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!

     

NFL.com Five NFL stars who SHOULD be traded this offseason


panthers320
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, TheRumGone said:

Yeah if we could get two firsts for him I’d do it. Also can’t we split up the dead cap hit over the remainder of his contract? Thought I read on here it’d be something like 4.5 dead cap per year for 4 years or something like that.

No, it gets accelerated. It is either $17 or 21 mil this season alone, IIRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kungfoodude said:

No, it gets accelerated. It is either $17 or 21 mil this season alone, IIRC.

Ouch. Well if we did that I’d go all in on a rebuild this year. Start cutting and trading players for resources based on positional value. Take the dead cap hits this year and start building through the draft. Or package something for deshaun. We’d still probably suck this year but 2022 would look good.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Joe Person's latest Athletic article is better.

He asked three NFL personnel executives to rank the top ten Panthers players they'd want to trade for.

I liked that article until I saw someone ranked Ian Thomas, and then I knew that one dummy had skewed the three data points.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CMC is a great player. 

But it never made sense to bring in a college coach to rebuild this team.....and pay a RB a massive contract at the same time.   That is a contradiction in logic IMO.   I mean, yeah, CMC is a fan favorite and helps w/ butts in the seat.  But COVID and his injuries really threw that in the trash can last year. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I felt like we should have traded CMC before inking him to a big contract. Now, this year, with all the inflated deals being rumored for QBs and CMC both being paid and returning from injured, we wouldn’t get anything that makes the deal enticing. Why give away assets at their deflated value?
Let him play another year, hope he shows out, then maybe test the waters. Or, If our team is rounding out and looking solid, just keep him.

this year, I’d grab a back in the mid to late rounds as insurance. I like Rhamondre Stevenson. Good size, good patience, good blocker, decent catcher. He’d provide some short yardage value with starter up-side and shouldn’t cost too much.

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CarolinaSunday said:

I still think talk of trading CMC is ignoring the dead money cap hit that comes with it. I'm not so sure CMC will be on the trading block this year.  However, we've seen other teams swallow a huge dead money hit, so I guess it's still possible. I suspect that as weird as this year has been, we'll see some mind blowing things this offseason in the NFL.

Articles like this are basically just sh-t flinging. They don't really look at the details.

  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2021 at 8:43 AM, DeAngelo Beason said:

If the price is right, do it.  I just don't consider running backs the commodities that they used to be.  CMC is a stellar player, but as I've said before, oftentimes his most productive outings come as a result of us getting beaten into the dirt and him being the only guy we can think of to get the ball to.  If trading one great player plugs up 2 or 3 holes with good players, it's worth it.

Panthers save very little money by trading CMC. You keep CMC, hope he returns to form, and then trade if you're going to do it.

I'm of the opinion that the Panthers are a QB away from the playoffs. Going 0-8 in games decided by one score or less is so far below the median that you'd expect a rebound to maybe 4-4 in 2021, even with Teddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
    • Well, we got our answer on Army today.
×
×
  • Create New...