What are the chances Burns gets traded before the trade deadline?

[mav1234]

1 minute ago, WhoKnows said:

That’s a bad approach. We are 0-6, a 2023 1st (which the Rams didn’t have) isn’t more valuable. The reason why bad teams like us are OK with future firsts is because they are more valuable to us. We are rebuilding and are not competitive yet. To us a 2025 1st is more valuable than to a current playoff team.

There are people who think that every pick is devalued per year by a round which means a 2025 1st is worth a 2023 3rd. That’s stupid. The average 2023 3rd player is not more talented than the average 2025 1st. Since we weren’t competing in 2023 or 2024, except in our idiot FO’s mind, a 2025 1st is a 1st round talent and worth way more to us than a 2023 3rd.

Think about it this way. Would you rather have a DE from the 2025 1st and a QB from the 2025 1st or DJ Johnson and Matt Corral. No one will convince me that the latter is worth anywhere close to the former for us as a rebuilding team.

You can feel it is a bad approach if you want, but it doesn't change the way front office value future picks. You're asking coaches and GMs to trade for picks they may never, ever use. 

The way teams value picks means that the effective value of a Burns trade could be more this year than last if there's a first rounder in this year's draft included, heh.

There's no guarantee where teams will be drafting in the first round in 2025 etc... That's a big reason the value changes.

[WhoKnows]

Just now, bandu said:

okay well then name me just one trade & yes that's it just only one decent1 trade that  the Carolina Panthers have made since David Tepper bought the team 5 plus years ago ?

Well, that wasn’t the question. I can list some great trades we should have done, but I can’t give you a good trade we’ve done because that would require a competent GM.

[bandu]

10 minutes ago, WhoKnows said:

Well, that wasn’t the question. I can list some great trades we should have done, but I can’t give you a good trade we’ve done because that would require a competent 

so what makes you think  that this time will be any different than in the past ?

 just simply do the opposite of whatever Scott Fitterer  decides to do  & then that way you will know for sure it's a good trade...just saying 

Edited October 24, 2023 by bandu

[TheSpecialJuan]

The Carolina Panthers have been actively calling as buyers and sellers over the last few weeks. Carolina permitted wide receiver Terrace Marshall Jr. to seek a trade and will listen on safety Jeremy Chinn. The young safety is dealing with a quad injury that could get him back on the field by December, a team source shared with The Athletic. This injury could make a trade undesirable for another team, but the player is still considered available. As for the best Panthers pass rusher Brian Burns, I do not get the sense Carolina is expecting to trade him, but they have been getting calls on him.

The Athletic senior NFL insider Diana Russini

[WhoKnows]

1 minute ago, mav1234 said:

You can feel it is a bad approach if you want, but it doesn't change the way front office value future picks. You're asking coaches and GMs to trade for picks they may never, ever use. 

The way teams value picks means that the effective value of a Burns trade could be more this year than last if there's a first rounder in this year's draft included, heh.

There's no guarantee where teams will be drafting in the first round in 2025 etc... That's a big reason the value changes.

There are two sides to every trade and the rebuilding team that is receiving team is more than willing to take future higher round picks. We aren’t a playoff contender in 2023 games or 2024. We were stupid if we felt like a 2024/2025 1st wasn’t good because it’s too far down the road. Why do you think the Dolphins went from bottom of the barrel to top of the barrel? They knew Tunsil and Fitzpatrick didn’t matter more than future 1sts and they were right. They’ve turned those firsts into a much more talented roster knowing they needed a few years to compete and now they are there.

Please also do explain to me why Matt Corral is the same value as a 2024 1st and why DJ Johnson is the same value as a 2025 1st. We should have fleeced the Rams because they were willing to part with future potential picks for immediate returns.

You are confusing the difference between the talent level of a player In a pick and what teams have to give up to make the other team accept the trade. Teams aren’t forced to accept trades and the team taking future picks accepts the trade because they value the future picks more. Otherwise the team accepting future picks wouldn’t make the trade, right? The talent level of a player is 100% based on the round in which they are selected. 1st rounders are always more talented on average than other rounds, regardless of the year selected.

[Lurk21]

Looking at how Detroit couldn't stop nobody, I could definitely  see us trying to trade Burns(and another piece) for their 1st and Jameson.  We did  work on Jameson coming  out and it'd give Bryce someone he has a connection with. Almost like Tua n Waddle. I saw someone mention Metcalf and That'd be the other move they have to consider. Him and Carroll aren't on the same page and that'd give Carolina a lineup of Metcalf  Theilen and Jameson  at wr. Mingo can slowly develop. Id assume our 2nd next year would be valuable  but not sure what else. Maybe Chinn or Jackson. 

Edited October 24, 2023 by Lurk21

[WhoKnows]

9 minutes ago, bandu said:

so what makes you think  that this time will be any different than in the past ?

 just simply do the opposite of whatever Scott Fitterer  decides to do  & then that way you will know for sure it's a good trade...just saying 

Huh? Just because we have a shitty GM doesn’t mean those trades weren’t correct to do. The Bears could fug up our 2024 1st, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have traded the top pick.

Fitterer didn’t do the Burns trade which was a great trade for us. We lost out big time.

[bandu]

5 minutes ago, WhoKnows said:

Huh? Just because we have a shitty GM doesn’t mean those trades weren’t correct to do. The Bears could fug up our 2024 1st, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have traded the top pick.

Fitterer didn’t do the Burns trade which was a great trade for us. We lost out big time.

yeah I agree we should have done the exact opposite of what Scott Fitterer did & traded Brian Burns to the Rams last year

your missing my point here & that is we have to have another GM besides Scott Fitterer prior to making anymore trades.

Edited October 24, 2023 by bandu

[mav1234]

20 minutes ago, WhoKnows said:

There are two sides to every trade and the rebuilding team that is receiving team is more than willing to take future higher round picks. We aren’t a playoff contender in 2023 games or 2024. We were stupid if we felt like a 2024/2025 1st wasn’t good because it’s too far down the road. Why do you think the Dolphins went from bottom of the barrel to top of the barrel? They knew Tunsil and Fitzpatrick didn’t matter more than future 1sts and they were right. They’ve turned those firsts into a much more talented roster knowing they needed a few years to compete and now they are there.

Please also do explain to me why Matt Corral is the same value as a 2024 1st and why DJ Johnson is the same value as a 2025 1st. We should have fleeced the Rams because they were willing to part with future potential picks for immediate returns.

You are confusing the difference between the talent level of a player In a pick and what teams have to give up to make the other team accept the trade. Teams aren’t forced to accept trades and the team taking future picks accepts the trade because they value the future picks more. Otherwise the team accepting future picks wouldn’t make the trade, right? The talent level of a player is 100% based on the round in which they are selected. 1st rounders are always more talented on average than other rounds, regardless of the year selected.

I don't get why you keep bringing up DJ Johnson and Matt Corral, lol. In the year 2021, a 2022 3rd round pick has a lot more value than a 2025 3rd round pick. When talking first rounders it isn't that simple since the formulas aren't just a full round depreciation.  And the question is if Brian Burns on the Panthers for half of 2022, all of 2023, and 2024 (we will def. tag him) at a minimum is worth more than a first rounder in 2024 and 2025... 

The Dolphins went from the bottom to the top by having a good coach, hitting on a couple good draft picks, etc. Some of that was trades, some of it was smart FA decisions.

First rounders are on average more talented, yes, but a first rounder 2 years away is less useful than a player on your team now. That's basically it. In 2 years, a front office could be totally different, so yeah.

[mrcompletely11]

8 hours ago, mav1234 said:

Just a reminder the trade for Burns did not contain a 2023 first rounder and so by most front office beliefs the two first rounders offered were not the same as to a fan. I am pretty sure if the Rams had included a 2023 first instead of 2025, Burns woulda been gone.

This "theory" has been consistently debunked ad nauseam on here since the trade proposal hit the news.

 

Do you feel the bears and its front office think our 2024 first is not valued highly?  For a rebuilding team which we were last year and our currently future picks, especially first rounders from average at best teams are fuging gold.

[WhoKnows]

8 hours ago, mav1234 said:

I don't get why you keep bringing up DJ Johnson and Matt Corral, lol. In the year 2021, a 2022 3rd round pick has a lot more value than a 2025 3rd round pick. When talking first rounders it isn't that simple since the formulas aren't just a full round depreciation.  And the question is if Brian Burns on the Panthers for half of 2022, all of 2023, and 2024 (we will def. tag him) at a minimum is worth more than a first rounder in 2024 and 2025... 

The Dolphins went from the bottom to the top by having a good coach, hitting on a couple good draft picks, etc. Some of that was trades, some of it was smart FA decisions.

First rounders are on average more talented, yes, but a first rounder 2 years away is less useful than a player on your team now. That's basically it. In 2 years, a front office could be totally different, so yeah.

I bring them up because you said a first rounder 2 years ago is less useful than a player now. When people normally say that is when they equate the round down theory that a 2023 2nd is the same worth as a 2024 1st, which means a 2023 3rd is the same as a 2025 first. That’s what a team who wants to make the trade has to do to entice the other team to accept the trade, but it still doesn’t make the player on your team now more valuable to a rebuilding team.

Honestly, to an 0-6 2023 team, having the exact same player as a 2025 1st can be more valuable than a 2023 1st. We would be wasting two years of their cheap rookie contract to be the 2nd worst team rather than the worst team. That’s basically what we saw with CMC and Moore, and now with Burns. Do we need a $30M edge rusher right now? We have Burns talent wise and we are 0-6. The reason we got two firsts and a 2nd from the Rams is because they thought they were still in the window and were willing to mortgage their future. Fitterer wasn’t smart enough to realize that a 2024 and 2025 first were basically the same to us as a 2023 and 2024 1st because 2023 was a complete waste of a year for your GM and coach to think we had a shot to compete while also showing that they aren’t good evaluators/maybe coaches.

[mav1234]

2 hours ago, mrcompletely11 said:

This "theory" has been consistently debunked ad nauseam on here since the trade proposal hit the news.

 

Do you feel the bears and its front office think our 2024 first is not valued highly?  For a rebuilding team which we were last year and our currently future picks, especially first rounders from average at best teams are fuging gold.

Lol you think they would have let us keep the 2024 first and taken out 2025 first instead?  If not, you're actually making my point for me.

Nothing was debunked, fans just see draft picks different from NFL front offices. I wouldn't be surprised if Burns goes for fewer picks this year but that the relative value in the year of the trade is similar or higher.

[mav1234]

1 hour ago, WhoKnows said:

I bring them up because you said a first rounder 2 years ago is less useful than a player now. When people normally say that is when they equate the round down theory that a 2023 2nd is the same worth as a 2024 1st, which means a 2023 3rd is the same as a 2025 first. That’s what a team who wants to make the trade has to do to entice the other team to accept the trade, but it still doesn’t make the player on your team now more valuable to a rebuilding team.

Honestly, to an 0-6 2023 team, having the exact same player as a 2025 1st can be more valuable than a 2023 1st. We would be wasting two years of their cheap rookie contract to be the 2nd worst team rather than the worst team. That’s basically what we saw with CMC and Moore, and now with Burns. Do we need a $30M edge rusher right now? We have Burns talent wise and we are 0-6. The reason we got two firsts and a 2nd from the Rams is because they thought they were still in the window and were willing to mortgage their future. Fitterer wasn’t smart enough to realize that a 2024 and 2025 first were basically the same to us as a 2023 and 2024 1st because 2023 was a complete waste of a year for your GM and coach to think we had a shot to compete while also showing that they aren’t good evaluators/maybe coaches.

The bolded is not what the draft value depreciation tables say, rather the value of the pick is halved (not full round loss). It also depends where the teams think a pick is likely to fall, but in general it's a halving of value each year. That is NOT the same as saying a player in 2023 drafted in the 3rd is as valuable as a first rounder in 2025.

You're completely wrong that a 2025 first is more valuable to a front office than a 2023 first... I'm sorry... That's just not the NFL.  Players also don't compete immediately often, even first rounders get better with time, so those two years mean a lot. I get why as fans you can think that about rookie contracts but teams expect to turn it around quicker than 4-5 years out (when you'd expect a 2025 first to pay the most dividends). Hell, this team thought they had playoff aspirations lol.

[mrcompletely11]

4 minutes ago, mav1234 said:

The bolded is not what the draft value depreciation tables say, rather the value of the pick is halved (not full round loss). It also depends where the teams think a pick is likely to fall, but in general it's a halving of value each year. That is NOT the same as saying a player in 2023 drafted in the 3rd is as valuable as a first rounder in 2025.

You're completely wrong that a 2025 first is more valuable to a front office than a 2023 first... I'm sorry... That's just not the NFL.  Players also don't compete immediately often, even first rounders get better with time, so those two years mean a lot. I get why as fans you can think that about rookie contracts but teams expect to turn it around quicker than 4-5 years out (when you'd expect a 2025 first to pay the most dividends). Hell, this team thought they had playoff aspirations lol.

again this theory been debunked over and over and I am pretty sure it was you arguing this very point back when it first came about.   The draft value chart is a moving object depending on lots of things.  For a team like the panthers a 2024/2025 first is far far more valuable then brian burns.  Its not really arguable knowing what we know.   And ive ask you before if teams treat future picks as less valuable then why dont we see in drafts the adverse happening?