Inquiring Teams told Burns not avaiable

[WhoKnows]

4 hours ago, pantherclaw said:

Whoknows, I'd  love to have a stud player that we could afford to ship off, so we can improve our team.  Burns is not one. 

 

And yet, you asked a simple question of when has any team improved trading away a star player. I gave you 4 examples in the past few years where all 4 teams improved getting rid of star players. You then said only good teams improve like that and bad teams never do and I showed how all 4 of those teams were bad teams when they got rid of their stars. Simple as that. Now you are going off on tangents. We had an amazing offer for Burns last year because the Rams saw a small window with Stafford still healthy and SF getting off to a not so good start. We should have taken the offer of 2 1sts and a 2nd and used the $30M a year for two solid/stud FAs and frankly we should have traded Moore to GB for pick 15 instead of throwing him in on the Young deal. That’s it, end of story and we’d be a better team In the near future.

[pantherclaw]

26 minutes ago, WhoKnows said:

And yet, you asked a simple question of when has any team improved trading away a star player. I gave you 4 examples in the past few years where all 4 teams improved getting rid of star players. You then said only good teams improve like that and bad teams never do and I showed how all 4 of those teams were bad teams when they got rid of their stars. Simple as that. Now you are going off on tangents. We had an amazing offer for Burns last year because the Rams saw a small window with Stafford still healthy and SF getting off to a not so good start. We should have taken the offer of 2 1sts and a 2nd and used the $30M a year for two solid/stud FAs and frankly we should have traded Moore to GB for pick 15 instead of throwing him in on the Young deal. That’s it, end of story and we’d be a better team In the near future.

My last post spells it out in black and white.  You don't like that, that's on you. 

[KSpan]

8 hours ago, pantherclaw said:

My last post spells it out in black and white.  You don't like that, that's on you. 

For the millionth time though, it's not about replacing Burns directly with whatever picks they get. It's about maximizing the value and improving the team overall, and the examples you were given were teams that executed that strategy and benefitted from doing so.

Burns may put up a few stats but he is not a difference-maker like Peppers was (to use the name you referenced), as has been shown time and again by myself and others. I have no way of knowing for sure but I would bet significant sums that this is the holdup in negotiations; the team recognizes this and is pricing accordingly, Burns doesn't want to hear it and is saying no.

Sure, he is the key pass rush at the moment, but that money and those picks represent a big opportunity to improve the entire team. Maybe the FO bungles that and maybe they don't, but fear of 'it might be worse' is a part of how the team got here. They're 0-6 right now with Burns, who has had plenty of chances to be a difference-maker this year and, unsurprisingly, hasn't. Looking more and more like he's never going to be the game-changing player he wants to be paid like.

[top dawg]

16 hours ago, pantherclaw said:

Burns is essentially our pass rush. None of the other guys would make the impact they do without Burns.  

We couldn't replace burns with what is essentially a 2nd round pick if we wanted to. 

So whether you agree with his value to the team or not,  he's most likely going to ve retained and get paid, because our defense simply can't afford to lose him. 

I don't think that we can afford to keep him.

[pantherclaw]

5 hours ago, top dawg said:

I don't think that we can afford to keep him.

We can't afford to let him go. 

Edited October 28, 2023 by pantherclaw