Micah officially requests a trade

[tukafan21]

While I'd love to add him, it just doesn't make sense for where we are at in our re-build right now.

The only teams who should be interested are those who have a very legitimate shot at winning the SB this season, as any team who makes the trade is going to be mortgaging their future to make the move.

Teams who make these kinds of trades and then give them the massive contract, in the hopes that it will expedite their path to contention, ALWAYS ends up backfiring because they have to give up the 1st round picks that are then needed to help build out the rest of the roster after eating up such a significant chunk of the cap on the new contract.

There is no way the Cowboys trade him for anything less than 2 future 1st rounders (and probably more), plus we'll have to make him the highest paid non QB in league history.  Not to mention that it would then have made the Scourton and/or Princely picks a bit of a waste, as those 2nd and 3rd round picks would have been better off used on a ILB or DB

Edited August 2 by tukafan21

[outlaw4]

You call the Cowboys purely for information, but we don't have the assets to pull off any realistic trade. Also, even if they would consider any trade, it's more likely they want to do it with an AFC team. 

[pantherclaw]

4 hours ago, TD alt said:

 

I mean, you have to expound.  You don't think that Micah is better than Brown, and it's not worth throwing in an extra third? 

@Basbear any thoughts?

Why does he HAVE to expound? 

 

[TD alt]

Just now, pantherclaw said:

Why does he HAVE to expound? 

 

Because it makes for a more interesting and interactive post. I mean, it is a football forum.

[pantherclaw]

9 minutes ago, TD alt said:

Because it makes for a more interesting and interactive post. I mean, it is a football forum.

Fair response.  

[pantherclaw]

Here's my not important take on this subject. 

Who wouldn't want a pass rusher of his consistency?  I would absolutely love to have him on this defense.  

Would I give up Brown in a trade for him.  Nope, I would never do that.  Interior linemen are way to important to be settling for whatever you can get at the position.  

Would I trade 2 firsts,  plus fork out a big contract for him?   Without knowing if Young is for sure going to be our long term, franchise guy,  there is no way I'd be okay with letting go 2 firsts. As for the contract that he'd demand, I just dont get caught up with NFL contracts.  They have been out of control for decades.  So I really dont get upset over big contracts. It's just a fact of life in the NFL.  You HAVE to pay for talent. 

Edited August 2 by pantherclaw

[TD alt]

1 hour ago, tukafan21 said:

While I'd love to add him, it just doesn't make sense for where we are at in our re-build right now.

The only teams who should be interested are those who have a very legitimate shot at winning the SB this season, as any team who makes the trade is going to be mortgaging their future to make the move.

Teams who make these kinds of trades and then give them the massive contract, in the hopes that it will expedite their path to contention, ALWAYS ends up backfiring because they have to give up the 1st round picks that are then needed to help build out the rest of the roster after eating up such a significant chunk of the cap on the new contract.

There is no way the Cowboys trade him for anything less than 2 future 1st rounders (and probably more), plus we'll have to make him the highest paid non QB in league history.  Not to mention that it would then have made the Scourton and/or Princely picks a bit of a waste, as those 2nd and 3rd round picks would have been better off used on a ILB or DB

You see, I just don't subscribe to a cookie cutter type of philosophy when it comes to trades or team building. Every situation is different. Many may disagree, but I think that FOs that can't draft impact-players beyond the first round aren't really viable. 

Just for argument's sake, because we all know this hypothetical trade is as realistic as the moon being made of cheese, Micah is a young dawg really just beginning his prime and is arguably the most valuable pass rusher in the league. He could realistically play at a high level for at least the next five to seven years. Parsons' current trajectory is Canton. That being said, he's not some old merc that fits the mold of "one piece away," he's a core piece to any defense for the better part of the next 10 years. Pass rushers of his caliber and age don't generally become available, so, sure, he'd help an elite team, but he's also a fit for a younger team that's building.

I know that you don't agree, but it's all good. I respect your rationale.

Edited August 2 by TD alt

[PanthersATL]

7 hours ago, jb2288 said:

https://x.com/rapsheet/status/1951348183751119009?s=46&t=ID24LbHaAiOwVOmMGHXcTA

For those unable to view Twitter posts, here's the Bluesky link

https://bsky.app/profile/rapsheet.bsky.social/post/3lvebf5eoa227 

 

[tukafan21]

2 hours ago, TD alt said:

You see, I just don't subscribe to a cookie cutter type of philosophy when it comes to trades or team building. Every situation is different. Many may disagree, but I think that FOs that can't draft impact-players beyond the first round aren't really viable. 

Just for argument's sake, because we all know this hypothetical trade is as realistic as the moon being made of cheese, Micah is a young dawg really just beginning his prime and is arguably the most valuable pass rusher in the league. He could realistically play at a high level for at least the next five to seven years. Parsons' current trajectory is Canton. That being said, he's not some old merc that fits the mold of "one piece away," he's a core piece to any defense for the better part of the next 10 years. Pass rushers of his caliber and age don't generally become available, so, sure, he'd help an elite team, but he's also a fit for a younger team that's building.

I know that you don't agree, but it's all good. I respect your rationale.

2 problems with this thinking

First is this isn't a Horn or DB type of contract, Parsons will become the highest paid non QB in NFL history.  You don't pay one player that amount of money unless you expect to be in contention, which we'd still not yet be there even with Parsons.

Second is that you disagree with my thoughts based on the expectation of the FO being able to draft impact players beyond the first round.

If you're making the trade expecting them to hit on our 2nd and 3rd rounders the next few years because we don't have 1st's... why not look at it as expecting them to have hit on Scourton and Princely.

And as good as Parsons is, if we hit on both of those picks, while keeping our future 1st's as well as having that massive cap room difference between a Parsons contract and Scourton/Princley's over the next 4 years, then not trading for Parsons would be FAR more beneficial to our team than if we were to.

[TD alt]

1 hour ago, tukafan21 said:

2 problems with this thinking

First is this isn't a Horn or DB type of contract, Parsons will become the highest paid non QB in NFL history.  You don't pay one player that amount of money unless you expect to be in contention, which we'd still not yet be there even with Parsons.

Second is that you disagree with my thoughts based on the expectation of the FO being able to draft impact players beyond the first round.

If you're making the trade expecting them to hit on our 2nd and 3rd rounders the next few years because we don't have 1st's... why not look at it as expecting them to have hit on Scourton and Princely.

And as good as Parsons is, if we hit on both of those picks, while keeping our future 1st's as well as having that massive cap room difference between a Parsons contract and Scourton/Princley's over the next 4 years, then not trading for Parsons would be FAR more beneficial to our team than if we were to.

If we had drafted Parsons, we'd be paying Parsons. You don't let young players get away just because they're playing well. That's a recipe for failure. 

If you don't trust your FO to be competent, then what's the point?

Sometimes acquisitions about striking when the iron is hot. There are costs associated with trading, and there are opportunity costs for not trading. Mind you, that's only if there is a legitimate opportunity. The cap rises basically every year, so being scared to pay for outstanding play is probably not going to lead to the results that you want in either the short or long term, especially when a player is still young.

Edited August 2 by TD alt

[Proudiddy]

Saw a post somewhere earlier that said what the Bears gave up for Khalil Mack would be a fair comp as to what to expect it would take to get Parsons.  But Parsons is actually a year younger than Mack was at that point, and also, I believe Mack was named an all-pro at two different positions that prior year, iirc…  but I think Parsons is as equally versatile.

we should definitely see what it would cost, at minimum.

[Proudiddy]

9 hours ago, frankw said:

I don't think the two firsts is going to go down. We've seen teams posture with that demand but when is the last time it actually happened?

Watson

Tunsil

Mack

In that order.

The Watson package alone is enough to put an end to these wild trades. But the other two  certainly don't help either.

Watson is a cautionary tale because he pulled that trade coming off a full year he didn’t play due to injury and then almost a whole other full season due to an 11 game suspension for being a creep.  If Parsons was coming off all of that, I’d agree - we don’t do it.  But Parsons has been mentioned with the likes of LT and Mack.  If we could swing it, we should do it.  I don’t think the cowboys would trade him in-conference, but we’ve seen wilder things happen before (McRib to WSH).

[TD alt]

7 minutes ago, Proudiddy said:

Watson is a cautionary tale because he pulled that trade coming off a full year he didn’t play due to injury and then almost a whole other full season due to an 11 game suspension for being a creep.  If Parsons was coming off all of that, I’d agree - we don’t do it.  But Parsons has been mentioned with the likes of LT and Mack.  If we could swing it, we should do it.  I don’t think the cowboys would trade him in-conference, but we’ve seen wilder things happen before (McRib to WSH).

I heard one analyst say that Parsons is (or was relative to the same age) a better player than Mack. Could be recency bias, but I'd say that that's absolutely true.

Edited August 2 by TD alt

[tukafan21]

3 hours ago, TD alt said:

If we had drafted Parsons, we'd be paying Parsons. You don't let young players get away just because they're playing well. That's a recipe for failure. 

If you don't trust your FO to be competent, then what's the point?

Sometimes acquisitions about striking when the iron is hot. There are costs associated with trading, and there are opportunity costs for not trading. Mind you, that's only if there is a legitimate opportunity. The cap rises basically every year, so being scared to pay for outstanding play is probably not going to lead to the results that you want in either the short or long term, especially when a player is still young.

Sorry, but that's just a terrible way of looking at it, for a couple reasons.

First is that if we drafted Parsons, or hell, if ANY other team drafted him, the odds are that he wouldn't be viewed as possibly the best pass rusher in the league right now.  He was drafted by the Cowboys to be an ILB and the majority of draft experts viewed him as such as well, who could situationally pass rush.  The only reason the Cowboys ended up putting him at DE that year was because of how many injuries they had on the DL.

So more than likely, any other team drafts him that year and he plays more LB than pass rusher and is a totally different player than he is today.  He ended up in a situation that forced him into a role he never would have had as a rookie and it completely changed the trajectory of his career.

Beyond that, even if you want to go with the assumption that he is the same player he is today even if we drafted him.  Then the overwhelming odds are that we are a better and completely different team right now, because we'd have had him on the edge the last few years causing havoc.  It would be the person going back in time, stepping on a butterfly and changing history, who knows where we'd be, but we'd likely have been a better team the last few years and thus paying him that money wouldn't be dumb.

The combination of what it would cost to give up to get him, plus the cap space that could be used elsewhere, is not worth it for one player with where we currently are as a franchise this year.

Adding Parsons doesn't make us a contender, it probably still only makes us a borderline playoff team this year and then we don't have the high draft picks or cap space next offseason to continue to properly build around him more.  It would be the Bears and Khalil Mack situation all over again, they blew their wad on that trade/contract and couldn't build around it.

Any team that isn't a title contender THIS season with Parsons, shouldn't even be considering trading for him, let alone one like us who aren't likely to make the playoffs even if things go well for us this year.

Edited August 2 by tukafan21