Dolphins are trading Jaylen Waddle

[CF DolFan]

According to Adam Schefter the Broncos are trading for Miami WR Jaylen Waddle, per source.

Denver receives: Waddle and Dolphins’ 4th-round pick (11th in round) in this year’s draft.
Miami receives: Broncos’ 1st round pick (30th overall) along with their late 3rd and 4th round picks (30th in each round) in this year’s draft.

[Sibster]

Not a bad haul. 

[Dave Gray]

I am starting to get a little bit excited, which is totally crazy.

But the fact that we are fully clearing everything out and presumably getting younger and cheaper tells me that this is for a Super Bowl run and not trying to get 10 wins.  I actually appreciate how hard they're leaning into the rebuild.  There's no excuse -- they have all the tools they need and it's a totally fresh start.

Let's be real, you gotta have guys in their prime when you are in your winning window and we are at least 2 years away from that.  By then, Waddle will be on the downturn, simply because of his age.  It's better to have that be someone else's problem, while we have a guy (presumably) who is entering his best years in that time.

[Phishfan]

I understand it and think it is a pretty good deal but I am going to miss Waddle.

[Pappy13]

Let's be real, you gotta have guys in their prime when you are in your winning window and we are at least 2 years away from that.  By then, Waddle will be on the downturn, simply because of his age.  It's better to have that be someone else's problem, while we have a guy (presumably) who is entering his best years in that time.

While that makes some sense, how do you reconcile this with picking up Malik Willis then? Willis is 26 and Waddle is 27. If Waddle's best years are behind him and won't help Miami much in 2 years than I'm not sure what that says about Willis. You could argue that QB's have more longevity in the NFL than WR's and that Willis hasn't seen much action up to this point so it shouldn't be an issue for Willis, but one of Willis' best attributes is his mobility so it's not out of the realm of possibility he loses some of that mobility in 2 years time especially if he takes some hits over the next 2 years.

There's a lot of rationalization going on with the Dolphins fans these days and not all of it seems to be following the same thought process. In my humble opinion people are putting on rose colored glasses when it comes to Malik. If it's smart to replace Waddle with a rookie WR who'll be in his prime in 2 years, doesn't it make sense to do the same thing for Tua?

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

While that makes some sense, how do you reconcile this with picking up Malik Willis then? Willis is 26 and Waddle is 27. If Waddle's best years are behind him and won't help Miami much in 2 years than I'm not sure what that says about Willis. You could argue that QB's have more longevity in the NFL than WR's and that Willis hasn't seen much action up to this point so it shouldn't be an issue for Willis, but one of Willis' best attributes is his mobility so it's not out of the realm of possibility he loses some of that mobility in 2 years time especially if he takes some hits over the next 2 years.

There's a lot of rationalization going on with the Dolphins fans these days and not all of it seems to be following the same thought process. In my humble opinion people are putting on rose colored glasses when it comes to Malik. If it's smart to replace Waddle with a rookie WR who'll be in his prime in 2 years, doesn't it make sense to do the same thing for Tua?

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

IMHO Waddle trade made sense, the Willis signing didn't. 

[CF DolFan]

I didn't understand the Willis trade except for the fact they do believe he is good enough to lead this team for years. He's only 26 so why not kick the tires and see what he's got. If he is a bust then they are rid of him in 2 years.

I never thought Waddle should be the #1 receiver even though we paid him like one. He isn't very tough, often gets hurt, and pulls himself from every game. He also has been here 5 years and never made the Pro Bowl. I am happy for this trade as GB has many big receivers so I'd assume that's where we are headed.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

so why not kick the tires and see what he's got. If he is a bust then they are rid of him in 2 years.

You don't kick the tires for $22.5 million dollars a year. 

[Spider-Dan]

You don't kick the tires on Tim Boyle for $22.5M/yr.  So if you want, say, a Davis Mills or a Mason Rudolph, you can certainly get them for cheaper than that number.

What you are paying for with that money is (what you see as) the potential for a Baker Mayfield or Sam Darnold-type reclamation.

[Phishfan]

It really shouldn't be considered a reclamation because he's never been the guy anywhere. This would be more like a Kurt Warner where you hope something finally clicked.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

You don't kick the tires on Tim Boyle for $22.5M/yr.  So if you want, say, a Davis Mills or a Mason Rudolph, you can certainly get them for cheaper than that number.

What you are paying for with that money is (what you see as) the potential for a Baker Mayfield or Sam Darnold-type reclamation.

You don't kick tires on anyone for $22.5 million dollars.  You only spend $22.5 million dollars a year on guys that have proven they can help the team. 

[CF DolFan]

The craziest thing to me is he was drafted in the 3rd round. This means he was always going to be a project to develop before he would be ready. They let him go after 6 starts over his first two years. Typically, he would sit a couple of years behind a veteran. That doesn't make much sense to me.

[Spider-Dan]

You don't kick tires on anyone for $22.5 million dollars.  You only spend $22.5 million dollars a year on guys that have proven they can help the team.

If you are trying to acquire any quarterback whom you hope to be a long-term solution, that is nearly the minimum price of entry.

You can obviously get a QB for much less than that, but such a move signals that you have no intention of keeping this player long-term; something like NE signing Jacoby Brissett to a 1yr/$8M contract in 2024.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

If you are trying to acquire any quarterback whom you hope to be a long-term solution, that is nearly the minimum price of entry.

You can obviously get a QB for much less than that, but such a move signals that you have no intention of keeping this player long-term; something like NE signing Jacoby Brissett to a 1yr/$8M contract in 2024.

You should not be committing long term money to someone you are "kicking the tires on" 

Just because a QB has been in the league for four years doesn't mean he has proven he can play if most of that time he sat on the bench. 

The Patriots signing Brissett to a 3yr/$35 million would not have resulted in him playing better.  If Brissett had led NE to the playoffs than Maye would have stayed on the branch and Brissett would have been offered the extension he earned or been franchised. 

You should not be paying vets that haven't proven themselves any better than you pay rookies. 

The reason the Dolphins are a mess isn't just Tau it is a pattern of paying players based on their maximum potential rather than their proven value. 

[Spider-Dan]

3 years at $22.5M per is not a contract for a "long-term" (read: franchise) QB; it is a "kick the tires and see if this guy can become the next Sam Darnold" contract.  We can tell this because if Willis plays well enough to earn an extension, there is no chance that $22.5M/yr (or whatever the equivalent cap percentage is in ~2029) keeps him in the building.