I do think Caldwell will move Shorts if he can't get him signed to what he thinks is a fair contract to the team.

 

If by week 4 or so it seems that we're not making any progress in contract negotiations, I could see him shipped for a mid-round pick.

 

Not saying I would want that to happen, but I do know that Caldwell will try hard to make sure he doesn't overpay for Shorts.

 

Shorts is good, but may be not good enough to go into a bidding war for, especially if our rookies develop nicely.

Yep, good points.

 

Caldwell holds the leverage now as far as not overpaying Shorts.  If Cecil won't take what Caldwell deems him to be worth (and it's even less now with two rookies sparking things already), then Dave will just sit back and let the contract ride.  The more the rookies play and light it up, the more Cecil's big contract hopes go down the drain.  When it gets to the point that we don't need him as much (if the rookies doing really well), maybe then he is traded away (just like Monroe). 

---

Of all the moves Caldwell has made, the Monroe trade baffled me the most.  Was he a problem or something?

---

Of all the moves Caldwell has made, the Monroe trade baffled me the most.  Was he a problem or something?

No.  He was a Gene Smith pick, who was due to be a free agent, who they drafted a player very high to play at his position.  Sound familiar?

 

Yes, I know there is only one left OT, and we need multiple WR's.  Still very similar situation.

---

I do think Caldwell will move Shorts if he can't get him signed to what he thinks is a fair contract to the team.

 

If by week 4 or so it seems that we're not making any progress in contract negotiations, I could see him shipped for a mid-round pick.

 

Not saying I would want that to happen, but I do know that Caldwell will try hard to make sure he doesn't overpay for Shorts.

 

Shorts is good, but may be not good enough to go into a bidding war for, especially if our rookies develop nicely.

I Concur...


If we want him to continue to be a Jaguar and we feel that it won't happen to our wants/needs then we must reap value for this or any player... Period...


I'd Love to resign CSIII for him to somewhat mentor FIRE N ICE to say the least...


Caldwell has/must do what's BEST for the "team first"...


NH3...

---

"AZANE"

Of all the moves Caldwell has made, the Monroe trade baffled me the most.  Was he a problem or something?

Additional draft picks comes to mind and we know how that worked out...


NH3...

---

"AZANE"

Of all the moves Caldwell has made, the Monroe trade baffled me the most.  Was he a problem or something?

IMO he wasn't a scheme fit, and wouldn't have been worth paying what would have been required to keep him.

---

No, this would be a very poor decision, for many reasons. 

---

Trade away our only proven NFL receiver... lol.... this guy must be drunk

---

I ain't no monkey... I'm an ape.

Meh,,, idk. Shorts is good, but not great (everyone agrees with that).


Yes, he is the only proven WR currently on the roster. But, I don't think that should limit the Jags from trying to reap some value if it's there.


To me, CS3 is Miles Austin (a couple really good seasons, a good #2 wr, then fade off due to injuries). I really like CS3,, but if there's value to be had, I'd take it.


CS3,, Miles Austin,, Houshmanzadeh,, David Patten,, Deion Branch,, Dennis Northcutt,, etc...

---

Why are some thinking about trading Cecil Shorts?  He's our best wide out and has many years ahead of him. Caldwell must agree with me, because he's looking to extend his contract.

---

Why are some thinking about trading Cecil Shorts?  He's our best wide out and has many years ahead of him. Caldwell must agree with me, because he's looking to extend his contract.

 

It's that time of year.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Of all the moves Caldwell has made, the Monroe trade baffled me the most.  Was he a problem or something?

 

 

IMO he wasn't a scheme fit, and wouldn't have been worth paying what would have been required to keep him.

 

Pretty much

---

Trade a good player for an unknown. Yea, NO.

---

Trade a good player for an unknown. Yea, NO.

 

I don't know, we used the two picks we got from the Monroe trade to get Allen Robinson and Brandon Linder. At the time of the Monroe trade, those were unknowns.

 

The fact is more draft picks means more flexibility to move around the draft board and get the person(s) we want. Just playing devil's advocate here, but if by week 5-6 we haven't got a deal and the two rookies are lighting it up, I'd be fine trading Shorts for a 3rd or 4th round pick.

---

"Knowledge is power, guard it well."

It's interesting to see how some people see a trade of Shorts as a total bone-headed move, while others see that it easily makes sense, especially after what happened with Eugene Monroe last year.

 

I can't help but laugh at the people that totally dismiss the idea and think Shorts is so good, when he has only had one better than average year.

---

It's interesting to see how some people see a trade of Shorts as a total bone-headed move, while others see that it easily makes sense, especially after what happened with Eugene Monroe last year.

 

I can't help but laugh at the people that totally dismiss the idea and think Shorts is so good, when he has only had one better than average year.

What I find interesting is that you could have just let this idiocy slide off the first page so people weren't scoffing at you, but you felt compelled to bump it for no other reason than to make sure everyone gets the point that you want to trade the only veteran receiver on the roster.  The same receiver the team has made a priority to re-sign this off season, a year ahead of the end of his contract. 

 

Some people just need to relish in their ignorance.  Knock yourself out.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Trade a good player for an unknown. Yea, NO.

 

Thats exactly what they did with Monroe. 

 

...and its similar in that we're talking a Gene Smith holdover that was a good player but not great that played the same position that we brought in a talent infusion in this year. 

 

and guess what, despite the typical belly aching you're seeing on this thread, and some of it by me at the time....that Monroe trade  might have turned out very beneficial. 

 

The picks in the Monroe deal helped net us Robinson and Linder

 

If the Jags trade Shorts and can get a 4th + a 5th, like in the Monroe deal, I do it. 

 

If the only offers we get are low ball offers, then we keep Shorts. I'm not saying to push him outta town. But keep all options open. 

---

Thats exactly what they did with Monroe. 

 

...and its similar in that we're talking a Gene Smith holdover that was a good player but not great that played the same position that we brought in a talent infusion in this year. 

 

and guess what, despite the typical belly aching you're seeing on this thread, and some of it by me at the time....that Monroe trade  might have turned out very beneficial. 

 

The picks in the Monroe deal helped net us Robinson and Linder

 

If the Jags trade Shorts and can get a 4th + a 5th, like in the Monroe deal, I do it. 

 

If the only offers we get are low ball offers, then we keep Shorts. I'm not saying to push him outta town. But keep all options open. 

 

The flaw in your logic is that they clearly had no intention of re-signing Monroe, or they wouldn't have traded him.  They never reached out to Monroe or his agent to discuss a contract extension.

 

They've made it abundantly clear that they're intent on extending Cecli's contract, and are already talking to his agent. 

 

Big difference.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

What I find interesting is that you could have just let this idiocy slide off the first page so people weren't scoffing at you, but you felt compelled to bump it for no other reason than to make sure everyone gets the point that you want to trade the only veteran receiver on the roster.  The same receiver the team has made a priority to re-sign this off season, a year ahead of the end of his contract. 

 

Some people just need to relish in their ignorance.  Knock yourself out.

Speaking of ignorance.... more veiled insults from an "administrator" who holds others to such a high standard on board rules.

 

Once again, we know you didn't come up with the suggestion, and you don't think it is a good idea, so obviously in your mind it is "ignorance".  Several people people have not "scoffed" at the idea, and they see the logic in it.  Of course they don't have a personal agenda against me going back years, as you seem to have.

 

They might re-sign Shorts, but I will be surprised if it is not a trade-friendly deal, leaving open the possibility of moving him later or next year.

 

By the way, you're the one who is keeping the thread on the front page with your need to reply every time I post.

 

Feel free to stop posting in the thread any time if it is so ignorant.  Your ridicule and insults won't be missed.

---

The Jaguars should be in the business of collecting more young players who are good at football, not giving them away.  Particularly on offense, where they currently have zero established play makers.   The Jags are going to need 3 good WRs to fully run Jedd's offense.

 

Shorts isn't going to break the bank as a free agent, and his cap considerations will be virtually nihil.   The Jags already have more unused cap space than they can sensibly allocate, and the NFL is about to sign a new astronomical TV deal which will bump up the cap ceiling another ~30% in the new few year.    There's a $50 billion dollar merger between AT&T and DirectTV that specifically hinges on DirectTV retaining the Sunday Ticket rights next year.   The  NFL is going to receive a blank check of revenue  just for that one asset alone.    Wait until the mega-media conglomerates with mountains of free cash like Viacom and Disney get into a bidding war for the main network television rights.  

---