Panthers called about Mims...

[top dawg]

Can't trade away all the draft picks...

[SetfreexX]

1 hour ago, WOW!! said:

Douglas tried to trade rape us again.. Good Fitt don't fall for the trap...   Again!!

Rhule imo is the reason we gave up so much for Darnold. 

Fitt don't seem like the type to get fleeced, look at all the other trades. 

At that point Fitt had only been here since like Feb or March iirc, move was executed within a couple months. 

Look how well the Baker deal was navigated, limited draft capital, and we got Baker to give up almost 4M.

 

Edited September 1, 2022 by SetfreexX

[top dawg]

2 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Bet we trade some guys next offseason to try and get some of this back.

I hope we start to get ahead in these kind of moves. I am a little concerned that we kind of burn through draft capital and then scramble to get it back. 

I do think that is a potential Fitterer weakness. 

Could be a weakness...Could be a strength. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. All you can do is survey the situation and make your move (or not).

At this point, the only definitively bad deal that has been made is Darnold. 

[kungfoodude]

5 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Could be a weakness...Could be a strength. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. All you can do is survey the situation and make your move (or not).

At this point, the only definitively bad deal that has been made is Darnold. 

Well we have had quite a few guys we have traded for that either didn't make the team or immediately didn't re-sign with us. 

I think Henderson and Mayfield could tilt that balance in our favor pretty heavily if they have good years and Baker ends up re-signing. 

Right now I would say we lose more than we win. They aren't dramatic losses but they seem fairly consistent. 

[frankw]

15 minutes ago, SetfreexX said:

Rhule imo is the reason we gave up so much for Darnold. 

Fitt don't seem like the type to get fleeced, look at all the other trades. 

At that point Fitt had only been here since like Feb or March iirc, move was executed within a couple months. 

Look how well the Baker deal was navigated, limited draft capital, and we got Baker to give up almost 4M.

 

I understand it's easier to cope with one of the worst trades in recent memory by acting as if Fitterer was an errand boy but he was definitely very involved in the process. By the time the Baker trade went down very few teams were interested and Cleveland had lost significant leverage. It also helped we learned a few things from the fallout of the Darnold acquisition.

[top dawg]

5 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Well we have had quite a few guys we have traded for that either didn't make the team or immediately didn't re-sign with us. 

I think Henderson and Mayfield could tilt that balance in our favor pretty heavily if they have good years and Baker ends up re-signing. 

Right now I would say we lose more than we win. They aren't dramatic losses but they seem fairly consistent. 

The only person of note that I can think of is Gilmore, but he wasn't a lock to re-sign with us from the get-go. Anyone else that we traded for was a later day 3 pick (even Gilmore). I'm not gonna be bothered by fives, sixes and sevens. Those guys are generally easy to replace anyway (as are the picks a lot of times by dealing a player that you don't need).

[jayboogieman]

1 hour ago, Luciu5 said:

If they felt the bottom of the roster needs churned, why didn't we pick up anyone off waivers?

Beats me. I'm not a mind reader. Fitts and Rhule did say last year during the draft that you always need to churn the bottom of the roster and they wanted to use the draft to do so.

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, jayboogieman said:

Beats me. I'm not a mind reader. Fitts and Rhule did say last year during the draft that you always need to churn the bottom of the roster and they wanted to use the draft to do so.

They have yet to trade down from their first round pick though.

[jayboogieman]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

They have yet to trade down from their first round pick though.

That might only be because they haven't received what they felt was the right offer for the pick instead of a lack of desire to do so.

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, jayboogieman said:

That might only be because they haven't received what they felt was the right offer for the pick instead of a lack of desire to do so.

They specified that they received offers last year but didn't feel they were good enough...which I'm fine with.

Heck, last year even when they did trade down they still wound up with guys they were targeting.

[Luciu5]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

They have yet to trade down from their first round pick though.

IF Baker is worth a longer contract, which would mean we are drafting mid 1st instead of top 10, I could see it worth trading back. Not a huge drop off from 15 to 20, let's say. If we don't need a QB and don't need a LT, there is more flexibility I feel.

[jayboogieman]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Heck, last year even when they did trade down they still wound up with guys they were targeting.

Maybe, maybe not. Just because they claim they got who they were targeting all along doesn't make it true. I doubt we'll ever know either way.

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, jayboogieman said:

Maybe, maybe not. Just because they claim they got who they were targeting all along doesn't make it true. I doubt we'll ever know either way.

I don't think they were grandstanding for the cameras on Panthers Confidential.

To be clear though, I don't mind trading down. I'm less a fan of trading away future picks.

In both cases however, as long as you get good return I'm okay.

[Mr. Scot]

7 minutes ago, Luciu5 said:

IF Baker is worth a longer contract, which would mean we are drafting mid 1st instead of top 10, I could see it worth trading back. Not a huge drop off from 15 to 20, let's say. If we don't need a QB and don't need a LT, there is more flexibility I feel.

That's the position the Seahawks always used to be in.