Suppose CMC is part of the deal for Watson

[AU-panther]

22 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

There's uncertainty whether we have enough money to keep Samuel now.

Trade McCaffrey and all the money they've only recently freed up goes bye-bye.

Samuel won't be expensive in the first year of his contract, that just how much contract are written.

If anything trading CMC and eating the dead money this year will free up future money when guys like Moton and/or Samuel get in their bigger years of their contracts, also if we were to trade for a really expensive QB.

 

[kungfoodude]

9 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

They could make it work if it was needed to make a deal happen.

Its about$17m if traded according to overthecap.com.

Christian McCaffrey Contract Details, Salary Cap Charges, Bonus Money, and Contract History | Over The Cap

Watson would only be around $10m.  10+17=doable

Taking the RB worth argument out of it, some team might want a good player, who has already had their signing bonus paid, in return.   In their mind it might offset some of the dead money on their books for their player they are trading.

For them CMC would only average about $10.5m a year with almost zero guaranteed money.  First two years would actually be closer to $8m a year.

Great player on rookie deal > Great player on second deal where signing bonus is already paid > Great player who is expecting new deal

 

Most franchises don't want a $8-12/mil a year RB on their team. It is a bad allocation of resources unless you are stacked elsewhere, which the Texans are definitely not. It also doesn't help their very poor cap situation. 

I think there is a reason they are rumored to be wanting "young" players. I imagine what they mean is guys on rookie deals, which CMC is not. 

It doesn't make a lot of sense for us to eat that kind of dead cap hit either. I suppose if they absolutely want him in a Watson trade scenario, you can't exactly say no. I just don't see that as something that is very likely to happen. 

Edited February 21, 2021 by kungfoodude

[TheRumGone]

You can spread the dead money out if we trade cmc right? I read it could be 4.5 million over 4 years, per year or something like that. That’s not terrible if true.

[ForJimmy]

They would mainly want CMC to fill the seats and he can be an incredible check down for a rookie QB. Not sure if they do, but this would be the only reason I can think of,

[Mr. Scot]

4 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

Samuel won't be expensive in the first year of his contract, that just how much contract are written.

If anything trading CMC and eating the dead money this year will free up future money when guys like Moton and/or Samuel get in their bigger years of their contracts, also if we were to trade for a really expensive QB.

 

Voth has made pretty clear that's not gonna happen.

[kungfoodude]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I'd agree, but it's also fair to point out that with a healthy McCaffrey all those guys have the potential to be even more productive given the attention defenses are going to pay to him.

In the previous season, teams' entire game plan was pretty much just to stop McCaffrey.

But the thing that would make them much more productive, CMC or not, is to have an elite QB. 

And the reason their entire game plan was to stop CMC is that they had no fear at all of our parade of broken or awful QB's. It's easy to focus on a RB when you have a busted OL and QB's who can't throw deep consistently. 

If we fix our QB issues and/or OL issues, it's actually CMC who will probably benefit the most. And, hopefully, we don't fall prey to the same idiocy that Rivera did and have him taking 90+% of our carries. Bring Davis back or find another guy that we can have split carries with him or at least alleviate the load so we aren't worrying about his health and mileage as much.

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, kungfoodude said:

But the thing that would make them much more productive, CMC or not, is to have an elite QB. 

And the reason their entire game plan was to stop CMC is that they had no fear at all of our parade of broken or awful QB's. It's easy to focus on a RB when you have a busted OL and QB's who can't throw deep consistently. 

If we fix our QB issues and/or OL issues, it's actually CMC who will probably benefit the most. And, hopefully, we don't fall prey to the same idiocy that Rivera did and have him taking 90+% of our carries. Bring Davis back or find another guy that we can have split carries with him or at least alleviate the load so we aren't worrying about his health and mileage as much.

Imagine having a great quarterback and McCaffrey though.

(and yes, that's possible)

[AU-panther]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I'd agree, but it's also fair to point out that with a healthy McCaffrey all those guys have the potential to be even more productive given the attention defenses are going to pay to him.

In the previous season, teams' entire game plan was pretty much just to stop McCaffrey.

That is a bit of a stretch.  How exactly are they changing their entire game plan because of McCaffrey?

8 men in the box?  that is often a product of down and distance.  Third and long and lines up in the slot, they cover him?  They aren't going to cover a different back?  Its not like teams are putting their #1 CB on him.  Are they double teaming him in the passing game?

Draft a RB in the third round and run him often on early downs and teams with focus on stopping him.

Don't get me wrong, he is a really good player but this idea that he causes a huge fundamental change on how defenses play us is wrong.

 

[kungfoodude]

4 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

They would mainly want CMC to fill the seats and he can be an incredible check down for a rookie QB. Not sure if they do, but this would be the only reason I can think of,

This isn't the NBA. You aren't going to get a significant portion of asses in seats by having a star player if you aren't winning. The thing that gets people showing up to games is WINNING. 

We haven't had a star player yet that could make people show up if the team stinks. Hell, we had a far bigger star in Cam Newton and even he couldn't do that. 

[kungfoodude]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

Imagine having a great quarterback and McCaffrey though.

(and yes, that's possible)

Well, if we trade for Watson it is almost certain. CMC's contract is a poison pill to us and the team we would hypothetically trade him to. The odds of him going anywhere this offseason are slim to none. 

[Moo Daeng]

11 minutes ago, Moo Daeng said:

1. He's not tradable now.

2. I like him and would prefer he stayed on the roster

3. If not for #1 I'd theoretically rather offer him up than any young defender

4. I doubt he's the type of player Houston would want. Expensive running backs aren't terribly desireable.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, AU-panther said:

That is a bit of a stretch.  How exactly are they changing their entire game plan because of McCaffrey?

8 men in the box?  that is often a product of down and distance.  Third and long and lines up in the slot, they cover him?  They aren't going to cover a different back?  Its not like teams are putting their #1 CB on him.  Are they double teaming him in the passing game?

Draft a RB in the third round and run him often on early downs and teams with focus on stopping him.

Don't get me wrong, he is a really good player but this idea that he causes a huge fundamental change on how defenses play us is wrong.

I think if you went back and asked the guys actually running those defenses, they'd have a different opinion.

The reason we know this is because many of them said so.

[kungfoodude]

Just now, Moo Daeng said:

4. I doubt he's the type of player Houston would want. Expensive running backs aren't terribly desireable.

Especially when they just traded for one last offseason.

[AU-panther]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Voth has made pretty clear that's not gonna happen.

I didn't say anything about Voth or if would happen.  I was disagreeing with the statement that it wasn't feasible financially.