Alan Faneca Holdout? - Page 5

TheGunShow · 03-26-2007, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CutlerChris

Thing is, yeah you'd get a third in the league. But an astronomically late third that is untradeable. OR you can trade him for a third rounder, much earlier in the third, and potentially use that to trade up or something. And no, you can't just go out and offer a 4th for whoever you said and a third for Hutchinson. If the Steelers weren't actively shopping him, the only thing that might pry him from them could be a 1st or 2nd rounder. But the Steelers seem to need to dump him, which drives his value down to a third.

EDIT:Actually, you'd need to sign no UFAs if you want a third.

So we'd pick fifteen spots later than if we traded him for a third. Hmmm, yeah I think I'll keep the pro bowler for another season of play for 15 spots in the third.

Oh, so me saying the Steelers trading a third for Steve Hutchinson is stupid because they would need a 1st or 2nd rounder to pry him away but you saying the Steelers trading Faneca for a third isn't? Get your story straight!

The Steelers don't need to dump him. He can hold out if he wants and then come back to play and then the Steelers could tag him next year and the year after and the year after, ect.....

EDIT: Actually we couldn't sign a free agent to a contract similar to the one he'd get!

MP123 · 03-26-2007, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGunShow

So we'd pick fifteen spots later than if we traded him for a third. Hmmm, yeah I think I'll keep the pro bowler for another season of play for 15 spots in the third.

Oh, so me saying the Steelers trading a third for Steve Hutchinson is stupid because they would need a 1st or 2nd rounder to pry him away but you saying the Steelers trading Faneca for a third isn't? Get your story straight!

The Steelers don't need to dump him. He can hold out if he wants and then come back to play and then the Steelers could tag him next year and the year after and the year after, ect.....

EDIT: Actually we couldn't sign a free agent to a contract similar to the one he'd get!

I hope your comment about the Steelers tagging him year after year after year was a joke. And also, your last comment is right. Faneca would only get like $15-20 million on the free agent market. Second tier guards will get $50 million.

TheGunShow · 03-27-2007, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MP123

I hope your comment about the Steelers tagging him year after year after year was a joke. And also, your last comment is right. Faneca would only get like $15-20 million on the free agent market. Second tier guards will get $50 million.

You are r-tarded!

If that's all he wants... WHY IS HE GOING TO HOLD OUT!!!?!?!?! HE MAKES MORE THAN THAT NOW!

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf) · 03-27-2007, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGunShow

So we'd pick fifteen spots later than if we traded him for a third. Hmmm, yeah I think I'll keep the pro bowler for another season of play for 15 spots in the third.

Oh, so me saying the Steelers trading a third for Steve Hutchinson is stupid because they would need a 1st or 2nd rounder to pry him away but you saying the Steelers trading Faneca for a third isn't? Get your story straight!

The Steelers don't need to dump him. He can hold out if he wants and then come back to play and then the Steelers could tag him next year and the year after and the year after, ect.....

EDIT: Actually we couldn't sign a free agent to a contract similar to the one he'd get!

BECAUSE STEVE HUTCHINSON ISNT HOLDING OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY CAN'T YOU GET IT THROUGH YOUR SKULL THAT WHEN A PLAYER HOLDS OUT, HIS VALUE GOES WAY DOWN!?!?! Unless of course as someone else said, there is a bidding war, it may drive the price up. Even then, only a very desperate team would offer a second rounder for a guard that is holding out. And yeah, he's not over the hill. But he's on the wrong side of it. And that depreciates value.

03-27-2007, 12:08 PM

I have to agree with the gun show. After the 2005 season when the Packers couldn't block my grandma, and my grandman is dead. I would of traded our second and a conditional third round pick next year for Alan Faneca. That would be an early second and another first day pick. If he made the Pro Bowl. And holding out might drop his tradability a little but only for teams with little cap space. I mean did Joey Galloway, Javon Walker Thomas Jones or Deion Branch not hold out and get traded and their teams go a lot back for them. The cards scenario was the most likely. IMHO. A second and conditional third for him. He'd get back with his former OC and offensive line coach.

And the fact you said Steve Hutchinson is worth a 1st or 2nd basically makes you look like a fool when you continue to say Faneca is only worth a third. If you believe guards aren't worth a lot due to their position. That is one thing but when you say one guard is and another of equal or lesser value isn't it makes you look like you are just trying to argue but you have no foundation to argue. And there is no way Faneca signs for less than what Dockery got! His deal should be much higher than any of those guards and yes he might not see year seven of the deal. But Steinbach and Davis probably won't either unless they extend their contract.

njx9 · 03-27-2007, 12:40 PM

javon walker? oh, you mean the guy you gave up for far less than what his value should've been, especially in an extremely weak WR draft? how are you not proving chris's point?

i'm not sure why this is difficult: if a player holds out, the team that wants him has the better end of the bargaining table. this is just not a difficult concept.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf) · 03-27-2007, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PACKmack

And the fact you said Steve Hutchinson is worth a 1st or 2nd basically makes you look like a fool when you continue to say Faneca is only worth a third. If you believe guards aren't worth a lot due to their position. That is one thing but when you say one guard is and another of equal or lesser value isn't it makes you look like you are just trying to argue but you have no foundation to argue. And there is no way Faneca signs for less than what Dockery got! His deal should be much higher than any of those guards and yes he might not see year seven of the deal. But Steinbach and Davis probably won't either unless they extend their contract.

Not reading makes YOU look like a fool. I said it would cost more to get Hutch than Faneca because.. guess what. HUTCHINSON ISNT ON THE FLIPPIN TRADING BLOCK!!! If Faneca wasn't on the block, then yeah, it would take a second, maybe even a first to get him. Which basically means he wouldn't be traded, because almost no GM would give that up for a 30-year old guard.

TheGunShow · 03-27-2007, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PACKmack

I have to agree with the gun show. After the 2005 season when the Packers couldn't block my grandma, and my grandman is dead. I would of traded our second and a conditional third round pick next year for Alan Faneca. That would be an early second and another first day pick. If he made the Pro Bowl. And holding out might drop his tradability a little but only for teams with little cap space. I mean did Joey Galloway, Javon Walker Thomas Jones or Deion Branch not hold out and get traded and their teams go a lot back for them. The cards scenario was the most likely. IMHO. A second and conditional third for him. He'd get back with his former OC and offensive line coach.

And the fact you said Steve Hutchinson is worth a 1st or 2nd basically makes you look like a fool when you continue to say Faneca is only worth a third. If you believe guards aren't worth a lot due to their position. That is one thing but when you say one guard is and another of equal or lesser value isn't it makes you look like you are just trying to argue but you have no foundation to argue. And there is no way Faneca signs for less than what Dockery got! His deal should be much higher than any of those guards and yes he might not see year seven of the deal. But Steinbach and Davis probably won't either unless they extend their contract.

Thank you. Good point on the holding out argument. I totally forgot about Deion Branch just held out and the Pats got a crap load for a receiver without a thousand yard season and no pro bowls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CutlerChris

Not reading makes YOU look like a fool. I said it would cost more to get Hutch than Faneca because.. guess what. HUTCHINSON ISNT ON THE FLIPPIN TRADING BLOCK!!! If Faneca wasn't on the block, then yeah, it would take a second, maybe even a first to get him. Which basically means he wouldn't be traded, because almost no GM would give that up for a 30-year old guard.

Neither is Faneca you FLIPPIN crackhead!

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf) · 03-27-2007, 07:21 PM

Then what the eff is this thread even about?

MP123 · 03-27-2007, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CutlerChris

Then what the eff is this thread even about?

I know. This thread has over 100 posts. It shouldn't even have 50 posts.

TheGunShow · 03-28-2007, 12:25 PM

The thread said he might threaten to hold out. Nothing about being on the trading block. What I've seen of Faneca he seems to be a straight shooter and even if he wants a new deal will be a Ward type holdout. Doesn't go to voluntary camps and workouts and will be there for training camp.

Someone else wrote maybe the Steelers will trade him and then the moronic rampage of stupidity came with he's not worth more than a 3rd or 4th round pick.