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!

     

Would You Trade A 1st Rounder For Victor Cruz?


Paige

Recommended Posts

with him having problems getting a deal done in nyg got me thinking maybe Gettlemen who should know him really well could somehow make a deal with them and bring him here?

 

I would do it in a heartbeat not only will that give our #2 for this season but Cruz could take over as #1 once Smitty is done.

 

Our WR AFTER Deal

#1WR:Smitty

#2wr Cruz

#3:Lafell/Hixon

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we are that desperate yet. I would not give up a 1st at this point. If Smitty were to suddenly retire I would, though. At this point I think we will have options next year. Like someone else said, maybe we use our first 2 picks next year on WRs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know. A ton of teams are gonna jump on Nicks too.

 

True but he is from Charlotte and has mentioned that he would love to play here. Make him a reasonable offer is all I am asking for and let him decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would, because it would become a late 1st. The trickery is affording him/ willing to pay more than the Giants would to keep him. As they can match any offer we make.

 

But yes I would do it.

 

See but we have to send a pick AND sign Cruz to a deal....not cool

 

I could maybe be ok with one or the other.

 

That is why drafting a WR or signing a FA WR like Nicks is the best course of action

 

 

BTW that 1st Marty wanted to trade away to teams in the 2nd was for Clausen ....that  netted us Cam Newton the next year. Let's not gamble like that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...