mr. Scot]

9 minutes ago, mav1234 said:

I'm very surprised we didn't take the deal when it included a 2nd rounder in 2023. Yeah that's basically 2 2nds and a 3rd, but that's still excellent value overall.

I wonder if Tepper wouldn't allow the trade or something since he needs some decent players in the roster to get butts in seats?  Doesn't make sense for Fitt not to have done it given his wheeling and dealing generally.

I think it's kinda funny that there are people who actually think this move was made without discussing it with Tepper.

While he's not involved in every transaction, he pretty much tends to stay informed of the major ones, and he does make his opinion known.

Add in that Fitterer has stated before that he prefers to keep Tepper in the loop.

[mav1234]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

I think it's kinda funny that there are people who actually think this move was made without discussing it with Tepper.

While he's not involved in every transaction, he pretty much tends to stay informed of the major ones, and he does make his opinion known.

Add in that Fitterer has stated before that he prefers to keep Tepper in the loop.

Owners are absolutely involved in trades for big name players... Dunno why people would say differently.

It's possible Fitt never considered it but it's just surprising if that's true.

[Toomers]

5 minutes ago, mav1234 said:

I suspect there were things behind the scenes there. And trading one player, especially a RB, isn't the same as trading two - especially a DE (or WR in Moore's case, tho that deal didn't sound as good).

The idea Fitt decided to hold Burns to save his job this year is odd, which is why I don't buy that explanation, and the yield seemed like something he'd take.

Behind the scenes? What does that mean? You justified the move by bringing up “seats” being filled. No player came close to CMC in that regard. This isn’t positional value. You made it about seats and popularity. 
 

  And I have no idea why any sane GM would have turned down even just the two firsts if the organization was in the stage the Panthers are in. Now add another top 45/50 pick into it. Plus 25M a year to spend on anyone they want. 

[LegioX]

Get over it. We can’t change it. Now or never. Reminds me of guys trying to justify breaking up with a hot girl wondering what could have been months later. 

[firefox1234]

52 minutes ago, mav1234 said:

I suspect there were things behind the scenes there. And trading one player, especially a RB, isn't the same as trading two - especially a DE (or WR in Moore's case, tho that deal didn't sound as good).

The idea Fitt decided to hold Burns to save his job this year is odd, which is why I don't buy that explanation, and the yield seemed like something he'd take.

To me it kind of sounds like a Tepper move but either way it’s dumb. If Fitt vetoed it to keep his job then that’s dumb on Tepper for not firing him. If Tepper overruled Fitt then it’s dumb asf move by Tepper.

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, firefox1234 said:

To me it kind of sounds like a Tepper move but either way it’s dumb. If Fitt vetoed it to keep his job then that’s dumb on Tepper for not firing him. If Tepper overruled Fitt then it’s dumb asf move by Tepper.

Fitterer vetoing something Tepper wanted isn't a realistic option.

[firefox1234]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

Fitterer vetoing something Tepper wanted isn't a realistic option.

Obviously Fitt can’t veto Tepper if that’s what Tepper wants. I probably miss phrased it. I meant to say if Tepper is sitting back and letting Fitt handle things without too much meddling.