Duke Tobin on why the Bengals didn't trade veteran players

[WeezyBengal]

Pretty bad logic IMO. Why doesn't he ask the 49ers how their turnaround went?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/duke-tobin-explains-why-bengals-didnt-host-fire-sale-at-trade-deadline/ar-BBZfRQy?ocid=spartandhp

“We are not trying to get better by losing our best players. In our opinion, that’s not the path forward. Lose your best players, how do you get better by doing that? We have guys who clearly some teams were interested in. Well guess what? We are interested in having them, too. They are good players. We weren’t good enough as a football team. Now if we’re going to lose players, how does that improve us? I don’t think any of those (veterans) are done. We think all those guys have life in their NFL career and are going to be a part of our turnaround as we go.”

[Schmitbuck]

I'm trying to remember, who did the 49ers trade away during their rebuild? I just know they spent a lot of high draft picks on offensive & defensive lineman.

[Clark W Griswold]

Seems very short sighted for Tobin to say that. It’s not as simple as keeping your best players. If you are not competing and your best players are in their 30s then you trade them to get better in future years. His answer is just stupid and does not make sense. Sounds like something his boss would say for sure.

[Okeana]

I'm starting to think Tobin is a bit slow in the head.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-23-2020, 01:25 PM)Schmitbuck Wrote: I'm trying to remember, who did the 49ers trade away during their rebuild? I just know they spent a lot of high draft picks on offensive & defensive lineman.

In 2018 the 49ers traded away...
Eli Harold
Trent Brown
Daniel Kilgore

In 2017 the 49ers traded away...
Rashard Robinson
Vance McDonald
The 2nd Overall Pick

[KillerGoose]

(01-23-2020, 01:54 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: In 2018 the 49ers traded away...
Eli Harold
Trent Brown
Daniel Kilgore

In 2017 the 49ers traded away...
Rashard Robinson
Vance McDonald
The 2nd Overall Pick

Eli Harold and Robinson are both free agents. Kilgore and Brown are decent players, Brown would certainly help here. Vance McDonald is a mediocre TE, if not just below-average. They traded the 2nd pick for the 3rd pick and a few 3rd/4th rounders.

They didn't really trade much away.

[Schmitbuck]

(01-23-2020, 01:54 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: In 2018 the 49ers traded away...
Eli Harold
Trent Brown
Daniel Kilgore

In 2017 the 49ers traded away...
Rashard Robinson
Vance McDonald
The 2nd Overall Pick

Thanks!

[J24]

It depends on what was being offered.
Like Geno Atkins for a second RD pick ok but Geno Atkins for a 6th Rd pick nah. Teams are usually not keen on giving away top 100 picks for veteran players. I think you should always listen to offers but they shouldn't just trade a player for the sake of trading a player.

[*Synric*]

The only trade buzz was around AJ Green and Tyler Eifert. Eifert was probably getting 6th round offers at best and AJ probably wasnt getting the offers he deserves because of the same reason people don't want to resign him now...Age, Injuries, and Cost.

[fredtoast]

(01-23-2020, 01:42 PM)Clark W Griswold Wrote: Seems very short sighted for Tobin to say that. It’s not as simple as keeping your best players. If you are not competing and your best players are in their 30s then you trade them to get better in future years.  His answer is just stupid and does not make sense. Sounds like something his boss would say for sure.

NFL teams don't plan on taking 3 or 4 years to rebuild.  It is now expected to get done in 1 or 2 years.  So unless the veteran just has one year left on his contract most re-building teams will not trade away vets who are still producing.

[Hoofhearted]

It’s especially illogical seeing as they live and die by the draft. They also do pretty well in the later rounds. You’d think of al things they’d be confident in is using mid to late round picks into productive players

[*ochocincos*]

(01-23-2020, 01:18 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Pretty bad logic IMO. Why doesn't he ask the 49ers how their turnaround went?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/duke-tobin-explains-why-bengals-didnt-host-fire-sale-at-trade-deadline/ar-BBZfRQy?ocid=spartandhp

“We are not trying to get better by losing our best players. In our opinion, that’s not the path forward. Lose your best players, how do you get better by doing that? We have guys who clearly some teams were interested in. Well guess what? We are interested in having them, too. They are good players. We weren’t good enough as a football team. Now if we’re going to lose players, how does that improve us? I don’t think any of those (veterans) are done. We think all those guys have life in their NFL career and are going to be a part of our turnaround as we go.”

Yea, the logic is flawed.

1) A player like AJ Green is now a FA. There's no reason he couldn't have been traded for a draft pick mid-season and then come back to the Bengals as a FA. Was it worth not getting extra pick(s) for the sake of being able to negotiate with that person prior to the FA period?

2) Tobin's response is like someone who is thinking too short term. Is it worth more having that veteran "best" player for 1-2 years or getting draft pick(s) to develop a new core? If the intent/expectation is to compete for a Super Bowl this year or next year, you go with the veteran. If the team is nowhere close, you go the latter.

3) Like always, they are overvaluing their own guys. They need to realize that just because a guy they have might be good, they might be able to find someone better outside. Yes, there is risk involved, but you can't grow without taking risk.

[Wes Mantooth]

People do realize that when you trade a player their money comes off the books, right?

It's not as simple as saying, "There's no way we improve by replacing Geno Atkins wity a 3rd or 4th round pick.". You have the pick + the cap space.

Geno Atkins vs. a 3rd rounder + 12 mil to spend in FA is an entirely different discussion than simply Geno Atkins vs. a 3rd rounder.

You lose some of your better players but you'll also gain the ability to sign better players, in addition to young draft prospects.

We can all argue about the demand and compensation until the cows come home, but don't gloss over the fact that the above is true.

[fredtoast]

(01-23-2020, 02:39 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Yea, the logic is flawed.

1) A player like AJ Green is now a FA. There's no reason he couldn't have been traded for a draft pick mid-season and then come back to the Bengals as a FA. Was it worth not getting extra pick(s) for the sake of being able to negotiate with that person prior to the FA period?

What were we offered for Green?

I don't think any team would have given us anything for him because he was not able to play.

[Wes Mantooth]

(01-23-2020, 02:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: NFL teams don't plan on taking 3 or 4 years to rebuild.  It is now expected to get done in 1 or 2 years.  So unless the veteran just has one year left on his contract most re-building teams will not trade away vets who are still producing.

How long it takes to rebuild is almost irrelevant to the discussion, for this simple reason...

Cap space acquired by vets who were moved can be spent on other vets in FA.

You're not resigning yourself to a longer rebuild just by moving veteran players. Those players, especially if they're high dollar, create a wealth of resources and flexibility than can immediately be used to your advantage.  And most importantly, it allows you to reshape and rebuild your roster much more quickly.

[*Synric*]

(01-23-2020, 02:41 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: People do realize that when you trade a player their money comes off the books, right?

It's not as simple as saying, "There's no way we improve by replacing Geno Atkins wity a 3rd or 4th round pick.". You have the pick + the cap space.

Geno Atkins vs. a 3rd rounder + 12 mil to spend in FA is an entirely different discussion than simply Geno Atkins vs. a 3rd rounder.

You lose some of your better players but you'll also gain the ability to sign better players, in addition to young draft prospects.

We can all argue about the demand and compensation until the cows come home, but don't gloss over the fact that the above is true.

Wrong.

Because of how the front end of the contract and signing bonus in 2019 trading Geno would have cost more than keeping him plus the dead cap of 7.8mil in 2020, 5.2mil in 2021, and 2.6mil in 2022.

If they trade him this offseason it's still a dead cap of 7.8mil in 2020, 5.2 in 2021, and 2.6mil in 2022.

[Wes Mantooth]

(01-23-2020, 02:50 PM)Synric Wrote: Wrong.

Because of how the front end of the contract and signing bonus in 2019 trading Geno would have cost more than keeping him plus the dead cap of 7.8mil in 2020, 5.2mil in 2021, and 2.6mil in 2022.

If they trade him this offseason it's still a dead cap of 7.8mil in 2020, 5.2 in 2021, and 2.6mil in 2022.

The logic is not wrong. Money comes off the books. That money can then be spent elsewhere. I used Geno as an example because he was mentioned. I'm well aware of dead dap hits, I just dont care to research it for every example.

I see the following mentioned all the time "You can't replace Geno or whoever with a 3rd round pick or whatever".

1.) Maybe not immediately, but it's not entirelg impossible either.
2.) You still have to account for savings.

If you want to evaluate the deal fairly, its not him vs a draft pick. It's vs..

- Draft pick + 5 mil to spend in 2020, + 7 mil in 2021, + 11 in 2022 (Estimates).

You HAVE to account for dollars saved and cap spaced gained. Period.

[*Synric*]

(01-23-2020, 03:03 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: The logic is not wrong. Money comes off the books. That money can then be spent elsewhere. I used Geno as an example because he was mentioned. I'm well aware of dead dap hits, I just dont care to research it for every example.

I see the following mentioned all the time "You can't replace Geno or whoever with a 3rd round pick or whatever".

1.) Maybe not immediately, but it's not entirelg impossible either.
2.) You still have to account for savings.

If you want to evaluate the deal fairly, its not him vs a draft pick. It's vs..

- Draft pick + 5 mil to spend in 2020, + 7 mil in 2021, + 11 in 2022 (Estimates).

You HAVE to account for dollars saved and cap spaced gained. Period.

I'm for giving Geno another year. Yes he had a down year but he also didnt get many opportunities to rush the passer because the overall team was awful.

If he doesnt produce well in 2020 then yea you get out of the heavy dead cap hits and you can move on.

[Clark W Griswold]

(01-23-2020, 01:42 PM)Clark W Griswold Wrote: Seems very short sighted for Tobin to say that. It’s not as simple as keeping your best players. If you are not competing and your best players are in their 30s then you trade them to get better in future years. Simple but his answer is just stupid and simplified. Sounds like something his boss would say for sure.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(01-23-2020, 02:39 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Yea, the logic is flawed.

1) A player like AJ Green is now a FA. There's no reason he couldn't have been traded for a draft pick mid-season and then come back to the Bengals as a FA. Was it worth not getting extra pick(s) for the sake of being able to negotiate with that person prior to the FA period?

2) Tobin's response is like someone who is thinking too short term. Is it worth more having that veteran "best" player for 1-2 years or getting draft pick(s) to develop a new core? If the intent/expectation is to compete for a Super Bowl this year or next year, you go with the veteran. If the team is nowhere close, you go the latter.

3) Like always, they are overvaluing their own guys. They need to realize that just because a guy they have might be good, they might be able to find someone better outside. Yes, there is risk involved, but you can't grow without taking risk.

You nailed it Ocho.