Trading Randy Starks
- Thread starter Elliott 1
- Start date
enJeppesen
Practice Squad
- Joined
- May 23, 2010
- Messages
- 428
- Reaction score
- 4
Getting rid of a pro-bowler WE MUST!...why tho..McDaniel played well..so what..we got odrick AND merling coming back plus Langford having a heck of a year alongside Starks..I say give up on McDaniel if he wants too much cash.
Phinatic8u
Club Member
Yeah, but with so many teams switching to 3-4 or in need of 3-4 ends. Somebody will give up a 3rd or a 4th for him.
He out of the bunch is most likely to not be here next year.
if it aint broke dont fix it!!!! :crazy::crazy:
Doctor Phibes
Active Roster
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2009
- Messages
- 931
- Reaction score
- 7
McDaniel's status depends on the new CBA. If the FA rules were the same as 2010 then he would be a restricted FA and I guess the Dolphins would tender him for a 2nd round pick which would pay McDaniel about the same as he earned last season (close to 2m) and effectively make it another contract year for him.
But it looks more likely that McDaniel will be an unrestricted FA under the new CBA and I think that will see him get starter money somewhere next season - probably from a team that runs a 4-3 which would probably suit him better. I really hope it isn't us giving him starter money because he was invisible before his contract year. He was already talking in mid season about wanting to play somewhere else next season and I reckon that is what will happen
Without McDaniel I would be reluctant to trade Starks (or Langford). If you play a 3-4 in Florida heat you need 4 or 5 quality defensive linemen to take the workload. Plus we haven't even re-signed Solai yet. That's a huge priority and until Solai is signed up long term I don't think there's any way you can let go of Starks because he would be Plan B at NT again
But it looks more likely that McDaniel will be an unrestricted FA under the new CBA and I think that will see him get starter money somewhere next season - probably from a team that runs a 4-3 which would probably suit him better. I really hope it isn't us giving him starter money because he was invisible before his contract year. He was already talking in mid season about wanting to play somewhere else next season and I reckon that is what will happen
Without McDaniel I would be reluctant to trade Starks (or Langford). If you play a 3-4 in Florida heat you need 4 or 5 quality defensive linemen to take the workload. Plus we haven't even re-signed Solai yet. That's a huge priority and until Solai is signed up long term I don't think there's any way you can let go of Starks because he would be Plan B at NT again
Valandui
Lumberjack Batman
- Joined
- May 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,211
- Reaction score
- 33
I agree to an extent, but we have a situation where we almost have a logjam at DL. We have Starks, McDaniel, Odrick, Langford, Merling, Soliai, and both Bakers (Ryan and Chris). At least three of these guys can play DE or NT. We can't get everyone out on the field. This is where teams like New England get all of those extra picks that we complain about every year. Starks makes the most sense because his value will never be higher than it is right now and Odrick can easily step in for him. If we really want to pick up extra picks, this is where you do it.
PhinsPhan11
Phins & Philly Sports
We should not trade Starks.