2017 Training Camp - Day 10 (8/7/17) [Joint Practice with the Jaguars]

[ctpatsfan77]

A live look-in at practice, from Frank Galasso:

 

[maineman209]

IIRC modest pre-cutdown trades to circumvent the waiver wire are pretty common. Either player-for-player with bubble guys at different positions, or picks conditional on the player making the team.

EDIT: Bizarrely, the first example of a late camp trade that came to my mind was Le Kevin Smith 8 years ago. But there have been plenty of others, notably Logan Mankins.

There may be a possibility that BB can swindle some team out of a 7th for Coleman before the final pre-season game. I think there's also a possibility that BB could move Brissett for a 5th (conditional 4th) after the final pre-season game.

A potential trade of Lewis hinges entirely on Foster becoming an equitable replacement. If Foster seems like he's getting there by the end of Camp, AND the Pats can figure out how to protect both, Lewis could still be traded during the season by the end of Week-8. Lewis has at least SOME trade value (maybe a 5th), whereas Foster doesn't at all at this point

I terms of "protecting" certain bubble players, I think BB will take full advantage of the two IR/return spots. For example, I'm thinking that one of those might be used on Mitchell, allowing the Pats to keep Lucien for awhile longer. That's merely kicking the can down the road, of course.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I actually proposed very similar idea earlier in the thread:



I agree that players, NFLPA and most clubs should welcome this. The only “losers“ here would be the bad teams with bad management/scouting/coaching. That might be the reason why *NFL would be against it . another “parity“ gift to bad management even if it is a fake parity . making the league worse not better.

BTW - I wouldn't give teams power to protect players on PS. Once they are there its a free market because team has leverage to keep them there and players should have freedom to chase better opportunity. In the current system it is not only that teams cannot protect assets they invested a lot in and worked hard for . also players can't protect their interests put on waivers (f.e. staying on a good coached team getting roster salary) ..

I had a similar idea:

* Teams can protect up to four players that (a) were on their roster as of August 1, and (b) are first- or second-year players with 9 or fewer games.

* Players must be paid either twice the regular PS salary or 60% of their 53-man salary, whichever is greater, while on the PS, and that salary is guaranteed for the entire season (unless a player requests his release).

* In return, the player bypasses waivers. So the player can be "called up" to the 53 when needed (and the player gets the regular 53-man salary for those games), without worry about losing him to waiver claims.

* This does not prevent teams from signing "protected" players off another team's PS. (Remember that you can't "claim" a player off a practice squad.)

 

[long distance]

I had a similar idea:

* Teams can protect up to four players that (a) were on their roster as of August 1, and (b) are first- or second-year players with 9 or fewer games.

* Players must be paid either twice the regular PS salary or 60% of their 53-man salary, whichever is greater, while on the PS, and that salary is guaranteed for the entire season (unless a player requests his release).

* In return, the player bypasses waivers. So the player can be "called up" to the 53 when needed (and the player gets the regular 53-man salary for those games), without worry about losing him to waiver claims.

* This does not prevent teams from signing "protected" players off another team's PS. (Remember that you can't "claim" a player off a practice squad.)

Funny that we all thought 4 is the number to go.

Since clown & the owners have such a keen ear for fan-base proposals maybe we should apply..