|
|
Post by 49ers GM (Brian) on Mar 2, 2023 12:20:24 GMT -5
49ers trade:
CB Roger McCreary $0.50 2024 RFA
Giants trade:
LB Matt Milano $6.0 2023 UFA
49ers accept, giving up some term on a good young CB for a LB on a more expensive 1 year deal who I think can help put me over the top this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by The NY Football Giants (AL) on Mar 2, 2023 12:39:22 GMT -5
Accept this offer. Get a young CB and 5.5mil in cap space. Thanks 49ers
|
|
|
|
Post by Lions GM on Mar 2, 2023 15:04:57 GMT -5
The capspace created by the giants figures into my approval.
Approve 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Mar 2, 2023 17:13:09 GMT -5
A top tier LB on an very reasonable contract for a league that's now 110M in cap space, for an average 9 PPG CB?
Im not seeing the value here...
VETO 1-1
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington GM (Blaine) on Mar 2, 2023 17:25:41 GMT -5
After looking at this trade, I’m going to hit the Veto as well.
MFL position changes are playing a role here. LB just became a little more valuable. Milano is a top LB and a young CB just isn’t enough in my opinion. CB are easy to replace whereas good LB are not.
Veto 1-2
|
|
|
|
Post by Titans GM (Ricky) on Mar 2, 2023 18:03:02 GMT -5
Man I really wanted to approve but it's just too far off for me. Especially if it's seen as a move that can put you over the top. That's gotta bring more than just a CB in. 9ers have the assets to make this a little more even for both sides. Both GM's should be able to work something out if they really wanna make it happen.
Veto 1-3
|
|
|
|
Post by Broncos GM (Kevin) on Mar 3, 2023 8:02:10 GMT -5
Al loves his corners. One year left on Milano would make this very close for me with the extra cap space, had I been able to vote. I get the premium MFL just put on inside backers though. Al needs to find some cap room for his RFA (Snead and Gabe Davis won't be cheap)
I would have approved
|
|
|
|
Post by Titans GM (Ricky) on Mar 3, 2023 12:11:21 GMT -5
I agree the cap space is very beneficial for the Giants. Which is why I was really wanting to approve.
If you look at some of the recent veto trades though it would only fall in line that this would be vetoed as well based of "value". Now if we are supposed to look at every trade singularly or based off pass trades that is a whole different topic that I'm sure people don't want to get into it. Lol.
Anyways I think the original compensation was so minimal that adding a little more to make a deal happen shouldn't be that hard if both GM's still really want to get it done...
|
|
