Cincy/Panthers

[Deleted]

Panthers give;

Akeem Ayers (LB-Ten) $734,000 (2013) RFA
Bryant Johnson (FA-WR) $665,000 (2013)

Bengals give;

Shaun Draughn (RB-KCC) $505,000 (2013) RFA
Garrett McIntyre (LB-NYJ) $505,000 (2013)
Justin Bethel (S-ARI) $230,000 (2014) RFA

I accept with this post. Although I don't like giving up the potential, I still have to try and balance out the here and now with the future, and this trade provides me with meeting those needs.

Posted to MFL, Panthers to accept



Isn't Akeem Ayers like really good, and only in his 2nd year with RFA status.. and Shaun Draugh has been nice but he has no future behind Charles and Hillis. This trade is a sham IMO

[Deleted]

Sorry bengals but I have to agree. Draughn is 3rd string and the other 2 are no names. Akeem Ayers is worth wayyyy more than this. It's a nice attempt to sell high on Draughn but I think it might have a tough time passing.

[Bengals GM (Darryl)]

Funny what people will see when it comes to what is "fair" value...

I think that because history shows that a GM chooses to severely overpay for a particular player, it has tainted what is and isn't acceptable in a trade or what gives a trade any type of equitable value. Therefore it becomes easier to 'assume' a players worth based on one's perception. In this manner, many trades can be and often are questionable and comes down to one's perception. Unfortunately, that perception doesn't allow room for comparing the here and now with the possibilities of the future. I think that this type of thinking is a major flaw.

If on the high end of the spectrum it is totally acceptable for two teams to agree that an exchange meets each GM's need, such as;


2012 Ravens 1st Round Pick
2012 Panthers 4th Round Pick
2013 Bears 2nd Round Pick
2014 Texans 2nd Round Pick
2014 Texans 3rd Round Pick

For:

Jason Babin (PHI - DL) $6,100,000 (2014)

Is it an overpayment of perceived value? Maybe, but none the less acceptable why? Because it meets the needs (whether real or perceived) of the two GM's involved.

In building a dynasty, there will be chances taken that the owners feel will give them the best shot at competing both now and in the future.

That said, this may be an "opinion" of an under-payment...therefore unacceptable. So my question is why? Is there any sort of guarantee that both Charles and Hillis will remain with the Chiefs? Not at all.

How about the "no-name" back-ups, will they always be no names or will they eventually get their shot to take over in the near future?

Here's the ultimate question - is this trade hurting either team or placing one at a disadvantage for the future?

[Deleted]

I just don't see the value for the Panthers. He is trading away arguably the most valuable player on his team for what? 3 guys you picked up in free agency. Draughn is a back-up level talent at best. Being a new owner, I think he needs to give a better explanation than what was given for why this trade is justifiable. The Babin trade is completely skewed. Babin was coming off an 18 sack year after having 12.5 sacks the year before. No one knew he would flop this year. Also that trade was made by veterans of the league who had proven that they know how to build a team. This is a brand new owner and therefore the trade should be treated differently. I'd like to hear if there are any other teams out there that think this is a good trade for the Panthers, or even fair for that matter.

[Deleted]

Cinci... if that statement you made is true, then why are there vetoes on any deal where there is no collusion?

I understand your philosophical point, and completely agree with it, but when I've seen vetoes thrown around here for way less of a difference in value (percieved or not), you can't be the exception to the rule.

I think it's heavily favored on one side as well, but I also think it should be approved, as should most other trades that get vetoed on here.

Let the GM do his job. If he sucks at it, he'll be gone and the league will find a good one that likes a rebuilding project. Circle of life.

[Patriots GM (Daniel)]

Oct 31, 2012 20:55:41 GMT @redbirdgrad said:

Let the GM do his job. If he sucks at it, he'll be gone and the league will find a good one that likes a rebuilding project. Circle of life.

This is what we are trying to stop happening, especially with new owners. More experienced and long term owners have more freedom to make trades, as they have more time to see trades and scoring. New owners haven't had this time and so their trades are more scrutinised

[Deleted]

Just a difference of opinion.

Sometimes I'll take pennies on the dollar in a trade because it makes sense for what I'm doing in the future. Some trades might look unbalanced at first, but when you look at the long-term of how the team rounds out, it makes sense in the end.

Unless everyone is given that flexibility, they have an unfair playing field with the more "seasoned" owners.

Again, just my .02.

[Bengals GM (Darryl)]

Oct 31, 2012 20:55:41 GMT @redbirdgrad said:

Cinci... if that statement you made is true, then why are there vetoes on any deal where there is no collusion?

I understand your philosophical point, and completely agree with it, but when I've seen vetoes thrown around here for way less of a difference in value (percieved or not), you can't be the exception to the rule.

I think it's heavily favored on one side as well, but I also think it should be approved, as should most other trades that get vetoed on here.

Let the GM do his job. If he sucks at it, he'll be gone and the league will find a good one that likes a rebuilding project. Circle of life.

Nice assessment and good question 9'ers.

Again, a lot of votes I believe are based on perceived value.

Personally, while I feel collusion is a reason to veto, I think that it is also important to also consider protecting a team from it's owner in cases where continued trades begin to cripple the team. Especially when resources to gain players or build for the future are used up.

I'm not asking for anything, nor to be an exception. Only explaining the way I see things - regardless of who's making a trade.

What I'm saying is that if my votes were based on perceived player value alone, there would be trades I've vetoed that would get approved and visa-versa.

[Bengals GM (Darryl)]

Oct 31, 2012 21:03:28 GMT Patriots GM (Daniel) said:

Oct 31, 2012 20:55:41 GMT @redbirdgrad said:

Let the GM do his job. If he sucks at it, he'll be gone and the league will find a good one that likes a rebuilding project. Circle of life.

This is what we are trying to stop happening, especially with new owners. More experienced and long term owners have more freedom to make trades, as they have more time to see trades and scoring. New owners haven't had this time and so their trades are more scrutinised

Exactly. The only problem is that this isn't something new to the Panthers. He's not inexperienced by any means. In any case, I will gladly go along and accept public opinion on the matter - and hope the Panthers will further clarify their view for the skeptics

[Deleted]

lol i clearly wasn't in the league when that Babin deal was made.. that is fucking as horrific as it gets.

[Patriots GM (Daniel)]

Panthers are pretty new and the case isn't helped by the fact they have had over a month without logging in, and then make this trade the first time they log in

[Deleted]

@jack - Babin had just finished the season with 18 SACKS! The year before he had 12.5 Sacks. Would I have done the trade? No. But it really wasn't that bad. Babin was looking like an Elite talent at the time. He really fell off a cliff this year. I'm pretty sure no one really said anything about that trade at the time because it really didn't seem that bad considering Babin's stats.

[Deleted]

Oct 31, 2012 22:20:44 GMT @goebel02 said:

@jack - Babin had just finished the season with 18 SACKS! The year before he had 12.5 Sacks. Would I have done the trade? No. But it really wasn't that bad. Babin was looking like an Elite talent at the time. He really fell off a cliff this year. I'm pretty sure no one really said anything about that trade at the time because it really didn't seem that bad considering Babin's stats.

Trading a 1st and 2 2nds for any DL is horrible.

[Deleted]

lol but trading a starting RB with 2 years left and RFA status + a top rookie DL for a DL is ok?

[Deleted]

I understand, I just think a more scrutinous look at one team compared to another is a slippery slope the league shouldn't go down...

Everyone should be on equal footing.