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!

     

REPORT: per Albert Breer, Panthers have been most aggressive team in attempting to trade back

TheSpecialJuan
 Share

Recommended Posts

flagfootballcoach28 Experienced

flagfootballcoach28

Posted
Posted

Just the thought of Dan Morgan trading back into the first round is not a move I am comfortable with. I honestly don’t trust him enough to get fair value. Dan Morgan is probably the GM other GM’s whisper/joke about and say “yeah just call Dan Morgan up, he’ll do anything” Hopefully he can prove me wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jfra78 Grand Master

jfra78

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, flagfootballcoach28 said:

Just the thought of Dan Morgan trading back into the first round is not a move I am comfortable with. I honestly don’t trust him enough to get fair value. Dan Morgan is probably the GM other GM’s whisper/joke about and say “yeah just call Dan Morgan up, he’ll do anything” Hopefully he can prove me wrong. 

When did he get fleeced again? All of his trades have been decent

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, theinstrumental said:

That’s almost precisely equal on the more modern charts, btw. Like I said in the Steelers trade thread, I don’t think it’ll happen, but it wouldn’t be the end of the world.

Definitely not. Keep in mind, #10 got traded last year. They moved all the way down to #11 and picked up an extra 4th and 5th to move down that one spot. #17 got traded for #23 and a 5th plus 3rd and 4ths this year. #24 and a 7th got traded for #29 and #73. So a higher 3rd round pick last year meant moving up five spots in the late 1st. Moving up 12 spots into the top 10 needs to net a helluva lot more than a 3rd rounder. The draft pick value difference is worth roughly a late 1st rounder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
flagfootballcoach28 Experienced

flagfootballcoach28

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, jfra78 said:

When did he get fleeced again? All of his trades have been decent

Wasn’t a fan of any of his first three draft pick trades last year. You can make the argument that XL, Brooks, Wallace were all poor picks. All of whom he traded either up or down for. I’d rather have him stay put and pick from our scheduled #8 slot. He doesn’t seem to do well moving around and adjusting on the fly. Plus a lot of it is just a feeling. I still can’t get over how he was Fitterer’s right hand man along with his underwhelming draft last year. I don’t trust him yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jfra78 Grand Master

jfra78

Posted
Posted
Just now, flagfootballcoach28 said:

Wasn’t a fan of any of his first three draft pick trades last year. You can make the argument that XL, Brooks, Wallace were all poor picks. All of whom he traded either up or down for. I’d rather have him stay put and pick from our scheduled #8 slot. He doesn’t seem to do well moving around and adjusting on the fly. Plus a lot of it is just a feeling. I still can’t get over how he was Fitterer’s right hand man along with his underwhelming draft last year. I don’t trust him yet. 

The trades themselves were fine, you can even say we fleeced the Rams.  The picks have nothing to do with how other GM view us trading and think they can take advantage of Morgan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bear Hands Grand Master

Bear Hands

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, flagfootballcoach28 said:

Wasn’t a fan of any of his first three draft pick trades last year. You can make the argument that XL, Brooks, Wallace were all poor picks. All of whom he traded either up or down for. I’d rather have him stay put and pick from our scheduled #8 slot. He doesn’t seem to do well moving around and adjusting on the fly. Plus a lot of it is just a feeling. I still can’t get over how he was Fitterer’s right hand man along with his underwhelming draft last year. I don’t trust him yet. 

Felt like the Rams trade was good, but then we traded back up for the wrong guy when there were Frazier and Sainristil right there for us.  It seemed we got so set on XL & Brooks, it was "get those two and think about the rest after"  

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jfra78 Grand Master

jfra78

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Bear Hands said:

Felt like the Rams trade was good, but then we traded back up for the wrong guy when there were Frazier and Sainristil right there for us.  It seemed we got so set on XL & Brooks, it was "get those two and think about the rest after"  

I get not liking the players but the trades were fine.  This idea that other GMs take advantage of Morgan is unwarranted 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jon Snow Grand Master

Jon Snow

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, jfra78 said:

What about a pick swap like Dallas 12 and 44 for 8 and 57?

That's too much. They can give us their second and call it even.  I'm not giving them our second because they would win this trade by a lot. No they give is their second and we give them their 4th back and then we are even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
frankw Grand Master

frankw

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, jfra78 said:

The trades themselves were fine, you can even say we fleeced the Rams.  The picks have nothing to do with how other GM view us trading and think they can take advantage of Morgan

I mean it's strange to say the picks don't have to do with anything. We're heading into the 8th consecutive season of possibly yet another losing record. We're never going to alter trajectory if we can't start hitting on picks regardless of if we move around or how other teams perceive our GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jfra78 Grand Master

jfra78

Posted
Posted
Just now, frankw said:

I mean it's strange to say the picks don't have to do with anything. We're heading into the 8th consecutive season of possibly yet another losing record. We're never going to alter trajectory if we can't start hitting on picks regardless of if we move around or how other teams perceive our GM.

They dont have anything to do with the trades and whether other teams are taking advantage of the Panthers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...