Raiderstation

Tank is full speed ahead!

Cruisin with Tooz wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2026 10:40 am This part I dont agree with. The surplus value of 2 top 15 picks greatly exceeds the surplus value of Crosby's contract, ie the difference between his on the field value minus his APY cap cost. It was a big overpay. Thats why the deal was panned. If there are legitimate findings on the scan that portend longterm concerns, that same trade value will be forever gone.

it was really only a 1st this yr, next yrs 1st is the equivalent of a high 2nd and what if the ravens went deep into the playoffs and the 1st becomes a late 1st the value drop to mid 2nd value

just a reminder hendricksen is older then max and coming off of an injury as well

Oaktownonly wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2026 10:27 am I just want Maxx to play every game like he's playing the Ravens.

Don’t mess with Ridgemont High

Cruisin with Tooz wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2026 10:40 am This part I dont agree with. The surplus value of 2 top 15 picks greatly exceeds the surplus value of Crosby's contract, ie the difference between his on the field value minus his APY cap cost. It was a big overpay. Thats why the deal was panned. If there are legitimate findings on the scan that portend longterm concerns, that same trade value will be forever gone.

I think you are worrying overly about a no story. We are wildly speculating on what the Ravens used to nix the deal. The surgery is pretty standard and was done by a specialist. He should return to 100% of where he was last year. If they spotted any kind of future concerns, that would be speculative in nature. Again, these are medical opinions and while this particular doctor should be listened to, it does not come with any future guarantees. I am not concerned with why the Ravens backed out, it is obvious they used a projection to nix the deal and it was shady as hell. Long term concerns are merely buzz words that mean very little. That is likely what the Ravens read and they were looking for those buzz words specifically. And at this point, we are not looking to trade him, and likely are not going to in the future either. So trade value is moot unless someone comes in with a huge offer.

mstrbass2000 wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2026 10:49 am it was really only a 1st this yr, next yrs 1st is the equivalent of a high 2nd and what if the ravens went deep into the playoffs and the 1st becomes a late 1st the value drop to mid 2nd value

just a reminder hendricksen is older then max and coming off of an injury as well

Receiving a future 1st instead of a current 1st is devalued because you are incurring an opportunity cost of not improving the team this year. I think this is a more apt consideration for teams that are currently competitive. We werent making the playoffs this year, even if it had been 2 current 1sts. So there isnt that lost opportunity cost. You can even make the case that for a team in our position, next year's 1st is more valuable than this year's 1st in exactly the same slot. With the expected 1st round run of QBs next year and none this year, better non-qb players will be available at every slot next year, compared to this year.

Bal finished 8-9 last year, has cap problems and lost a bunch of their FAs. They do play in a weak division, but it is a competitive division. They are going to lose some division games and they are not going to do all that well outside their division. They might even make the playoffs, but they wont go anywhere. The downside of that pick is low 20's. The upside is around 10, maybe higher if Jackson misses time.

Sucks if is a the Ravens are shady as hell for pulling what they did.

The biggest issue is really for the NFL. Imagine if the Raiders didn’t have enough to cover Maxx’s contract. That is a possibility they at least need to consider as it has the potential to wreck the free agency period.

Willmark wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2026 1:06 pm Sucks if is a the Ravens are shady as hell for pulling what they did.

The biggest issue is really for the NFL. Imagine if the Raiders didn’t have enough to cover Maxx’s contract. That is a possibility they at least need to consider as it has the potential to wreck the free agency period.

But teams have to account for that. If it had been a real red flag, the same thing happens. Picks go back and the player goes back. Teams need to know that it can happen, hell guys fail physicals all the time so teams have to account for that possibility.

Cruisin with Tooz wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2026 11:40 am Receiving a future 1st instead of a current 1st is devalued because you are incurring an opportunity cost of not improving the team this year. I think this is a more apt consideration for teams that are currently competitive. We werent making the playoffs this year, even if it had been 2 current 1sts. So there isnt that lost opportunity cost. You can even make the case that for a team in our position, next year's 1st is more valuable than this year's 1st in exactly the same slot. With the expected 1st round run of QBs next year and none this year, better non-qb players will be available at every slot next year, compared to this year.

Bal finished 8-9 last year, has cap problems and lost a bunch of their FAs. They do play in a weak division, but it is a competitive division. They are going to lose some division games and they are not going to do all that well outside their division. They might even make the playoffs, but they wont go anywhere. The downside of that pick is low 20's. The upside is around 10, maybe higher if Jackson misses time.

I THINK fernando would still be at the top of the list vs next yr crop...rating qbs so high next yr is just like this yr, many of the top prospect failed and now r rated and 2nd rd picks and down...we got the real deal a proven #1 pick who proved his mustard in teh biggest games

Willmark wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2026 1:06 pm Sucks if is a the Ravens are shady as hell for pulling what they did.

The biggest issue is really for the NFL. Imagine if the Raiders didn’t have enough to cover Maxx’s contract. That is a possibility they at least need to consider as it has the potential to wreck the free agency period.

I may be wrong here but I believe that Crosby’s cap hit can’t be spent until the trade is finalized and approved by the league. Until then, Crosby counts against the cap and the Raiders need to have available cap to sign any free agent. I’m sure there are different scenarios/exceptions but in general I believe this is true.

Cruisin with Tooz wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2026 10:40 am This part I dont agree with. The surplus value of 2 top 15 picks greatly exceeds the surplus value of Crosby's contract, ie the difference between his on the field value minus his APY cap cost. It was a big overpay. Thats why the deal was panned. If there are legitimate findings on the scan that portend longterm concerns, that same trade value will be forever gone.

I'm not sure you read my first line when you responded. I liked the trade value. But we're better off now than if we had just not agreed to any trade with any team (which was possible) - because he appears to be happy to be a Raider and the noise has quieted. I was surprised that any team was willing to give that much compensation and, as it turns out, they weren't.

chucker wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2026 5:33 pm I'm not sure you read my first line when you responded. I liked the trade value. But we're better off now than if we had just not agreed to any trade with any team (which was possible) - because he appears to be happy to be a Raider and the noise has quieted. I was surprised that any team was willing to give that much compensation and, as it turns out, they weren't.

It would've made sense for the Rams because they're already one of the best teams in the league. They really do need just a piece or two before Stafford retires in order to get them back to the Super Bowl.

Baltimore, not so much. Whether they want to publicly admit it or not, they're going into rebuild mode and a player like Crosby isn't a long term solution. We're in a much more serious rebuild mode but already have Maxx under contract. We lose nothing by having one of the most respected DEs in the game.

Opoponax50 wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2026 9:49 am It would've made sense for the Rams because they're already one of the best teams in the league. They really do need just a piece or two before Stafford retires in order to get them back to the Super Bowl.

Baltimore, not so much. Whether they want to publicly admit it or not, they're going into rebuild mode and a player like Crosby isn't a long term solution. We're in a much more serious rebuild mode but already have Maxx under contract. We lose nothing by having one of the most respected DEs in the game.

I don't think the Ravens have a terribly long term view at QB to be honest. Their QB is a lot younger than Stafford, but the talent that distinguishes him is fading faster than Stafford's IMO. Jackson's legs are big part of opening up the passing game for him and that part of his game is getting less effective.

chucker wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2026 10:57 am I don't think the Ravens have a terribly long term view at QB to be honest. Their QB is a lot younger than Stafford, but the talent that distinguishes him is fading faster than Stafford's IMO. Jackson's legs are big part of opening up the passing game for him and that part of his game is getting less effective.

lamar's body is breaking down already, so his running ability will diminish greatly going forward and his passing game is only avg

NoThanksSir wrote: Tue Mar 17, 2026 4:48 pm

shady

The fact that neither coach nor GM greeted a guy they were supposedly trading 2 firsts for suggests that they weren't really trading two firsts for him and it had nothing to do with a physical exam.

At least the whole episode refreshed his attitude about continuing to be a Raider. I've moved on. I wish we were playing the Ravens though, because that would be something to see. He always gives 100%..... but might find a way to give 127% for that game.