What are the chances Burns gets traded before the trade deadline?

[mav1234]

16 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

again this theory been debunked over and over and I am pretty sure it was you arguing this very point back when it first came about.   The draft value chart is a moving object depending on lots of things.  For a team like the panthers a 2024/2025 first is far far more valuable then brian burns.  Its not really arguable knowing what we know.   And ive ask you before if teams treat future picks as less valuable then why dont we see in drafts the adverse happening?

What do you mean? The fact they're less valuable is why you never see direct swaps in the early rounds to a subsequent year without other compensation.

I did argue it back then, but my point wasn't values are fixed, unlike some here - that's the point. Saying we won't accept anything less than 2 first rounders isn't accurate because the exact deal is more nuanced than that.

I understand why you and all of us now would rather have had those picks next year and the year after, but my point was were dealing with a staff that was then and is now trying to win. It doesn't help Fitt to collect draft picks years down the road when the player in theory could contribute to our competitiveness. Or course, we suck, and should trade him, but this team probably thinks it has a shot at the playoffs still, heh.

[pantherclaw]

12 hours ago, WhoKnows said:

The Dolphins did. Tunsil was their star LT and they traded him for two firsts. One ended up being the Trey Lance trade pick, so worked great for them. Jets are a better team from the Jamal Adams trade. Detroit appears better overall after trading Stafford. They are above .500 2 out of 3 years since the trade after being above .500 4 of 12 years with Stafford. The Jaguars are a playoff team after trading Ramsey. I think that is enough for me.

So many think that having zero pass rush is going to improve this team. 

Good luck. 

[ForJimmy]

9 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

So many think that having zero pass rush is going to improve this team. 

Good luck. 

Improve from what? 0-6? If we aren’t able to pay him what he wants then let’s get some picks for him vs letting him walk. Some picks that we definitely need.

[mrcompletely11]

Just now, ForJimmy said:

Improve from what? 0-6? If we aren’t able to pay him what he wants then let’s get some picks for him vs letting him walk. Some picks that we definitely need.

He is looking at things in a vacuum 

[jtm]

On 10/22/2023 at 4:49 PM, Ornias said:

I have a sinking feeling Fitt may get desperate at the deadline and trade him for peanuts. 

I'd be shocked if Fitt still has the power to do this.  At this point I suspect any personnel moves need to be approved by several people, including Dan Morgan and Tepper.  

[UNCrules2187]

While I think I lean towards trading Burns, my personal opinion is he stays put through the deadline and will be given the non-exclusive franchise tag. If someone comes in with a contract that the Panthers think meets his value to the team, they'll match, and if not, they'll get two first rounders. If no one gives him an offer sheet, will then he'll play on the tag and maybe that will show that maybe he's not worth the type of AAV salary / guaranteed money he's looking for.

[WhoKnows]

4 hours ago, mav1234 said:

The bolded is not what the draft value depreciation tables say, rather the value of the pick is halved (not full round loss). It also depends where the teams think a pick is likely to fall, but in general it's a halving of value each year. That is NOT the same as saying a player in 2023 drafted in the 3rd is as valuable as a first rounder in 2025.

You're completely wrong that a 2025 first is more valuable to a front office than a 2023 first... I'm sorry... That's just not the NFL.  Players also don't compete immediately often, even first rounders get better with time, so those two years mean a lot. I get why as fans you can think that about rookie contracts but teams expect to turn it around quicker than 4-5 years out (when you'd expect a 2025 first to pay the most dividends). Hell, this team thought they had playoff aspirations lol.

Lol. I’m glad I’m completely wrong about something that I never argued against. I know a GM would “rather” have a 2023 first than a 2025 first. If that was what you were trying to say, you didn’t do a good job of stating the obvious at the start.

What most smart rebuilding teams do is be OK with future firsts because winning today and tomorrow to go 5-12 or 6-11 is not their goal. Their goal is to win it all. If we would take a 2023 1st and 2nd over a 2024 1st, 2025 1st and a 2023 2nd (the actual offer) because of your halving theory then we are stupid and you are wrong. According to you, the 2024 first and 2025 first are 75% of a 2023 first due to halving value and halving/halving value. A smart rebuilding GM who isn’t trying to save his job in 2023, is smart enough to realize that we will be bad in 2023/2024 (on our way) and that in 2025-2027+ we’ll have 2 first round talents on the team instead of just one.

[WhoKnows]

3 hours ago, pantherclaw said:

So many think that having zero pass rush is going to improve this team. 

Good luck. 

Hahahahahaha! So, you ask me what teams have improved from trading their top player(s) and I give you a list of current playoff contenders that did it and you come back with this? JFC, why can’t people just admit they’re wrong these days. You thought there wouldn’t be any examples and two teams who just bitchslapped the Burns led pass rush with back to back 42 points are on my list. Detroit and Miami are better now than before they traded Stafford and Tunsil/Fitzpatrick. Sorry man. It’s true and they just showed us.

[SOJA]

I'd say very very low

Despite what twitter/huddle is telling you Burns is a very good player and the panthers recognize that. Without him our defensive end group would be the worst in the league. 

Even if we got a massive haul you still have to replace Burns which wouldn't be easy with late first round picks. 

I truly think both sides will get a deal done this offseason. I'm not sure what the gap was in their contract negotiations but Burns will want to avoid the franchise tag and the Panthers will want the cap flexibility of a longterm deal as I would presume we are going to be big spenders this year

[WhoKnows]

6 minutes ago, SOJA said:

I'd say very very low

Despite what twitter/huddle is telling you Burns is a very good player and the panthers recognize that. Without him our defensive end group would be the worst in the league. 

Even if we got a massive haul you still have to replace Burns which wouldn't be easy with late first round picks. 

I truly think both sides will get a deal done this offseason. I'm not sure what the gap was in their contract negotiations but Burns will want to avoid the franchise tag and the Panthers will want the cap flexibility of a longterm deal as I would presume we are going to be big spenders this year

I’ve always liked Burns but don’t think he’s elite. Also, we should have traded with the Rams. Right now they are pick 15 but their RB is on IR and they are likely to tail off like they did last year so more likely around pick 10 and likely similar next year. If we trade Burns now to a contender, yes we’ll get worse picks than we would have last year.

We don’t need to replace Burns with a draft pick. Look at all the guys the last few years with 8-9+ sacks that were FAs. Reddick, Judon, Hendrickson, Miller, Floyd, Watt, Smith(s), Ngakoue, Houston (on a good D like Baltimore, not us) and if you go back to 2021 guys like Quinn and crazy guy in Las Vegas.

There are several edge rushers available yearly. We for whatever reason let a really good one go.

[pantherclaw]

9 hours ago, mrcompletely11 said:

He is looking at things in a vacuum 

Not at all. 

[pantherclaw]

6 hours ago, WhoKnows said:

Hahahahahaha! So, you ask me what teams have improved from trading their top player(s) and I give you a list of current playoff contenders that did it and you come back with this? JFC, why can’t people just admit they’re wrong these days. You thought there wouldn’t be any examples and two teams who just bitchslapped the Burns led pass rush with back to back 42 points are on my list. Detroit and Miami are better now than before they traded Stafford and Tunsil/Fitzpatrick. Sorry man. It’s true and they just showed us.

I have zero problems being wrong. It's not even about that. 

Of course there are going to be examples of it being a success. On teams that were already good teams.  

Just as there are many examples of bad teams failing to get better by shipping off their best players. 

Anyways, we couldn't even replace burns with the picks that we'd get from him. Most want to use those picks on the offense,  when this team has so many other needs. 

It's so cute how you puff out your chest. 

[WhoKnows]

13 hours ago, pantherclaw said:

I have zero problems being wrong. It's not even about that. 

Of course there are going to be examples of it being a success. On teams that were already good teams.  

Just as there are many examples of bad teams failing to get better by shipping off their best players. 

Anyways, we couldn't even replace burns with the picks that we'd get from him. Most want to use those picks on the offense,  when this team has so many other needs. 

It's so cute how you puff out your chest. 

Another decent deflection. So you are saying my examples were good teams so that’s why it worked and bad teams failed to get better after trading?

So Jacksonville traded Ramsey to start their rebuilding in 2019. They had 1 win in 2020 and 3 wins in 2021 after 11 total wins in 2018/2019. They are now a playoff contender. Bad to good, so you’re wrong.

Miami traded Tunsil/Fitpatrick in 2019 on their way to tank that year for Tua and got him at pick 5 in 2020. They had 5 wins in 2019 after 6 and 7 win years in 2017 and 2018. Again, bad to hood after trade.

Jets were 2-14 the season the traded Adams. They got a starting OL and Garrett Wilson. Their current team, even with Rodgers being hurt is way better than they were in 2020.

In Stafford’s last 2 season with Detroit, the Lions were 8-23-1. While Baltimore blasted them on Sunday, the Lions are a much better team now as well.

So all 4 examples I gave were bad teams that turned good after the trades/tanking. Have fun with that.

Also, WGAF if we used the picks on Burns’ replacement. Not sure if it was this thread but I said I’d use Burns’ $30M a year to get D, like Reddick or Floyd or Judon and another solid starter. There’s been plenty of good edge rushers being available at decent prices every year. Just go look at the sack leaders every year, plenty of new young draftees and FAs. I know this is hard to grasp but if we were able to turn the 3 Burns picks into a stud WR (2024 1st), solid young TE (pick 36) and a stud G (2025 1st), that’s a huge win seeing as we could also sign two $10-20M solid D starters in FA. Yeah, that would be terrible. Here let me puff my chest out even more.

[KSpan]

8 minutes ago, WhoKnows said:

Another decent deflection. So you are saying my examples were good teams so that’s why it worked and bad teams failed to get better after trading?

So Jacksonville traded Ramsey to start their rebuilding in 2019. They had 1 win in 2020 and 3 wins in 2021 after 11 total wins in 2018/2019. They are now a playoff contender. Bad to good, so you’re wrong.

Miami traded Tunsil/Fitpatrick in 2019 on their way to tank that year for Tua and got him at pick 5 in 2020. They had 5 wins in 2019 after 6 and 7 win years in 2017 and 2018. Again, bad to hood after trade.

Jets were 2-14 the season the traded Adams. They got a starting OL and Garrett Wilson. Their current team, even with Rodgers being hurt is way better than they were in 2020.

In Stafford’s last 2 season with Detroit, the Lions were 8-23-1. While Baltimore blasted them on Sunday, the Lions are a much better team now as well.

So all 4 examples I gave were bad teams that turned good after the trades/tanking. Have fun with that.

Also, WGAF if we used the picks on Burns’ replacement. Not sure if it was this thread but I said I’d use Burns’ $30M a year to get D, like Reddick or Floyd or Judon and another solid starter. There’s been plenty of good edge rushers being available at decent prices every year. Just go look at the sack leaders every year, plenty of new young draftees and FAs. I know this is hard to grasp but if we were able to turn the 3 Burns picks into a stud WR (2024 1st), solid young TE (pick 36) and a stud G (2025 1st), that’s a huge win seeing as we could also sign two $10-20M solid D starters in FA. Yeah, that would be terrible. Here let me puff my chest out even more.

Yeah, but that might not happen, so the team should stay scared, keep doing what they've been doing that obviously isn't working, and not make any attempt to amplify the value they have in their roster at this stage.

/s