Seattle listening to offers on DK Metcalf

[Einstein's Dog]

36 minutes ago, BuffaloMatt said:

Can he play DT?

If Cleveland is holding firm on not trading Garrett and the Raiders reload with Stafford (thereby signaling they aren't tanking and appeasing Crosby), I think the FO pivots and turns to third on the overall list of big moves and goes for DK.

 

It doesn't mean they give up on D line, it just modifies the way they go about it.  The big draft capital and money goes to DK and a decent sized FA goes to the D line with a lot of the remaining draft capital going to D.

[MikePJ76]

4 minutes ago, ddaryl said:

Negotiate an extension, add void years if necessary

easier said than done.  You essentially have to get Seattle to agree to the trade compensation and then you have to get together with metcalf's agent and come up with an extension.

 

Then the other side of the pancake, which player(s) does this cost you going forward?  Who does not get extended and who might you have to cut to make cap space for this year for this deal to work?

 

lets say you make that trade, then you get an extension done and it costs 

 

no extensions for Benford, Bernard and Cook and you have to release Matt Milano.

 

There is a lot more to it than just the trade compensation.

[Straight Hucklebuck]

12 minutes ago, MikePJ76 said:

The Deal from that Report is

 

Romeo Doubs & 23 for DJ Metcalf and 137 or 173

 

and you want to give up 

 

Keon Coleman or Dalton Kincaid, 30 and 107 or 130

 

Then you have to add in Metcalf's 2025 Cap number, 31 Million and workout an extension with him.

 

Seattle wants to move Metcalf because of his cap number and dead cap in the future, GB wants to move Doubs because he complained last year and they had to suspended him to straighten him out.   

 

Why would you want to include Coleman or Kincaid in the deal?  I would much rather have Metcalf on the field with Coleman/kincaid.   Is Seattle  only interested in trading him for a wr.  With the extra one I imagine Seattle would use it on a tight end.    

 

I guess I just wouldn't even consider Kincaid.  I understand coleman because that is a straight swap, plug in metcalf for Coleman's snaps but no way on kincaid. 

 

Since you are offering a 4th rounder 23 picks higher and Keon Coleman a player under contract for 3 more seasons as opposed to Doubs who needs a new contract and has shown he will complain and pout over his role in the offense it seems Coleman should be enough.

 

Coleman, 30 and 130 

for

Metcalf and 137 

 

Seems like a good deal for both teams.  Seattle gets cap space, a young wr under contract for 3 more years and two good picks and Buffalo gets what they have been chasing plus 137.

 

It seems the hardest part would be figuring out what to do with Metcalf's salary.

Yup - any combination of Coleman/Kincaid being traded for Metcalf - I'd do that. 

[ddaryl]

2 minutes ago, MikePJ76 said:

easier said than done.  You essentially have to get Seattle to agree to the trade compensation and then you have to get together with metcalf's agent and come up with an extension.

 

Then the other side of the pancake, which player(s) does this cost you going forward?  Who does not get extended and who might you have to cut to make cap space for this year for this deal to work?

 

lets say you make that trade, then you get an extension done and it costs 

 

no extensions for Benford, Bernard and Cook and you have to release Matt Milano.

 

There is a lot more to it than just the trade compensation.

 

Yes it will force decisions

 

But that would also be the case for any high end FA or trade we make including Garett. 

[Doc Brown]

Forget defense if this guy becomes available.  Give up whatever trade compensation that's required, give him the bag, and Josh Allen will have a #1 stud WR for the rest of his prime years.

[Kirby Jackson]

[MikePJ76]

2 minutes ago, ddaryl said:

 

Yes it will force decisions

 

But that would also be the case for any high end FA or trade we make including Garett. 

Yes but Garrett's number is 19 million with two more seasons before he is an unrestricted free agent.

 

Metcalf's number is 31 million and is an UFA next year.  

 

Major difference.

[HappyDays]

10 minutes ago, MikePJ76 said:

Why would you want to include Coleman or Kincaid in the deal?  I would much rather have Metcalf on the field with Coleman/kincaid.   Is Seattle  only interested in trading him for a wr.  With the extra one I imagine Seattle would use it on a tight end.    

 

I'd rather not of course but if Doubs is in the offer from GB it might be necessary.

 

15 minutes ago, MikePJ76 said:

I guess I just wouldn't even consider Kincaid.  I understand coleman because that is a straight swap, plug in metcalf for Coleman's snaps but no way on kincaid. 

 

I'm leaning in the opposite direction honestly. I still have hope Coleman can develop into a solid player. Kincaid I've come to accept just doesn't have it. He doesn't have the physical or mental makeup to become a high end player. Plus TE is a less premium position and this draft is supposed to be good for TEs. In fact I'd trade Kincaid this offseason for a 3rd if I could get one, before his value drops any further. I say this as his biggest fan throughout that pre-draft process.

 

All of that being said if they required Coleman to close the deal I'd give him up in a heartbeat.

 

21 minutes ago, MikePJ76 said:

It seems the hardest part would be figuring out what to do with Metcalf's salary.

 

That's the easy part IMO. You extend him for what he's worth and don't think twice. Paying a player at a premium position top of the market money should be the goal of every franchise, it means you have elite players on your roster.

[LABILLBACKER]

2 minutes ago, MikePJ76 said:

easier said than done.  You essentially have to get Seattle to agree to the trade compensation and then you have to get together with metcalf's agent and come up with an extension.

 

Then the other side of the pancake, which player(s) does this cost you going forward?  Who does not get extended and who might you have to cut to make cap space for this year for this deal to work?

 

lets say you make that trade, then you get an extension done and it costs 

 

no extensions for Benford, Bernard and Cook and you have to release Matt Milano.

 

There is a lot more to it than just the trade compensation.

We're probably releasing Milano anyway after this year and I'm not paying Cook 15M.  DK at 27 / 6-4 / 235 and 4.33 speed is the WR1 Josh & Joe are waiting for.  Metcalf won't cost as much as Chase. Shakir won't cost as much as Higgins/ Cooper. Then re-sign Hollins cheap. It can be done without losing Kincaid/Coleman. 

[ddaryl]

3 minutes ago, MikePJ76 said:

Yes but Garrett's number is 19 million with two more seasons before he is an unrestricted free agent.

 

Metcalf's number is 31 million and is an UFA next year.  

 

Major difference.

But it will cost us more in a trade, and it will have to be something(s) of value to make it happen.

 

 

[BuffaloMatt]

57 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

No but he can make the defense practically irrelevant if he helps us score 35 PPG. Any DT (or any position for that matter) we draft at #30 is not likely to become an elite player. Metcalf is already elite and in his prime. There's no need to overthink it. It's a no brainer if he's available.

It's funny that scoring 30 points a game is not enough. . .. losing in Divisional and AFC Championship b/c you allow 30+.  Defense needs to be a priority, more than enough points 

[Warriorspikes51]

1st, 4th, Kincaid  for Metcalf and a 5th  ? 

[MikePJ76]

8 minutes ago, ddaryl said:

But it will cost us more in a trade, and it will have to be something(s) of value to make it happen.

 

 

They both cost a lot.  Good players cost a lot. 

 

If you make one of these moves and lose two or three picks plus two or three players you might have extended you are really altering your team and your plan.

 

It's very risky.  

 

The bills would be giving Seattle a player with two or years left on a rookie contract, a first and a fourth round pick for Metcalfs giant cap number and a four. 

 

GB would be giving a wr with an expiring contract and a locker room risk and  a first round pick.

 

Buffalo's deal would be better honestly no matter if its kincaid or coleman.  I wonder if Buffalo would not have to give the 4th to them.  Since kincaid or coleman is great for their books that should allow buffalo to keep their four.

 

Kincaid/Coleman and 30 for Metcalf and 137.   That fourt rounder from Seattle would be them essentially paying buffalo for the cap space they are getting by moving metcalf.

 

The bills are getting two fifth round comp picks so if they could get that kind of a deal its a no brainer and they would still have 9 picks or so.

Edited 6 hours ago by MikePJ76

[BuffaloMatt]

21 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

If Cleveland is holding firm on not trading Garrett and the Raiders reload with Stafford (thereby signaling they aren't tanking and appeasing Crosby), I think the FO pivots and turns to third on the overall list of big moves and goes for DK.

 

It doesn't mean they give up on D line, it just modifies the way they go about it.  The big draft capital and money goes to DK and a decent sized FA goes to the D line with a lot of the remaining draft capital going to D.

I'm not the smartest guy out there but our defene is a glarring issue and really needs to be the focus on all levels- DL, DE, LB, CB S. 

[Alphadawg7]

I have no qualms about trading for DK, although I think Garrett or Crosby does more for this team if we can only pick one.  It was always a long shot for us to get DK, assuming we even tried, but if we were gonna make a big trade for someone at WR he did seem like the only possible target.  

 

But…if the Packers are gonna offer what is being stated is on the table, he’s gonna be a Packer, we won’t be able to compete with that offer and doubt anyone else will either.  A quality first plus a talented young WR isn’t likely being beaten by anyone.  

Edited 6 hours ago by Alphadawg7

[MikePJ76]

1 minute ago, Alphadawg7 said:

I have no qualms about trading for DK, although I think Garrett or Crosby does more for this team if we can only pick one.  It was always a long shot for us to get DK, assuming we even tried, but if we were gonna make a big trade for someone at WR he did seem like the only possible target.  

 

But…if the Packers are gonna offer what is being stated is on the table, he’s gonna be a Packer, we won’t be able to compete with that offer and doubt anyone else will either.  A quality first plus a talented young WR isn’t likely being beaten by anyone.  

i am not so sure.  The difference between 23 and 30 is not much as far as first round compensation goes.

 

Doubs is on an expiring contract and had to be suspended to show up after just blowing off the team last year because of his role in the offense.  

 

Coleman or Kincaid are rock solid people with multiple years left on their contract at affordable prices.

 

 

[LABILLBACKER]

1 minute ago, BuffaloMatt said:

It's funny that scoring 30 points a game is not enough. . .. losing in Divisional and AFC Championship b/c you allow 30+.  Defense needs to be a priority, more than enough points 

I would agree if we were guaranteed landing either Garrett or Crosby.  But those scenarios are not a given.  Then factor in Beane has kinda sucked drafting defensive players. It's basically pick your poison.  Keep trying unsuccessfully to build a D that can stop KC?....or increase your scoring level from 30 to 35? Choose, but you can't have both.

[msw2112]

1 hour ago, BuffaloMatt said:

Can he play DT?

 

He's a big, strong dude.  Remember the pre-draft photos if him in the weight room?  Why not give him a shot?

 

I jest, but the truth is that he probably could out bench and out squat many DTs in the league, but he would not have the bulk required to fill the position (not even close).

[SoonerBillsFan]

1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

 

[Warriorspikes51]

Just now, SoonerBillsFan said:

 

what's your offer?

I'd rather move Kincaid over Coleman