BearFan PHX

This is a really important point. You cannot trade away dead cap money, but you can trade two players, especially at the same position, where the dead money offsets. So Detroit keeps Staffords dead money, but gets Goff without his, and the Rams the same. So for example, to trade Mack or Quinn, youd need another team who was willing to trade a high value player that didnt come with big cap money. If you traded Mack for draft picks for example, youre not left with enough money to field a competitive team that year, kind of like what the Cubs did for a few years, buying free agents and trading them for picks, converting this years money to tomorrows picks, but if you got a player of Macks caliber and didnt have to pay them fully what they were worth, you could consider Macks dead money as the space ont he cap you would have allocated to the new player if youd signed their deal instead of trading for it. Problems are that players want new deals when they get traded, so they expect guaranteed money, which goes on their cap, and Nagy and Pace are not in build for the future mode, so the Cubs thing is moot too. So basically, the ony way we can trade anyone with a lot of dead cap money is for a player who also has the same. Meaning we could potentially have traded Mack for Goff, and Im sure some picks would have gone one way or the other too. And of course all that contingent on the idea that the player you trade for will play under their old deal that they didnt want to play for their previous team under. Unlikely as well.

How do you trade Mack with the cap hit tho?

I agree. But Watson is a great player, and he might prove me wrong. But I see it the same way you do.

exactly, and apparently Watson wants input into the coach and GM to be hired. SO with Nagy on the hot seat, maybe Watson comes here with the understanding that he has input into those decisions. If he believes in Nagy and it really was all Trubisky's fault in his mind, then that makes it all the easier. Now, would the McCaskey team be willing to allow something like that? Probably not. But let's not kid ourselves, Watson couldnt do a worse job of hiring those positions than we already have, and the candidates would improve if they knew theyd get to work with Watson. Who knows? Most likely, Watson is the first domino to fall, and shakes loose other players and we get one of those.

I pray that McCaskey will forbid any kind of trading of multiple future picks.

It's amazing how prescient the headlines here are. Nickelodeon?! And then it came true with a horrible slime graphic touchdown.

it's not about tearing down (or making a hero of) Artie Lange, he just destroyed Joe Buck, thats what it was about.

hahaha Christmas yes. DId you hear Michael Irvin's comment when Buck asked too late for a lifeline? LOL hilarious.

you cant Trade Mack without accelerating all of his bonus money into this year's cap (or the next two years after June 1st) either way, you wouldnt be able to afford to field a team. When you trade a player their dead cap money does not go with them, it goes all against your cap in the same year. If you keep him, it gets spread acorss the life of the contract.

Yeah Buck had that talk show on HBO(?) for one minute. Artie Lange destroyed it on the first episode so bad that they cancelled it. It's the most brutal takedown I've ever seen on TV, and Michal Irvin's comment is just priceless LOL

If you hate Joe Buck (and hey, who doesn't?) you'll enjoy watching ALL of this Two Parts: Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj8y2Oi1lFk Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed1p8kuaDaw

yup = whoever is our starter on day one doesnt matter, just like Glennon. We need to draft a QB early and groom him - it is the only way to afford a competitive team under these cap rules. *IF* you have a Tom Brady, Aaron Rogers, Pat Mahomes etc then fine, you can pay him. Almost anyone else is not worth what a starting vet QB's salary does to your ability to field a team around him. And no one that is available is a long term sure thing winner anyway. When players like that do become available, it's only for a few years at the end of their contract like Brady, Manning or Montana. Whoever we get as a vet, or keep Foles is a placeholder, and we have to draft a young QB and hope we found a winner. THen common wisdom says you buy a pass rush, but our pass rush cap money is already allocated. We are going to need to grow for at least a year or two more - all the more reason to develop a young QB.

I agree. maybe he will surprise us, but at this point, I think we are seeing the end of something, not the beginning.

Id love to see some draft projections without trades too.

Singletary has been a head coach! Im not saying I want him for DC, but its not for lack of experience.

I agree. You cant buy a QB in this league and field a real team long term, you HAVE to draft one.

One good thing is that a lot of teams will have to release players for cap reasons, so there will be reasonably priced free agents for one year deals

thats not true tho. The salary portion moves to the new team, but if you cut the p;layer, you dont pay the salary either, but if you trade him, the guaranteed money accelerates into your cap - you cant get rid of guaranteed money with a trade. So you can't trade cap problems away with Mack or Quinn for example. "In terms of salary cap impact, a trade is essentially the same as releasing a player. If a player is traded at the deadline, all future prorated money will accelerate into the next season. For some teams, that takes certain players off the table if their signing bonuses and other prorated bonuses are large. In general, if a player's dead money charge in a given year will prevent him from being released the following year, it will also prevent him from being traded during the given season." https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/why-nfl-trades-are-rare/1fwllykgo2amj1dka7oj352ah6

One assumes there will be a bunch of cheap one year deals for good free agents. One also assumes there may be another Tampa Bay situation where players agree to go to one team to make a run on their cheap one year deal too tho. Also, I think whether you cut or trade, guaranteed money stays on your cap and doesn't go with the player in either scenario.

I think to make your analogy work, you have to look at the average player taken at whatever position in the first round, or maybe a great player, and average one and a miss.

Here's an interesting name. Kris Richard. He helped build the legion of doom in Seattle. One thing I REALLY REALLY like about Pete Carroll's system, is that there are specific approved types of tackles. If you get your guy down but you DON'T wrap him up in one of the approved ways that's a FAIL on video in his system. In other words, he might be the cure for our inability to tackle, and the medicine Jackson sorely needs too. https://heavy.com/sports/chicago-bears/kris-richard-candidate-for-defensive-coordinator/?fbclid=IwAR2KgMWpm6Z3E8xzDzuuF38i0pwbfxSvO4Zd1EOBGISrgintKyniUt0cCn4

I'm down with Rodgers too. It's time for him to move up, and who knows? Maybe he will be great - he certainly has the pedigree.

I agree. But you also need some superstars, so trading down out of a top ten pick isnt automatically a smart move, but I think after that, as you get past 15 etc, it's probably a general rule that trading down is a good thing, and the only thing that breaks it is a certain player falling that's a higher value than the current pick. But if we are talking in general, with an average player for that pick at each draft position, trading down after the top 10- or 15 players is probably always a good idea.

I think it depends on which area of the draft. Top 10 picks are much more likely to result in pro bowlers than picks 11-20 for example. So the 5th pick overall will be more likely to find a pro bowler than an equivalent tradedown. But between picks 20 and 50 for example? I think you're absolutely right. If you can find a partner that is willing to trade up, it's probably a great move. And then you have to consider the people making the picks, because if they are horrible, then a top 10 pick is a lot less likely to yield a pro bowler.

Im not sure of the rules, but at some point you have to have the cap space to afford to franchise him before you trade him. And there is always the possibility that we get stuck with his contract which would sink us. And the other teams know this too, which reduces his trade value. We might just have to let him go. What would the draft compensation for that be?