Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Trade down Scenerio


Squirrel

Recommended Posts

Right now, I can't see a situation that a team will want to trade up to #1 even if a new CBA means much lower salaries for the top picks. The Bills at #3 know there is no sure fire QB worth a top 5 pick in the draft so they may be shopping their pick as much as anyone else and moving up to #3 would cost less than #1.

Unless a situation presents itself (like a player blowing up the combine and another team has to him no matter what), I am not optimistic about trading down.

I agree 100%. At this point we cant decide on a clear cut # 1 despite the elite prospects of this draft being an area of need for us.

That being the case and my opinion is likely to change over time but right now A.J. Green is a talent we shouldnt pass on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a rookie cap teams will be more willing to trade up. Im hoping some GM gets a hard on for either Fairley or Green and wants to move up. This isnt like past years where teams had to break the bank to pay for a #1 pick. There will be a rookie cap.
i'm sure they'd be willing to, but why would they? i just see no incentive to do it other than it would be a cheap trade.

i seriously doubt we could get a first from next years draft for the spot. seems like a huge waste to me.

there are no good solutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One way we could trade down is to look at the Skins. They need a top pick QB. At #9 they would'nt their player of choice, so offer them the #1 and possibly a player (Smith or Williams) for #9, #40 second round, and McNabb,

and a future pick next year. This would solve our QB problem and still get a good DT or WR at #9 and at #40 get BPA. Thoughts ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One way we could trade down is to look at the Skins. They need a top pick QB. At #9 they would'nt their player of choice, so offer them the #1 and possibly a player (Smith or Williams) for #9, #40 second round, and McNabb,

and a future pick next year. This would solve our QB problem and still get a good DT or WR at #9 and at #40 get BPA. Thoughts ?

You put alot of thought into this, IMO too much. Too many variables with a new coaching staff coming in. I also don't think we have that bad of a QB problem. He was a rookie for goodness sakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One way we could trade down is to look at the Skins. They need a top pick QB. At #9 they would'nt their player of choice, so offer them the #1 and possibly a player (Smith or Williams) for #9, #40 second round, and McNabb,

and a future pick next year. This would solve our QB problem and still get a good DT or WR at #9 and at #40 get BPA. Thoughts ?

I like the idea of looking at the skins for their pick but, not McNabb. You don't want anything to do with his or Haynesloaf's contract. From what I understand they can't be restructered until after the cba is signed. But, if you could get their 1st and 2nd this year with what ever other picks (kinda) even it out...........I could live with that. also...being an off year as far as a true #1 pick....we should not expect to get full value for the trade, if we pull the trigger.

ps......we will get offers for our pick, that is a lock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...