Let's say Tank is traded

[OmerV]

how can you trade a player who has no contract ?

then... our dl sucked against the rams even with him.

It would take either agreeing to a contract or franchising him first

 

[Rockport]

Minor or not he once again was injured. And a force? Really? When I talk about his play falling off after the first 4 games people use the injury as an excuse/reason for the fall off. So he wasn't a force through his injury. Although the same thing happened in 2017 and there was no injury excuse/reason for the fall off after 4 games.

If you don’t think he was a force on our defense then you have no clue about football. I should put you on ignore just for that. I mean you obviously have no clue.

 

[buybuydandavis]

Once he’s franchised, he’s under contract for one season. Hard to give up a first rounder for that, although i wouldn’t argue that it’s impossible for some team out there, but 2 is completely outside the realm of possibility.

2 1sts seem crazy to me.

Much of anything seems crazy to me. I think anyone who signs him long term will be getting a bad contract.

I wasn't thrilled about Cooper trade either, but at least he doesn't have a significant injury history.

 

[MojaveJT]

2 firsts would be amazing but highly unlikely. That’s Mack territory.

With that, it will be hard to find someone to replace DLaw. He doesn’t have the sexy numbers but he sure does command attention from opposing lines which opens up room for the other guys. You can’t overlook that.

 

[TwentyOne]

It would take either agreeing to a contract or franchising him first

smart post !

 

[Little Jr]

If you don’t think he was a force on our defense then you have no clue about football. I should put you on ignore just for that. I mean you obviously have no clue.

Lol you can use the ignore if you would like. But he disappeared the last 2 years after the first 4 games. He was not a force after week 4. Tackles, sacks, tfl all dropped about half. Half his sacks the past 2 years have came on the 1st 4 games. Tackles for loss The same thing. Tackles fall off from 5 to 3. He's a Sept beast and then falls off and by Dec hes a dud

 

[Verdict]

Oh look, Verdict starting a thread about moving on from Lawrence.

Yes, and you show up like a moth to the flame. Thanks for dropping in. It always nice to see what people think who are riding the short bus. Thumbs up on diversity of opinions.

 

[Verdict]

2 1sts seem crazy to me.

Much of anything seems crazy to me. I think anyone who signs him long term will be getting a bad contract.

I wasn't thrilled about Cooper trade either, but at least he doesn't have a significant injury history.

Yeah, for a first he would be LONG gone.

 

[OmerV]

2 1sts seem crazy to me.

Much of anything seems crazy to me. I think anyone who signs him long term will be getting a bad contract.

I wasn't thrilled about Cooper trade either, but at least he doesn't have a significant injury history.

I wasn’t thrilled qbout the Cooper trade at first either, although like with most things I was willing to at least give it a chance before judging too harshly. But after watching him play I’m pretty happy about the deal.

 

[Gangsta Spanksta]

some do not want to hear it (nor do I) but Tank could very well be traded. We have no 1st rounder, we get a shot at 2 1st rounders for him he could be gone.

If someone is dumb enough to do that, I would jump for it.

 

[Rockport]

Lol you can use the ignore if you would like. But he disappeared the last 2 years after the first 4 games. He was not a force after week 4. Tackles, sacks, tfl all dropped about half. Half his sacks the past 2 years have came on the 1st 4 games. Tackles for loss The same thing. Tackles fall off from 5 to 3. He's a Sept beast and then falls off and by Dec hes a dud

Don’t need to hear your ignorance so bye bye.

 

[superonyx]

No. It's not. Lol

According to this article it is.

There is a school of thought that franchising Foles strictly for trade purposes violates the CBA. Language requiring a good-faith intention to negotiate with a tendered player or keep him for the upcoming season at his tender exists in the CBA. A team insisting that a player agree to a contract for that particular season under the required tendered amount is specifically mentioned as violation. The good-faith intention may be superseded by other language within the same provision addressing the permissibility of trades.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...foles-heres-a-look-at-possible-risks-rewards/

 

[Gangsta Spanksta]

Why would you trade a player the type of which the team has been chasing for years?

Generally Agreed. But like the 3rd post someone made mention of getting 2 first rounders for him. I consider that a dumb deal on the other team and would take 2 first rounders any day for an aging player. It'll probably not happen, but that's the kind of trade people have made in the past for someone like Tank.

 

[superonyx]

Only if the team would not keep the player if the trade didn't happen.

The Cowboys would keep DLaw.

The Eagles would not keep Foles...

Thanks.
But why would the Eagles not keep Foles yet the Cowboys would keep Lawrence?
How is this determined? The eagles picked up Foles option. Why would they do that if they dont intend to keep him?
I would say it more likely the Cowboys decided Lawrence isnt worth the cost and they dont intend to keep him. We havent made any commitment to him like the Eagles have Foles.
(all hypothetical of course. D Law isnt going anywhere)

 

[Rockport]

Generally Agreed. But like the 3rd post someone made mention of getting 2 first rounders for him. I consider that a dumb deal on the other team and would take 2 first rounders any day for an aging player. It'll probably not happen, but that's the kind of trade people have made in the past for someone like Tank.

THEY AINT TRADING TANK!!!!!!

 

[Gangsta Spanksta]

THEY AINT TRADING TANK!!!!!!

No need to scream. And yeah, they probably are not trading tank, mainly because nobody will probably offer them multiple first rounders for Tank. But you wouldn't trade him for two first round picks?

 

[OmerV]

Generally Agreed. But like the 3rd post someone made mention of getting 2 first rounders for him. I consider that a dumb deal on the other team and would take 2 first rounders any day for an aging player. It'll probably not happen, but that's the kind of trade people have made in the past for someone like Tank.

Tank has zero years on his contract, and would be on a 1 year franchise tag. There are very few times ever where any team has traded 2 first round picks for any player in any situation, and a D-Law type player with a one year franchise tag is not one of those kinds of situations.

 

[Gangsta Spanksta]

Tank has zero years on his contract, and would be on a 1 year franchise tag. There are very few times ever where any team has traded 2 first round picks for any player in any situation, and a D-Law type player with a one year franchise tag is not one of those kinds of situations.

yeah, but every once in awhile Minnesota does a stupid trade But like I said I doubt that trade would ever happen, but I would be all over it if it did.

 

[OmerV]

yeah, but every once in awhile Minnesota does a stupid trade But like I said I doubt that trade would ever happen, but I would be all over it if it did.

I would do it if it were offered too. Maybe we could throw sign Herschel Walker then throw him in the deal too.

 

[Verdict]

According to this article it is.

There is a school of thought that franchising Foles strictly for trade purposes violates the CBA. Language requiring a good-faith intention to negotiate with a tendered player or keep him for the upcoming season at his tender exists in the CBA. A team insisting that a player agree to a contract for that particular season under the required tendered amount is specifically mentioned as violation. The good-faith intention may be superseded by other language within the same provision addressing the permissibility of trades.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...foles-heres-a-look-at-possible-risks-rewards/

Interesting but that would be hard to prove.