Brees

[Seattle Seahawks (Cecil)]

I rarely say anything but that Brees trade looks terrible. Brees for basically 2 2nd rounders is very one sided. I don't see Keenum keeping the starter job long and Kaep is a backup who couldn't beat out Gabbert.

[Philadelphia Eagles (Andrew)]

he definitely could've gotten more for brees but i think it was in the best interest of his team to offload him. the only teams who should be looking at acquiring him are the contenders but they all have almost no cap space.

maybe we need to look into raising the salary cap so that guys on high contracts aren't devalued so severely.

[Seattle Seahawks (Cecil)]

Just not sure what the hurry is to trade him for so cheap. That is a price he can get any time of the year. And might be able to get more if waits a bit. What's a couple 2nds going to do for him now? Raising the cap won't solve bad cap management so I'd prefer to leave it alone.

[Cincinnati Bengals (Chris)]

Agreed with Cecil on the latter point entirely. Honestly, if anything, I think we're going to have to scrap the current re-signing structure ($1.5, $1.0, $0.5) if it continues to lead to these bloated contracts and such a poor UFA Draft classes. I think it's the number one contributor to both of these issues.

[Pittsburgh Steelers (Garrett)]

I'm on both sides of the salary idea. I don't think we need to increase the cap after this season but I think it is something to look at over the next couple years. The NFL increases the cap every year so if we are trying to imitate the NFL it might be something to explore further.

As for the weak FA pool I think this upcoming class will be pretty good. There are a handful of teams loaded with 1 year guys.

[Cincinnati Bengals (Chris)]

I understand what you're saying about one-year guys Garrett, but I did an Excel file for the UFA Draft last this year, trying to project who would and would not be in the pool and found that a great percentage of the 1-year players (or players that were about to become 0-year players) that I had identified as ones with bloated salaries that I thought would make the UFA Draft, did not, and that's simply because either A. the team making that decision thought that their player was worth that amount of money, or B. the team making that decision wanted to keep said player for multiple years given the new ($1.5, $1, $0.5) what I'll call decreasing cap hit scale, and locking them up for multiple years at what they interpreted as a discount was a perceived value to them. The problem with that is, it's still a lot of money to commit to a player long-term, when generally, outside of the top-5 guys (maybe) at a position, there is a ton of fluctuation in value from year-to-year. And what I'm finding is, whereas the straight $1.5 per year was somewhat of a deterrent for committing more than an extra year to a 0-year player (or any player for that matter whose new contract after re-signing a player on the decreasing cap hit scale will take them through their previously scheduled 0-year), the incentive to sign a player to a longer CHEAPER PER YEAR (BUT NOT CHEAPER OVERALL) contract is enticing more of our GMs to make said signings. And consequently, we've seen a huge increase in players with $7, 8, 9, and 10+ salaries that end up getting cut or used in trades for cap relief purposes (I'm even guilty here, just saying that it's the case, not that it's right or wrong). And as a result, more of those guys outside of the top-5 at their position but still valuable to GMs throughout the league aren't even eligible for the UFA Draft (because their GMs keep them at well over market price) during some of their peak years. And I just don't see how that could be good for the league.

[Buffalo Bills (Salvatore)]

I say make a rule that says a player can't cost more then ×% of your total cap . So say a guys contract is $12 and it expires he can't be resigned and has to go to fa? I mean I believe we could think of a realistic number.

[Seattle Seahawks (Cecil)]

I vote to leave it alone.

[Pittsburgh Steelers (Garrett)]

I'm with SEA, no need to change anything in the near future.

[Deleted]

I mainly traded him becasuse if I were to keep him it would. Out me an arm and a leg to do so. To be honest I think 9 dollars is A little astronomical. In order for Kevin to keep him next year he's going to have to go over 10. The end of the day. That's just too much. I will be the first to tell you I love Bree's that's the only thing I had going for my team. But after talking to Kevin he's all in and that contract is his headache now. Yeah I have a weak qb but if you're going to still try and be competitive but it looks like I'm tanking at the same time. Everyone comes at me with these weak trades. I wanted this and at the end of the day I don't have the headache of this contract.

[Deleted]

Sept 19, 2016 22:32:45 GMT -5 @wiszguy1 said:

I mainly traded him becasuse if I were to keep him it would. Out me an arm and a leg to do so. To be honest I think 9 dollars is A little astronomical. In order for Kevin to keep him next year he's going to have to go over 10. The end of the day. That's just too much. I will be the first to tell you I love Bree's that's the only thing I had going for my team. But after talking to Kevin he's all in and that contract is his headache now. Yeah I have a weak qb but if you're going to still try and be competitive but it looks like I'm tanking at the same time. Everyone comes at me with these weak trades. I wanted this and at the end of the day I don't have the headache of this contract.

Straight up, ripped off. "Everyone comes at me with these weak trades", so you take a crap offer for your only good player. Funny stuff. No wonder your team is where it's at reading your rationale for grabbing your ankles. You don't want Brees for $9, but you want to take on a backup QB in return for $6 over the next 3 years, and a truly terrible QB in Keenum for $2.5. Pure genius. You saved a dollar for the year and get a backup at $6 over the next 3 years.

[Deleted]

Easy there salty man. No need to/for the attack. Keenum Is an expiring contract. I took him because I won't have to deal with him after the season. I wanted to wait to see what happened with kapernick. I feel he might get a chance, that's the beauty of fantasy sports. I went to the playoffs last year. I came to the realization. This year wasn't going to be my year. I'm not throwing it all down the drain. But I don't have the talent that some of these great people have on there teams. I'm not here to trash other people's teams. Please respect the moves. The TC approved the trade. And if they felt it was weak I'm sure someone would have said something as I wouldn't insult their judgment. But everyone approved it the deals done, no need to bicker anymore. with that being said JPP I'm trying to move him. Anyone interested?

[Deleted]

I'm not bickering, just pointing out how ugly this trade is no matter how you cut it. Got no real value for a top QB, didn't even cut the dollars you seemed so intent on getting rid of.

[Deleted]

I'll be fine.

[Cincinnati Bengals (Chris)]

Yeah, Vic, we appreciate the legitimacy (and humor) of your message, but Charlie is entitled to his moves and can run his team as he sees fit provided it doesn't break any rules and that his trades are approved.

While I concur, I didn't quite agree with the return and would have gotten more if it were me, Charlie is apparently banking on Kaepernick beyond Keenum, and I myself, while I wouldn't touch him with my QB situation what it is, think people are being too harsh on his value considering that halfway through last season, he was in a statistical dead-heat with the MVP of pro football and with a far poorer supporting class mind you. I think he's still an above average starter if he gets the chance to play in the right system with some talent again. And all of those things are fluid (except for the talent part of that until Trent Baalke gets marching orders).

Anyway, point being, you're entitled to your opinion, and I agree with parts of it, but there's no reason to make this personal. Let's keep it that way.