- Thread starter
- #41
Still, the Raiders don’t have any better options, and they will very likely stick with Palmer as they move away from the man who traded for him. Because of the price Jackson paid for him, the Raiders essentially have no choice but to go with Palmer for the next couple of years. McKenzie raised some eyebrows in his introductory press conference Tuesday when he said Palmer will "not be immune to a good player ... pushing him."
That’s fine for McKenzie to say, but are the Raiders really going to keep Palmer as a backup? He’s too good for that, and the Raiders can’t afford to make a change.
It has been suggested that perhaps McKenzie will try to trade Palmer and pursue Matt Flynn -- who was in Green Bay with McKenzie -- as a free agent. There are far too many complications for that to be a reality. There is no way the Raiders would get close to what they gave up for Palmer, and salary-cap issues would keep them from giving Flynn a huge contract.
Palmer a Raider without top supporter - AFC West Blog - ESPN
I really don't see it as possible. There are only a couple teams (Miami, Seattle come to mind) out there that might be interested in Carson at this point, and even for those teams, there's no reason not to just simply pursue Flynn himself for the potential. The only exception I see to this is maybe SF. And in any case, they aren't going to get anywhere near the compensation they'd be looking for.
And even in the case they traded Carson, they still wouldn't be able to offer Flynn a very large contract. To stay under the salary cap, they were expecting several of their veterans including Carson (Seymour and DHB were others) to take a pay cut. Flynn would likely get more elsewhere.
And if they don't trade Carson, not considering salary cap restrictions, I'd bet Flynn would prefer to go to a team that gives him a better shot at winning the starting job.
Cutting Carson just isn't feasible with the cap hit. You're out a bunch of money and you still need a QB.
McKenzie may prefer to start afresh, but that may just not be a possibility for 2-3 years.
The Redskins gave up a 2nd and a 4th for McNabb, then traded him the next yr for nothing. If the new regime doesn't think he's the answer just cut your losses as early as possible
NFL.com news: Ex-Raiders coach Jackson believes owner sent him packing
I think it's about time Hue just walks away from this, if only for the good of his own respectability. He obviously feels fleeced, but to make a huge drama out of this whole thing does nothing for him.
Good point.
However, I'd argue this is a different situation due to all the talent on the roster that they'd undoubtedly want to take advantage of, lack of draft picks, and lack of salary to find another QB (I believe McNabb was cut when there was no salary cap hit and there was no salary cap). At that time it was convenient for Washington just as it was in getting rid of Haynesworth.
No team is trading for Palmer -- Unless they were giving up an insignificant pick. Why would you do it? If you think the Raiders are going in a different direction, you could just wait for them to cut him. And as Rey states - If you are really desperate to pay big money for a qb, why not throw some cash at Flynn? Also, look around the league..... The Bengals won games with a rookie qb. The Panthers did well with Newton. Jake Locker showed some flashes. TJ Yates looked promising at times. And this was in a season where people thought the rookie qbs were questionable at best. I think most teams would rather start new with a rookie than with a guy that is expensive and has some tread on the tires. Maybe a contender would be interested - someone like SF - But they'd have to ask themselves if they really felt like Palmer was that big an upgrade.
The way I see it is that the Raiders bailed out Mike Brown with a sweetheart deal and now they are stuck with him. I actually think they'd do better with him next year than without him and he would be a good guy to bridge the gap until they can start drafting again or until Terrelle Pryor is ready for his shot.
I believe $5 million is guaranteed for 2012 which would make that $5 million the cap hit for 2012. Correct me if I'm wrong. Pretty substantial for a QB not on your roster.
https://twitter.com/#!/adbrandt
I can't imagine what team would be interested in getting fleeced the way the Raiders did by trading for him.
Good point.
However, I'd argue this is a different situation due to all the talent on the roster that they'd undoubtedly want to take advantage of, lack of draft picks, and lack of salary to find another QB (I believe McNabb was cut when there was no salary cap hit and there was no salary cap). At that time it was convenient for Washington just as it was in getting rid of Haynesworth.
Wasn't there some type of clause in his contract that they could cut him after the first year, and it would only count for a minimum cap hit? I seem to remember something about this?
Wasn't there some type of clause in his contract that they could cut him after the first year, and it would only count for a minimum cap hit? I seem to remember something about this?