X Extension DONE!

Ah, okay.

"OwesOwn614 wrote:

LOL! Of course, I do. I used "you" generally, not specifically toward you.

"Silverphin wrote:

Well, first of all. Darrelle Revis got traded to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for the 13th overall pick and a conditional pick at age 28 back in 2013. And that's AFTER suffering an ACL tear. A few positions notwithstanding, if a player is the best at their position - which Xavien Howard arguably is - than there's a good chance that a first rounder can be acquired, regardless if he's "only 1 of 4-6 players you need to form a good secondary".

...and keep right on going. Do you think the NFL witnessed that and thought it was a good move for Tampa? Do you think other GMs are lining up to make trades like that? Besides, how often has that been the case? You're pointing to one (bad) move and suggesting it's easily replicated.

I would say trades like the one you mentioned are exactly why nobody's going to break the bank for X.

"DolphinGreg wrote:

...and keep right on going. Do you think the NFL witnessed that and thought it was a good move for Tampa? Do you think other GMs are lining up to make trades like that? Besides, how often has that been the case? You're pointing to one (bad) move and suggesting it's easily replicated.

Except it wasn't a bad a move because Revis still had a very good season.

And of course trades like that are rare, because you'd be very hard-pressed to think of a CB that was on Revis's level at that time and players of that caliber are rarely ever available for trade.

"OwesOwn614 wrote:

1. He has an injury history
2. His current contract takes him into his 30s and based on historical trends, the team can expect diminishing returns
3. For as good as he is, 2020 was probably an outlier statistical season
4. We would save $12 million by releasing/trading him and that money can strengthen the team in other areas
5. We have strong players in the CB room and sufficient assets to replace him in next year's draft and free agency

The team set up his contract with all of these factors in mind. I don't see us moving away from the plan to keep him for another season unless he doesn't show up. And I don't expect him to start training camp without some guarantees.

I support him 100% in this regard but I also understand the team's viewpoint.

2018 was just as good.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

2018 was just as good.

This is true. But circle back to point #1 for 2018. He earned his contract; I was simply answering a question why we wouldn't sign a guy who's playing at such a high level. We very well may do it, but I would be surprised to see it happen.

"DolphinGreg wrote:

...and keep right on going. Do you think the NFL witnessed that and thought it was a good move for Tampa? Do you think other GMs are lining up to make trades like that? Besides, how often has that been the case? You're pointing to one (bad) move and suggesting it's easily replicated.

I would say trades like the one you mentioned are exactly why nobody's going to break the bank for X.

The Rams traded two firsts and a fourth for Jalen Ramsey just two years ago.

"OwesOwn614 wrote:

This is true. But circle back to point #1 for 2018. He earned his contract; I was simply answering a question why we wouldn't sign a guy who's playing at such a high level. We very well may do it, but I would be surprised to see it happen.

I wouldn't be surprised either way. Trading him makes sense. Restructuring his contract with giving him some more money also makes sense.

Miami is in a position where letting him go makes sense and keeping him makes sense.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised either way. Trading him makes sense. Restructuring his contract with giving him some more money also makes sense.

Miami is in a position where letting him go makes sense and keeping him makes sense.

I guess this qualifies as an "unusual situation". - LOL

"Irishman wrote:

I guess this qualifies as an "unusual situation". - LOL

It is an unusual situation. It is rare that a team signs a player that plays the same position and drafts one in the first round in the same position as their highest-paid player.

It is even more unusual that the team also has the cap space and despite what the naysayers say, the talent on the team already so that they can afford to use the extra cap space to give that player a raise.

None of us truly know exactly what X wants or what the Dolphins are offering. X could be trying for $20 million a year or he could be saying that so he can get an extra $3 million a year on his contract or so. Classic negotiations are asking for more than what you actually want. So anything we say about it is just hersay.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

It is an unusual situation. It is rare that a team signs a player that plays the same position and drafts one in the first round in the same position as their highest-paid player.

It is even more unusual that the team also has the cap space and despite what the naysayers say, the talent on the team already so that they can afford to use the extra cap space to give that player a raise.

None of us truly know exactly what X wants or what the Dolphins are offering. X could be trying for $20 million a year or he could be saying that so he can get an extra $3 million a year on his contract or so. Classic negotiations are asking for more than what you actually want. So anything we say about it is just hersay.

Everything you said here is on point. It's all spec from our standpoint. We can all read tea leaves but we're probably going to see what we want to see, not what the situation actually is. All we really know is that it's going to play out, one way or another. I'm getting my popcorn ready.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

It is an unusual situation. It is rare that a team signs a player that plays the same position and drafts one in the first round in the same position as their highest-paid player.

It is even more unusual that the team also has the cap space and despite what the naysayers say, the talent on the team already so that they can afford to use the extra cap space to give that player a raise.

None of us truly know exactly what X wants or what the Dolphins are offering. X could be trying for $20 million a year or he could be saying that so he can get an extra $3 million a year on his contract or so. Classic negotiations are asking for more than what you actually want. So anything we say about it is just hersay.

Here's my ONLY problem with paying him. Yes, what you said is 100% accurate. But what happens when Gisecki wants more money? Or Parker finally has a solid year and wants to cash in? Once you set that trend, it's very hard to keep those contracts on hometown discounts unless you're winning super bowl rings.

Plus, we're entering year three on a complete roster overhaul and there will be a ton of people in the next few seasons who are expecting raises. And to be honest, many of them 100% deserve more money just as much as X "deserves" a max contract. If you don't offer decent bumps in pay on that second contract though, then we lose a lot of boilerplate talent from role players who have already bought in.

There's so many variables past "can we afford to give an additional raise?!?" The answer is a lot more complicated if we plan on the perennial playoff contender role.

"KeyFin wrote:

Here's my ONLY problem with paying him. Yes, what you said is 100% accurate. But what happens when Gisecki wants more money? Or Parker finally has a solid year and wants to cash in? Once you set that trend, it's very hard to keep those contracts on hometown discounts unless you're winning super bowl rings.

Plus, we're entering year three on a complete roster overhaul and there will be a ton of people in the next few seasons who are expecting raises. And to be honest, many of them 100% deserve more money just as much as X "deserves" a max contract. If you don't offer decent bumps in pay on that second contract though, then we lose a lot of boilerplate talent from role players who have already bought in.

There's so many variables past "can we afford to give an additional raise?!?" The answer is a lot more complicated if we plan on the perennial playoff contender role.

If Gisecki or Parker have one of the best years ever, then I am fine with revisiting. It was more than a solid year. It was one of the best years in the modern era for a cornerback.

So if Parker or Gisecki have 1,800 and over 10 touchdowns, I am fine with that. I don't think it is that much more complicated. X has been one of the best corners when he has played in the last three years. One of the best of all time. If Parker or Gisecki or any Dolphin player does that, I think they deserve to get paid. And if the Dolphins can afford it, they should be the ones who pay them

I keep hearing folks say that once the floodgates open, there will be chaos. Does anybody have any examples of a front office that capitulated to a player's demands and found itself in turmoil when other players followed suit? Most teams don't have players of X's caliber and those who aren't playing at his level would have to have balls of steel to hold out. I'm not suggesting that it hasn't happened, just that it seems like a consideration based more on conjecture than history.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

If Gisecki or Parker have one of the best years ever, then I am fine with revisiting. It was more than a solid year. It was one of the best years in the modern era for a cornerback.

So if Parker or Gisecki have 1,800 and over 10 touchdowns, I am fine with that. I don't think it is that much more complicated. X has been one of the best corners when he has played in the last three years. One of the best of all time. If Parker or Gisecki or any Dolphin player does that, I think they deserve to get paid. And if the Dolphins can afford it, they should be the ones who pay them

You'll notice that the team has smartly tried to mitigate the potential loss of Howard, Gesicki and Parker by signing and/or drafting players at their positions who project to high-level play. That'll allow us to get over potential holdouts but it also reduces their next contracts by reducing their roles. For example, Parker projects anywhere from WR1 to WR3, and Gesicki is surely going to lose targets to Long. Noah isn't ready to replace Howard yet but we drafted him with the intention of being a starter.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

If Gisecki or Parker have one of the best years ever, then I am fine with revisiting. It was more than a solid year. It was one of the best years in the modern era for a cornerback.

So if Parker or Gisecki have 1,800 and over 10 touchdowns, I am fine with that. I don't think it is that much more complicated. X has been one of the best corners when he has played in the last three years. One of the best of all time. If Parker or Gisecki or any Dolphin player does that, I think they deserve to get paid. And if the Dolphins can afford it, they should be the ones who pay them

When he's healthy. How can you justify breaking the bank again on a guy with the injury concerns he has? I dunno. I think he'd have been better off to just play this year and ball out, then push for a renegotiated contract.

This screams I don't trust my body so I want cash in as much as possible now.

"resnor wrote:

When he's healthy. How can you justify breaking the bank again on a guy with the injury concerns he has? I dunno. I think he'd have been better off to just play this year and ball out, then push for a renegotiated contract.

This screams I don't trust my body so I want cash in as much as possible now.

That might be part of it. I think the biggest issue for him is the fact that we can walk away from him at the end of the year, saving $35 million with a minimal cap hit. In addition to potentially injuring himself, if he has a less-stellar statistical season, he'll lose leverage for another bite at the apple. IMO, Howard wants some guarantee that he's going to receive most of that money.

"resnor wrote:

When he's healthy. How can you justify breaking the bank again on a guy with the injury concerns he has? I dunno. I think he'd have been better off to just play this year and ball out, then push for a renegotiated contract.

This screams I don't trust my body so I want cash in as much as possible now.

Because Miami has the bank.

If miami wasn't in the amazing cap situation I would be singing a different tune

"OwesOwn614 wrote:

That might be part of it. I think the biggest issue for him is the fact that we can walk away from him at the end of the year, saving $35 million with a minimal cap hit. In addition to potentially injuring himself, if he has a less-stellar statistical season, he'll lose leverage for another bite at the apple. IMO, Howard wants some guarantee that he's going to receive most of that money.

I think this is probably the closest to the truth.

This is his last best chance of getting more money!

If we can get a first round pick for him trade him. Out of a possible 80 games in his career he has started 55. I understand he wants to make money because this could be his last contract. Maybe 15 or 16 db's over 30 in the league don't know how many are starters. This is a big year for this team we don't need the distractions.

"OwesOwn614 wrote:

The Rams traded two firsts and a fourth for Jalen Ramsey just two years ago.

For one thing, Jalen Ramsey is/was a better player. He's the top NFL CB now and was at the time as well. Xavien Howard cannot claim that. While X gets INTs, he's simply not the overall talent and "lock-down" sort of CB Jalen Ramsey is. Ask any NFL player to name the NFL's best CB and they all say Ramsey without any hesitation. Many names come up as runner-ups: Stephon Gilmore, Xavien Howard, Tre'Davious White, etc but Ramsey is always seen as #1.

Second, Ramsey was (and still is) a healthier & younger player. Xavien Howard has a chronic knee issue and is about to turn 28 in a week. That means he's a full 3 years older than Ramsey was at the time of Ramsey's trade (25).

Also, take a moment to consider what kind of player is the best at his position by the age of 25! Along those same lines, Ramsey was a tone-setter in Jacksonville. Xavien Howard is a smart player but he's not really an energetic/forceful leader the way Ramsey is.

Third, Ramsey was about to negotiate his 2nd deal whereas Xavien Howard is threatening to sit out if his 2nd deal doesn't get re-negotiated.

In short, Ramsey was better (and ascending into his prime) whereas Xavien Howard is more likely to decline over the next several years assuming his chronic injury doesn't take him out sooner. Moreover, the team trading for Ramsey had the ability to shape his contract how they saw fit.

IMHO, the Ramsey trade is totally different from any hypothetical Xavien Howard trade and as I said before, if I were a GM I would not be giving away a R1 pick for Xavien Howard.

"He's not a lockdown corner."

His stats say otherwise.

https://www.espn.com/blog/miami-dolphins/post/_/id/31921/nfl-defensive-player-of-the-year-dolphins-xavien-howard-states-case-on-field

XAVIEN HOWARD, CB, Dolphins

Through 13 games in 2020, Howard has allowed 34 catches for 492 yards and three touchdowns on 72 targets as the nearest defender, per NFL Next Gen Stats. Among CBs with at least 150 coverage snaps, here's how Howard fared in our six key categories and league rank:

Interceptions: 9, 1st

Pass deflections: 17, tied for 1st

QB rating as nearest defender: 44.2, 1st

Completion % as nearest defender: 47.2%, 2nd
Targeted EPA: -21.7, 3rd

Ball hawk rate (% of targets with pass defensed or INT): 23.6%, 2nd

(Caveat: This was through 13 weeks. Couldn't find one for the full season, but still.)

At this point, it just seems like you're downplaying Xavien's playing ability.

I don't want them to trade him, but if they do, maybe they can trade him to the Texans for their next 13 first round draft picks.

I have thought about this situation all summer. Ultimately, my back and forth has come down to one fundamental question: "Would you make a trade that you could not possibly win at?"

Unfortunately for us, Bill O'Brien is out of the league, ergo we will never, ever, ever see the Leramy Tunsil trade. Back to reality.

So let's think about how potential trades would play out.

1st + mid round pick = Howard is top five at his position. I would say the odds would be extremely low at getting another play even close to as good as Howard. In all honesty, I think the most likely outcome is that we get a decent starter and a role player in this trade.

Okay, let's think about player for player. These are harder to do, but possible. In fact, we have had a history of being involved in such trades.

Herein is another problem. Think about positions of need where this would make sense:

We have so many WRS, TES, DBS, DL, and young OL.

In my mind, it would only be reasonable to trade for a RB, a C, or a LB.

Here is the problem with RB. I would love to have an elite RB, but I would hate to have an elite RB contract. Look at most teams that sign a RB to a massive contract. They are trying to get out of it year later.

C - There were elite Cs available in free agency. We passed. I don't see the point of getting one now but losing Howard. We shoulda just signed one if that was the case.

LB - I feel like the nickel is the new base, so we may not have dominant LBs, but we are good at the position for reasonable prices. We could get better here, but I think losing Howard would be a bigger loss to our defense.

Finally, I think that Howard actually changes our W/L record. His turnovers can either take points off the board for our opponents or put points on the board for us depending on field position. In rare cases, those turnovers could be the double bonus, and teams could lose points, and we could gain points. That in of itself is a 10-14 pt swing.

At the end of the day, I just think that we would look back and think that this trade really hurt the team not helped it.

"tirty8 wrote:

I have thought about this situation all summer. Ultimately, my back and forth has come down to one fundamental question: "Would you make a trade that you could not possibly win at?"

Unfortunately for us, Bill O'Brien is out of the league, ergo we will never, ever, ever see the Leramy Tunsil trade. Back to reality.

So let's think about how potential trades would play out.

1st + mid round pick = Howard is top five at his position. I would say the odds would be extremely low at getting another play even close to as good as Howard. In all honesty, I think the most likely outcome is that we get a decent starter and a role player in this trade.

Okay, let's think about player for player. These are harder to do, but possible. In fact, we have had a history of being involved in such trades.

Herein is another problem. Think about positions of need where this would make sense:

We have so many WRS, TES, DBS, DL, and young OL.

In my mind, it would only be reasonable to trade for a RB, a C, or a LB.

Here is the problem with RB. I would love to have an elite RB, but I would hate to have an elite RB contract. Look at most teams that sign a RB to a massive contract. They are trying to get out of it year later.

C - There were elite Cs available in free agency. We passed. I don't see the point of getting one now but losing Howard. We shoulda just signed one if that was the case.

LB - I feel like the nickel is the new base, so we may not have dominant LBs, but we are good at the position for reasonable prices. We could get better here, but I think losing Howard would be a bigger loss to our defense.

Finally, I think that Howard actually changes our W/L record. His turnovers can either take points off the board for our opponents or put points on the board for us depending on field position. In rare cases, those turnovers could be the double bonus, and teams could lose points, and we could gain points. That in of itself is a 10-14 pt swing.

At the end of the day, I just think that we would look back and think that this trade really hurt the team not helped it.

You don't win a trade for a superstar (which I consider X to be). With that said, I wonder if we could trade him for Chandler Jones? Jones would take our LBs to a level that rivals our CBs with Howard. Adding him might mitigate the weakening of our secondary by improving our linebacking corps. Rumors are that Jones wants a new deal from the Cardinals, who have an absolutely trash cornerbacks room. That's as close to a win-win as I can find.

"tirty8 wrote:

I have thought about this situation all summer. Ultimately, my back and forth has come down to one fundamental question: "Would you make a trade that you could not possibly win at?"

Unfortunately for us, Bill O'Brien is out of the league, ergo we will never, ever, ever see the Leramy Tunsil trade. Back to reality.

So let's think about how potential trades would play out.

1st + mid round pick = Howard is top five at his position. I would say the odds would be extremely low at getting another play even close to as good as Howard. In all honesty, I think the most likely outcome is that we get a decent starter and a role player in this trade.

Okay, let's think about player for player. These are harder to do, but possible. In fact, we have had a history of being involved in such trades.

Herein is another problem. Think about positions of need where this would make sense:

We have so many WRS, TES, DBS, DL, and young OL.

In my mind, it would only be reasonable to trade for a RB, a C, or a LB.

Here is the problem with RB. I would love to have an elite RB, but I would hate to have an elite RB contract. Look at most teams that sign a RB to a massive contract. They are trying to get out of it year later.

C - There were elite Cs available in free agency. We passed. I don't see the point of getting one now but losing Howard. We shoulda just signed one if that was the case.

LB - I feel like the nickel is the new base, so we may not have dominant LBs, but we are good at the position for reasonable prices. We could get better here, but I think losing Howard would be a bigger loss to our defense.

Finally, I think that Howard actually changes our W/L record. His turnovers can either take points off the board for our opponents or put points on the board for us depending on field position. In rare cases, those turnovers could be the double bonus, and teams could lose points, and we could gain points. That in of itself is a 10-14 pt swing.

At the end of the day, I just think that we would look back and think that this trade really hurt the team not helped it.

Of course it wouldn't help the team if he's traded, at least for the near-term...unless Flo is even better than we thought (and I have a massively high opinion of his coaching/teaching). If we lose X, yet stay top 5 in scoring defense and close to the top for 3rd down defense efficiency, its a win in my book.