What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Nicks more likely to be resigned than Cruz? (1 Viewer)

Rotoworld: The Giants are putting a bigger emphasis on signing Hakeem Nicks to a long-term deal than impending restricted free agent Victor Cruz.

Nicks, 25, has one year left on his rookie deal at $2.725 million, and with him having a down 2012 season due to injuries, the Giants may be able to get a bargain. New York views Nicks as a legitimate No. 1 receiver for the future. Nicks played in 13 games in 2012, registering 53 catches for 692 yards and three touchdowns. In the two seasons prior, he averaged 77 grabs for 1,122 yards and nine scores. Nicks has never played in all 16 games of a single season.

I don't think they can afford both Cruz and Nicks. What does everyone make of this?

 

Ghost Rider

Footballguy
Even if he costs a little more, I'd opt for Cruz. He is as good as Nicks, if not better, and getting Nicks at a bargain won't do a lot of good if the guy keeps getting hurt, which results in him missing more games and playing at not even close to 100%.

 

Alex P Keaton

Footballguy
Rotoworld:The Giants are putting a bigger emphasis on signing Hakeem Nicks to a long-term deal than impending restricted free agent Victor Cruz.
Ridiculous. Mostly because of
Nicks has never played in all 16 games of a single season.
Ok, let's make up math. If the Giants need $10M/yr to sign Cruz, and only $6M per year to sign Nicks, is it still ridiculous?There is clearly a price point for each WR at which it's smart to sign Nicks, and foolish to sign Cruz. Let's not pretend either of us are smarter than the team leaders who have managed 2 titles in the past 5-6 years.
 

jonboltz

Footballguy
First we get the "Cruz is asking too much" and the "Cruz might be franchise tagged". Now the "We want to sign Nicks long-term"...We don't know what the front-office truly feels, but if I had to bet, I'd put all my chips on the "We want to sign Cruz long-term, and we are going to continue to use the media to attempt to lower his price tag".

 

finito

Footballguy
Seems like off-season posturing right now. I think the Giants would love to keep both, but Cruz is gonna be tough as he's earned an upper tier contract. Nicks is great but you *always* need good backups/depth because he can't stay on the field.

 

netnalp

Footballguy
Cruz won't get franchised because he's a RFA and will get a 1st round tenure. The Giants also get the chance to match any contract offer. Teams usually aren't willing to do that and with Jennings, Bowe, and Wallace as UFA's no team is going to pay a huge contract for Cruz and a 1st round pick.The Giants should be able to afford Cruz and Nicks. Eli, Rolle, and Canty are big cap hits but they can adjust their salary and get the money as a bonus to free up some cap space. Diehl will get cut if he doesn't take a pay cut. Webster might get extended to free up cap space. Phillips probably won't be signed and Osi is likely gone. Boley might get released as well.Might be smart thing to extend Nicks first. Sets the market for WRs this year and the Giants won't run into Nicks wanting to get paid more than Cruz next season. Nicks might be cheaper after the bad year too.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kree

Footballguy
When healthy, Nicks is the better WR.We hold all the cards with Cruz as a RFA.At the moment, Nicks holds priority.

 

Alex P Keaton

Footballguy
Id rather have cruz
Simplistic comment. What if Cruz costs 2-3X vs Nicks?
How many games has Nicks missed and or been injured? It probably ends up being even after you factor all of this in.
That's the whole point. There is a tradeoff factor, and the Giants evidently feel that they can get Nicks extended at enough of a discount that he's a better deal than Cruz. Or this is just a negotiation game.
 

bengalbuck

Footballguy
I know this wont be a popular opinion, but it seems like they can just plug in WRs and they produce. Steve Smith, Mario Manningham, Ramses Barden for short stretches, etc. I don't think I would want to give either guy a $10M a year type deal. I think they could plug in Randle, draft another WR and there wouldn't be a huge hit to the offense if they let one of the two walk.

 

Sinrman

Footballguy
If they ever want to sniff the Super Bowl again they better have some good WRs for Eli to throw to. Personally, I would take Cruz over Nicks. Hakeem can't stay healthy.

 

netnalp

Footballguy
I know this wont be a popular opinion, but it seems like they can just plug in WRs and they produce. Steve Smith, Mario Manningham, Ramses Barden for short stretches, etc. I don't think I would want to give either guy a $10M a year type deal. I think they could plug in Randle, draft another WR and there wouldn't be a huge hit to the offense if they let one of the two walk.
I'd love for them to pick up Steve Smith for cheap. His career has gone to crap since he left.
 

cvnpoka

Footballguy
cruz is proly better than nicks, mebbe even by a lot. he is amazing at the combo routes that dominate the nfl nowadays.

 

Wise Old Owl

Footballguy
When healthy, Nicks is better...unless by better you mean more productive.
I've been saying for years that Nicks is one healthy season from being the top 5 wr conversation. I'm no longer betting on that season happening but discounting a healthy Nicks is silly. He's a monster when he plays and Cruz doesn't draw the double coverage that he does. Cruz being a RFA makes locking down Nicks now the priority.
 

identikit

Footballguy
NYG really needs both of them.I don't think their WR positions are nearly as plug-and-play as people think.

 

Two Deep

Footballguy
I know this wont be a popular opinion, but it seems like they can just plug in WRs and they produce. Steve Smith, Mario Manningham, Ramses Barden for short stretches, etc. I don't think I would want to give either guy a $10M a year type deal. I think they could plug in Randle, draft another WR and there wouldn't be a huge hit to the offense if they let one of the two walk.
I agree. Game plan and Manning equal= WR numbers. Steve Smith was Victor Cruz before Victor Cruz.
 

Concept Coop

Footballguy
When healthy, Nicks is better...unless by better you mean more productive.
When healthy...
A four game stretch in which defenses sold out to stop Cruz? We have a pretty solid sample size and Cruz has been a top 5 WR, production wise, during that span. Nicks is great and they are pretty close. But people need to forget where these guys went to school and how they came to be on the roster, and look at what they've done while in the NFL.
 

Shutout

Footballguy
When healthy, Nicks is better...unless by better you mean more productive.
When healthy...
A four game stretch in which defenses sold out to stop Cruz? We have a pretty solid sample size and Cruz has been a top 5 WR, production wise, during that span. Nicks is great and they are pretty close. But people need to forget where these guys went to school and how they came to be on the roster, and look at what they've done while in the NFL.
I think you're selling Nicks short a bit. Wasn't it just two seasons ago that he was the most untouchable young WR in fantasy? He was a monster. I understand the health concerns but for every criticism of a hurt player with great talent, there is also the upside when healthy; like Matt Stafford in 2011.
 

Ghost Rider

Footballguy
I think you're selling Nicks short a bit. Wasn't it just two seasons ago that he was the most untouchable young WR in fantasy? He was a monster. I understand the health concerns but for every criticism of a hurt player with great talent, there is also the upside when healthy; like Matt Stafford in 2011.
Yep. And in the two seasons since, Cruz has outproduced him by a wide margin. 2011 and 2012:Cruz: 168-2,628-19

Nicks: 129-1,884-10

I am sure someone will now try to defend Nicks by showing how close they were on a per-game basis, but if you are as injury-prone as Nicks is, that counts against you. Part of being great is the ability to stay healthy.

 

Concept Coop

Footballguy
I think you're selling Nicks short a bit. Wasn't it just two seasons ago that he was the most untouchable young WR in fantasy? He was a monster. I understand the health concerns but for every criticism of a hurt player with great talent, there is also the upside when healthy; like Matt Stafford in 2011.
In 2011 Victor Cruz put up 1,500/9...in 14 games. This year, Cruz was top 5 in receptions, yardage, and TDs before Eli's arm went out.It is not me undervaluing Nicks; it's me respecting what Cruz has done, and the player he is.
 

Popinski

Footballguy
I think you're selling Nicks short a bit. Wasn't it just two seasons ago that he was the most untouchable young WR in fantasy? He was a monster. I understand the health concerns but for every criticism of a hurt player with great talent, there is also the upside when healthy; like Matt Stafford in 2011.
In 2011 Victor Cruz put up 1,500/9...in 14 games. This year, Cruz was top 5 in receptions, yardage, and TDs before Eli's arm went out.It is not me undervaluing Nicks; it's me respecting what Cruz has done, and the player he is.
Cruz wasn't as good this season. He had plenty of big (50+ yard) plays his first year, which predictably dropped off this season, with his yards per catch significantly falling from 18.7 to 12.7. Defenses were pretty clearly focusing on him with Nicks being hurt, and he wasn't getting separation like he did the previous year.
 

Concept Coop

Footballguy
Cruz wasn't as good this season. He had plenty of big (50+ yard) plays his first year, which predictably dropped off this season, with his yards per catch significantly falling from 18.7 to 12.7. Defenses were pretty clearly focusing on him with Nicks being hurt, and he wasn't getting separation like he did the previous year.
I very strongly disagree with this. Even if I didn't, Cruz's "down year" was equal to Nick's best. Cruz's deep % went from 30% to 18% - he was used differently. He adjusted his game; the ability to do that shouldn't be treated as a negative.
 

Shutout

Footballguy
I think you're selling Nicks short a bit. Wasn't it just two seasons ago that he was the most untouchable young WR in fantasy? He was a monster. I understand the health concerns but for every criticism of a hurt player with great talent, there is also the upside when healthy; like Matt Stafford in 2011.
Yep. And in the two seasons since, Cruz has outproduced him by a wide margin. 2011 and 2012:Cruz: 168-2,628-19

Nicks: 129-1,884-10

I am sure someone will now try to defend Nicks by showing how close they were on a per-game basis, but if you are as injury-prone as Nicks is, that counts against you. Part of being great is the ability to stay healthy.
I guess my point is just be careful of being hasty because injuries are a funny thing; they can hit in bunches and then can go away. Nicks appeared to have the classic case of having subsequent injuries in areas that suggest (I don't know, of course, just appears) that the latter injuries seem to follow a progression of when a player overcompensates. Get a bad ankle, get it fixed, but now the kness is overstressed, etc.At any rate, what I keep in mind is that in order to be looked at as that valuable in fantasy, you likely had youth and a lot of production on your resume. Nicks is still very young and he did produce. So who's to say if he is healthy that he won't be that again. I'm not pro or con-Cruz but I do pay attention to all the people that pointed out going into last season of how many "fluke big plays" cruz had that really inflated his stats. The year before that it was Manningham. the year before that Steve Smith. I'm sure they will all be good to great but I think the Giants see Nicks as the guy that is their priority and in fantasy, Nicks is definitely no slouch so I'm not going to assume he stays injured. If I were doing that, I oculd just flip a coin and it might be that Cruz gets injured for a season or two. I'm just looking at where I know there is proven talent when it was Nicks and Nicks alone. I think we saw that without Nicks to command the double teams (and a year to get to know who Cruz was) that a lot of teams held him in check much better. Tamato, tomato..I really have no dog in this one (not an owner anywhere).

 

Concept Coop

Footballguy
I'm not pro or con-Cruz but I do pay attention to all the people that pointed out going into last season of how many "fluke big plays" cruz had that really inflated his stats. The year before that it was Manningham. the year before that Steve Smith.
People keep saying this and it's just not true. They are applying to Cruz and not Nicks - even though TDs are more fluid, and it was the TDs that caught everyone's attention, when it comes to Nicks - because Cruz went to a small school and wasn't drafted; we all want an excuse as to why we missed on him. He's a legit, top-level NFL talent and second to nobody on his roster, in that regard. Victor Cruz had more yards in 2011 than any WR in Giants history - again! - in 14 games. So, no; it wasn't Smith the year before, or Manningham after that.

 

cstu

Footballguy
I think you're selling Nicks short a bit. Wasn't it just two seasons ago that he was the most untouchable young WR in fantasy? He was a monster. I understand the health concerns but for every criticism of a hurt player with great talent, there is also the upside when healthy; like Matt Stafford in 2011.
Yep. And in the two seasons since, Cruz has outproduced him by a wide margin. 2011 and 2012:Cruz: 168-2,628-19

Nicks: 129-1,884-10

I am sure someone will now try to defend Nicks by showing how close they were on a per-game basis, but if you are as injury-prone as Nicks is, that counts against you. Part of being great is the ability to stay healthy.
I guess my point is just be careful of being hasty because injuries are a funny thing; they can hit in bunches and then can go away. Nicks appeared to have the classic case of having subsequent injuries in areas that suggest (I don't know, of course, just appears) that the latter injuries seem to follow a progression of when a player overcompensates. Get a bad ankle, get it fixed, but now the kness is overstressed, etc.At any rate, what I keep in mind is that in order to be looked at as that valuable in fantasy, you likely had youth and a lot of production on your resume. Nicks is still very young and he did produce. So who's to say if he is healthy that he won't be that again. I'm not pro or con-Cruz but I do pay attention to all the people that pointed out going into last season of how many "fluke big plays" cruz had that really inflated his stats. The year before that it was Manningham. the year before that Steve Smith. I'm sure they will all be good to great but I think the Giants see Nicks as the guy that is their priority and in fantasy, Nicks is definitely no slouch so I'm not going to assume he stays injured. If I were doing that, I oculd just flip a coin and it might be that Cruz gets injured for a season or two. I'm just looking at where I know there is proven talent when it was Nicks and Nicks alone. I think we saw that without Nicks to command the double teams (and a year to get to know who Cruz was) that a lot of teams held him in check much better. Tamato, tomato..I really have no dog in this one (not an owner anywhere).
Despite getting held in check better, Cruz still had a season as good as any Nicks has had in 2012. He had fewer big plays but he caught 60% of his passes. Compare that to Nicks who has caught only 49% of his targets the last two seasons. Nicks is a very good receiver but they also have Randle coming up. Randle is almost a carbon copy of Nicks so if they expect him to develop then I'm not sure how much sense it makes to re-sign Nicks and let Cruz go.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Just Win Baby

Footballguy
I think you're selling Nicks short a bit. Wasn't it just two seasons ago that he was the most untouchable young WR in fantasy? He was a monster. I understand the health concerns but for every criticism of a hurt player with great talent, there is also the upside when healthy; like Matt Stafford in 2011.
Yep. And in the two seasons since, Cruz has outproduced him by a wide margin. 2011 and 2012:Cruz: 168-2,628-19

Nicks: 129-1,884-10

I am sure someone will now try to defend Nicks by showing how close they were on a per-game basis, but if you are as injury-prone as Nicks is, that counts against you. Part of being great is the ability to stay healthy.
In 2011, they were very close in performance if you don't ignore postseason, which we shouldn't in discussing how their production has compared:Nicks: 104/1636/11 in 19 games

Cruz: 103/1805/10 in 20 games

In 2012, Nicks obviously struggled with injuries, and his performance was very subpar for him. But that is one season to follow two strong seasons, despite previous minor injuries. As for assessing Nicks' long term dynasty value, there is definitely a bit of what have you done for me lately in play. IMO he is a strong buy based on some of the sentiment posted in this forum about him.

 

Popinski

Footballguy
Cruz wasn't as good this season. He had plenty of big (50+ yard) plays his first year, which predictably dropped off this season, with his yards per catch significantly falling from 18.7 to 12.7. Defenses were pretty clearly focusing on him with Nicks being hurt, and he wasn't getting separation like he did the previous year.
I very strongly disagree with this. Even if I didn't, Cruz's "down year" was equal to Nick's best. Cruz's deep % went from 30% to 18% - he was used differently. He adjusted his game; the ability to do that shouldn't be treated as a negative.
He wasn't used differently; he just wasn't getting as open deep, although as I said, that is partly because he was getting more attention with Nicks hobbled. He also dropped more passes this year.And as has been mentioned in this thread, he did have an unusual number of 'flukey' type plays last year. Just off the top of my head, he had that 99 yarder vs. the Jets, ~80 yarder against the Eagles who missed tackles, and an ~80 yarder (forget the opponent) where the ball was tipped and landed in his arms and he ran in the rest of the way. Those types of things normalize, and they did this year.
 

Donnybrook

Footballguy
I am actually hoping that Giants get a deal done with Nicks. Vikings can use Nicks contract as a blueprint to get a deal done with Harvin.

 

Concept Coop

Footballguy
He wasn't used differently; he just wasn't getting as open deep, although as I said, that is partly because he was getting more attention with Nicks hobbled. He also dropped more passes this year.And as has been mentioned in this thread, he did have an unusual number of 'flukey' type plays last year. Just off the top of my head, he had that 99 yarder vs. the Jets, ~80 yarder against the Eagles who missed tackles, and an ~80 yarder (forget the opponent) where the ball was tipped and landed in his arms and he ran in the rest of the way. Those types of things normalize, and they did this year.
He played the slot in 3WR sets this year a lot more than he did last year, when he split that time with Manningham. Take all the "fluky" plays away that you want, and compare him to Nicks. Add everything up that you think takes away from what he did, and compare him to Nicks. Let's look at the numbers.He matched Julio Jones', and Hakeem Nicks' career year in production, despite his lack of "fluky" plays, his early season drops, and anything else that you want to use to discredit him. What else do you have? The production argument isn't working.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

netnalp

Footballguy
Cruz wasn't as good this season. He had plenty of big (50+ yard) plays his first year, which predictably dropped off this season, with his yards per catch significantly falling from 18.7 to 12.7. Defenses were pretty clearly focusing on him with Nicks being hurt, and he wasn't getting separation like he did the previous year.
I very strongly disagree with this. Even if I didn't, Cruz's "down year" was equal to Nick's best. Cruz's deep % went from 30% to 18% - he was used differently. He adjusted his game; the ability to do that shouldn't be treated as a negative.
He wasn't used differently; he just wasn't getting as open deep, although as I said, that is partly because he was getting more attention with Nicks hobbled. He also dropped more passes this year.And as has been mentioned in this thread, he did have an unusual number of 'flukey' type plays last year. Just off the top of my head, he had that 99 yarder vs. the Jets, ~80 yarder against the Eagles who missed tackles, and an ~80 yarder (forget the opponent) where the ball was tipped and landed in his arms and he ran in the rest of the way. Those types of things normalize, and they did this year.
Because the Giants running game was so bad, due to poor run blocking, they weren't able to get the play-action going. Defenses dropped into coverage and kept everything in front of them. What is surprising is that they didn't use Bennett more deep in the middle to bust the two deep safety looks they'd face. Perhaps Nicks being hobbled so bad allowed defenses to prevent from getting burned by the TE.
 

netnalp

Footballguy
He wasn't used differently; he just wasn't getting as open deep, although as I said, that is partly because he was getting more attention with Nicks hobbled. He also dropped more passes this year.

And as has been mentioned in this thread, he did have an unusual number of 'flukey' type plays last year. Just off the top of my head, he had that 99 yarder vs. the Jets, ~80 yarder against the Eagles who missed tackles, and an ~80 yarder (forget the opponent) where the ball was tipped and landed in his arms and he ran in the rest of the way. Those types of things normalize, and they did this year.
He played the slot in 3WR sets this year a lot more than he did last year, when he split that time with Manningham. Take all the "fluky" plays away that you want, and compare him to Nicks. Add everything up that you think takes away from what he did, and compare him to Nicks. Let's look at the numbers.

He matched Julio Jones', and Hakeem Nicks' career year in production, despite his lack of "fluky" plays, his early season drops, and anything else that you want to use to discredit him. What else do you have? The production argument isn't working.
Cruz was almost always in the slot in 3WR sets and Manningham rarely if ever was in the slot. Most Giants fans will say that Cruz played better last year than he did this year. He had more bad drops this year and had trouble when DBs were lined up right on him and played him more physical. That's why the Giants made a point of working on getting off man coverage during the losing streak in November.
 

Drop

Footballguy
Have Eli or Gilbride commented publicly on who is better or worth what? And there is coaches film available on the last 2 seasons for a better analysis of the Giants offense, has anyone here studied that and then come to a conclusion on how to equate a slot guy to an outside guy in terms of real value as a function of Eli going against the better NFL defemses like they would face deep in the playoffs?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Koya

Footballguy
Not sure why we are arguing over who is better - they are different players, and both great (when healthy).In today's NFL, you need two great receivers and another 1-3 really good options. The money that might have once been spent on a RB is spent in the passing game, so this is about how do you keep BOTH.Regarding Nicks, we need to leverage his inability to stay on the field to get him at the right number. For Cruz, we need to leverage our, well, leverage. He is far from an UFA so we will get him at 80% or so of market and depending upon his desires, he can get more years and more security, or he can make a deal that gives him the option to become a FA sooner. Either way, no need to break the bank. He's not going anywhere because no one will spend well more than the Giants are willing to PLUS give up a first round pick.

 

cstu

Footballguy
Not sure why we are arguing over who is better - they are different players, and both great (when healthy).

In today's NFL, you need two great receivers and another 1-3 really good options. The money that might have once been spent on a RB is spent in the passing game, so this is about how do you keep BOTH.

Regarding Nicks, we need to leverage his inability to stay on the field to get him at the right number.

For Cruz, we need to leverage our, well, leverage. He is far from an UFA so we will get him at 80% or so of market and depending upon his desires, he can get more years and more security, or he can make a deal that gives him the option to become a FA sooner. Either way, no need to break the bank. He's not going anywhere because no one will spend well more than the Giants are willing to PLUS give up a first round pick.
Or he can play this year as a RFA and sign a big deal somewhere else like Wallace will.
 

Koya

Footballguy
Not sure why we are arguing over who is better - they are different players, and both great (when healthy).

In today's NFL, you need two great receivers and another 1-3 really good options. The money that might have once been spent on a RB is spent in the passing game, so this is about how do you keep BOTH.

Regarding Nicks, we need to leverage his inability to stay on the field to get him at the right number.

For Cruz, we need to leverage our, well, leverage. He is far from an UFA so we will get him at 80% or so of market and depending upon his desires, he can get more years and more security, or he can make a deal that gives him the option to become a FA sooner. Either way, no need to break the bank. He's not going anywhere because no one will spend well more than the Giants are willing to PLUS give up a first round pick.
Or he can play this year as a RFA and sign a big deal somewhere else like Wallace will.
The Giants could then franchise him, however. Giants hold all the cards for a couple years. If he wants more money next year, he can resign at some discount knowing the Giants don't have to do anything this year and can franchise him after. Sure, franchise is at top dollar, but that is what he's asking for anyway, and we are not talking about guaranteed money up front and years of cap hit.Which is why I think there's a good shot that they DO come to terms on a mid length, 80% or so of market deal. 5% less because I do believe he wants to stay with the Giants, and 15% because of the Giants leverage. Maybe he gets a little more depending upon how it's structured. That way Cruz gets a payday, won't have to worry about being able to pay the bills anytime soon, but still can get another really big contract in 3-4 years.

 

Chazzhawk

Footballguy
When healthy, Nicks is the better WR.We hold all the cards with Cruz as a RFA.At the moment, Nicks holds priority.
This :goodposting:
This is true, however to all the people saying they need both to sniff the super bowl I would disagree with that. With the play of Bennett, Barden, Randle, and Wilson. They only need to sign one of them to have enough weapons to get back to the super bowl.
 

cstu

Footballguy
'Koya said:
'cstu said:
'Koya said:
Not sure why we are arguing over who is better - they are different players, and both great (when healthy).

In today's NFL, you need two great receivers and another 1-3 really good options. The money that might have once been spent on a RB is spent in the passing game, so this is about how do you keep BOTH.

Regarding Nicks, we need to leverage his inability to stay on the field to get him at the right number.

For Cruz, we need to leverage our, well, leverage. He is far from an UFA so we will get him at 80% or so of market and depending upon his desires, he can get more years and more security, or he can make a deal that gives him the option to become a FA sooner. Either way, no need to break the bank. He's not going anywhere because no one will spend well more than the Giants are willing to PLUS give up a first round pick.
Or he can play this year as a RFA and sign a big deal somewhere else like Wallace will.
The Giants could then franchise him, however. Giants hold all the cards for a couple years. If he wants more money next year, he can resign at some discount knowing the Giants don't have to do anything this year and can franchise him after. Sure, franchise is at top dollar, but that is what he's asking for anyway, and we are not talking about guaranteed money up front and years of cap hit.Which is why I think there's a good shot that they DO come to terms on a mid length, 80% or so of market deal. 5% less because I do believe he wants to stay with the Giants, and 15% because of the Giants leverage. Maybe he gets a little more depending upon how it's structured. That way Cruz gets a payday, won't have to worry about being able to pay the bills anytime soon, but still can get another really big contract in 3-4 years.
This sounds EXACTLY like every Steelers fan in the Wallace thread last year. If the Giants had the cap room then absolutely they would hold all the cards. However, they are up next to the cap and have to sign Nicks and then a few more players in 2014. While they could theoretically franchise him, it won't make sense given the players they will have to let go.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top