I get that everyone would be against a Braden Smith trade, and I'm not really advocating it but rather just throwing the idea out there for consideration. The reality is we'll have to start paying him full market rate starting in 2022, and if we can't afford to do that we'll lose him or have to make cuts elsewhere.

So the issue will eventually have to be dealt with, and I don't think you can say for certain you'd wouldn't trade any player until you know the price you could get for him (except, perhaps a face-of-franchise player like Manning or Luck).

I don't really know how to value Smith in his sense, but if, for example, a team was willing to give up two 1sts for Smith (ala Laremy Tunsil and yes, I know he's an LT) would everyone still be so strongly against it?

So we are going fantasyland? Sure then, two firsts for smith.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, yeah. If a team was willing to give up two firsts, especially a bottom tier team, then I'm on board. But the odds of that happening are low. Remember, Bill O'Brien is no longer calling the shots in Houston, and LA has no first rounders until the next milennium.

With AC retiring, I would hate to lose Smith. I seriously doubt any team without a head coach as brain dead as O'Brien would offer 2 firsts. Smith, according to AC should be a pro-bowler. Keep the chemistry going with the o-line.

Have you looked at the Colts cap?

Well put and funny, thanks.

You a very likely correct Spike, though I should add that unless I'm mistaken, O'Brien actually threw in another 2nd rounder for Tunsil on top of the two 1sts. So we don't need anyone as insane as he is, just slightly less so.

yes, I have and that's what worries me. There are only so many players you can play $20M+ to and still stay under the cap. I know you view the cap as funny money, but it's really not. All of the money is meticulously accounted for. It's just that what is reported in the media is usually only the maximum possible amounts under a contract, and not the fine details which explain why certain contracts are effectively far smaller than they first appear, or the contracts are engineered to put off the cap impact until later years. That leads to a lot of the confusion and misunderstandings about the cap.

The reason we are so far under is due to two things. First, we have a lot of players whose contracts just expired (20?) who are not on the books, but must be replaced.

Second, we have the youngest team in the league, which means a lot of rookie contracts.

That said, Chaka is crazy to conceive the idea of trading our best tackle.