Patriots Rumor OT: Maxx Crosby wants to play for Mike Vrabel UPDATE: Breer expects him to be traded this week with the Pats a favorite

[Ring 6]

I get that, but don't act like the Pats only have enough resources to trade for Crosby. He has no guranteed money coming with him other than this year's salary. But the Pats can easily convert most of that into a signing bonus to push the cap money into future years. From cap perspective, Crosby might only cost a few million dollars this year.

I don’t care how many resources they have or don’t the ones they would use to trade premium picks for a player and pay him a huge contract are not available to use to build out the roster.
Pushing it into the future doesn’t eliminate it, it just spreads the issue out further.

 

[Ring 6]

I'd rather pay a lot for a great player than pay a little for a poor one.

But that’s but the reality.
The reality is pay a lot for 1 player vs pay a lot spread among many players and not giving away draft picks.

 

[Ring 6]

I know the Krafts are hurting after getting $720 million for selling 8% of the team, but I am talking about the cap. The Pats could spend whatever they want in real dollars. As for the cap, his contract can be easily manipulated.

And we don't even know what the compensation will be at this point. If it ends up being a first and second, I would say Crosby is worth more than that based on where the Pats are picking.

I’m talking about the cap. And the draft picks. The choice is Crosby or keep the picks plus the 30 mill and spend it to improve the roster in other ways.

 

[dliverey44]

Here is one way of looking at it do we want Crosby at 30M, I assume or Mafe at 12M and Oweh at 18M. Personally I would rather go with the latter, and you get to keep the picks.

Or another combo of 15M/15M players. My point is that I think getting good production in 2 areas beats great production out of 1 especially when the roster has holes in multiple spots. Just my opinion

 

[Grogan14]

When was the last time the Patriots organizaton traded for a superstar player?

answer; Randy Moss for peanuts

 

[Toofy]

When was the last time the Patriots organizaton traded for a superstar player?

answer; Randy Moss for peanuts

I think stephon gilmore and revis were ones that come to mind . So CB is always a relatively safer bet.

Wide receivers over 10 million have been unmitigated disaster - brown, sanu, agholor, juju .

Milton williams is a good signing. But yeah relatively lower overpays or high risk signings .

 

[Ring 6]

I think stephon gilmore and revis were ones that come to mind . So CB is always a relatively safer bet.

Wide receivers over 10 million have been unmitigated disaster - brown, sanu, agholor, juju .

Milton williams is a good signing. But yeah relatively lower overpays or high risk signings .

You are just putting so much into one player.
If hypothetically with a 300 mill cap you need to get 450 mill of value to be the best team in the NFL, it’s very hard to get that out of the highest paid players.
Assuming you trade a 1st, you lose the first plus maybe 3-4 other players you could sign to fill other holes. It’s a lot easy to get 45mill of value from all of those players than from 1 guy, esp when he’d have to be 50% better then the 2nd best at his position to do it.

Again, I would be happy to change my mind if someone showed me examples where that strategy would but I don’t see many.

Here is one way of looking at it do we want Crosby at 30M, I assume or Mafe at 12M and Oweh at 18M. Personally I would rather go with the latter, and you get to keep the picks.

Or another combo of 15M/15M players. My point is that I think getting good production in 2 areas beats great production out of 1 especially when the roster has holes in multiple spots. Just my opinion

 

[Zuma]

Instead of paying a Crosby 30 M...I'd rather pay Chaisson and Phillips a total of 30 M. And they are a little younger.

 

[Ring 6]

Instead of paying a Crosby 30 M...I'd rather pay Chaisson and Phillips a total of 30 M. And they are a little younger.

Or pay one, use the draft pick on another and sign OL/S/TE/LB with the rest

Would not spend 30 more million on edge

 

[n1997y]

Physicals to get back on the field and whether or not to trade or sign a player are very different things.

When a doctor examines an injured player on the team, they are looking to see if they are healthy enough to play without reinjuring themselves or cause more damage. When a doctor examines a player who the team are looking to acquire, they are looking to see if an injury has any long term implications that could make the player be far less of a player in the short and/or long term.

That still does nothing to determine how he will play and produce for the duration of his tenure with the acquiring team. It can’t assess his confidence in it, whether it’s in his head, if he’s still thinking about the injury instead of reacting to the play in front of him.

 

[n1997y]

I'd rather pay a lot for a great player than pay a little for a poor one.

Paying a lot for a great player is not the same as paying a lot for a formerly great player.

Injuries increase the risk that a great player will decline to become a formerly great player.

 

[Rob0729]

That still does nothing to determine how he will play and produce for the duration of his tenure with the acquiring team. It can’t assess his confidence in it, whether it’s in his head, if he’s still thinking about the injury instead of reacting to the play in front of him.

That isn’t true. A doctor can determine the potential long term affect of injuries. That is a lot.

But judging a player’s mental state is impossible even for healthy players. How do we know that if the Pats give Gonzalez a top of the market deal that he doesn’t do a Sauce Gardner and go from potentially elite to just good? How do we know if a player who gets paid a lot of guaranteed just will stop putting in the effort?

 

[XLIX]

Paying a lot for a great player is not the same as paying a lot for a formerly great player.

Injuries increase the risk that a great player will decline to become a formerly great player.

Am I (and Rob0729) the only ones in this forum that realizes you get to give a guy a physical when you trade for him to ensure he is healthy?

Furthermore, to even call him “injured” is a stretch. He was sat down at the end of the season only because Vegas knew they’d be trading him - and he was quite perturbed when they did so.

 

[XLIX]

That still does nothing to determine how he will play and produce for the duration of his tenure with the acquiring team.

Of course it does. Establishing that he’s 100% healthy is a huge step towards establishing how he will play going forward. WTF planet are you living on?

It can’t assess his confidence in it, whether it’s in his head, if he’s still thinking about the injury instead of reacting to the play in front of him.

Gimme a break.

If Crosby is given a clean bill of health, there is no reason whatsoever to think he won’t be what he has always been. Saying “if it’s in his head” is pure and utter weaksauce.

 

[203Pat]

Honestly kind of glad Brady wants nothing to do with us at this point:

 

[imahobgoblin]

Instead of paying a Crosby 30 M...I'd rather pay Chaisson and Phillips a total of 30 M. And they are a little younger.

Why would you pay two guys to play the same position? That makes no sense. So do we go get another starting QB and pay him too?

 

[silentone]

The NFL is basically a $300mm optimization problem. The teams that generally contend are the ones that get the most production out of that $300mm. The biggest way teams created surplus value is through rookie contracts, especially first and second round picks. Those players can often produce like $15mm-$30mm players while costing a fraction of that. If you trade a 1st and possibly a 2nd or two 1sts (Parsons) and then pay the player fair market value, you are paying both draft capital and fair market value. That usually destroys the surplus value that good teams create. Crosby is a great player, but if he's getting close to fair market value, then trading premium draft picks on top of that creates negative value. Crosby would have to really outperform his fair market value contract to create surplus (and offset the draft capital), which I'm aware is not impossible. You are also concentrating roughly 10% of the cap on one non-QB player which creates meaningful injury and roster construction risk. I believe this is why, in general (yes there are exceptions) teams that consistently contend avoid paying both top draft capital and top market contracts. Unless a team is truely one player away (or player significantly outperforms his contract which is difficult for a non-qb to do when getting $30mm/year) I think these kind of trades usually hurt roster efficiency more than they help.

I understand some of the counter-arguments that elite pass rushers are rare, that many premium picks flop, elite pass rushers can raise the whole defense, some teams have won buy trading for stars (Eagles) and trading away top draft picks (Rams). However, I'm a value guy and believe in value maximization and creating expected surplus value.

If you are trading premium picks and pay market price salaries, you are paying twice.

 

[KCSVEN]

I understand some of the counter-arguments that elite pass rushers are rare, that many premium picks flop, elite pass rushers can raise the whole defense, some teams have won buy trading for stars (Eagles) and trading away top draft picks (Rams). However, I'm a value guy and believe in value maximization and creating expected surplus value.

If you are trading premium picks and pay market price salaries, you are paying twice.

You make some good points, and your scenario is the ideal preferred way to build a perennial contender.

Some things to consider: By the 3rd year of a team the average roster is 75-80% new players. Turnover is huge in the NFL. You have to decide who your top 3-4 guys are that you are going to pay. The better those guys are the better you'll be because the guys around them are going to change dramatically. That's where you want to fill as many as possible with the draft.

If you have to give up a late first round pick (and some other later picks) for a possible all pro level player that will play at that level for the next 3-4 years I think you should seriously consider it. Just don't be Deshaun Watson wrong about it. You can only pick so many all-pro level players to pay but nothing inherently wrong about getting those guys first and then bulding the rest thru draft..

 

[upstater1]

There are some news reports out there that Maxx Crosby wants out of Las Vegas in no small part because he hates... Alex Guerrero. If Corsby ends up on the Patriots, Guerrero will be the gift that keeps on giving. I mean, we had a QB and coach breakup over this guy. Also figured into the ownership and coach squabble. And now he's causing turmoil in Vegas?

Apparently, the word is that Guerrero has some authority over their entire training program and is dictating to staff what needs to be done with individual players and also disciplining them when they don't. He is also a conduit to Brady (informant).

 

[XLIX]

The NFL is basically a $300mm optimization problem.

It’s not that simple. You’re not trying to find the most economical way to pick up and deliver goods to 15 cities.

Great players are hard to come by. Your team is better off paying $35M to a guy who plays with a worth of $30M than you are paying $7M to a guy who performs with a worth of $10M.

The first guy may be less ”optimal” than the 2nd guy but you’re better off with him because he’s simply the better player. This is not a team struggling for cap room right now and the near future looks like more and more cap space will be available.