Raiderstation

Tank is full speed ahead!

Jeevo wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2026 6:58 am By that logic Bowers and Jeanty are expendable too.

Please explain how Bowers and Jeanty situation is comparable to Maxx situation. People lose credibility with statements like this.

BoKnows81 wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2026 7:35 am Please explain how Bowers and Jeanty situation is comparable to Maxx situation. People lose credibility with statements like this.

It's not the situation and more that it's not fair to lay the lack of wins at the feet of Max. Garrett is possibly the best defensive player in the league and the Browns don't win with him. Football is the ultimate team game and if the Browns or Raiders ever truly turn the corner it will be much easier with Garrett and Crosby on their rosters. Trading Mack made the Raiders worse so I'm kind of surprised that some Raiders fans don't understand that teams don't get better by trading their best players.

BoKnows81 wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2026 7:35 am Please explain how Bowers and Jeanty situation is comparable to Maxx situation. People lose credibility with statements like this.

He wasn't comparing situations, he was pointing out deducting logic. Which is, if A is true, and B is true, then C is true. The statement was:

We've won 3 games.
Max is on the roster.

Deductive logic inference was because of point A and B Max doesn't contribute to wins. There for he is tradable.

This logic can then be applied to anyone "on the roster".... "during the time we got 3 wins" ....to infer "they didn't contribute to wins" and therefor "they are tradable".

You're right, their situations are entirely different. Which is why Deductive logic statements made in this way, well, people lose credibility making them.

You guys really dont understand how a rebuilding process works. Good Lord.

It's ok, you can sell your Maxx Crosby jerseys. He wont care.

Are you guys gonna flip on the regime when Maxx is gone or what? Serious question.

The way I think about it is if you get even 3 average starters between the cap savings and draft picks for Maxx then it'll be worth it. But if you don't get 3 average starters then the trade would be a bust

vtraider wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2026 8:00 am The way I think about it is if you get even 3 average starters between the cap savings and draft picks for Maxx then it'll be worth it. But if you don't get 3 average starters then the trade would be a bust

If we dont trade him we'll never know. Which is why you gotta take the shot to ignite the rebuild.

I would wait to trade him until after we see who we get (and lose) in free agency. There is no rush.

This team needs a massive reconstruction, but hopefully we are on our way (with our big 3 being BB, Jeanty, and Mendoza). That being said, we need more than that. We need more solid plus players on rookie contracts. Trading Max (who I love between the sidelines) would help ignite the reconstruction. Trading Max would allow us to continue playing within a cost controlled window for a few more years. The more stud players on rookie contracts, the better off we are. This is a proven recipe (franchise QB on rookie deal and build from there) for teams to go from zero to hero. This does not even take into account what we can do with the extra cap space by trading Max.

I get why some are hesitant about trading a proven commodity like Max. Given our draft history, it has to be in the back of everyones mind. However, we still sucked ass with Max. Why not take a chance and swing for the fences. Trading Max is better for both parties. Max can go (and deserves) to a playoff team. We can cash in while the going is good. I think if we don't trade him, we will regret it. We are not close (although anything can happen) to being a legit team. As someone previously pointed out, Max is going to want to get paid one more time (diminishing return on that cap). Sell while his value is high. I am just glad the way the FO has handled this (keep everything on the down low). Nobody knows dick as to what is going on. This is perfect to get the best return. Sorry for the long winded ass take of mine.

I'll admit. I'm petty. If we can fleece another team I don't care if they are bottom feeders. But that's just me. I would take the absolute best trade for the franchise and not worry about how he felt about it.

BoKnows81 wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2026 7:56 am You guys really dont understand how a rebuilding process works. Good Lord.

It's ok, you can sell your Maxx Crosby jerseys. He wont care.

Are you guys gonna flip on the regime when Maxx is gone or what? Serious question.

No. I think it's you that doesn't understand how proper rebuilding works. I'm not going to be upset if they trade Max but you are delusional if you think the organization will be in a better place to rebuild by getting rid of their best defensive player. Almost a zero chance any of the players they pick with the draft picks returned become as impactful of a player.

RI RAIDER wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2026 5:13 am I do not believe the Cowboys offered their 2 firsts this season. I think they would want to do a first pick next year (where the worth of the pick loses a round because of present day value). Also, I think the Cowboys may want to attach a player to shed some salary.

For a team not expected to compete that loss of value is not that important. On the other hand, by taking the Cowboys future 1st instead of #20, there's a very real chance of winding up with a top 10 or 15 pick instead. There isnt much chance that that pick will be worse than a low 20 pick. Not only that, but if the expected run of qbs taken in the 1st round occurs next year, we could wind up getting a prospect that had no business falling that far. All that considered, Id prefer #12 and their future 1st over 12 and 20, but Ill happily take 12 and 20 if thats the offer.

There are certainly more than one way to rebuild a team. But it starts and ends with the right QB. Everything else is just opinion

BoKnows81 wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2026 7:35 am Please explain how Bowers and Jeanty situation is comparable to Maxx situation. People lose credibility with statements like this.

Read the original statement and think about it ffs. I'm saying the opposite, I'm saying that I think the logic is flawed, that I disagree with it.

When you look for things to be POd about you'll find them

Trainnvain wrote: Fri Mar 06, 2026 5:50 am When trading for future picks, the general rule is that the value goes up a round. So, a second round pick this year would be worth a first next year. This flows from the economic principle that an asset in hand now will gain value over time so delayed considerations would have to account for that lost opportunity.

I think he means that the Cowboys prolly dont want to not have a 1st round pick this year and would not want to trade 12 and 20, but would be open to 12 and next years 1st. He is saying next years 1st is devalued compared to #20.

Dianna Russini - approx 11:00est wrote:

The Dallas Cowboys, the Chicago Bears, the Detroit Lions, and the New England Patriots are SOME of the NFL teams that are interested in trading for Crosby. However, Dianni Russini of the Athletic reported that there is a new team that has emerged. She said on Twitter, "Maxx Crosby is drawing serious interest around the league. The Dallas Cowboys are closely monitoring the situation and remain very interested, while the Baltimore Ravens are also a team to watch. GMs believe the Las Vegas Raiders are willing to work on a deal."

Also, there is information going around on MD sports talk radio that the Eagles are in on trading for Maxx. I think Dallas was disappointed they didn’t close the deal and are still in on it. They don’t want him going to Philly

This is why I posted on 2 occasions that trading Maxx before the league year makes the most sense. Numerous clubs have a need and cap space