Let's say Tank is traded

[Verdict]

It does not ignore the cap implications. We have the cap space to bring him back at a high level DE contract and still do some other things with Cooper, etc. Now would I pay him as much as Mack got? Of course not. If that's what he wants then you have to make the tough decision and let him walk. But he's one of the better DEs in football and if he gets a deal like that, so be it. I can live with that.

The flipside here is that your entire post conveniently ignores the reality that if you subtract Lawrence, you have taken a major step back on defense unless there is some plan to bring in a Clowney or Frank at DE (which is unlikely - Clowney might cost as much as Lawrence and Frank is going back to Seattle). Anyone who sits there and suggests we can be really good with Gregory, Charlton and Armstrong and Crawford as our DEs absolutely cannot be taken seriously on this topic.

It doesn't matter if you take a step back or not. You have to set a cap on what he is worth and then stick to it. That's the salary cap world as opposed to rainbows and unicorns.

 

[superonyx]

They made little commitment to "keep" Foles. Them picking up the option was the only move they could make to trade him. They didn't have a choice in the matter if they wanted to trade him.

In other words, if the union and league stepped in to block a trade of Foles under the CBA, they'd laugh at the Eagles argument of, "well we picked up his option so that really showed we wanted him!".

I disagree. I believe the union would make that case but the league would more than likely do what they did a few times in the past and side with the teams. I believe Matt Cassell was a past time this happened. What else could the Eagles do to show they want to keep the guy?
I almost always side with the players and I dont like how the franchise tag can be used to take away a players rights to free agency. I wouldnt like this for Foles or D Law if we tried a tag and trade scheme.

 

[xwalker]

Neither actually.
The problem is I already have the proper understanding. You fail to state any counter points and your argument is only based on speculation.

The Cowboys have nothing to replace DLaw as their top DE. He is a highly rated player and the Cowboys have cap space to easily franchise him.

Foles would be the backup at 25M on a team that is tight against the cap.

Nobody (unless they are trolling) believe that the Eagles will keep Foles.

The majority of fans/media believe that the Cowboys will keep DLaw.

The NFL is unlikely to actually penalize the Eagles if they franchise and trade Foles; however, they need to be careful because it is technically against the rules and the league could make a case against them if enough other owners pushed the issue.

 

[Nightman]

PS - This is all moot anyway. Trading Lawrence would be silly because we'd be taking away our best defensive player, unless, of course, someone got really dumb and made an offer we couldn't refuse (which wouldn't happen).

Trading him would not be silly at all

If they got a 1st they would have a Draft Pick and 100m+ to invest

they could end up with BGraham or DFowler, EThomas and a 1st round DE for the rights to DLaw

 

[Sydla]

It doesn't matter if you take a step back or not. You have to set a cap on what he is worth and then stick to it. That's the salary cap world as opposed to rainbows and unicorns.

Using this logic, we should never, ever sign any player to a market rate contract if that player is an elite level player.

Because it would hurt our cap.

 

[Sydla]

Trading him would not be silly at all

If they got a 1st they would have a Draft Pick and 100m+ to invest

they could end up with BGraham or DFowler, EThomas and a 1st round DE for the rights to DLaw

Actually, that wouldn't be awful.

My suggestion was even let him walk and sign Frank Clark for cheaper and then spread some of the savings to Grady Jarrett.

 

[Sydla]

I disagree. I believe the union would make that case but the league would more than likely do what they did a few times in the past and side with the teams. I believe Matt Cassell was a past time this happened. What else could the Eagles do to show they want to keep the guy?
I almost always side with the players and I dont like how the franchise tag can be used to take away a players rights to free agency. I wouldnt like this for Foles or D Law if we tried a tag and trade scheme.

You are making a bunch of disjointed arguments here.

I am not sure what players' rights have to do with this specific debate, as I am not suggesting in anyway we take players' rights away.

My only point is you seem to be arguing that the Eagles picking up his option was a sign they wanted to keep him. That's false. They had no choice but to pick up his option if they wanted to trade him, which is what they want to do and pretty much everyone knows that.

 

[Little Jr]

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

Lol later

 

[Verdict]

The Cowboys have nothing to replace DLaw as their top DE. He is a highly rated player and the Cowboys have cap space to easily franchise him.

Foles would be the backup at 25M on a team that is tight against the cap.

Nobody (unless they are trolling) believe that the Eagles will keep Foles.

The majority of fans/media believe that the Cowboys will keep DLaw.

The NFL is unlikely to actually penalize the Eagles if they franchise and trade Foles; however, they need to be careful because it is technically against the rules and the league could make a case against them if enough other owners pushed the issue.

Right. So there is only risk if they can't trade him.

On the other hand let's say they don't. They could draft a QB and say our plans changed.

Or they could add a player and say well our cap situation changed.

 

[Verdict]

Using this logic, we should never, ever sign any player to a market rate contract if that player is an elite level player.

Because it would hurt our cap.

No. That's painting with too broad of a brush. Some players may be worth market value. Some not.

Mack may be worth Mack money. Tank is not worth Mack money even though the market value may be Mack money.

 

[Sydla]

No. That's painting with too broad of a brush. Some players may be worth market value. Some not.

Mack may be worth Mack money. Tank is not worth Mack money even though the market value may be Mack money.

No one said Tank is worth Mack money. Shoot, the rumored contract that Lawrence wants isn't even Mack money. Tank isn't getting Mack money.

But nice strawman.

 

[superonyx]

You are making a bunch of disjointed arguments here.

I am not sure what players' rights have to do with this specific debate, as I am not suggesting in anyway we take players' rights away.

My only point is you seem to be arguing that the Eagles picking up his option was a sign they wanted to keep him. That's false. They had no choice but to pick up his option if they wanted to trade him, which is what they want to do and pretty much everyone knows that.

The points have been simple and consistent.
The eagles did everything they can possibly do to retain Foles. Their intentions have nothing to do with the facts. They have picked up his option and this shows a willingness to sign him. You may wish for your interpretations of their intent to cancel this out but it doesn’t.
I’ve now explained this enough times so at this point it’s either a comprehension problem or you are being willfully ignorant.

They picked up his option. They even paid him a playing cash bonus of $1m they had no obligation to pay him at the end of the season. He certainly could have done nothing and would be an eagle this coming season for $20M.

 

[buybuydandavis]

I share your enthusiasm for the picks, which is why I initially was skeptical about the trade for Cooper. But at the end of the day the point of drafting (and trading) is to build a team, and if you don’t keep a foundation of many of the most solid pieces accumulated in the building process, the building never gets completed. In other words, younger and cheaper can be a good thing, but it can’t be the only thing. Younger and cheaper, while an important part of the process, is also less proven and carries a risk of ending up with lesser quality than a proven player. So there has to be a mix of strong foundational pieces, even if they are costly, and younger cheaper people being developed.

1st round draft picks are a good way to get foundational pieces. Then paying the players you already have.

The original decision was:
Cooper for 64 mil for 4 years plus a half year free.
vs.
1st round pick for 10 plus 50mil to spend on someone else.

We don't lack for foundational pieces who need to get paid. Or guys we could throw money at in free agency. We lack for the money to pay them all.

With the 1st round pick for Cooper already sunk cost, he's at or near the top of my list of players to pay. But that doesn't make the original decision a good decision.

 

[Sydla]

The points have been simple and consistent.
The eagles did everything they can possibly do to retain Foles. Their intentions have nothing to do with the facts. They have picked up his option and this shows a willingness to sign him. You may wish for your interpretations of their intent to cancel this out but it doesn’t.
I’ve now explained this enough times so at this point it’s either a comprehension problem or you are being willfully ignorant.

They picked up his option. They even paid him a playing cash bonus of $1m they had no obligation to pay him at the end of the season. He certainly could have done nothing and would be an eagle this coming season for $20M.

No, the Eagles have done everything they can to be able to try to get something for him. They have not nor are not trying to "retain" him. They can only trade him if they have him under contract. And that's why they picked up his option and are now contemplating trying to tag him. There is no interpretation here. It's pretty much well established that they are trying to trade him, not keep him.

So here, picking up his option shows no willingness to sign him. It was just a step in the process of trying to trade him. They had no choice but to pick up his option if they wanted to try to trade him this offseason. There was also no downside to picking up the option.

 

[OmerV]

1st round draft picks are a good way to get foundational pieces. Then paying the players you already have.

The original decision was:
Cooper for 64 mil for 4 years plus a half year free.
vs.
1st round pick for 10 plus 50mil to spend on someone else.

We don't lack for foundational pieces who need to get paid. Or guys we could throw money at in free agency. We lack for the money to pay them all.

With the 1st round pick for Cooper already sunk cost, he's at or near the top of my list of players to pay. But that doesn't make the original decision a good decision.

What you are talking about is making choices, which of course, every team has to do. Absolutely the 1st round draft pick would be great to have, and like I said, I originally was skeptical of the Cooper trade because I didn't want to give up the pick. But we saw the dramatic improvement in the passing game after Cooper arrived, and I have to believe Cooper is more valuable to the team than the 27th pick in the draft.

You are absolutely correct that choices have to be made on who to pay and how to pay them, and it's easy to say that if we hadn't made the trade we would have more money to pay other people. But at the same time, we saw that Cooper made a huge difference in the offense, and a draft pick isn't at all a sure thing. To me Cooper is one of the guys you have to figure out how to keep. If I had to let Byron Jones walk to help afford it I would.

 

[superonyx]

No, the Eagles have done everything they can to be able to try to get something for him. They have not nor are not trying to "retain" him. They can only trade him if they have him under contract. And that's why they picked up his option and are now contemplating trying to tag him. There is no interpretation here. It's pretty much well established that they are trying to trade him, not keep him.

So here, picking up his option shows no willingness to sign him. It was just a step in the process of trying to trade him. They had no choice but to pick up his option if they wanted to try to trade him this offseason. There was also no downside to picking up the option.

Do you understand what would happen if they picked up his option and he signed it?
Their is risk associated with picking up a players $20 million dollar option.
The point continues. The Eagles have done more to prove they have an interest in keeping Foles than we have to keep D Law so far. Will the eagles keep Foles? Of course not. No one is debating this. You can continue to repeat yourself and pretend them picking up his option means nothing but it does show the team was willing to have him on the roster for $20m even if they assumed he would opt out.

 

[Keithfansince5]

If we get two first rounders for him you can kiss him goodbye. There's little chance the team turns that down for a DE.

They would be stupid if they did. 2 1st rounders spent on the DL. Now you are talking.

 

[Sydla]

Do you understand what would happen if they picked up his option and he signed it?
Their is risk associated with picking up a players $20 million dollar option.
The point continues. The Eagles have done more to prove they have an interest in keeping Foles than we have to keep D Law so far. Will the eagles keep Foles? Of course not. No one is debating this. You can continue to repeat yourself and pretend them picking up his option means nothing but it does show the team was willing to have him on the roster for $20m even if they assumed he would opt out.

The $20MM, if Foles didn’t opt out, would not become guaranteed until the third day of the new league year. Hence, they could have picked up the option like they did a few weeks ago, see if they could trade him and then cut him two days into the league year and only carry the dead money hit they would have prior to picking up the option.

You seem to be under the impression that the option was a guaranteed the moment they opted for it. That doesn’t appear to be true.

So again, there was no reason to not pick up the option. There was no downside to picking up the option.

 

[superonyx]

The $20MM, if Foles didn’t opt out, would not become guaranteed until the third day of the new league year. Hence, they could have picked up the option like they did a few weeks ago, see if they could trade him and then cut him two days into the league year and only carry the dead money hit they would have prior to picking up the option.

You seem to be under the impression that the option was a guaranteed the moment they opted for it. That doesn’t appear to be true.

So again, there was no reason to not pick up the option. There was no downside to picking up the option.

I know it’s not a guarantee and I know why they did it. I just don’t think it changes my original statement from true to false since I already knew and factored that into my initial statement.
I’m not disputing your facts. I agree with your facts. You may be forgetting what the conversation is about.

Picking up the option shows some level of commitment. Now you can decide it’s a small level but it’s still a level. This I already know and this is why I said they have shown some more of a commitment to keeping Foles than we have to D Law.

I’m not really sure which part we are even disagreeing on.

 

[Sydla]

I know it’s not a guarantee and I know why they did it. I just don’t think it changes my original statement from true to false since I already knew and factored that into my initial statement.
I’m not disputing your facts. I agree with your facts. You may be forgetting what the conversation is about.

Picking up the option shows some level of commitment. Now you can decide it’s a small level but it’s still a level. This I already know and this is why I said they have shown some more of a commitment to keeping Foles than we have to D Law.

I’m not really sure which part we are even disagreeing on.

There was zero risk in picking up the option.