Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Must Read This For Your Sanity
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
nephillymike
http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2015/2/...gles-rams-draft

He posted this in another thread but I wanted to highlight it here to remind everyone to read this before deciding on jumping off that cliff.


Looking at this trade in that light:

We gave Foles and a 4th in '15 a 2nd in '16 and about 11.5M of cap room
We got Bradford and a 5th in '15 and a contingent additional pick in '16 which breaks down as follows:

If Bradford does not play for us = a 3rd
Plays for us in less than 50% of games = a 4th
Plays > 50% = no pick

So if we trade him, we don't get the salary cap hit, we actually save Foles 1M and the deal reduces to:

Foles +4th +2nd
for
a 5th and a 3rd and 1M or so of cap room.

That's a steep price to be able just to sit at the Mariota trading table. We essentially gave up Foles + 240 net points in the draft trade chart which is about a high 3rd round pick but we have Bradford as a trade chip.

So it cost us a high 3rd round pick to acquire an asset (going Hinkie on you) that will be more appealing to get us to get Mariota.

If we wouldn't be able to sit at the trading table with Foles but can sit at the table with Bradford, then it would reason that Bradford is more valuable than Foles in the eyes of those up top and as long as the package we have to give up with Bradford is a high 3rd round pick less than the package we would have had to give up with Foles (assuming they would even had considered it), the we will recoup this high third after the deal to get Mariota. And for you all hoping we get the cap championship, we have $1M more cap room.

When I break it down like that, it doesn't seem like that bad of a deal.

Convinced??
samaroo
I have a couple of number questions:

1. If we trade Bradford, does that really fulfill the "not playing for us" clause and net us a third? I thought it was contingent on injury. If not, that's awesome! And strange that StL would agree to that. Or maybe that's SOP.

2. Does Bradford's contract make him less desirable to a high pick team? Would not the $13M salary balance with the gamble of a cheap-but-promising rookie? Those big rookie contract days are over. At this point, his salary has to be seen as overpayment, right?

Also, glad to help a fellow follower avoid the cliff! For now, at least. biggrin.gif
nephillymike
QUOTE (samaroo @ Mar 10 2015, 11:09 PM) *
I have a couple of number questions:

1. If we trade Bradford, does that really fulfill the "not playing for us" clause and net us a third? I thought it was contingent on injury. If not, that's awesome! And strange that StL would agree to that. Or maybe that's SOP.

2. Does Bradford's contract make him less desirable to a high pick team? Would not the $13M salary balance with the gamble of a cheap-but-promising rookie? Those big rookie contract days are over. At this point, his salary has to be seen as overpayment, right?

Also, glad to help a fellow follower avoid the cliff! For now, at least. biggrin.gif



He would likely restructure his contract to make the cap hit lower for his new team. As far as the 3rd pick provision, the thing I read said if he didn't play for us. The Rams still the QB they want, clear space and pick up a net high 3rd rounder even in the worse scenario for them. If that recouping of the 3rd doesn't apply to trades, that would make the price to sit at the table two third round picks, which is higher but still recoverable.
samaroo
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Mar 11 2015, 01:18 PM) *
He would likely restructure his contract to make the cap hit lower for his new team. As far as the 3rd pick provision, the thing I read said if he didn't play for us. The Rams still the QB they want, clear space and pick up a net high 3rd rounder even in the worse scenario for them. If that recouping of the 3rd doesn't apply to trades, that would make the price to sit at the table two third round picks, which is higher but still recoverable.

The provisional 3rd wouldn't be the make or break for me, either way, I was just curious.

Another question:

Would an agreement to a re-structure have to be in place prior to a deal being made? Or would a team make the trade and hope they can hash something out? Sorry, new to me.
JeeQ
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.