A trade including Teddy Bridgewater may cost us!

[Sasquatch]

1 hour ago, 45catfan said:

Eh, not being funny, but I doubt any trade includes a 'swap' for Teddy.  It would be cheaper to keep him as the backup or cut him after June 1.

Cutting him even after June 1 won't help much. Most if not all of his 2021 salary was fully guaranteed.

 

PS: Teddy Bridgewater Contract: Details on Panthers QB’s 3-year deal (usatoday.com)

Edited February 7, 2021 by Sasquatch

[ncfan]

 

[top dawg]

21 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Your thesis that the Rams paid extra to get rid of Goff’s contract is incorrect. Goff was a positive to Detroit, they actually wanted him. Our pick 8 this year is worth a good amount more than two future high 1sts and a 3rd this year. The Rams having Stafford means the 1st round picks in 2022/2023 will be in the high 20s and are worth high 2nd round picks in 2021.

So if Detroit gets more value with our picks, that means Goff was a positive. Teddy’s contract for Detroit would be far less to get rid of than Goff if they were actually being paid to take him. 

It isn't my thesis. Not that this reported story in the Los Angeles Times is the only place I've read this (because it's not), but here you go:

"By trading Goff, the Rams will incur a $22.2-million dead-cap hit. And by including the draft picks, they essentially paid the Lions to take him off their hands."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/sports/rams/story/2021-01-30/rams-nfl-jared-goff-traded-matthew-stafford-lions%3f_amp=true

 

 

 

 

[ncfan]

 

[top dawg]

@stbugs, don't believe the LA Times? Here's the Athletic:

Burke: Goff's contract is a bit of a sticking point, but the Lions have to be thrilled otherwise with the return. And the fact that they'll pick up $27.5 million of Goff's salary this year plus some guaranteed money next year is probably why they were able to land an extra first-round pick. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theathletic.com/news/matthew-stafford-rams-jared-goff-lions-trade/oZKFvAx6VulK%3famp=1

[BurnNChinn]

Not if we cut him lol. He is gone, Panthers are done with him

[Ship]

I'm not sure I agree with you that much. The reports were that our offer to the Lions was going to go through until the Rams upped their offer to beat us. So, the trade with Teddy was fine with the Lions. We weren't paying for them to take Teddy.

For the teams losing their starting QB in the trade, it's helpful for them to receive a QB who 'can' start in return. Teddy's deal isn't bad for a starter. And frankly, none of the teams who are trading their franchise QBs are expecting to go to the Super Bowl next year. Just as we used Teddy as a bridge QB last season, they'll be using him for the same thing (a good guy with heart who can lead and start while still landing a top 10 pick).

[AU-panther]

43 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Your thesis that the Rams paid extra to get rid of Goff’s contract is incorrect. Goff was a positive to Detroit, they actually wanted him. Our pick 8 this year is worth a good amount more than two future high 1sts and a 3rd this year. The Rams having Stafford means the 1st round picks in 2022/2023 will be in the high 20s and are worth high 2nd round picks in 2021.

So if Detroit gets more value with our picks, that means Goff was a positive. Teddy’s contract for Detroit would be far less to get rid of than Goff if they were actually being paid to take him. 

and we have a winner ^  If Detroit was looking to rebuild or draft a young QB our pick this year is worth a lot more than the two later year picks they ended up receiving.

For most teams taking on Goff would have been a negative, but isn't their GM the guy who originally drafted Goff?

Only way this might not be true is if Stafford totally vetoed going to the Panthers.

 

 

[Peon Awesome]

Up until recently I would have said it was obvious that we would have to give a little something (probably a day 3 pick) to entice someone to take Teddy. Perhaps the extra 5th was that for Stafford. But now with the news, if you believe it, that there's an actual trade market for Wentz, who by most metrics looked worse than Teddy this year and whose contract is so so much worse, I'm no longer 100% sure. 

[TLGPanthersFan]

Thanks Marty. 

[45catfan]

1 hour ago, Sasquatch said:

Cutting him even after June 1 won't help much. Most if not all of his 2021 salary was fully guaranteed.

 

PS: Teddy Bridgewater Contract: Details on Panthers QB’s 3-year deal (usatoday.com)

A huge difference?  No, but I wouldn't sneeze at $5M in cap savings.  That's a decent FA on a one-year 'prove it' deal.

[RumHam]

3 hours ago, SmittysLawnGuy said:

Yeah it's kind of ridiculous when people think any team wants to pay Teddy 20 mill and act like were giving them some prize.

Hurneymagic

[top dawg]

47 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Lol. So Stafford didn’t matter? Dude, David Newton is our ESPN correspondent. I’m not just going to believe reporter’s opinions are gold.

Also, if the extra 1st (right in your article) was to take Goff, then WTF would Detroit not take our deal?

Feel free to, as you said in the OP, do your own thinking instead of regurgitating what you read.

If you think they are right and let’s say the 2023 1st was for Goff’s contract, then please explain why pick 8 and a high 5th, both in 2021, isn’t worth more than a high 20s 1st in 2022 and a late 2021 3rd. According to the trade value charts they accepted about 650 points instead of 1439.

I’d love to hear the explanation to making a horrific pick decision if your writer is right that the extra 1st was to take Goff. I like to think on my own and IMHO, they valued Goff otherwise they would have taken our deal with better pick value and way less guaranteed cap to flush away for a QB you don’t want.

Meh! Argue with multiple reports to your hearts content! And, try to make something about analysis that's not about analysis as much as it's a reporting of a done deal. Our pick was nowhere as good as LA's, and there's still reason for someone to believe that Goff has some upside and more value than Bridgewater.