Why didn’t we trade with Seattle?

Status
Not open for further replies.
thunderpimp91

thunderpimp91

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,984
Reaction score
15,131
key word in there is "probably". You have no idea if Seattle even wants Dak. Then you have to factor in cap implications. 0 chance this would have happened.
 
blueblood70

blueblood70

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,405
Reaction score
26,896
ThatJerryKid said:
Trade Dak and a 1st rounder to Seattle for Wilson. They probably would have done that. Maybe we sweeten the deal a little bit it wouldn’t have taken much.
Click to expand...
because Wilson isn't first rounder better then dak and i doubt Seatle trades him within the NFC to a contender and did Wilson want to be here he wanted the west coast but settled at least for Denver. And oh wait

DAK HAS A NO TRADE CLAUSE

are fans this clueless!
 
Last edited:
Ken

Ken

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,521
Reaction score
17,169
MountaineerCowboy said:
There is NOBODY willing to take on Dak's contract.

It's one of t he worst contracts in the NFL.
Click to expand...
It is so funny seeing people trying to rationalize obviously impossible deals because they have NO IDEA how the salary cap works.

LOL.
 
blueblood70

blueblood70

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,405
Reaction score
26,896
moronic statements all the OP this was dead before it populated into an internet packet.

moot

DAK HAS A NO TRADE CLAUSE
 
Ken

Ken

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,521
Reaction score
17,169
ThatJerryKid said:
Trade Dak and a 1st rounder to Seattle for Wilson. They probably would have done that. Maybe we sweeten the deal a little bit it wouldn’t have taken much.
Click to expand...
Short answer, and not the only reason but this should end this thread...

$78 million dollar cap hit if we trade him.

Any questions?
 
ICP

ICP

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,637
Reaction score
3,394
ThatJerryKid said:
Trade Dak and a 1st rounder to Seattle for Wilson. They probably would have done that. Maybe we sweeten the deal a little bit it wouldn’t have taken much.
Click to expand...
Because that would have made Jerruh and Son look like they think they made a mistake
 
CTcowboy203

CTcowboy203

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,310
Reaction score
4,185
blueblood70 said:
DAK HAS A NO TRADE CLAUSE
Click to expand...

so did russell Wilson what’s your point ? Lol. If the cowboys were shopping him and didn’t want him he’s not gonna stay here and play. He would dictate where he was sent. It’s all irrelevant because we aren’t trading dak anyways but him have a no trade clause means jack ****.
 
ICP

ICP

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,637
Reaction score
3,394
blueblood70 said:
DAK HAS A NO TRADE CLAUSE

DAK HAS A NO TRADE CLAUSE

DAK HAS A NO TRADE CLAUSE

DAK HAS A NO TRADE CLAUSE

DAK HAS A NO TRADE CLAUSE

DAK HAS A NO TRADE CLAUSE
Click to expand...
Ok, now I really feel sick
 
Aerolithe_Lion

Aerolithe_Lion

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,849
Reaction score
11,807
ThatJerryKid said:
Trade Dak and a 1st rounder to Seattle for Wilson. They probably would have done that. Maybe we sweeten the deal a little bit it wouldn’t have taken much.
Click to expand...

Because A) it would have cost you so much money to trade Dak that would have had to cut half the team. While his yearly salary is 40m$, the cost of cutting him approaches 100m$.

Because B) Russell specifically wanted to go to Denver. He has a no trade clause and would have said no to a non-West Coast team, as he did to Washington.

Because C) Dak has a no trade clause.

Because D) The entire reason Seattle is trading him is to get out of a massive QB contract that’s crippling their salary cap. Dak is the last thing they’d want in return.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top