Offseason 2021 - Trades, Free Agency, QB Carousel

adrian522 · 29-01-2021 1:51pm #1

Let's put all talk of trades, Free agency etc in this thread please.

letowski · 30-01-2021 6:38pm

Ian Rapoport expects Stafford to be traded before the end of next week.

https://twitter.com/rapsheet/status/1355564529913110528?s=21

adrian522 · 30-01-2021 6:55pm

Seems to be Indy, SF and the Rams in the running.

It will be interesting to see what the compensation package is and if Stafford is looking for a new deal.

Foxtrol · 30-01-2021 11:12pm

adrian522 wrote: »

Seems to be Indy, SF and the Rams in the running.

It will be interesting to see what the compensation package is and if Stafford is looking for a new deal.

It is really funny watching, at this point it is obvious everyone is leaking trying to gain leverage.

You can nearly tell who is leaking what - nearly a week of heavy Stafford to the 49ers rumours and not a peep, then a leak today that they'll be happy to stay with Jimmy - likely the 49ers pushing back on the Lions trying to play hardball.

It will be really interesting to see how it shakes out and if we get the background details.

MileHighGuy · 31-01-2021 4:32am

Well, there you have it - I think? Stafford to the Rams.

Detroit did plenty better than I thought they would out of this deal.
2 x 1sts, 1x 3rd and Jared Goff (although I think Goff is likely playing the role of Brock Osweiler in this deal and the Rams gave the Lions an extra pick just to pick up his contract? I couldn't see any way for the Rams to get out from under that disastrous deal tbh)

letowski · 31-01-2021 4:47am

MileHighGuy wrote: »

Well, there you have it - I think? Stafford to the Rams.

Detroit did plenty better than I thought they would out of this deal.
2 x 1sts, 1x 3rd and Jared Goff (although I think Goff is likely playing the role of Brock Osweiler in this deal and the Rams gave the Lions an extra pick just to pick up his contract? I couldn't see any way for the Rams to get out from under that disastrous deal tbh)

When was the last time the Rams picked in the 1st round lol? By 2024 they will have gone on quite a run of not drafting in the first round (assuming they don’t trade that pick either)

Edit: that’s 7 first round picks used on Goff, Cooks, Ramsay and Stafford, kind of crazy use of resources

Good deal for the Lions imo.

hynesie08 · 31-01-2021 4:50am

I'm sure there's a POV where the ram's "won" this trade, but I ain't seeing it.....

Xavi6 · 31-01-2021 4:55am

The Lions have done very well here I think.

letowski · 31-01-2021 5:02am

hynesie08 wrote: »

I'm sure there's a POV where the ram's "won" this trade, but I ain't seeing it.....

I agree, I think the only positive outcome for the Rams (apart from acquiring Stafford himself) is they get Goff’s horrible contract off their books. Stafford is quite manageable at 2yrs/$43m.

MileHighGuy · 31-01-2021 5:38am

I think both will be happy, but for me the Rams have come out of this better.... Lions get draft capital, but that Goff contract is an albatross.

Stafford will be in a Sean McVay offense, on a team 2 years removed from a Super Bowl and that made the playoffs again this year. I bet they can't believe their luck, not only did they get a major upgrade at QB, they somehow got rid of that stinker of a contract.

MileHighGuy · 31-01-2021 5:41am

letowski wrote: »

I agree, I think the only positive outcome for the Rams (apart from acquiring Stafford himself) is they get Goff’s horrible contract off their books. Stafford is quite manageable at 2yrs/$43m.

I wonder if the promise of a reworked contract was part of the decision for Stafford also. I can't believe he will play out the last 2 years at $43m. The Rams will want to tie him up for 5 years I would guess? I'm useless at understanding the contracts/business bit of the NFL though.

letowski · 31-01-2021 6:05am

MileHighGuy wrote: »

I wonder if the promise of a reworked contract was part of the decision for Stafford also. I can't believe he will play out the last 2 years at $43m. The Rams will want to tie him up for 5 years I would guess? I'm useless at understanding the contracts/business bit of the NFL though.

I think that they could do in order to hold onto Stafford for at the medium term future. Having to use another first round pick at QB in 2024 would not be ideal at all (that would be 5 1st rounders in 8 years at QB then).

They have $70m cap space next year assuming no new contracts so they have some room to work with. Getting Goffs contract off their books is a pretty big deal tbf

cosatron · 31-01-2021 10:10am

One things for certain Les Snead doesn’t mess around. Released Todd gurley 2 years after making him highest paid running back ever and now Goff is off the books aswell. No pick until the third round this year, no first round pick for 3 years. Is he overly aggression or just in win now mode?

keano_afc · 31-01-2021 11:13am

We've got a better QB, but given up far too much again.

Rams front office don't seem to have any interest in first round picks.

paulie21 · 31-01-2021 11:16am

If Stafford is commanding that kind of trade what will Watson's price be?

cosatron · 31-01-2021 11:24am

paulie21 wrote: »

If Stafford is commanding that kind of trade what will Watson's price be?

At least 5 first round picks:D the rams will have no first round picks in 7 years.

31-01-2021 11:28am

Houston sound like they’re ready to dig in, for now anyway. No harm in making it as difficult as possible for him.

Oat23 · 31-01-2021 11:33am

The Rams get a top 10 QB they can win now with as well as getting rid of Goff's contract.

The Lions get two 1sts and a serviceable QB to use during the upcoming multi-year rebuild. They won't care too much about the Goff cap hit and can cut him without penalty in 2 years.

I'm sure Twitter will try to say one team won the trade but it's a win for everyone involved.

phatkev · 31-01-2021 11:39am

Getting rid of that horrible contract has to be the biggest win here for the Rams

Itssoeasy · 31-01-2021 12:33pm

The rams and lions trade might give the eagles to guts to trade wentz. I don’t think it’s a given but it’s more possible now then it was before.

D9Male · 31-01-2021 1:05pm

Agreed with those who say it's a win for both teams. Benefit to the Lions is obvious. The Rams look in bad shape, but this trade is helping them out of the mess from Goff's contract.

cosatron · 31-01-2021 1:30pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The rams and lions trade might give the eagles to guts to trade wentz. I don’t think it’s a given but it’s more possible now then it was before.

The problem for the eagles is getting a trade partner. I doubt indy are going to give a couple of first rounders

Itssoeasy · 31-01-2021 2:42pm

cosatron wrote: »

The problem for the eagles is getting a trade partner. I doubt indy are going to give a couple of first rounders

Probably not but even if wentz isn’t traded, it might be the kick up the hole he needs to figure out the reasons he fell off a cliff last season. Goff was always a bit average to me, but wentz showed some amazing ability which is why it was very stark.

31-01-2021 2:48pm

Is Wentz even available? I thought they sacked Pederson with the main intention of keeping the QB.

Foxtrol · 31-01-2021 5:32pm

Oat23 wrote: »

The Rams get a top 10 QB they can win now with as well as getting rid of Goff's contract.

The Lions get two 1sts and a serviceable QB to use during the upcoming multi-year rebuild. They won't care too much about the Goff cap hit and can cut him without penalty in 2 years.

I'm sure Twitter will try to say one team won the trade but it's a win for everyone involved.

I feel the talk of the Rams getting rid of Goff's contract is being overplayed by some, many are making it sound like with the trade they are now off the hook. Yes, they have gotten away from the guaranteed money but in a year where the cap is dropping they are still eating the biggest dead cap hit in history (beating the record in dead cap they set last year with Cooks).

I'm all for being aggressive but the Rams strategy has and continues to be insane (for a lack of a better word). For years they keep trading away an enormous amount of draft capital to get big names, signing guys to big deals in ways they can't easily get out of, and then eating huge dead cap when they decide to move on.

For the last 3 seasons they have ridden incredible luck on injuries, while also being quite lucky with hitting on later draft picks (the latter obviously has elements of skill/coaching too). Without draft picks their depth has taking a hit each year and it likely will again this offseason with them being well of $30m above the expected cap number and several currently cheap starters up for FA.

If their luck holds again this trade has set them up as better contenders than they were with Goff but there is a significant chance everything comes crashing down this season or next and the Lions get a very high 1st round pick - like the Dolphins have this year from the Texans. I'm definitely not happy to add Stafford to the NFCW but I think there is a much smaller chance Rams 'win' this trade when we look back.

cosatron · 01-02-2021 4:04pm

According to Sam Farmer, the rams approached the packers about Rodgers and was told to get stuffed. Les Snead has some set of balls.
Also Matt Stafford told the lions he would go to any contender bar the Patriots.

01-02-2021 6:17pm

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Is Wentz even available? I thought they sacked Pederson with the main intention of keeping the QB.

I wouldn't say so it's pointless to move him until next off-season it would cause the biggest dead cap hit in nfl history by over 10 million dollars

D9Male · 01-02-2021 9:40pm

cosatron wrote: »

According to Sam Farmer, the rams approached the packers about Rodgers and was told to get stuffed. Les Snead has some set of balls.
Also Matt Stafford told the lions he would go to any contender bar the Patriots.

Matt Patricia?

markc91 · 01-02-2021 9:44pm

Id be open to seeing what we could get for kirk

Xavi6 · 02-02-2021 1:32am

cosatron wrote: »

According to Sam Farmer, the rams approached the packers about Rodgers and was told to get stuffed. Les Snead has some set of balls.
Also Matt Stafford told the lions he would go to any contender bar the Patriots.

The Patriots are a contender? :pac:

Foxtrol · 02-02-2021 4:53pm

markc91 wrote: »

Id be open to seeing what we could get for kirk

A 2nd round pick? I say that as someone who is higher on Cousins than what I generally read and hear. You might get some team that goes higher if they get desperate having no QB, missing out on other players in FA and draft, who are in a position to win now, and have cap space - like say the Colts. By the time that value is there though the Vikings wouldn't have time to replace Cousins.

Comparing Cousins to Stafford - he is older, doesn't have the potential ceiling, and has a significantly worse contract next year ($35m) that the new team has to fully guarantee on the 3rd day of the new season.

Add to that how Cousins is undervalued and generally crapped on by most of the media and fanbases so teams will likely get blow back and be under pressure if they give up a lot for him.

I dont see the move worthwhile on the Vikings side anyway unless they see themselves as a full rebuild - it means $20m in dead cap in a year when the cap is tight and there is a lot of competition for QBs.

markc91 · 02-02-2021 6:54pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

A 2nd round pick? I say that as someone who is higher on Cousins than what I generally read and hear. You might get some team that goes higher if they get desperate having no QB, missing out on other players in FA and draft, who are in a position to win now, and have cap space - like say the Colts. By the time that value is there though the Vikings wouldn't have time to replace Cousins.

Comparing Cousins to Stafford - he is older, doesn't have the potential ceiling, and has a significantly worse contract next year ($35m) that the new team has to fully guarantee on the 3rd day of the new season.

Add to that how Cousins is undervalued and generally crapped on by most of the media and fanbases so teams will likely get blow back and be under pressure if they give up a lot for him.

I dont see the move worthwhile on the Vikings side anyway unless they see themselves as a full rebuild - it means $20m in dead cap in a year when the cap is tight and there is a lot of competition for QBs.

I'm not 100% sure about what way cap works and dead cap etc. But if we were to get a first for cousins and then offer the texans 2 1sts some later picks and barr or hunter seeing as they seem to be looking for defensive starters. Would it work capwise? We would be very strong in the skill positions but still need an Oline and some good rookies on Defense. As you said could be more of a rebuild than a chance of winning now

Foxtrol · 02-02-2021 8:02pm

markc91 wrote: »

I'm not 100% sure about what way cap works and dead cap etc. But if we were to get a first for cousins and then offer the texans 2 1sts some later picks and barr or hunter seeing as they seem to be looking for defensive starters. Would it work capwise? We would be very strong in the skill positions but still need an Oline and some good rookies on Defense. As you said could be more of a rebuild than a chance of winning now

Vikings are now around $12m above the expected cap before contract restructures, cuts, or re-signing your guys hitting FA. Not a good situation but definitely more manageable than a lot of other teams.

Looking at that trade salary capwise for next year you'd be basically in the same position as now - trading Cousins you save $11m ($20m dead cap but you don't have his expected $31m hit) and Watson's cap hit post trade would be ~$11m.

Biggest problem, aside from my doubts of you getting a first for Cousins, is that I don't see the Texans even starting to negotiate at that offer. I'd expect the floor of a deal would be 3 1sts, a selection of 2nds and 3rds, and then those starters. There is also the issue of Watson wanting to go there - he has a no trade so it'll be interesting how the power dynamics between him and the Texans work and whether he pushes for certain teams or just anywhere but there.

To add, if you have any interest I'd advise reading up on the cap. It seems like a lot but it really helps in understanding what tools the teams have to use in FA/trades - though it does make watching a lot of talking heads insufferable as they bullsh1t about what is or isn't possible or likely.

markc91 · 02-02-2021 10:12pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

Vikings are now around $12m above the expected cap before contract restructures, cuts, or re-signing your guys hitting FA. Not a good situation but definitely more manageable than a lot of other teams.

Looking at that trade salary capwise for next year you'd be basically in the same position as now - trading Cousins you save $11m ($20m dead cap but you don't have his expected $31m hit) and Watson's cap hit post trade would be ~$11m.

Biggest problem, aside from my doubts of you getting a first for Cousins, is that I don't see the Texans even starting to negotiate at that offer. I'd expect the floor of a deal would be 3 1sts, a selection of 2nds and 3rds, and then those starters. There is also the issue of Watson wanting to go there - he has a no trade so it'll be interesting how the power dynamics between him and the Texans work and whether he pushes for certain teams or just anywhere but there.

To add, if you have any interest I'd advise reading up on the cap. It seems like a lot but it really helps in understanding what tools the teams have to use in FA/trades - though it does make watching a lot of talking heads insufferable as they bullsh1t about what is or isn't possible or likely.

Cheers for the breakdown that makes more sense to me now I will read up on them though, either way it'll be interesting to see if a trade happens im not against keeping cousins as I'm not sure Jimmy G is a huge upgrade.

D9Male · 03-02-2021 11:48am

Carr is reportedly on the trade block.

cosatron · 03-02-2021 12:37pm

D9Male wrote: »

Carr is reportedly on the trade block.

f**king hell, Gruden and Mayock are really burning the house down, if he goes true that mack, carr and copper traded out of the playoff team. Eagle eye will be in his element if he lands in New england

Oat23 · 04-02-2021 10:48am

cosatron wrote: »

f**king hell, Gruden and Mayock are really burning the house down, if he goes true that mack, carr and copper traded out of the playoff team. Eagle eye will be in his element if he lands in New england

What's to say they don't use Carr as part of a trade for Watson? I'm sure Gruden is trying to make that happen.

I don't see the logic in trading Carr unless it is part of a deal like that.

cosatron · 04-02-2021 11:18am

Oat23 wrote: »

What's to say they don't use Carr as part of a trade for Watson? I'm sure Gruden is trying to make that happen.

I don't see the logic in trading Carr unless it is part of a deal like that.

maybe, i think Gruden just isn't happy with him and wants to move up in the draft or get watson.

Itssoeasy · 04-02-2021 1:11pm

cosatron wrote: »

maybe, i think Gruden just isn't happy with him and wants to move up in the draft or get watson.

Well in grudens first season back with the raiders there was at times noticeable tension between himself and Carr. It wasn’t there this season from what I saw though.

ELM327 · 04-02-2021 3:23pm

Carr would be a lot more achievable for NE than the likes of a watson. We can't pay multiple first rounders when the team has so many holes.

Kev8360 · 05-02-2021 2:14pm

Oat23 wrote: »

What's to say they don't use Carr as part of a trade for Watson? I'm sure Gruden is trying to make that happen.

I don't see the logic in trading Carr unless it is part of a deal like that.

Don't think the Raiders have the leverage to trade for Watson, even if we were to give up the draft picks which would be insane given where we are in the rebuild the Texans are looking for defensive starters in any trade and I don't think the Raiders D has anyone they would want or that Gruden/Mayock can afford to give up.

also I cant say this enough - Carr is not the issue in LV -we have a terrible Defense. Improving on that and getting better output from our WR corp should be the only priority this offseason.

The_Honeybadger · 05-02-2021 2:57pm

Kev8360 wrote: »

Don't think the Raiders have the leverage to trade for Watson, even if we were to give up the draft picks which would be insane given where we are in the rebuild the Texans are looking for defensive starters in any trade and I don't think the Raiders D has anyone they would want or that Gruden/Mayock can afford to give up.

also I cant say this enough - Carr is not the issue in LV -we have a terrible Defense. Improving on that and getting better output from our WR corp should be the only priority this offseason.

I think you’d have to trade Carr for multiple picks first and then use that haul to trade for Watson along with some of the Raiders own picks. It’s a complicated way to do it and probably unlikely to fall that way. Carr should have a good market though? New England, Carolina and others would all be interested I would think. I’d agree he is not the issue and they need to build that defence up.

I’m not sure about the Texans wanting multiple defensive starters, that seems to be a theory floated by a Texans beat writer who is guessing just like the rest of us, the team have said nothing of the sort and are still stating they want to keep Watson as far as I am aware. Given the cost of taking on veteran players the Texans may well prefer to get draft picks and draft their own defenders also.

Kev8360 · 05-02-2021 4:53pm

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

I think you’d have to trade Carr for multiple picks first and then use that haul to trade for Watson along with some of the Raiders own picks. It’s a complicated way to do it and probably unlikely to fall that way. Carr should have a good market though? New England, Carolina and others would all be interested I would think. I’d agree he is not the issue and they need to build that defence up.

I’m not sure about the Texans wanting multiple defensive starters, that seems to be a theory floated by a Texans beat writer who is guessing just like the rest of us, the team have said nothing of the sort and are still stating they want to keep Watson as far as I am aware. Given the cost of taking on veteran players the Texans may well prefer to get draft picks and draft their own defenders also.

Yeah its hard to get a real idea of what the Texans would want as they don't want to trade him. He could very likely sit out next year and force a trade to someone and I am not convinced the Raiders would be a spot he wants to go (wont be a challenger in the immediate future even looking at it optimistically).

There are a lot of teams in need of a QB but they will have to put up a kings ransom to tempt Houston to the trading table.

but hey its John Gruden and the Raiders so who knows what we will do!

Foxtrol · 05-02-2021 5:07pm

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

I think you’d have to trade Carr for multiple picks first and then use that haul to trade for Watson along with some of the Raiders own picks. It’s a complicated way to do it and probably unlikely to fall that way. Carr should have a good market though? New England, Carolina and others would all be interested I would think. I’d agree he is not the issue and they need to build that defence up.

I’m not sure about the Texans wanting multiple defensive starters, that seems to be a theory floated by a Texans beat writer who is guessing just like the rest of us, the team have said nothing of the sort and are still stating they want to keep Watson as far as I am aware. Given the cost of taking on veteran players the Texans may well prefer to get draft picks and draft their own defenders also.

That beat writer could be floating an idea of his but he is well known for being very close to the team, so I doubt it is completely without any insight from someone at the team.

The reason why I suspect defensive players are mentioned is that very few teams have enough picks to get Watson straight up. There is a limit of years in the future you can give away picks so without brining players into the discussion you're limiting the market to the very few teams with multiple firsts. I'd say the Texans would be far more interested if they could get their hands on Chase Young or Nick Bosa than a 1st round pick in 2023.

adrian522 · 05-02-2021 5:07pm

If the Texans don't trade him before the draft then all of a sudden the Jets, Jags, Dolphins are no longer the teams with the best packages to offer.

From Watson's point of view, limited reason to go to a team with a poor roster who will be giving up a boatload of picks to get him. They will be in the same situation as Houston.

From Texans point of view, limited reason to trade him to a team with a good roster as picks are likely to be at the back end of the first round.

Seems like for the moment that the Texans are digging their heels in. This could drag on for a while.

The_Honeybadger · 05-02-2021 6:01pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

That beat writer could be floating an idea of his but he is well known for being very close to the team, so I doubt it is completely without any insight from someone at the team.

The reason why I suspect defensive players are mentioned is that very few teams have enough picks to get Watson straight up. There is a limit of years in the future you can give away picks so without brining players into the discussion you're limiting the market to the very few teams with multiple firsts. I'd say the Texans would be far more interested if they could get their hands on Chase Young or Nick Bosa than a 1st round pick in 2023.

He was saying up to recently that there is no way Watson could or would be traded, changed his tune then. It may be something the team discreetly asked him to float or he may be guessing.

If they are looking for players I’d agree it would have to be young players with multiple years left on their rookie deal like Bosa or Young. Texans can’t really afford to take on veteran contracts, albeit those guys won’t be cheap as far as rookies go.

There is probably a better chance than most realise that the Texans dig their heels in and keep him too, unless they get a ridiculous offer. Fascinating situation in any case. You’d assume if a trade is to happen it’ll be before the draft.

Foxtrol · 05-02-2021 6:07pm

The_Honeybadger wrote: »

He was saying up to recently that there is no way Watson could or would be traded, changed his tune then. It may be something the team discreetly asked him to float or he may be guessing.

If they are looking for players I’d agree it would have to be young players with multiple years left on their rookie deal like Bosa or Young. Texans can’t really afford to take on veteran contracts, albeit those guys won’t be cheap as far as rookies go.

There is probably a better chance than most realise that the Texans dig their heels in and keep him too, unless they get a ridiculous offer. Fascinating situation in any case. You’d assume if a trade is to happen it’ll be before the draft.

Watson is in a pretty good position as any player in recent history to sit out. He received a huge payday from signing his contract and plays a position where there is a long shelf life.

Signing that contract with the Texans has probably given him way more leverage than he would have otherwise - if it was a long term decision to force a move it was incredibly smart.

letowski · 05-02-2021 6:24pm

Wentz to the Colts is starting to gather some legs per Mike Garafolo.

Itssoeasy · 05-02-2021 6:47pm

letowski wrote: »

Went to the Colts is starting to gather some legs per Mike Garafolo.

Well the frank reich connection with wentz and the success they had will always be a strong pull.

letowski · 05-02-2021 6:54pm

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well the frank reich connection with wentz and the success they had will always be a strong pull.

Yeah it would appear so. Chris Ballard is actually doing a radio interview in about an hour, be interesting to hear him and see if there are any hints.

Foxtrol · 05-02-2021 6:59pm

letowski wrote: »

Went to the Colts is starting to gather some legs per Mike Garafolo.

I don't see how they possibly do this with the cap situation unless something crazy like Wentz giving back his signing bonus.

On a pre-june 1 trade it is $33m in dead cap, $11m higher than the previous record.

That would be terrible for any team in a normal year, but next year with the reduced cap the Eagles are already 53m over. Add in that Wentz dead cap and they'd be $86m over the cap - pushing towards 50% over.

They could push the trade to post-june 1 but that leaves so many moving pieces and teams potentially backing out and the other screwed.

Offseason 2021 - Trades, Free Agency, QB Carousel

Comments