Mario Trade Idea

[HPF Bob]

spun off from the draft needs thread...


Another option is to franchise Mario and then trade him for players/picks. Barwin/Reed were outstanding replacements and Mario isn't a huge upgrade over that for what he will cost.

Here's an idea. Let's send Mario to the Redskins for their #1 (sixth overall) and Laron Landry, Mario and Orakpo certainly give the Skins two pass-rushing threats and the Skins seem to always be in a "spend money today" sort of mode with Snyder.

Landry gives us a top-notch safety to help shore up the secondary and the #1 can be used in a lot of ways or trade down if we want (particularly if RG3 is still on the board and some GM has the hots for him). We still keep #27 so we get instant flexibility to move up or down the board.

DC is close enough to NC for Mario to "go home" and Landry is a Louisiana guy so he's going home as well.

Some might say the asking price is too high for a guy with six years of experience but franchise QBs and LTs have been traded for a pair of #1s so I don't think the price of a #1 and a veteran safety is asking too much.

The only major roadblock I see is if Shanahan is lusting after RG3 himself. Then he'll surely keep the pick or trade up to make sure he gets him. Shanny likes mobile quarterbacks but I'm not sure Griffin fits the mold he wants.

[jcp]

I actually like that trade idea... particularly if it turned into Blackmon at WR. I'm concerned age is starting to sneak up on AJ with the tick up in injuries and having a stud #2 to groom behind AJ seems wise to me. Don't think he'll be there at 6 though and I'd hate to give up the 27 too. We would need to replace Mario with another Brooks Reed/Conner Barwin type OLB and that might be the place to do it...also could use another OL.

I was surprised how well the defense functioned w/o Mario and we could use that crazy money elsewhere. I do like him more than most but there is some good sense in leveraging his trade value now.

[Warren]

I like the idea too, but I don't think the Redskins would be interested in Mario since they drafted Ryan Kerrigan in the first round to play that spot and they're happy with him (7.5 sacks, 4 FF, Int., TD). Mario would be an upgrade but not enough to pay such a big price for him.

You mentioned letting Mario "go home" -- what about the Panthers? They had a productive offense that should get better as Newton gets more experience but a bad defense with little pass rush.

I heard somewhere that the new CBA says that you can't franchise a guy with the intent of trading him, but I skimmed through it and couldn't find that. You can't trade a player's franchise rights but that can be worked around.

[popanot]

The Skins D was halfway decent last year and I don't see them giving up that high of a pick PLUS weakening their secondary. However, if they were interested, I wouldn't mind Landry, their #2 and their 2013 #1. Maybe we swap #2's if that will get it over the top.

I do like Warren's suggestion of the Panthers though. I think that's a good match for what they need and they're in a draft slot where Mario would be good value for them. I think I'd like a little more than just their #1 though. Especially since Mario was taken #1 overall and has proven to be a really good player. Maybe their 2012 #1 and a 2012 #3 - or a 2013 #2.

[popanot]

Teams I see in the 1st round that could use Mario are:

CLE - They have 2 #1's (#4 and #22). The first is pretty high, but they might be willing to deal for Mario in a package deal if both RG3 and Blackmon are off the board. Blackmon, I would think, would be our target up that high, so if he's gone, why trade up? Their 2nd #1 is right in that Kendall Wright area, and I'd be on the horn with them in a heartbeat if Wright is available there (I'd call whether the trade involved Mario or not). However, #22 is a pretty low pick for Mario so they'd have to kick in some extra picks or do a pick swap in the later rounds (or both).

MIA (#9) - This is good value slot for both teams. Floyd might be there, but it might be a little high for picking Wright (personally, I like Wright better than Floyd for the Texans).

BUF (#10) - Their D was atrocious. Again, Floyd might be there, but it might be a little high for Wright.

SEA - (#12) - A young, up-and-coming D that could use a stud DE. An ideal Mario trade up slot for both teams. Mario's a good value for them and I probably wouldn't have a problem pulling the trigger on Wright here.

AZ - (#13) - Same reasoning as above.

Others: NYJ, CIN, SD, NE - Only problem here is they're all AFC teams and are primary playoff competition.

Obviously the lower you get in the round the more the other team will have to kick in. I'd definitely be shopping Mario, though. Love the guy, but his trade value to us is higher than his player value right now.

[cadams]

multiple pcis for mario would be awesome, but i don't see anyone giving up more than one pick for him this year.

[Nconroe]

I'm still for keeping Mario if he will sign a cap friendly extension.

Team does have a lot of tough FA decisions to make.

[WMH]

I heard somewhere that the new CBA says that you can't franchise a guy with the intent of trading him, but I skimmed through it and couldn't find that. You can't trade a player's franchise rights but that can be worked around.

I asked LZ about this, and he said they would have to "prove" intent. Easier said than done, so trading should not be out of the question, but the team likely will have to show the ability to live with the tag if the trade falls thru.

[popanot]

multiple pcis for mario would be awesome, but i don't see anyone giving up more than one pick for him this year.I think this is relative to the trading partner and where they pick. For example, I'd give up Marios for a high-to-mid #1 if a guy we want is there, but I'd still try to do a pick swap in the latter rounds. For example, if we're trading with CAR and can't get additional picks, try to get their #1 and swap #2's or #3's. That way we get to pick earlier in the respective round.

With that being said, I would not give up Mario for only a low #1 (say, to GB or NE) without additional picks or a high (#1 or #2) 2013 pick. Mario was a #1 overall pick, young, is proven, and will probably have a pretty cap friendly deal (for the first few years at least) once he renegotiates. Obviously a player/pick trade would work too. He does have player value to us so we can't afford to just give him away.

[HPF Bob]

Mario's worth more than a low first (besides, we already have a low first). But a mid-to-high first plus future picks or a player that meets a need (WR or secondary, principally) and I think it's a win/win.

Besides, if we get back someone like Landry who was himself a high first, that offsets some of the cost to the new team for Mario's contract which means we should be getting back a premium player, not a fringe or washed-up player.

Any team that gets Mario is getting a Pro Bowler in the prime of his career. His knees and ankles are sound and he is still a mismatch freak. They OUGHT to be paying a high price for him, just as they would a top QB, DT or LT. That means two #1s or some equivalent (look at what Denver got for Jay Cutler who was drafted in the same draft at #11).

And if you consider we are offering a proven product while saving a team the expense of paying an unproven #1 draft choice and a premium player, it can make economic sense for a club that lacks a pass rush and desperately wants one.

Also remember that Mario was not a senior when we drafted him. He wasn't the child that Okoye was but he was still younger than your typical draft pick so he ought to be in his prime right now.

[barrett]

Mario's worth more than a low first (besides, we already have a low first). But a mid-to-high first plus future picks or a player that meets a need (WR or secondary, principally) and I think it's a win/win.

Besides, if we get back someone like Landry who was himself a high first, that offsets some of the cost to the new team for Mario's contract which means we should be getting back a premium player, not a fringe or washed-up player.

Any team that gets Mario is getting a Pro Bowler in the prime of his career. His knees and ankles are sound and he is still a mismatch freak. They OUGHT to be paying a high price for him, just as they would a top QB, DT or LT. That means two #1s or some equivalent (look at what Denver got for Jay Cutler who was drafted in the same draft at #11).

And if you consider we are offering a proven product while saving a team the expense of paying an unproven #1 draft choice and a premium player, it can make economic sense for a club that lacks a pass rush and desperately wants one.

Also remember that Mario was not a senior when we drafted him. He wasn't the child that Okoye was but he was still younger than your typical draft pick so he ought to be in his prime right now.

That is a compelling case.

Now what if somebody else had a great but not game changing DE who was approaching 30 and had a history of injury concerns and wanted your next two #1 picks?

[cadams]

Mario's worth more than a low first (besides, we already have a low first). But a mid-to-high first plus future picks or a player that meets a need (WR or secondary, principally) and I think it's a win/win.

Besides, if we get back someone like Landry who was himself a high first, that offsets some of the cost to the new team for Mario's contract which means we should be getting back a premium player, not a fringe or washed-up player.

Any team that gets Mario is getting a Pro Bowler in the prime of his career. His knees and ankles are sound and he is still a mismatch freak. They OUGHT to be paying a high price for him, just as they would a top QB, DT or LT. That means two #1s or some equivalent (look at what Denver got for Jay Cutler who was drafted in the same draft at #11).

And if you consider we are offering a proven product while saving a team the expense of paying an unproven #1 draft choice and a premium player, it can make economic sense for a club that lacks a pass rush and desperately wants one.

Also remember that Mario was not a senior when we drafted him. He wasn't the child that Okoye was but he was still younger than your typical draft pick so he ought to be in his prime right now.

1. a pro bowler in the prime of his career that has been placed on IR both of the last two years with season ending injuries.

2. unproven rookies will cost A LOT less than mario under the new salary cap system.

3. resigning mario will likely mean they have to put the restricted tag on foster (after smith told him last year they would get him a new contract if he had another good year) and could lead to a holdout. (foster is way more valuable than mario)

4. denver got that for cutler because quarterbacks are more valuable than any other position.

i hope i am wrong (because pass rushing ends are very valuable) and they can get a couple of picks for him, anything is possible (see palmer deal this year.), but i think that unless mario is willing to have a VERY reasonable contract he won't be back. they are too close to the cap and signing myers and foster have to be priorities. if the texans can even get a 1st round pick between 15 and 25 i would take it. that would allow them to get a receiver and cb in the first round, and them pick up a speed rusher at OLB with a later pick.

and while snyder has done some odd things, so anything is possible, i don't think there is any way they give up the #6 pick AND landry for mario.

[HPF Bob]

Mario turns 27 later this month. And many sack leaders were effective well into their 30s.

Turns out Landry is approaching free agency himself:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2011/12/season-over-for-redskins-s-laron-landry/1

He was IR'd with an achilles injury.

[barrett]

That really is younger than I thought and changes the game some.

But for fun...what if somebody else had a great but not game changing DE who was 27, would require a huge extension after the trade, and had a history of injury concerns, and they wanted your next two #1 picks? What do you say?

Just because we can create a scenario where we think he is worth this does not mean it will happen. When was the last time a DL was traded for two first round picks or something comparable? Richard Seymour was two years older, without the health concerns, and every bit the impact player and he only got one 1st round pick, and the raiders had to be involved for that to happen.

[chuck]

All I know is I certainly am glad that Charley Casserly will have nothing to do with this.

[WMH]

You can never really buy too much in what coaches say, but Kubiak sure didn't sound like someone who did not want Mario back on his radio show today. He said something to the effect of, "man, I can't wait to see what he could do with a whole season in this system."

Facts are facts, the cap is what it is, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to see them legitimately try to work a deal out.

[barrett]

The overriding factor for me is that Mario is much better individually than Barwin or Reed. I know those guys played great the 2nd half of the year and the drop off is not that large, but there is a drop off. Mario is our best pass rusher.

No matter how it happens, if we can keep Mario without losing Foster I am for it. Any long term deal should give him a lower cap number than last year. If it comes down to Demeco/Walter/JJ being cut, I am fine with that. If we need to ask Schaub for a restructured deal, I'm okay with that too. If it removes us as a player in FA I am for that too. To win a superbowl we will likely have to beat Tom Brady and maybe Rodgers or Brees or a Manning. Watch the NYG and you know the best/only way to do that is with pass rush. There is no coverage to stop those guys.

[barrett]

Which of these do you choose?

(worst case financial scenario)
Mario
Rookie WR #2
Restructured Walter/Bryant Johnson/cheap FA/low round Rookie WR #3
Dobbins/Sharpton MLB #2

or (best case financial scenario)

no mario
Wayne
Walter/JJ #3
Demeco


I would personally prefer to spend my money on the best pass rusher our team has than some of the other less important positions on the team.

[Nconroe]

Adding to the radio interview comments, I thought I heard Kubiak say signing Mario to a new deal was no. 1 priority this off season. And further said that Mario really wants to stay here.

[HPF Bob]

Kubiak is not going to say anything other than Mario is a great player and he really wants him. If he doesn't say that and Mario stays, Mario doubts whether the coach has his back. If he doesn't say that and Mario goes, it might have reduced our trade leverage.

[nunusguy]

“I want to give credit to the Houston Texans. That was probably the best defense I’ve seen all year."
http://www.houstontexans.com/news/article-2/Quotes-Texans-at-Ravens/39c8b542-49f5-466f-ba55-84ef2a287220
***************
That's the Ravens RB Ray Rice on how he rates the Texans D. And the Ravens played the Steelers twice this year and SanFran among other teams,
so high praise for our young defense from the All-Pro back to say the least.
My point here is that resigning Mario shouldn't be our top priority given other needs which are clearer greater than making a very good defense probably just marginally better while expending a big chunk of cap-space to do so. The process of prioritizing priorities is a key task for NFL GMs, so it will be interesting and very important to see how Rick Smith handles this situation ?

[Keith]

This league is defined by quarterbacks and pass rushers. Everything else is just the trimmings. Barwin had a great November, and Reed was terrific in the playoffs, but we'd be fools to let another great veteran pass rusher like Mario slip through our fingers.

I know I'm the missing link here since I haven't posted a cap page in 2 years, but the team's cap situation is what gives me pause on tagging Mario then trying to sign or trade him. I fear the team might have to cut someone to make room for him on the 2012 cap given Mario's f-tag figure would be tremendous. Best to re-sign him next month.

Btw, signing Mario and extending Foster are not mutually exclusive events. There is a priority though, and Mario is first. Foster's extension can really come anytime before any talk of holdouts come into play, which at a minimum shouldn't happen until OTAs.

[Joshua]

I think Mario was already on the books for around $15 million last year. Give him a well structured longterm deal and the Texans can probably bring down his cap number. While people can certainly debate whether he's worth this, from a pure cap standpoint, his percentage of the cap will likely go down under a new deal so I don't see him being a cap crusher. I think Myers was making around $3 million. While he was great this year, the Texans should have some leverage since Myers is a perfect fit for our system and wouldn't be a target for a lot of teams due to his smaller stature. He can probably be kept with a slight pay raise but won't require a huge bump. As for Arian, cut Leinart (2-3 million?), Jacoby (3 million more?), either re-do Rackers' contract or find a cheaper option (another million) and give it all to him.

Throw in some restructured deals and maybe one or 2 cuts that actually hurt, and I think they should be able to make it all happen.

[WMH]

Btw, signing Mario and extending Foster are not mutually exclusive events. There is a priority though, and Mario is first. Foster's extension can really come anytime before any talk of holdouts come into play, which at a minimum shouldn't happen until OTAs.

I think this is key, and could likely be how it is played out. I would guess Foster will be tendered pretty quickly, and the staff will focus on more pressing items. He will likely be pissed, and an extension will be worked out during his holdout, but might have to play '12 under the tender, which would be a low cap hit for this season, with most of his guarrantee falling in '13 and after. IIRC, the cap is supposed to go up quite a bit in '13, which could help soften the blow.

[Nconroe]

I sure hope they don't piss off Adrian Foster. He has been a fantastic, smart , team player who really produces, maybe no. 1 back in the league.

[Keith]

I think Mario was already on the books for around $15 million last year. Give him a well structured longterm deal and the Texans can probably bring down his cap number. While people can certainly debate whether he's worth this, from a pure cap standpoint, his percentage of the cap will likely go down under a new deal so I don't see him being a cap crusher.
While I agree with this AFTER Mario is signed, if Mario is still on an F-tag on New League Year's Day, he is a cap crusher. Take whatever his figure was in 2011 and multiply by 120%.

I think Myers was making around $3 million. While he was great this year, the Texans should have some leverage since Myers is a perfect fit for our system and wouldn't be a target for a lot of teams due to his smaller stature. He can probably be kept with a slight pay raise but won't require a huge bump. As for Arian, cut Leinart (2-3 million?), Jacoby (3 million more?), either re-do Rackers' contract or find a cheaper option (another million) and give it all to him.

A little more info in lieu of an updated cap page...
- Myers' cap figure in 2011 was $3.5M. His signing bonus 4 yrs ago was $3M. He has received a lot of credit recently for his level of play. Btw, I think Mike Brisiel is a UFA as well (if I'm not operating on old data here).
- Leinart has 1 yr left on his contract with a base salary of $1.75M.
- Jacoby is scheduled to have base salaries of $3M and $4M in 2012 and 2013, respectively. Fwiw, Walter is $3.5M. One of these two at a minimum is overpaid in 2012.
- Rackers is a free agent. He is an average kicker, and much of the potential FAs are about as average or worse. I think Josh Scobee may be a FA though, and he is probably worth targeting if so. Otherwise, maybe bring in a rookie to challenge Rackers in camp and let the best man win.

[Keith]

I sure hope they don't piss off Adrian Foster.
There had been random stories floated in the past re: Smith's ego. Here's hoping this is where the maturation of Rick Smith has occurred. He ought to be able to let his stellar decisions as GM in 2011 speak for themselves.

I would hope that if Rick is up front with him on what his offseason plan is then follows through on it, then there should be no hard feelings. Players just don't want to feel played off the field. Give them the straight story up front and act upon it. If Arian knows from Rick that his contract will be handled by say mini-camp, then hopefully Arian gives Rick the time and space to do his job, and Rick follows through in June with his best offer.

[NBT]

All I know is I certainly am glad that Charley Casserly will have nothing to do with this.

Con-Cur! The most know nothing, do nothing I have ever seen, who would like us to believe he is an expert.

[NBT]

I sure hope they don't piss off Adrian Foster. He has been a fantastic, smart , team player who really produces, maybe no. 1 back in the league.

Yeah, me too. Arian has been very patient so far, and McNair has promised to take care of him.

[popanot]

If the Texans come to the conclusion they want trade Mario and are having difficulty on getting a high pick, I'd ping Green Bay to see if they'd be willing to part with Randall Cobb and a #2. I personally think GB would jump on it considering how bad their D was and how their season ended. They're deep enough at WR to lose Cobb in order to strengthen that D.

[HPF Bob]

If the Texans come to the conclusion they want trade Mario and are having difficulty on getting a high pick, I'd ping Green Bay to see if they'd be willing to part with Randall Cobb and a #2. I personally think GB would jump on it considering how bad their D was and how their season ended. They're deep enough at WR to lose Cobb in order to strengthen that D.

I wouldn't settle for that. Green Bay's second-round is going to be pick #62. That's way too low. Even if we got their first-rounder, that's pick #30, just three picks below our own. I'd want something in the top 15 at least.

[popanot]

I wouldn't settle for that. Green Bay's second-round is going to be pick #62. That's way too low. Even if we got their first-rounder, that's pick #30, just three picks below our own. I'd want something in the top 15 at least.I agree with you, and ideally, they can find a team willing to give up a high #1 (and more) for Mario. However, the premise of my post was 1) they absolutely want to get rid of Mario's cap figure, 2) they cannot find a trade partner willing to give up a high #1, and 3) they want to get SOMETHING of value for Mario rather than just letting him walk. In that scenario, I think GB would be a good match. I think Cobb fits nicely into that young, talented, stretch-the-field WR role and he's definitely a threat at PR/KR. Even though the extra #2 from GB is low, it's still gives us another pick to draft a player or move up some in the 1st or 2nd round. They can ask GB for more, obviously. But again, my post was a get-what-you-can-if-all-else-fails scenario.

[nunusguy]

If the Texans come to the conclusion they want trade Mario and are having difficulty on getting a high pick, I'd ping Green Bay to see if they'd be willing to part with Randall Cobb and a #2. I personally think GB would jump on it considering how bad their D was and how their season ended. They're deep enough at WR to lose Cobb in order to strengthen that D.
The Pack definitely needs defensive help, but doesn't Mario want to be back with a 4-3 team playing DE ?

[HPF Bob]

I agree with you, and ideally, they can find a team willing to give up a high #1 (and more) for Mario. However, the premise of my post was 1) they absolutely want to get rid of Mario's cap figure, 2) they cannot find a trade partner willing to give up a high #1, and 3) they want to get SOMETHING of value for Mario rather than just letting him walk. In that scenario, I think GB would be a good match. I think Cobb fits nicely into that young, talented, stretch-the-field WR role and he's definitely a threat at PR/KR. Even though the extra #2 from GB is low, it's still gives us another pick to draft a player or move up some in the 1st or 2nd round. They can ask GB for more, obviously. But again, my post was a get-what-you-can-if-all-else-fails scenario.

I now see your point but only if Mario is unwilling to sign a new deal or we don't have the cap room to maneuver. Otherwise, I want a lot more.

[itssharif]

I've seriously been thinking about this and I think we oughta just franchise and trade Mario while Philly franchises and trades DeSean Jackson. We'd get our #2 WR/PR that we'd want at a much lower cap cost as resigning DeSean Jackson probably would be around 10-12 mil whereas resigning Mario would be around 15-18 mil towards the cap. I dunno I just feel like everything is win win for everybody involved.

[Joshua]

I've seriously been thinking about this and I think we oughta just franchise and trade Mario while Philly franchises and trades DeSean Jackson. We'd get our #2 WR/PR that we'd want at a much lower cap cost as resigning DeSean Jackson probably would be around 10-12 mil whereas resigning Mario would be around 15-18 mil towards the cap. I dunno I just feel like everything is win win for everybody involved.

So, we get rid of a homegrown top flight player at one of the most important positions on the field for a No. 2 receiver with an attitude problem? And we do this simply to save 3 or 4 million? Which could easily be backloaded for when the cap explodes in 2 years? And run the risk of alienating other guys in the lockerroom who think the front office don't take care of their own when the time comes (which has already been an issue under Rick Smith)? To me, that makes no sense. I could (somewhat) understand if you let Mario walk because you don't want to tie that much money up in one guy. However, to let him walk just to turn around and tie up most of the money in a 160 lb. decoy with a chip on his shoulder does not sound good to me.

Something else I've been thinking about Desean is whether he could be the same player here. For instance, some of his most explosive plays have been when Vick hit him on a rope, in stride, waaaaaayyyy down field. That will not happen here. Schaub simply doesn't have the arm for it. In Philly, you had to be on top of Desean for at least 50-60 yards from the line of scrimmage. Here, you'd only have to cover him for about 40 or so yards. Not sure how much difference this makes, but I don't think it makes no difference.

[popanot]

So, we get rid of a homegrown top flight player at one of the most important positions on the field for a No. 2 receiver with an attitude problem? And we do this simply to save 3 or 4 million? Which could easily be backloaded for when the cap explodes in 2 years? And run the risk of alienating other guys in the locker room who think the front office don't take care of their own when the time comes (which has already been an issue under Rick Smith)? To me, that makes no sense. I could (somewhat) understand if you let Mario walk because you don't want to tie that much money up in one guy. However, to let him walk just to turn around and tie up most of the money in a 160 lb. decoy with a chip on his shoulder does not sound good to me.Not sure I get this logic... It's OK to let him walk and basically send the message to the locker room that you don't want to pay the guy and will just let him go for nothing, but it's sending the wrong message by signing him and trading him for someone of value who could help improve the team?

Looking back, the only nasty contract haggle I can recall that Rick Smith had was with DRob, and much of that was DRob's fault (and I don't think anyone had a problem with letting him walk at that point). So historically, Smith has shown he'll take care of his players based on his dealings with Demeco and Daniels (and as I recall, they both were coming off injuries). I don't think it will cause a locker room rift if they sign and trade Mario. Whether it's the right move or wrong move, it's still smart business to get something for him if you don't plan on paying him all that money and the players have to understand that (you hope).

Let me give you this scenario... What if they trade Mario's ~$18M salary for Jackson's $~10M salary and used the 'savings' to take care of Foster, Meyers, Brisel and Dressen, and in addition, not have to cut Demeco or Walter or cut some "aging veteran's" salary? I doubt the locker room would have a problem with it if that happened.

As for Jackson, I highly doubt he'd be just a decoy. Not mention his amazing PR skills, I'm fairly certain he'd get his receptions and would definitely make AJ and Schaub's job easier. As for his pouting, yeah I didn't like that either (and the Eagles are my 2nd fav team having grown up in that area), but up until that point, he's been a model player and citizen who has done a lot in the Philly community. Not that it necessarily justifies the way he acted, but I think he got some really bad advice from his agent (the holdout) and was deeply hurt when the Eagles started signing all those FA's and didn't want to talk to him about an extension. Yes, he handled it poorly (at 26 years old), but I don't think he's a prima donna by any stretch. Hell, I don't know... I do know his talent would be huge for this team, though. :)

[barrett]

If you can take care of foster, myers, brisel, and dreesen for $8 million, then you are a cap wizard and you have no need to get rid of Mario.

As for your scenario, it is great fun to imagine all the riches we can get for Mario. I am sure when the team makes a decision they will know whether he can be flipped for multiple 1st round picks or desean Jackson. And I am sure that will all be a consideration in the process.

[popanot]

And let me just add, I don't have a problem with them keeping Mario as long as they can do a new contract that is good for both him and the team. If they sign him to the F-Tag $, well then I guess we'll just have to live with it. What I don't want to have happen is just letting him walk and getting nothing in return. I mean, this isn't Carr or DRob where you don't care if they walk. Of course, a lot of this depends on Mario and him being receptive to a sign and trade deal.

[HPF Bob]

The temptation in getting DeSean Jackson is that he's a home run threat everytime he's on the field and how are opponents going to cover him while also covering Andre Johnson and Owen Daniels and Arian Foster? How do you keep that under wraps?

Is it worth sending Mario away? That's up to the front office to decide.

[popanot]

If you can take care of foster, myers, brisel, and dreesen for $8 million, then you are a cap wizard and you have no need to get rid of Mario.

As for your scenario, it is great fun to imagine all the riches we can get for Mario. I am sure when the team makes a decision they will know whether he can be flipped for multiple 1st round picks or desean Jackson. And I am sure that will all be a consideration in the process.I guess I should have been more clear with my comment. I forgot the and/or and meant to say if they can sign one or more of those guys. I don't think it's that far fetched to say they could use that ~$8MM to sign a combo of Meyers, Brisel and/or Dressen. Maybe Foster's out of that equation depending on what they want to do with his contract this year.

As for trading Mario for Jackson, I'm not the one who brought it up and was merely playing along in the thread. Do I think that trade would ever go down? Hell no! Mostly likely none of these player/player trades would ever go down and certainly not one for two major players (let alone two F-Tag players). Realistically, I think the Texans will be lucky if they can get a low 2012 #1, or a player and a pick, or two #2's for Mario.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I'd like to see them try to get Cobb and a #2 from GB. I think that would be a realistic trade and I think GB is in a situation where they'd have to think long and hard about it. I also think GB is a team Mario would be receptive to being traded to since they're pretty damn good. I know they (at least, currently) run a 3-4, but their D was so bad last year I could see them making some changes and I don't think they'd pass up a pass-rushing defensive talent like Mario. Especially for the price of Cobb and a low #2.

Anyway, who knows what will happen? It's still fun to speculate and throw out names and be a pocket GM/Capologist for a day.

[WMH]

I mentioned in this thread, I'd like to see them try to get Cobb and a #2 from GB. I think that would be a realistic trade and I think GB is in situation where they'd have to think long and hard about it. I also think it would be a team Mario would be receptive to since they're pretty damn good. I know they (currently) run a 3-4, but their D was so bad last year I could see some changes being made and I don't think they'd pass up a pass-rusher with Mario's talent. Anyway, who know what will happen? It still fun to speculate and throw names out and be a GM/Capologist for a day.

Only downside to your GB scenario is the vast differences between Wade's 3-4 and just about every other 3-4 out there. Hard for me to remember, since I drank away most of those games, but I believe that Capers 3-4 is more of the traditional variety, IE Mario would definitely be a square peg in a round hole, and he might not be worth the cash as a 3-4 DE in a "traditional" system.

[NBT]

As for keeping Mario because of his passrush ability, that would be allright, but certainly not mandatory now that we have Connor Barwin, Brooks Reed, and J.J. Watt to do that for us. No, I think our best bet would be to franchise Mario and get the best pass reciever/PR available, which would appear to be DeSean Jackson and whoever we can get out of the Draft.

[popanot]

Only downside to your GB scenario is the vast differences between Wade's 3-4 and just about every other 3-4 out there. Hard for me to remember, since I drank away most of those games, but I believe that Capers 3-4 is more of the traditional variety, IE Mario would definitely be a square peg in a round hole, and he might not be worth the cash as a 3-4 DE in a "traditional" system.Very valid points. However, with a guru like Capers, I bet he'd be able to find a role for him whether it be at OLB or a 3-4 DE. Actually, I'd be surprised if Capers isn't on this thin ice up there, and at minimum, is forced to make some changes with the scheme and certainly the personnel. That D was about as bad as it gets and certainly was a major factor in losing that playoff game.

I just tossed out that trade idea b/c I thought it'd be a good match value-wise. There are other young and talented WR/PRs out there (Denarius Moore, Maclin, Harvin, etc...), but I don't think the teams are as deep and have the luxury of giving them up, or, they're just not good trade partners. For example, MINN probably wouldn't give up Harvin (same with PHL/Maclin) and I wouldn't want to trade with an AFC team, if at all possible. However, I could see GB willing to give up Cobb since they're so deep at WR and see Mario as pretty good value there.

[popanot]

I could've said Mario to the Cowpies for Dez Bryant. ;) Yes, I'm kidding...

[HPF Bob]

Kubiak likes large WRs who can block. His ideal was the Rod Smith/Ed McCaffery duo of the Super Bowl Broncos. For that reason, I don't think he'd want DeSean Jackson, even with the maturity issues. But I keep asking myself how a defense can cover Jackson, AJ, Daniels and Foster without leaving someone exposed.

For the record, I'd be happy with Mario coming back but I do think he would command a lot on the open market and his cap money would allow us to do a lot of other things.

[itssharif]

If you can take care of foster, myers, brisel, and dreesen for $8 million, then you are a cap wizard and you have no need to get rid of Mario.

As for your scenario, it is great fun to imagine all the riches we can get for Mario. I am sure when the team makes a decision they will know whether he can be flipped for multiple 1st round picks or desean Jackson. And I am sure that will all be a consideration in the process.

Also you have to remember that the cap goes up every year. If it goes up let's say 7 mil this year you're looking at an additional 15 mil dollars in this scenario.

As far as the Mario situation look if it's up to me I'd hate to see him go. He is match-up nightmare for defenses and could make our defense even better. But honestly we have to start thinking now about the greater good and the specialness that is happening right before our eyes with our Texans and that is the team chemistry and camaraderie that is needed for successful TEAMS to develop. If we lose 1 player to gain another and use that extra money towards keeping our core group of guys it'll be an overall plus for our team.

Lastly this topic of headcases and people attacking me for suggesting DeSean Jackson. Who the hell is ok with losing? Nobody. DeSean Jackson probably was pissed last year but because they were not doing the things they should have been doing (WINNING). Compound that with not getting paid when he definitely deserved it I'm sure it must have been a tough situation for him. But you show me one person that could make an argument to me that if he replaced Jacoby Jones in our locker room this offseason that this wouldn't be a better move. Is he going to be as productive a #2 receiver for us as he was for Philly probably not because Michael Vick definitely does have a rifle for an arm and can throw DeSean open definitely. But you can't say this guy can't still be a threat for whichever team he plays on.

It's just a suggestion but I sincerely believe this would be a tremendous upgrade for us, lower our cap number, get us out of this Jacoby Jones lottery of whether or not he will field the punt or not, and finally give Schaub a legitimate #2. Finally last but not least this is an incredibly realistic scenario AND trust me winning cures all, which is all that the Texans will hopefully be doing from now on. DeSean Jackson will be just fine getting paid and seeing the W's come to the team's way.

And that's just my take!

[cadams]

this draft is supposedly very deep at the WR position. if we trade mario the i sure as hell don't want it to be for a wide receiver wanting a new big contract. i was on the fence about mario before, but the mroe i think about it the more i want them to keep him around long term, my guess is they will, and will get creative with contract guarentees to take advantage of the incvreasing cap over the next few years.

for anyone suggesting that foster may have to wait another year, i think that would be the worst possible result of any scenario you could throw out. before the season, bob mcnair told foster and his agent that if he followed up last year with another solid year (which he did), they would take care of him. if they try to push him off it could have an impact not only on foster (holding out), but in future negotiations with players. when the owner makes a statement like that, it HAS to be honored.

[WMH]

I'm wondering if applying the tag is a game they will play. A tag @ $22ishMM is not something they can absorb. If they apply it, and don't find a trade partner, the agent/Mario has no reason whatsoever to "make a deal." He then has the Texans by the balls. If they reach a stalemate, some pretty significant folks might have to get the ax to get under the cap. Other teams know the same scenario, so why would they want to give up a package of now affordable picks for a guy they know the Texans can't afford without chopping some significant heads. Pretty dangerous game if you ask me.

They might make a legimate effort to keep him around, without applying the tag. If it doesn't work, then he walks.

He walks, the Texans not only have money for Foster, Myers, and Dressen, but could also be in play for a lower-upper tier FA WR.

Food for thought on this dreary, rainy, Wednesday morning.

[barrett]

I'm wondering if applying the tag is a game they will play. A tag @ $22ishMM is not something they can absorb. If they apply it, and don't find a trade partner, the agent/Mario has no reason whatsoever to "make a deal." He then has the Texans by the balls. If they reach a stalemate, some pretty significant folks might have to get the ax to get under the cap. Other teams know the same scenario, so why would they want to give up a package of now affordable picks for a guy they know the Texans can't afford without chopping some significant heads. Pretty dangerous game if you ask me.

They might make a legimate effort to keep him around, without applying the tag. If it doesn't work, then he walks.

He walks, the Texans not only have money for Foster, Myers, and Dressen, but could also be in play for a lower-upper tier FA WR.

Food for thought on this dreary, rainy, Wednesday morning.

I don't think it would be that hard to make a deal. Sure teams may know we don't want to keep him, but knowing we may not keep him and having him on your team is two different things. If I am another team and I want Mario, I can make a deal with Houston or be one of a half a dozen teams bidding in FA and wondering where he wants to go.

Another team knowing we will get rid of him only takes away leverage if they know they are the team he will choose in FA.

[WMH]

I don't think it would be that hard to make a deal. Sure teams may know we don't want to keep him, but knowing we may not keep him and having him on your team is two different things. If I am another team and I want Mario, I can make a deal with Houston or be one of a half a dozen teams bidding in FA and wondering where he wants to go.

Another team knowing we will get rid of him only takes away leverage if they know they are the team he will choose in FA.

I hear ya, but one comes before the other, meaning the tag will be placed prior to FA begining. So playing those against each other really doesn't work in this instance. If he is a trade candidate, then that means he is tagged, and he has no FA rights.

So, will multiple teams be interested in trading high value, lower $ cost, picks for him? That's the only way the price gets reasonable in the Texans favor. And will the Texans make a $22MM gamble that they can pull off a trade?

[cadams]

i believe that the texans can recind the franchise tag within a certain amount of time from when he signs the tender.

[Warren]

i believe that the texans can recind the franchise tag within a certain amount of time from when he signs the tender.They can rescind it anytime until he signs it, but once he signs it there's a binding, one-year contract. Most guys who get tagged aren't in a big rush to sign the tender because they'd rather try to work out a long-term deal or try to somehow finagle out of the tag so they can hit the open market. There are exceptions, though -- in 2009 Matt Cassel signed his $14 million tender from the Patriots two days after it was offered. After he was traded to the Chiefs he renegotiated that into a six-year contract with $28 million guaranteed.

[cadams]

yeah, i know it was like that in the past, but i thought i heard something on the radio that said there was something different in the new cba on this issue. i could have misheard it though.

[WMH]

They can rescind it anytime until he signs it, but once he signs it there's a binding, one-year contract. Most guys who get tagged aren't in a big rush to sign the tender because they'd rather try to work out a long-term deal or try to somehow finagle out of the tag so they can hit the open market. There are exceptions, though -- in 2009 Matt Cassel signed his $14 million tender from the Patriots two days after it was offered. After he was traded to the Chiefs he renegotiated that into a six-year contract with $28 million guaranteed.

Good info from you and cadams. I wasn't aware that it could be rescinded. If Mario would have to sign the tender prior to being traded, doesn't that mean that we would have to have cap room for that tag. Could be a big obstacle, even if it is a short term one, as, IIRC, I don't think the league is real lenient with that.

I asked Paul K @ ESPN regarding the actual tag #, and he is thinking it is closer to $16MM than $22MM. Who the hell knows, but neither figure is good for us in this spot.

While I am not opposed to trading, resigning him, or letting him walk, I don't think the tag and trade is going to be a very easy task.

[Joshua]

I asked Paul K @ ESPN regarding the actual tag #, and he is thinking it is closer to $16MM than $22MM. Who the hell knows, but neither figure is good for us in this spot.

While I am not opposed to trading, resigning him, or letting him walk, I don't think the tag and trade is going to be a very easy task.

To me, the possibility that the tag number is closer to $16 mill than $22 mill is pretty big news. With that number, I think franchising him might still be doable, as this is about what he's been counting against the cap for the last couple years. Think of it this way, last year Mario counted about that against the cap. How come everyone wasn't screaming that we have to cut Mario and save this $16 mill? Just look at 2012 as if he still had 1 year left on his contract.

[barrett]

To me, the possibility that the tag number is closer to $16 mill than $22 mill is pretty big news. With that number, I think franchising him might still be doable, as this is about what he's been counting against the cap for the last couple years. Think of it this way, last year Mario counted about that against the cap. How come everyone wasn't screaming that we have to cut Mario and save this $16 mill? Just look at 2012 as if he still had 1 year left on his contract.

Whatever the number is, it will be %20 additional to what he made last year. If your previous salary is higher than the average of top 5 you get your previous salary plus %20.

So whatever the number, Mario will count +%20 if we franchise him. So basically an extra $3-4 million from this year.

[NBT]

Kubiak likes large WRs who can block. His ideal was the Rod Smith/Ed McCaffery duo of the Super Bowl Broncos. For that reason, I don't think he'd want DeSean Jackson, even with the maturity issues. But I keep asking myself how a defense can cover Jackson, AJ, Daniels and Foster without leaving someone exposed.

For the record, I'd be happy with Mario coming back but I do think he would command a lot on the open market and his cap money would allow us to do a lot of other things.

Smith and McCaferty, I think, had more speed and moves and got open consistantly, whereas Kevin Walter is slow and can't get consistant separation within the time limits. Jacoby Jones is quick and fast but he is too much the hotdog without the hands to go with it. And consistant, he ain't!

I agree with you on Mario.

[Warren]

If Mario would have to sign the tender prior to being traded, doesn't that mean that we would have to have cap room for that tag. Could be a big obstacle, even if it is a short term one, as, IIRC, I don't think the league is real lenient with that.The tender counts against the cap as soon as the player is tagged, even before it is signed. On the plus side, since there's no bonus with a tender, if you trade a guy who has signed his tender there isn't any dead money left against your cap.

[nunusguy]

Smith and McCaferty, I think, had more speed and moves and got open consistantly, whereas Kevin Walter is slow and can't get consistant separation within the time limits. Jacoby Jones is quick and fast but he is too much the hotdog without the hands to go with it. And consistant, he ain't!

I agree with you on Mario.
McCaferty was a slow white guy who I recall being maybe only as fast as Walters best-case comparison, he was a total possession receiver. But Rod Smith had descent long speed and was light-years superior to JJ in most categories.
It's tough to have a WR make a significant contribution to a team his rookie year, but there's exceptions. I remember Andres rookie year in a game vs Buffalo where he broke a couple tackles after making a catch and then flashed his speed by out running the rest of the Bills secondary. It was a long run, like around 50 yards, and was as I recall the difference in a low scoring game that day. Anyway, in that single play in Johnsons rookie year he not only made a big contribution to win a game but the Texans knew they drafted the right guy with their #3 overall. We'll probably have to be more patient with our next WR we draft, even if he's a first-rounder.