05-21-2020, 09:10 AM
(05-20-2020, 09:31 PM)Geno_Can_Dunk Wrote: Try following the thread of the discussion. I started by stating that there were previous rumors that we were offered something for Erickson a year ago, which I'll link below. What I said was that IF that's true and IF it's still the case, then it makes sense now, even if it didn't last year. So your argument that we can't get anything for him is irrelevant... it was all an if/then scenario to begin with.
So now that the goal posts are back in place, your analysis equates trading to cutting. If it's a trade, you get something in return. And no, I wouldn't trade him for just a conditional 7th rd pick. The question is more "would the return on a trade be more or less than a #6 WR [limited to the slot btw] who makes twice as much as his position will warrant." Of course, if the answer is less, we wouldn't do it. But you sir are ignoring the value received in the hypothetical trade.
https://www.cincyjungle.com/2019/5/8/18537005/nfl-trade-rumors-bengals-alex-erickson-falcons-mohamed-sanu
You are the one who can't follow my logic.
I NEVER said we could not get anything in trade for him. What I said is we should not trade him because we don't have another player as good to replace him on the roster.
If we had depth at WR with other guys as good as Erickson to take his roster spot then I have no problem with trading him. If you trade him you may get another player to fill another hole on the roster, but you are creating a new hole at WR. It is a zero net sum gain.
