Free Agency Game Thread
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
I need more sourcing on that because there if he’s near end wouldn’t he want to take one more shot?
I'm sure he would, but whatever issues went on during last season may be lingering.
Rapaport says it's a 3-year deal for Burkhead with a good chunk of the contract being guaranteed. So therefore it's likely a 1-year commitment.
Not to cross post, but I’d guess high guarantees make it more likely to be multiyears in practice.
This hasn't been backed up on the national level or on the local level by either side. The dots are going to be connected because ex-Bengals DC Paul Guenther (who was his biggest supporter) is now in Oakland but there's nothing to it.
Edit: this guy is based in Alabama, only has ~1100 followers and isn't even verified. Why would anyone run with what he has to say?
Last edited:
Equally possible that there were no issues. Yet another possibility is that there were issues but that they have been resolved.
Yeah...Haynesworth redux. Maybe we can sign him in 2 years for peanuts after he gets cut again.
People saying these contracts are madness:
1) Are underrating how fast the cap is going up
2) Are mentally anchored to numbers that are now too low, given (1), and
3) Aren't accounting for the fact that a lot of these are being given out by teams that need to sign someone. There is no problem overpaying a few million here and there when you have to add $30 million in salaries. Actually, in that situation the meaning of the word "overpay" becomes unclear.
1) Are underrating how fast the cap is going up
2) Are mentally anchored to numbers that are now too low, given (1), and
3) Aren't accounting for the fact that a lot of these are being given out by teams that need to sign someone. There is no problem overpaying a few million here and there when you have to add $30 million in salaries. Actually, in that situation the meaning of the word "overpay" becomes unclear.
Some of them are flat out indefensible. Sammy Watkins on the high end, Ryan Grant on the low end, are two examples. There are others. Solder is one.
Rising cap is not a good excuse. When you overpay, that represents money that could be devoted to other needs. There is always a cost because the cap in this sport is hard.
Now some teams may have to overpay, at least for a while. If you are general managing Cleveland, for examples. They don’t have Confederate money, but the losing has been going on there so long, any reasonable player is apt to demand a premium. Acknowledge they have to spend or draft their way out of that situation.
So he has “Brady not doing team any favors” and “they might trade Gronk”?
Okay.
Frightening to think about but what do you ask for in a Gronk trade? Starting tackle? First? Second?
If they traded Gronk and/or Brady I wouldn’t be shocked. Nothing this team does personnel wise should be a shock at this point.
Seems strange re: Brady, especially after initial reports of the Pats getting rid of Jimmy G to keep Brady happy and his supposed love of Robert K.
Agreed. I’m guessing either a player and a lower pick or a 2 or 3. He’s great, but his injury history fills volumes and he may not want to play more than one more season.
You "wouldn't be shocked" if they traded Tom Brady? I'd have to ask what in fact would shock you, if thats true?
If they traded Brady you wouldn’t be shocked? You mean now or down the road? Because no chance on a Brady trade now.
It's a good thing, then, that I don't run the team ... because I'd do it.
And this is with the complete understanding that the Krafts would never allow it
If they trade Gronk with only a year or two left of Tom Brady then I’m not sure what the logic is or the mission of the 2018 Patriots.
Brady: I mentioned this in the other thread, but a Brady restructure will be fairly complicated, and unlikely to impact 2018 salary cap space that much. Brady would certainly be justified in pushing for guaranteed money worth at least as much as the $30M in salary and bonuses he has coming due over the next 2 years.
Gronk: 1st round pick or no deal. They don't have to trade him, and certainly no need to settle for a 4th round pick. Prefer that they don't trade him, but hard to tell what's actually going on there.
Gronk: 1st round pick or no deal. They don't have to trade him, and certainly no need to settle for a 4th round pick. Prefer that they don't trade him, but hard to tell what's actually going on there.
If you were preparing for the next 5 years why trade Jimmy? I have no clue if the Browns actually would have given the Texans pick either but even if he stayed in the AFC would have been a better deal IMO
Mike Garofolo on NFL Network teasing that the Patriots have something going on "with a familiar face." What could that possibly mean?
Blount or Woodhead for RB depth? Taking a quick look at the FA listing those 2 seemed to jump out.
Yeah, familiar to whom? To the Pats (former player), or to NFL fans in general?
Addendum: Blount seems like a better fit than Woodhead given White and Burkhead already on the roster.
49ers signed Weston Richburg to a 5-year, $47.5 million contract with $28.5 million in guarantees. $16.5 million of that is fully guaranteed.
Because they couldn't afford him without trading Brady which they weren't going to do once they saw how well he was playing.
The Patriots have had an unprecedented run of success in part because they do a very good job of balancing current seasons with future seasons. There is a case to be made that:
1. Gronk may not have much time left
2. You can't trust he'll be healthy
3. You can win without him in the playoffs (as they did 2 years ago).
A downgrade at TE while improving elsewhere is very different than rolling the dice at QB. Not having Gronk would change how the offense works, but they've done it before.
Nothing, when it comes to Patriots personnel decisions.
If Brady and Gronk are, in fact, unhappy playing for BB, anything could happen. If some idiot team makes a
Nothing when it comes to Patriots personnel moves.
Brady would be the biggest of all, of course, but after Bledsoe, Milloy, Seymour, Branch, Vrabel, Collins, Butler being benched, etc, there is no move that’s out of the question. If Brady is truly unhappy here, and the right deal comes along, I have no doubt BB would trade him, subject to the Kraft veto. And if Brady wanted to go, I bet Kraft would not stop it.
You might be the 3,502,793th person to explain that to him ... still waiting for the outlying districts, though
I feel I don’t have a good feel for what is a reasonable contract after the last couple of years of relatively large cap increases. It sure feels like Lewis and Amendola got contracts that were too rich for the Patriots’ blood, but part of me wonders whether mentally I’m pegging salaries to what was reasonable 4 years ago and these salaries are the new normal.
agreed. I guess we would just press hyperspace and land in 2019.
Trading Gronk would be insane, Even when injured he often draws the double-team.
I would have to pick my jaw off the ground if I saw that happen.
‘No move out of the question’ and ‘not shocked’ are not equal, imo, but ymmv. As it is, the player moves you list don’t combine to even come close to him trading Brady.
Someone else mentioned it, but the collective ‘sky is falling’ mentality around here since they lost is over the top, as is the biting on unsubstantiated rumors and speculation. While the odds of either of Gronk or Brady being traded are in fact non zero, they rest safely to the right of a decimal point.
If Gronk has embarked on a (relatively) subtle campaign to shoot his way out of town, then you best fasten your chin strap.