05-21-2020, 11:41 AM
(05-21-2020, 09:10 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.
You aren't necessarily creating another hole if you're using that roughly 1.3m of extra space to sign somebody else. It's shifting resources from somebody who will barely see the field to somebody at another position who will see the field. The whole point is to allocate resources where necessary, not a #6 WR whose return ability is redundant with other players (who we didn't have when we extended him). It's as if you're only looking at the subtraction of Erickson and not the addition elsewhere that that enables.
I do agree that we have lots of cap space so it may not be necessary. But I'm also saying if we want to extend Mixon, sign an OL such as Warford, sign a veteran edge, AND have money for injuries and roll-over for next year, some tweaking of the back end of the roster is a possibility.
