The Real Reason This Trade is So Bad

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

I'm a fan of the Panthers. The issue at hand here is trade compensation. We got fleeced. We're the worst team in the league in large part because we're making quite the habit of getting fleeced.

Okay well the Raiders didn't get fleeced and still managed to be the Raiders (haven't won a playoff game since 2002) so in the end it didn't matter. Who cares if you pick 1st or 34th in the draft if you make the wrong pick you make the wrong pick. If you have the wrong coaches and people in place you are going to suck no matter how many draft picks you have.

Our only hope is that Canales and Morgan are the men for the job and if they aren't it wouldn't matter if we received 5 1st round picks for Burns. A good coach/GM will turn the picks and players we do have into a productive nucleus that will set us up to be a good team in a couple years.

 

[Davidson Deac II]

3 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

Burns and Ford both played 5 years with Burns having 12 more sacks than Ford, Burns is also still 2 years younger than Ford was at the time

Burns also had 9 more sacks (albeit in an extra season) than Ngakoue, who was in a public twitter fight with the team's owner and was demanding a trade.

Neither are comparable situations and Burns is considered a much higher ceiling pass rusher within the league circles than either of those players were, so if they both got 2nd rounders for them, Burns should have gotten more.

We let Burns find a contract and then took the best offer that team would give us, we should have played hard ball and said you have to find a team willing to give us fair compensation.  If that cost Burns money, well that's his fault for putting himself and the team in this situation when he turned down more than fair offers before last year and then laid an egg.

They are far more comparable situations than Mack was.  Regarding a tagged edge rusher, can you find a single time in history were a team got what you guys seem to want for Burns?

[SteveSmithTD89]

As lackluster as this trade is....

I still make this trade before/instead of the "haul" we got for CMC. This isnt revisionist history. I was very vocal about that. Hated it then. Hate it even more now. 

Best of luck to Burns in the future but I'm not broken up about losing him.

The only upsetting thing about today was Luvu not being re-signed. 

[tukafan21]

4 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

They are far more comparable situations than Mack was.  Regarding a tagged edge rusher, can you find a single time in history were a team got what you guys seem to want for Burns?

I wasn't the one comparing it to Mack, just saw your post and said they were bad comparisons, and if those got 2nd rounders for them, we should have gotten more.

I'm also not going to go and research past tagged and traded players, it doesn't change that we didn't get enough back for him.

[LinvilleGorge]

4 minutes ago, Mr Mojo Risin said:

Okay well the Raiders didn't get fleeced and still managed to be the Raiders (haven't won a playoff game since 2002) so in the end it didn't matter. Who cares if you pick 1st or 34th in the draft if you make the wrong pick you make the wrong pick. If you have the wrong coaches and people in place you are going to suck no matter how many draft picks you have.

Our only hope is that Canales and Morgan are the men for the job and if they aren't it wouldn't matter if we received 5 1st round picks for Burns. A good coach/GM will turn the picks and players we do have into a productive nucleus that will set us up to be a good team in a couple years.

 

What another team did with their resources is irrelevant. The point is that we don't even have that opportunity.  Higher picks give you a better opportunity to acquire talent. Period.

[tukafan21]

3 minutes ago, SteveSmithTD89 said:

As lackluster as this trade is....

I still make this trade before/instead of the "haul" we got for CMC. This isnt revisionist history. I was very vocal about that. Hated it then. Hate it even more now. 

Best of luck to Burns in the future but I'm not broken up about losing him.

The only upsetting thing about today was Luvu not being re-signed. 

Agreed

The CMC trade never made sense, the injury fear was never warranted as his injuries were freak things, not the type that you pick up due to wear and tear and being injury prone.

Plus in both years he would have come back in the last season games if they mattered, but we shut him down to not risk injury.

Then even on top of all that we never got fair compensation back for a player of his caliber, it was just a terrible trade that we've somehow replicated two more times since then.

[Mr Mojo Risin]

10 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

What another team did with their resources is irrelevant. The point is that we don't even have that opportunity.  Higher picks give you a better opportunity to acquire talent. Period.

 Sure having more picks would be awesome and ideal but what if that trade kept Fitt/Reich in place to use those assets then what good would that have done? Vs. what actually happened, we gave our new HC/GM combo some more ammunition to build this team in their vision.

[Navy_football]

24 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

They are far more comparable situations than Mack was.  Regarding a tagged edge rusher, can you find a single time in history were a team got what you guys seem to want for Burns?

And knowing the guy wouldn't sign for less than $30M a year.

He turned down $27M a year to pick up and move to a state with higher home prices, higher gas prices and higher income taxes. In the end, he likely will have received less by going to NY. 

[pantherclaw]

fug dude, let it go.

[LinvilleGorge]

2 minutes ago, Mr Mojo Risin said:

 Sure having more picks would be awesome and ideal but what if that trade kept Fitt/Reich in place to use those assets then what good would that have done? Vs. what actually happened, we gave our new HC/GM combo some more ammunition to build this team in their vision.

If Fitts had made better moves maybe he wouldn't have been such a bad GM. I didn't have an issue with Fitts personally, I just thought he was an atrocious GM.

[ChibCU]

31 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

They are far more comparable situations than Mack was.  Regarding a tagged edge rusher, can you find a single time in history were a team got what you guys seem to want for Burns?

This simple and clear distinction is being ignored by the whiner brigade.

[LinvilleGorge]

34 minutes ago, Davidson Deac II said:

They are far more comparable situations than Mack was.  Regarding a tagged edge rusher, can you find a single time in history were a team got what you guys seem to want for Burns?

The Seahawks traded Frank Clark and a 3rd to the Chiefs in 2019 for a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks.

[Davidson Deac II]

6 minutes ago, Navy_football said:

And knowing the guy wouldn't sign for less than $30M a year.

He turned down $27M a year to pick up and move to a state with higher home prices, higher gas prices and higher income taxes. In the end, he likely will have received less by going to NY. 

Didn't think about that, but you are right.  Maybe he is planning to take the Metro into work. 

[csx]

Everyone who wanted sign and trade, this was always the reality of what would be offered for a guy demanding the contract he ended up with. 

Edited March 12 by csx