Expiring Assets

And so they got what they could while they still could get something out of them. Hopefully that bodes real well for Mebane. And I think it does. They could easily have traded him.

And this being a rebuilding year, why keep someone like Housh, who’s just going to take 70-90 catches away from a young player they’d like to give those chances to? You know what you’re getting in Housh, but not in Williams (or Tate or Butler), so give those balls to Williams and if he proves himself, sign him long term. But keeping Housh the development of the other players. I’m sure they thought of getting rid of Branch too, but I think they like his speed.

Whitehurst makes sense because it’s the most important position on the team. I like that they made the effort even if it doesn’t pan out. That’s a risk worth taking.

We’ve brought a new meaning to the term roster churn, but you have dozens of players under contract, the range of contracts signed is about 1 to 6 years, so you are almost always going to have a couple handfuls of guys who are coming up on the end of their contract. You’re not going to stop it.

Losing some players for no compensation beyond their factoring in compensatory pick calculations is undesirable, but any approach to mitigating the risk of it inherently constitutes some forsaking of talent.

Besides, do you really gain so much by liquefying expiring assets? Length of contract is a factor in how your trading partners value your players. And you miss out on the phenomenon that is “contract year.”

It’s futile. It’s questionable. I don’t like it. I can understand considering length of contract, that’s smart. Making an effort to mitigate it, that’s smart. But the consequences of going far out of your way to avoid it renders about a negligible result in value, and can backfire and blow up big. I don’t like it.

Is that they said they were just trying to “re-tool” and were still trying to compete.
Many of us wanted a rebuild but since they fed us these lies we were lead to believe that we wouldn’t be seeing our favourite players go. I tihnk you hit then ail on the head when you said they saw what they had in training camp and the preseason and decided to do a 180 and move in another direction. The fact that it all happened so abruptly is what is making us all so angry, but like I said earlier, I think this is what many of us wanted, a legitimate rebuild. We will appreciate it a few years down the line.

I think if next off season they let all of these guys walk we’d have ran around saying “Why didn’t you at least trade them if you knew you weren’t going to sign them and get SOMETHING”. It’s dumb, they got rid of some good players and didn’t get enough in return, but like Scruffy has been saying I don’t know if we can use these moves as an indicment of their ability to build the team in the future until we see how they handle their own players.

They realize how tenuous the team’s QB play is right now. They didn’t like anyone in the upcoming draft and/or couldn’t bank on getting them for the pick they would like (what I mean is, you can like Clausen, but if you don’t want to use your first or even second on him then you have to pursue a different option). So you take Charlie, who fits the system very well, could start for you sooner rather than later, is not old, and has a little more experience than a draft pick.

they just resigned him? i guess they cut too deep, haha

If he pans out and is a viable legit starter post-Hass, good trade. If he’s off the roster after 1-2 years, mistake.