Rams Lions big trade

[ludakrishna]

Since 2012...
4th Qtr Comeback -
Stafford: 26
Russell Wilson: 24

Game Winning Drives -
Stafford: 32
Russell Wilson: 31

Stafford is Clutch and the Rams got scary.

 

[Threedee]

The real question will be whether Detroit can get Goff to take a pay-cut when his current contract expires.

 

[balakoth]

Since 2012...
4th Qtr Comeback -
Stafford: 26
Russell Wilson: 24

Game Winning Drives -
Stafford: 32
Russell Wilson: 31

Stafford is Clutch and the Rams got scary.

And when Andrew luck stopped playing in 2018, he had the same stats as them (17 / 20) etc

What EXACTLY is your point with that meaningless stat


BTW Mathew Stafford has played 21 more games than RW and the same for when he was playing at the same point of his career as AL

 

[Maelstrom787]

1. That's not the only acceptable outcome. It's the only acceptable goal. Big difference, pal. Which, by the way, a significantly better quarterback helps them achieve more than Jared Goff and 2 late firsts would. Firing a coaching staff and front office that has put together a team that consistently looks good in one of the best divisions in football is a good way to get a lot worse, not a lot better. Face facts: 1 team out of 32 can win the championship each year. A team that's getting to the postseason consistently is a team that's succeeding at getting in position to win.

2. If it was the only way to get Goff's salary at least somewhat taken care of, then yes. 100%. Upgrade at QB and get rid of that ball and chain? That's a win. My front office consistently is filling my roster with talent in the middle and late rounds, I don't NEED those late firsts as much as I NEED a proven top-10 quarterback and cap relief. And have fun getting a top-10 quarterback in the late first. Doesn't happen very often. Their mistake was signing Goff to begin with, and this is them fixing that mistake in an acceptable fashion.

Unless Stafford immediately regresses a large amount, the Rams are gonna keep fighting for championships too.

Can you give me a quote from anyone in the NFL saying "An acceptable outcome is having a goal of winning the Super Bowl"?

I mean a 5 year old can say, "My goal is to win the Super Bowl". Then lets say the kid never wins a Super Bowl....should he be given a GM position...because Hey, he matched what was an acceptable outcome...he had a goal to win the Super Bowl.

Thats just dumb, Winning the Super Bowl is the only acceptable outcome...pal.

Here's another quote from you in another thread.

^^^^ Spot on! However I could sleep well just getting to the Super Bowl. What happens, happens at that point. We just found out 10+ wins gets half of the fans calling for massive firings and wanting to ship off the best players. 10+ wins makes for a fun season though.

So, are you lying, or just unsure of what you actually think about the topic?

Neither, I was drunk typing! Its Super Bowl or bust!

I'm assuming you're doing the same here, seeing as you're actually implying that 31 front offices should be fired each year.

 

[Forthewin]

Can you give me a quote from anyone in the NFL saying "An acceptable outcome is having a goal of winning the Super Bowl"?

I mean a 5 year old can say, "My goal is to win the Super Bowl". Then lets say the kid never wins a Super Bowl....should he be given a GM position...because Hey, he matched what was an acceptable outcome...he had a goal to win the Super Bowl.

Thats just dumb, Winning the Super Bowl is the only acceptable outcome...pal.

Here's another quote from you in another thread.

^^^^ Spot on! However I could sleep well just getting to the Super Bowl. What happens, happens at that point. We just found out 10+ wins gets half of the fans calling for massive firings and wanting to ship off the best players. 10+ wins makes for a fun season though.

So, are you lying, or just unsure of what you actually think about the topic?

Neither, I was drunk typing! Its Super Bowl or bust!

I'm assuming you're doing the same here, seeing as you're actually implying that 31 front offices should be fired each year.

I said "staff". On average each team employs 3729 employees. Plenty of hiring and firing goes on each year for each team. So yes, if one of the expendables keeps leveraging the team's future with no return on investment, not reaching their goal or an unacceptable outcome...then drop the hammer!

I am guessing its the same crack head front office that signed Goff to a crazy contract that put them in this position.

 

[Maelstrom787]

Here's another quote from you in another thread.



So, are you lying, or just unsure of what you actually think about the topic?

Neither, I was drunk typing! Its Super Bowl or bust!

I'm assuming you're doing the same here, seeing as you're actually implying that 31 front offices should be fired each year.

I said "staff". On average each team employs 3729 employees. Plenty of hiring and firing goes on each year for each team. So yes, if one of the expendables keeps leveraging the team's future with no return on investment, not reaching their goal or an unacceptable outcome...then drop the hammer!

I am guessing its the same crack head front office that signed Goff to a crazy contract that put them in this position.

The hell are you on about? You said staff and gave the following scenario:

"Rams staff: Boss, we want to give up 7 years of 1st round draft picks.
Boss: For what?
Rams staff: To be above average.
Boss: Any plans for a Super Bowl win in that wild plan?
Rams staff: HAHAHA, No.
Boss: FIRED!!"

Who do you think makes these decisions? The scouts? No, it's the front office. Don't try to mislead with shoddy semantics, you meant front office and you know it. As for "no return on investment," this is a team that's had sustained success and reasonably contends each year. If you think firing those individuals will actually improve their chances at success, you're dreaming, bud.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Stafford has had some injury issues.

But there is no circumstance where you can look at this trade and not come to the conclusion that for the next 1-2, if not 3 years - the Rams have a much better chance at a SB than we do.

In fact, right now the favorites for the division have to come down to either the 49ers or the Rams.

Thankfully they massively lowered the bar for reaching the playoffs. In the old format, this trade would have kept us from even MAKING the playoffs...because we would be fighting for a wildcard against a team that was in our own division. A team that was, for the most part, better than us.

But with the lower standards for making the playoffs, The Rams can win the division, the 49ers can get a wildcard, and we can still somehow make the playoffs.

So not a deathknell unless we end up in the playoffs matched up with the Rams, (as they would easily beat us), but not great news nonetheless.

 

[chris98251]

Well word now is they went after Rodgers first, obviously they have a high bar set, Stafford was injured due to a shitty line and having to stand in the pocket to wait for receivers to get open, guts isn't his issue.

A cleaner pocket and better receivers will add 10 or 20 points to his ratings.

Oh and a running game that's dependable.

McVay is going to be fine since it is his offense, much like Pete is fine with DC's leaving.

He needs guys to coordinate with players and teach.

 

[Maelstrom787]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/nfldraftscout/status/1356270337458139143[/tweet]

As long as firsts are as overvalued as they are, the best teams are gonna keep moving them more frequently.

Last year, I went through the 17-32 range in the past 4/5 drafts to evaluate player by player, and confirmed that the hit rate on an above-average starter is about 50%, with the chance of finding a Pro Bowler being 1 in 10. If you can trade those lottery tickets for an actual established Pro Bowler, why the hell not? Good teams have that figured out, and great teams draft well anyway in the later rounds.

 

[Forthewin]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/nfldraftscout/status/1356270337458139143[/tweet]

As long as firsts are as overvalued as they are, the best teams are gonna keep moving them more frequently.

Last year, I went through the 17-32 range in the past 4/5 drafts to evaluate player by player, and confirmed that the hit rate on an above-average starter is about 50%, with the chance of finding a Pro Bowler being 1 in 10. If you can trade those lottery tickets for an actual established Pro Bowler, why the hell not? Good teams have that figured out, and great teams draft well anyway in the later rounds.

Wow! Lol established Pro Bowler? Matt went to the Pro Bowl once and that was 10 YEARS AGO! So what happened in that 5th draft that you won't share the info.. Did that mess with the narrative?

Even with flawed info, if its 1 in 10 with 1 pick, its 1 in 5 with 2 picks. Add in that 3rd rounder and maybe 1 in 4 chance of pulling a Pro Bowler.
So the trade went like...

1 old Pro Bowler
For
1 young Pro Bowler + a 1 in 4 chance of another young pro bowler.

No matter how you slice it, this was a bad trade. Unless of course you add in the...

Rams Staff: We sunk the ship with contracts, we gave away 7 first rounders, we have zero Super Bowl wins to show for it...but Boss, at least we were able to get rid of the guy that we asked you to pay a ton of cash to...you are welcome.

Fyi...Rams staff means Rams staff. Yes, scouts are depended on to make evaluations that will heavy in the overall choice...and some need fired.

 

[Marvin49]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/nfldraftscout/status/1356270337458139143[/tweet]

As long as firsts are as overvalued as they are, the best teams are gonna keep moving them more frequently.

Last year, I went through the 17-32 range in the past 4/5 drafts to evaluate player by player, and confirmed that the hit rate on an above-average starter is about 50%, with the chance of finding a Pro Bowler being 1 in 10. If you can trade those lottery tickets for an actual established Pro Bowler, why the hell not? Good teams have that figured out, and great teams draft well anyway in the later rounds.

That's just bonkers. LOL.

I get your point, but there is a whole other aspect you are missing...the $$$.

The reason some of those guys are even available for multiple 1st round picks is that they want huge $$$$. Your solution can give you some great players, but it also means like 40% of your cap is tied up in 2 or 3 players. There is no middle ground. I mean the Rams just gave up more than anyone else because they were trying to OFFLOAD $$$.

Example: Buckner traded to Indy for 13th pick. In your view, Buckner>Kinlaw: Colts win. Well, in reality, Niners traded down from 13, drafted Kinlaw, and then used capitol from that trade to trade back up from original 1st round pick to take Aiyuk. Now they have both Kinlaw and Aiyuk on rookie deals for 4 years and Buckner is making 20 mil per. Thats cap management.

The 49ers were in the Mack and OBJ sweepstakes. if they had made either of those deals, they wouldn't now have Nick Bosa or Brandon Aiyuk and would be in the hole on 1st rounders.

My point is this ain't black and white. My experience is typically fans who like trading 1st rounders are fans of teams that don't have any.

 

[Maelstrom787]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/nfldraftscout/status/1356270337458139143[/tweet]

As long as firsts are as overvalued as they are, the best teams are gonna keep moving them more frequently.

Last year, I went through the 17-32 range in the past 4/5 drafts to evaluate player by player, and confirmed that the hit rate on an above-average starter is about 50%, with the chance of finding a Pro Bowler being 1 in 10. If you can trade those lottery tickets for an actual established Pro Bowler, why the hell not? Good teams have that figured out, and great teams draft well anyway in the later rounds.

Wow! Lol established Pro Bowler? Matt went to the Pro Bowl once and that was 10 YEARS AGO! So what happened in that 5th draft that you won't share the info.. Did that mess with the narrative?

Even with flawed info, if its 1 in 10 with 1 pick, its 1 in 5 with 2 picks. Add in that 3rd rounder and maybe 1 in 4 chance of pulling a Pro Bowler.
So the trade went like...

1 old Pro Bowler
For
1 young Pro Bowler + a 1 in 4 chance of another young pro bowler.

No matter how you slice it, this was a bad trade. Unless of course you add in the...

Rams Staff: We sunk the ship with contracts, we gave away 7 first rounders, we have zero Super Bowl wins to show for it...but Boss, at least we were able to get rid of the guy that we asked you to pay a ton of cash to...you are welcome.

Fyi...Rams staff means Rams staff. Yes, scouts are depended on to make evaluations that will heavy in the overall choice...and some need fired.

I'll just respond point by point here, perhaps not in perfect order.

1. Bullcrap. You weren't talking about scouts, you were talking about those who make personnel decisions, and scouts are absolutely entirely irrelevant to the fantasy conversation you made. Either you think scouts trade picks, or you're lying. Honestly, lying probably looks better, at this point.

2. "Sunk the ship?" Bud, I know you might've just started paying attention, but the Rams haven't picked first round in what is about to be 5 drafts, regardless of what contracts they've signed. Do you honestly think this has sunk their ship? They look pretty damn impressive to me. Good thing for LA that you're nowhere near the organization, otherwise you'd be trying your damnedest to go 3-13 after firing a successful staff. Laughable. Do you remember the Rams prior to McVay? Picking high every year? Oh yeah, that was way better for them. They were rolling in wins. All those picks definitely helped them fight for championships. After all, first round draft picks are the only thing that makes a team successful, as proven by the pre-2017 Rams. Might as well hire Jeff Fisher back. Sure, they'll go 7-9 yearly, but at least they'll have those precious picks!

3. The post you've quoted from me is more aimed at the overall philosophy the Rams (and most other successful teams to a less extreme extent) have followed with first rounders, because that's what the tweet was in reference to. They've traded them for Brandin Cooks and Jalen Ramsey, too... both established Pro Bowlers. The bulk of this trade compensation was likely to offload Goff's salary - which I've criticized multiple times in multiple threads. Bearing the cap relief and the premium valuation of quarterbacks in mind, the trade compensation here is less of a direct trade-off, making it harder to properly evaluate because there are multiple types of compensation involved.

4. The fifth draft in my referenced post was too recent to evaluate properly, because its players had too few chances to make the Pro Bowl. If I did include it, it would have included less Pro Bowlers, which'd skew the numbers in the favor of the argument I'm making. Fortunately, I try not to be an absolute weasel and aim to find the truth, regardless of what it is. Probably should've taken you about 4 seconds to realize that, but I'm happy to clarify for you as needed. Here's a link if you want to read it yourself and then come back to make another meandering reply that completely misses the point: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=168115

5. Bad trade? For a top-10 quarterback with years left to go on a team that was a hair away from a Super Bowl a couple years back, and a hair away from a championship game with absolute doodoo at the position this year? At this point, I'm starting to think you value draft picks more than you value actual contention for a championship. The process here is fine, save for the fact they paid Goff to begin with. That was the biggest mistake. Best thing to do here is to offload his salary and get what talent they can at the spot, and Stafford fits the bill. Unless, of course, you have a better alternative. (spoiler alert: you don't.)

 

[Maelstrom787]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/nfldraftscout/status/1356270337458139143[/tweet]

As long as firsts are as overvalued as they are, the best teams are gonna keep moving them more frequently.

Last year, I went through the 17-32 range in the past 4/5 drafts to evaluate player by player, and confirmed that the hit rate on an above-average starter is about 50%, with the chance of finding a Pro Bowler being 1 in 10. If you can trade those lottery tickets for an actual established Pro Bowler, why the hell not? Good teams have that figured out, and great teams draft well anyway in the later rounds.

That's just bonkers. LOL.

I get your point, but there is a whole other aspect you are missing...the $$$.

The reason some of those guys are even available for multiple 1st round picks is that they want huge $$$$. Your solution can give you some great players, but it also means like 40% of your cap is tied up in 2 or 3 players. There is no middle ground. I mean the Rams just gave up more than anyone else because they were trying to OFFLOAD $$$.

Example: Buckner traded to Indy for 13th pick. In your view, Buckner>Kinlaw: Colts win. Well, in reality, Niners traded down from 13, drafted Kinlaw, and then used capitol from that trade to trade back up from original 1st round pick to take Aiyuk. Now they have both Kinlaw and Aiyuk on rookie deals for 4 years and Buckner is making 20 mil per. Thats cap management.

The 49ers were in the Mack and OBJ sweepstakes. if they had made either of those deals, they wouldn't now have Nick Bosa or Brandon Aiyuk and would be in the hole on 1st rounders.

My point is this ain't black and white. My experience is typically fans who like trading 1st rounders are fans of teams that don't have any.

Yeah, but can we really hold cap management against the Rams when they've found ways to sustain success while handing out money like its candy? If it all falls apart this season, fine, point conceded. Otherwise, good for the Niners that they managed the cap, but there they were, dead last in the division.. where they'll probably stay unless they upgrade the quarterback spot... and they'll probably need to be aggressive to do so.

Furthermore, the Rams have drafted well above average elsewhere in the draft... so it's not like they're completely forgoing obtaining talent via the draft. Just offloading the inherently overvalued selections for proven talent and cap flexibility, which allows them to largely keep the gang together.

 

[Marvin49]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/nfldraftscout/status/1356270337458139143[/tweet]

As long as firsts are as overvalued as they are, the best teams are gonna keep moving them more frequently.

Last year, I went through the 17-32 range in the past 4/5 drafts to evaluate player by player, and confirmed that the hit rate on an above-average starter is about 50%, with the chance of finding a Pro Bowler being 1 in 10. If you can trade those lottery tickets for an actual established Pro Bowler, why the hell not? Good teams have that figured out, and great teams draft well anyway in the later rounds.

That's just bonkers. LOL.

I get your point, but there is a whole other aspect you are missing...the $$$.

The reason some of those guys are even available for multiple 1st round picks is that they want huge $$$$. Your solution can give you some great players, but it also means like 40% of your cap is tied up in 2 or 3 players. There is no middle ground. I mean the Rams just gave up more than anyone else because they were trying to OFFLOAD $$$.

Example: Buckner traded to Indy for 13th pick. In your view, Buckner>Kinlaw: Colts win. Well, in reality, Niners traded down from 13, drafted Kinlaw, and then used capitol from that trade to trade back up from original 1st round pick to take Aiyuk. Now they have both Kinlaw and Aiyuk on rookie deals for 4 years and Buckner is making 20 mil per. Thats cap management.

The 49ers were in the Mack and OBJ sweepstakes. if they had made either of those deals, they wouldn't now have Nick Bosa or Brandon Aiyuk and would be in the hole on 1st rounders.

My point is this ain't black and white. My experience is typically fans who like trading 1st rounders are fans of teams that don't have any.

Yeah, but can we really hold cap management against the Rams when they've found ways to sustain success while handing out money like its candy? If it all falls apart this season, fine, point conceded. Otherwise, good for the Niners that they managed the cap, but there they were, dead last in the division.. where they'll probably stay unless they upgrade the quarterback spot... and they'll probably need to be aggressive to do so.

Please...the 49ers weren't 6-10 because their starting QB sucked. They were 6-10 because he hardly played, was hurt when he WAS playing, and they had 80 mil of the 200 mil cap on IR.

Still tho, they managed to sweep the Rams with backup QBs and if they choose to move on and get a better QB, their cap hit is only 2.5 mil. The Rams had to pay extra in draft picks to get rid of their guy. Yup...sounds like a winning plan.

 

[Maelstrom787]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/nfldraftscout/status/1356270337458139143[/tweet]

As long as firsts are as overvalued as they are, the best teams are gonna keep moving them more frequently.

Last year, I went through the 17-32 range in the past 4/5 drafts to evaluate player by player, and confirmed that the hit rate on an above-average starter is about 50%, with the chance of finding a Pro Bowler being 1 in 10. If you can trade those lottery tickets for an actual established Pro Bowler, why the hell not? Good teams have that figured out, and great teams draft well anyway in the later rounds.

That's just bonkers. LOL.

I get your point, but there is a whole other aspect you are missing...the $$$.

The reason some of those guys are even available for multiple 1st round picks is that they want huge $$$$. Your solution can give you some great players, but it also means like 40% of your cap is tied up in 2 or 3 players. There is no middle ground. I mean the Rams just gave up more than anyone else because they were trying to OFFLOAD $$$.

Example: Buckner traded to Indy for 13th pick. In your view, Buckner>Kinlaw: Colts win. Well, in reality, Niners traded down from 13, drafted Kinlaw, and then used capitol from that trade to trade back up from original 1st round pick to take Aiyuk. Now they have both Kinlaw and Aiyuk on rookie deals for 4 years and Buckner is making 20 mil per. Thats cap management.

The 49ers were in the Mack and OBJ sweepstakes. if they had made either of those deals, they wouldn't now have Nick Bosa or Brandon Aiyuk and would be in the hole on 1st rounders.

My point is this ain't black and white. My experience is typically fans who like trading 1st rounders are fans of teams that don't have any.

Yeah, but can we really hold cap management against the Rams when they've found ways to sustain success while handing out money like its candy? If it all falls apart this season, fine, point conceded. Otherwise, good for the Niners that they managed the cap, but there they were, dead last in the division.. where they'll probably stay unless they upgrade the quarterback spot... and they'll probably need to be aggressive to do so.

Please...the 49ers weren't 6-10 because their starting QB sucked. They were 6-10 because he hardly played, was hurt when he WAS playing, and they had 80 mil of the 200 mil cap on IR.

Still tho, they managed to sweep the Rams with backup QBs and if they choose to move on and get a better QB, their cap hit is only 2.5 mil. The Rams had to pay extra in draft picks to get rid of their guy. Yup...sounds like a winning plan.

It probably is a winning plan, considering that they keep winning.

 

[Marvin49]

That's just bonkers. LOL.

I get your point, but there is a whole other aspect you are missing...the $$$.

The reason some of those guys are even available for multiple 1st round picks is that they want huge $$$$. Your solution can give you some great players, but it also means like 40% of your cap is tied up in 2 or 3 players. There is no middle ground. I mean the Rams just gave up more than anyone else because they were trying to OFFLOAD $$$.

Example: Buckner traded to Indy for 13th pick. In your view, Buckner>Kinlaw: Colts win. Well, in reality, Niners traded down from 13, drafted Kinlaw, and then used capitol from that trade to trade back up from original 1st round pick to take Aiyuk. Now they have both Kinlaw and Aiyuk on rookie deals for 4 years and Buckner is making 20 mil per. Thats cap management.

The 49ers were in the Mack and OBJ sweepstakes. if they had made either of those deals, they wouldn't now have Nick Bosa or Brandon Aiyuk and would be in the hole on 1st rounders.

My point is this ain't black and white. My experience is typically fans who like trading 1st rounders are fans of teams that don't have any.

Yeah, but can we really hold cap management against the Rams when they've found ways to sustain success while handing out money like its candy? If it all falls apart this season, fine, point conceded. Otherwise, good for the Niners that they managed the cap, but there they were, dead last in the division.. where they'll probably stay unless they upgrade the quarterback spot... and they'll probably need to be aggressive to do so.

Please...the 49ers weren't 6-10 because their starting QB sucked. They were 6-10 because he hardly played, was hurt when he WAS playing, and they had 80 mil of the 200 mil cap on IR.

Still tho, they managed to sweep the Rams with backup QBs and if they choose to move on and get a better QB, their cap hit is only 2.5 mil. The Rams had to pay extra in draft picks to get rid of their guy. Yup...sounds like a winning plan.

It probably is a winning plan, considering that they keep winning.

Sure. We'll see. I mean if it doesn't, they'll have another 1st round pick to trade in 2024.

 

[Maelstrom787]

Yeah, but can we really hold cap management against the Rams when they've found ways to sustain success while handing out money like its candy? If it all falls apart this season, fine, point conceded. Otherwise, good for the Niners that they managed the cap, but there they were, dead last in the division.. where they'll probably stay unless they upgrade the quarterback spot... and they'll probably need to be aggressive to do so.

Please...the 49ers weren't 6-10 because their starting QB sucked. They were 6-10 because he hardly played, was hurt when he WAS playing, and they had 80 mil of the 200 mil cap on IR.

Still tho, they managed to sweep the Rams with backup QBs and if they choose to move on and get a better QB, their cap hit is only 2.5 mil. The Rams had to pay extra in draft picks to get rid of their guy. Yup...sounds like a winning plan.

It probably is a winning plan, considering that they keep winning.

Sure. We'll see. I mean if it doesn't, they'll have another 1st round pick to trade in 2024.

Good, they can probably net some real talent for it, and if history repeats, they'll be able to continue reloading with prudent non-premium draft selections. Bird in hand, two in bush, blah blah.

 

[chris98251]

Washington Redskins won trading away Draft Picks for years and won.

Broncos went after Manning and won one also, just not the first time .

 

[Forthewin]

Washington Redskins won trading away Draft Picks for years and won.

Broncos went after Manning and won one also, just not the first time .

I am all for mixing it up, using every tool you have to win a Super Bowl. Drop 3 1st round picks if you think you have the player of the decade...give out the biggest contract ever if you think he is the difference from where you are at VS winning a Super Bowl!

However if this playing loose and wild style keeps ending up without a Super Bowl win, its time to change strategies!

Giving up 1 first rounder is one thing, giving up 2 first, a 3rd and starting QB should open the owners eyes that there is a problem.

Even if part of the deal was to solve a cap issue, maybe the person who created the cap isssue needs to be let go.

 

[Maelstrom787]

Washington Redskins won trading away Draft Picks for years and won.

Broncos went after Manning and won one also, just not the first time .

I am all for mixing it up, using every tool you have to win a Super Bowl. Drop 3 1st round picks if you think you have the player of the decade...give out the biggest contract ever if you think he is the difference from where you are at VS winning a Super Bowl!

However if this playing loose and wild style keeps ending up without a Super Bowl win, its time to change strategies!

Giving up 1 first rounder is one thing, giving up 2 first, a 3rd and starting QB should open the owners eyes that there is a problem.

Even if part of the deal was to solve a cap issue, maybe the person who created the cap isssue needs to be let go.

After all, the team with the most picks and cap space wins the championship every year lol