They do indeed have 7 right now. If we're trading for one I'd prefer Quarless, but I did like DJ Williams a lot in college as well. In either case, I would hope we don't give up much. They have Jake Stoneburner on their roster as well, and I felt like he was very much underrated this past draft.
Pretty much every TE they have is an upgrade over what we have so I hope we pull the trigger on this. Bostick could end up being special in time.
This is a dumb opinion. Other than Finley, none of them would be upgrades over Clay. They haven't shown they can be.
Well Randy Starks just created the sort of headline the staff absolutely hate. http://twitter.com/OmarKelly/status/372328801427939328/photo/1 With Soliai also on an expiring contract whilst looking pretty dominant, and with DT the deepest position on the team, oh and with Ireland's track record (see Davis, Vontae), a trade could be on the cards here. With Ireland's contract expiring at the end of this season, a player would be much more likely than a draft pick. Starks would have to agree an extension with the new team, but I'm sure that this would be a formality considering he would get even more on the open market.
I'd totally be fine with trading Starks if it meant bringing back something of good value. Even a pick. I'd prefer a good player for the next couple years. But I have always defended and been a massive fan of Odrick. He and Soliai are a fine DT tandem. I like Randall as a rotational too. So as much as I like Starks. If it meant bringing in a TE(don't know of any options off the top of my head. Maybe Finley?) or even a decent pick. I'd be fine with it.
Teams will not give good value for Randy Starks because his contract cannot be changed until next off season when he is set to become a free agent. There's an NFL rule that states a contract can't be modified within one year of it's being signed. Randy Starks signed his franchise tender on March 19th. There is an exception to this rule about modifying a contract within a year that applies to franchise tender contracts, but it only applies within a certain window of time. That window expired on July 15th. That means the exception is no longer in effect for his contract and the normal rules about modifying a contract within one year of its signing apply. Whatever team trades for Randy Starks knows that they have Randy for one year at $8.45 million guaranteed, and they cannot give him an extension until AFTER the year is done. They would have to wait until the weeks prior to March 11, 2014 which is the start of NFL free agency. At that point, Randy Starks would have all of the leverage in the negotiations because he would know that in a few weeks he will become a free agent, and the team's only option to prevent that happening would involve giving him another $10.1 million guaranteed as a franchise player in 2014. Any team trading for Randy Starks right now is only guaranteed to get one season of a player playing in an unfamiliar system he will have to learn on the fly, and they'll be paying $8.45 million for that honor, and then he could turn around and switch teams in free agency the following year. So I would not expect the Dolphins to receive a fair price for him. That trade idea is a dead end.
Work it out ! Starks is not Vonte Davis. Losing Starks is a blow to the talent level of this line, I'm not willing to stomach. There was a reason we franchise tagged this guy. WORK IT OUT !
I doubt we'll give up draft picks to acquire a TE - if we do anything, it will be waiver picking when final cuts come. In the end, I think you'll see it be Clay/Sims/Egnew. I don't hate that either, the time isn't right to start throwing away draft picks to replace Keller.
My understanding of the wording of the agreement is that the July 15th rule is said to apply to the "prior club", and that it does not specifically state that a new team post trade would be bound by the same rule. I'll try and find the precise entry, if anyone can clarify this please do.
It doesn't matter though. The language in play is the rule stating that a contract can't be modified within a year of having signed it. There would have to be language that makes an exception to THAT rule if the player is on a new team, and I don't believe there is.
I can only see Starks traded for another franchise tagged player, given the rule that CK has paraphrased. That way both teams are taking on the same amount of risk in the contract. It's a win win. Now who is out there that has been tagged but not yet bagged?
Why should the Dolphins have to be considering a trade for a TE? Hasn't Ireland used three draft picks in the last three drafts on the TE position? If indeed the Dolphins are looking at the waiver wire or a possible trade to upgrade this position, what does that say about Ireland's ability as a GM?
I agree it is a referendum on Ireland if we need to trade / sign an additional TE (though not sure moreso than signing Keller in the first place)... ...but I don't that we simply shouldn't do it just to spite Ireland. We obviously need a TE - I'm not interested in watching Clay/Egnew flail all over the field just to prove a point that they were bad picks.
I agree with you here. I think the only trade likely at this late stage would be a very overtly apples-to-apples deal where one team gave up a franchise player for another team's franchise player,
I think this is one of the questions that need to be brought up when the evaluation is done on whether Steve Ross needs to give Jeff Ireland an extension. I agree with James Walker's take on the whole thing. Any GM can just open his owner's pockets and sign a Dustin Keller. You spent 3rd round, 4th round and 6th round picks on tight ends behind Dustin Keller. Now it's time to find out if you've spent those resources wisely or not.
IMO, it's worth giving up a pick for a TE if you think that player can provide what Keller did and maybe a little more as they mature. Tanny will progress a lot faster if he has that guy. We don't know enough about Sims and Keller is not Ireland's fault, but I think you need to bite the bullet on this one. Keller re-signing here next year is only a possibility. He may lose a step and not be the same player. So Ireland will be looking at drafting another TE. Ireland has his strengths, but I have more confidence in trading for a Green Bay TE that they like than I do in Ireland finding a TE in the draft.
I don't agree with that thought at all. 6th round you can throw it out the window. It's clear to most he didn't hit on his 3rd rounder. Which happens often. Not giving excuse or anything. But it's fact. So now we are going to push a 4th round rookie into a role that he may not be ready for, to find out if he's spent those resources wisely? I don't think you can offer a clear cut fact even after this season.
Yeah, and also it could be that they signed Keller to a one year contract to give the youngsters they have more time to develop. We know that Sims was a project. Clay and Egnew were as well when drafted. There's still time for these kids to develop. That could have been the thinking, knowing that Philbin likes to have a lot of TEs around his offense. Unfortunately, that plan failed due to injury, not under Ireland's control... No matter what, at this point, the young guys need to step up.
I didn't like the Egnew pick, but I do like Sims. IMO the 6th round pick is in the "who cares take a flyer" category. I also don't see a one year contract for Keller as "significant resources". Other than the third round pick I don't agree that Miami has spent significant on the TE position. That's my complaint. That we haven't spent significant resources to address a position that's grown in importance rather than that we used significant resources and missed. (I still am pissed at Parcells for passing on Jimmy Graham. I remember reading a quote from Brandt about how the Dolphins had Graham high on their board, but Parcells did not believe in taking a TE early. Which I also thought was weird since Witten was a good 3rd round pick?).
I've never been to interested or educated with the nuances of player contract clauses and league regulations, but is it possible that Starks could be traded to a team he agrees to, and also agrees to an extension with the new club as apart of the trade? Edit: Never mind, just read CK's post, must have overlooked it.
I believe it has been reported that the Dolphins tried to give Dustin Keller a longer term contract and Keller himself decided to opt for a one year deal so that he could play his way back into a higher tax bracket next year. Also, they attempted to sign Jared Cook to a long term deal. Don't see any reason for excuse making.
Says that he misses on draft picks, which ultimately says very little, considering the overwhelming majority of picks turn out to be failures. 50% of first-round picks fail, which should tell you enough.
Then no GM should ever be fired and it ultimately doesn't matter as you could simply pick names out of a hat and come up with similar results. Is that what you're suggesting?
And your trying to dispute that? In your opinion if a 6th rounder doesn't contribute in the league it's a bad pick?
I'm not sure I agree 100% with the characterization of Dustin Keller's signing. There was a lot of inherent risk, and Keller didn't cost a lot. This wasn't just throwing money into the wind. We aren't talking about Jared Cook here.
Wait....what are you suggesting? What is the measuring stick for GMs then? W-L Record? Draft record? If its the draft, what's the line 50% of picks need to be superstars? 25% superstars and 25% solid? What is it you want?
Ok. I don't understand your premise then? You obviously know the success rate of 6th round picks. But now your suddenly on the side that a 6th round is a wasted resource? A 6th round only matters when it's a successful one always. It's not a sudden occurrence.
A 6th round pick is a resource like any other. If you use that resource on something that doesn't pan out, it's a failure. Failures may be common given the value of the resource, but the failure still figures into the balance. You're arguing that they should not figure at all. I find that to be an argument of convenience.
Yeah, you're signing a guy that only played 8 games in 2012. Theres a reason why Keller only took a year deal.