Probability Analysis of the Burns and DJ decision

[DaveThePanther2008]

I would also interject that these 1st round picks that we would have gotten are going to be mid-20s or lower.  

Last year, the draft had only 16 players with 1st round grades.  Of course, every year is different, but those players are, at minimum, going to be low 1st round or 2nd round values.

Many devalue Burns but those types of players are so hard to come by.  You trade him away and our D-Line is much less effective. 

[Thorrez]

13 hours ago, Toomers said:

Sure. Until he holds out this Spring. Especially when they just told his agent how valuable you think he is. You think he’s going to happily play on tags when he is going to want 25M/yr(or more now) and somewhere around 60M guaranteed. 
 
    Ask your dice this…. What package looks better. Credit to stbugs
 
   Edge like Reddick for 15Myr

   FA C or MLB or TE for 10-12M/yr. 

    Two 1sts almost sure to be top 16. 
  
    2nd round pick. 
 

     Or

    BUrns for 25-27M/yr

 

 

The 16th pick makes $3M a year. So the extra money should be deducted to a little less than 20. And I think we should also point out that this route neglects any chance for comp picks.

But even with that, I still think your point stands (If this was the deal, I would not be surprised that second was really something like a swap for our third and so on, but that we'll never know).

[mrcompletely11]

8 hours ago, Martin said:

I don’t think the intention of the OP or myself was to scare you with data and numbers. I hope you can overcome this misstep from our side and that you can have a good night sleep without any nightmares.

But, uh, the data and numbers are wrong

[Icege]

My favorite part about this thread is the amount of replies essentially saying, "Your math is right, but I have feelings."

[Sir Big Spurr]

15 hours ago, Sir Purr said:

 I think we should trade all of our really good players for draft picks so we have more chances to replace them with really good players.  The Huddle has convinced me that this is the way.

These really good players have won 17 games the last 4 years. But yeah, let’s keep them and then massively overpay one of them. It’s the Panthers way. It’s how bad teams continue to be bad. 

[frankw]

2 minutes ago, Sir Big Spurr said:

These really good players have won 17 games the last 4 years. But yeah, let’s keep them and then massively overpay one of them. It’s the Panthers way. It’s how bad teams continue to be bad. 

That's fair. It's also fair to say if you sell off most of the roster and expect to draft mostly studs and all pros with those picks you are going to be disappointed based on the Carolina Panthers overall draft history.

[Sir Big Spurr]

3 minutes ago, frankw said:

That's fair. It's also fair to say if you sell off most of the roster and expect to draft mostly studs and all pros with those picks you are going to be disappointed based on the Carolina Panthers overall draft history.

The Packers and Rams future picks will most definitely be top half of the draft, probably top 10. That’s a risk I’m willing to take. 

[frankw]

8 minutes ago, Sir Big Spurr said:

The Packers and Rams future picks will most definitely be top half of the draft, probably top 10. That’s a risk I’m willing to take. 

So now that we've established any and all losing is now punishable by exile what happens when those rookies take some lumps or face struggles to develop? Certain positions you may see flashes instantly but other positions can take 2-3 seasons especially defensive ends. Firesale redux?

[Sir Big Spurr]

13 minutes ago, frankw said:

So now that we've established any and all losing is now punishable by exile what happens when those rookies take some lumps or face struggles to develop? Certain positions you may see flashes instantly but other positions can take 2-3 seasons especially defensive ends. Firesale redux?

I understand that you need to hit on those draft picks, but those are some of the expected lumps you take during a true rebuild. 

[frankw]

5 minutes ago, stbugs said:

We are 17-41 in the last four years. WTF do you not want to take a shot with a ceiling far greater than Burns alone at a huge contract price? There’s a decent chance that one of the 5 players (two 12-15M FAs included) could be as good as Burns and then it could be a Herschel Walker deal, one that we talk about for years as the deal that set us on a playoff every year type path.

We can argue about taking it or not but 3 draft picks is not a Hershel Walker deal let's be real here. That deal resulted in 4 players and 3 firsts and 3 seconds. That's the Hershel Walker deal so if we're going to cite it let's at least know what was involved.

[theinstrumental]

37 minutes ago, frankw said:

So now that we've established any and all losing is now punishable by exile what happens when those rookies take some lumps or face struggles to develop? Certain positions you may see flashes instantly but other positions can take 2-3 seasons especially defensive ends. Firesale redux?

You’re making up the immediate losing = exile line. Losing with an intentionally-built, young roster that’s loaded with rookies who could be the cornerstones of the next great Panthers teams is not going to result in those guys being tossed. Its about defining and maximizing your window, not being reactionary. 

[frankw]

2 minutes ago, theinstrumental said:

You’re making up the immediate losing = exile line. Losing with an intentionally-built, young roster that’s loaded with rookies who could be the cornerstones of the next great Panthers teams is not going to result in those guys being tossed. Its about defining and maximizing your window, not being reactionary. 

Assuming we will just draft studs who will be cornerstones is what got us into this mess. Remember when Shaq Thompson was supposed to be the next Thomas Davis? See the problem firesale advocates aren't seeing with their logic is once you elevate the standard to only elite "cornerstone" players the rules change and your own argument works against you and we just keep hitting the reset button every 3-4 years because you guys also don't want to pay out big contracts either even if we hit on picks. So maybe just relax and try and laugh at the rest of the season and turn the temperature down for a bit because this week has been exhausting enough.

[theinstrumental]

1 minute ago, frankw said:

Assuming we will just draft studs who will be cornerstones is what got us into this mess. Remember when Shaq Thompson was supposed to be the next Thomas Davis? See the problem firesale advocates aren't seeing with their logic is once you elevate the standard to only elite "cornerstone" players the rules change and your own argument works against you and we just keep hitting the reset button every 3-4 years because you guys also don't want to pay out big contracts either even if we hit on picks. So maybe just relax and try and laugh at the rest of the season and turn the temperature down for a bit because this week has been exhausting enough.

Why would you hit the reset button if you have an actual competent team? I’m not advocating for trading Burns because he’s not good. He’s just not in a situation where his being good is leading to wins. This team has too many holes, most notably at quarterback, and isn’t going to compete for at least another couple of years. By the time we’re actually competitive, the return on that trade will probably be better than Burns alone. Pretty simple.

I don’t know how to help you with that last point; if you just want to laugh at the current team then don’t come into the thread that’s obviously about trades and how to weigh the value of the present vs the future.

[Sgt Schultz]

1 hour ago, stbugs said:

I’d take that bet on their draft picks. Stafford and even Donald are getting old. Go look at their last few drafts. There’s no talent there, again that’s why they made that desperation trade offer. If you honestly have watched them play (outside of us not throwing the ball downfield) this year, then I don’t think you’d be thinking they’re going to be a SB contender in 2023/2024. I think it’s more likely Stafford retires or gets injured and they blow up than them being playing for a title/NFC championship.

Also, there are 32 first round picks, period. The whole 16 first round grades is silly. Does Lamar Jackson not count as a first rounder because he was taken at 32? We said we had Corral rated in the first round as well, lol.

We could F up those picks or we could take a guy like Lamar and change the franchise. Everyone keeps acting like Burns is some sort of elite game changer. If he was we wouldn’t be averaging 5 wins a year. Give me one example of a game where he took it over. I’ve seen that from elite DL like Donald and Watt and even Parsons. Heck in 2015, Short had some games where he blew up play after play and dominated. I’ve never felt that way about Burns where he dominated play after play after play where the announcers are calling him unblockable.

I like having Burns and wouldn’t want him gone at all, but that offer of picks and knowing we could spend his money on two solid starters as well seems like a no brainer. The DJ deal isn’t close to a no brainer like Burns’ was. It’s not about losing Burns as much as realizing the ceiling of the deal is 5 solid starters for one solid starter.

I was not looking to move Burns either. But, everything is available......for the right price.  IMO, the Rams offered the right price.

And yes, the people who see the Rams putting up enough wins for the next couple of years to be drafting later than 20 are seeing a different Rams roster and cap situation than I am.  They are more likely to be drafting in the early third in each round than the late third.