https://youtu.be/ZOx1B3HwysQ

---

I still have much doubt that this trade block rumor holds any water.

I also think a guy like Cole is nice to have as your 4th or 5th guy on the depth chart. He has shown the ability to be explosive and his own consistency might yet benefit from having some consistency around him IMO. (QB and OC)

---

I still have much doubt that this trade block rumor holds any water.

I also think a guy like Cole is nice to have as your 4th or 5th guy on the depth chart. He has shown the ability to be explosive and his own consistency might yet benefit from having some consistency around him IMO. (QB and OC)

He was tendered for a second rounder. No way we get that.

---

It's Keelan

This ^

And, that's a sketchy twitter account to place much trust in.

But.....Dilla said they were trustworthy.  You can't go wrong with an endorsement from Dilla.

---

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

I still have much doubt that this trade block rumor holds any water.

I also think a guy like Cole is nice to have as your 4th or 5th guy on the depth chart. He has shown the ability to be explosive and his own consistency might yet benefit from having some consistency around him IMO. (QB and OC)

He was tendered for a second rounder. No way we get that.

I’m aware 

Never stated otherwise 

Point?

---

IF Keelan Cole is on the trade block (doubtful considering the source) he's not going to garner much.  Wide receivers like him are pretty much a "dime a dozen" every year in the draft.  While he is talented he's not a DeAndre Hopkins or Antonio Brown.  I really doubt that a team would give up a draft pick for him when you can get virtually the same thing in the upcoming draft.

Seriously.  Some twit on Twitter putting this out there is supposedly credible?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

In my opinion, nobody is trading for him. Maybe keep him as returner?

---

In my opinion, nobody is trading for him. Maybe keep him as returner?

Cole is actually a pretty good returner. He rushes above his weight.

---

In my opinion, nobody is trading for him. Maybe keep him as returner?

Cole is actually a pretty good returner. He rushes above his weight.

That's rather clever. +1

---

Season Ticket holder since 2004.

 

        

Cole is actually a pretty good returner. He rushes above his weight.

That's rather clever. +1

It seemed the most apt way of describing his returns. He's not a big guy but when he gets into the scrum he will often scrap out an extra 5 yards or so.

---

IF Keelan Cole is on the trade block (doubtful considering the source) he's not going to garner much.  Wide receivers like him are pretty much a "dime a dozen" every year in the draft.  While he is talented he's not a DeAndre Hopkins or Antonio Brown.  I really doubt that a team would give up a draft pick for him when you can get virtually the same thing in the upcoming draft.

Seriously.  Some twit on Twitter putting this out there is supposedly credible?

I don't think Cole is worth a 4th round pick with this year's crop of WRs.

That said, in any other year I'd want more than a 4th for him. On a per target basis he had a better 2019 season than Brandin Cooks, for whom the Rams got a 2nd round pick (admittedly from the idiot O'Brien).

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

He was tendered for a second rounder. No way we get that.

I’m aware 

Never stated otherwise 

Point?

Whoa now, lol. Just saying if they tendered him at a second rounder it is unlikely for them to take less than that for him.

---

I’m aware 

Never stated otherwise 

Point?

Whoa now, lol. Just saying if they tendered him at a second rounder it is unlikely for them to take less than that for him.

Sorry if I was snappy. 

The way that tender functions is for the jags to be able to essentially do a lowball one year contract to restricted free agents that allows other teams to also seek the player’s services, but they’d have to give up a second round pick to do it. 

It’s my understanding that this does not preclude the jags from trading the player in a separate transaction altogether for something less than a second rounder.  I’d like to fact check that to be certain though. 

Regardless - I don’t see them moving on from him unless he’s done something we are unaware of to ruffle feathers with staff. 3.25 mil for a #4/5 receiver w/ upside isn’t bad in the current salary era.

---

Whoa now, lol. Just saying if they tendered him at a second rounder it is unlikely for them to take less than that for him.

Sorry if I was snappy. 

The way that tender functions is for the jags to be able to essentially do a lowball one year contract to restricted free agents that allows other teams to also seek the player’s services, but they’d have to give up a second round pick to do it. 

It’s my understanding that this does not preclude the jags from trading the player in a separate transaction altogether for something less than a second rounder.  I’d like to fact check that to be certain though. 

Regardless - I don’t see them moving on from him unless he’s done something we are unaware of to ruffle feathers with staff. 3.25 mil for a #4/5 receiver w/ upside isn’t bad in the current salary era.

The tender is what we would get from another team that signs him and we don't match the offer. In order to trade him we would have to sign him first.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Sorry if I was snappy. 

The way that tender functions is for the jags to be able to essentially do a lowball one year contract to restricted free agents that allows other teams to also seek the player’s services, but they’d have to give up a second round pick to do it. 

It’s my understanding that this does not preclude the jags from trading the player in a separate transaction altogether for something less than a second rounder.  I’d like to fact check that to be certain though. 

Regardless - I don’t see them moving on from him unless he’s done something we are unaware of to ruffle feathers with staff. 3.25 mil for a #4/5 receiver w/ upside isn’t bad in the current salary era.

The tender is what we would get from another team that signs him and we don't match the offer. In order to trade him we would have to sign him first.

If that’s the  case, then the “rumor” is clearly unfounded/uninformed as every tendered  player would technically  be “on the trade block.” 

Say what you will about Caldwell - he’s not dumb enough to think he’s getting a second rounder for Cole. Bogus tweet IMO. 

I’ll try to find that rule later. Curious now.

---

I’m aware 

Never stated otherwise 

Point?

Whoa now, lol. Just saying if they tendered him at a second rounder it is unlikely for them to take less than that for him.

My understanding, which could easily be wrong, is that it was either a 1st or 2nd round tender or an original round tender, which for Cole would be nothing since he was an undrafted free agent. If the Jags have a 4th round value on him (or 3rd, 5th, or 6th), it makes sense that they would use the 2nd round tender rather than risk getting nothing.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

It’s my understanding that the tender is there to give teams the opportunity to develop their  undrafted or late pick players by giving teams the chance to retain them affordably for one year rather than risking losing them to a higher bidder. Attaching the draft pick compensation requirement keeps other suitors at bay.

Therefore, it is highly unlikely a team would bother to tender a player they intend to trade. The point of the tender is to keep them affordably for one more year.

Now, once a player has signed that tender agreement - which is essentially a one year contract with a clause that could land them elsewhere  for more money - the question is now “can the original team trade them for  less than the tender designation and why the hell would they?”

---

It’s my understanding that the tender is there to give teams the opportunity to develop their  undrafted or late pick players by giving teams the chance to retain them affordably for one year rather than risking losing them to a higher bidder. Attaching the draft pick compensation requirement keeps other suitors at bay.

Therefore, it is highly unlikely a team would bother to tender a player they intend to trade. The point of the tender is to keep them affordably for one more year.

Now, once a player has signed that tender agreement - which is essentially a one year contract with a clause that could land them elsewhere  for more money - the question is now “can the original team trade them for  less than the tender designation and why the hell would they?”

From NFL.com

The RFA tenders are classified as follows:
First-round tender: One-year contract worth the greater of (a) $4.641 million or (b) 110 percent of the player's prior-year base salary. If the player's original team decides not to match an offer sheet signed with another team, it is entitled to a first-round draft pick from the player's new team. Unless received two days or later prior to the NFL draft, draft compensation for each tender is due in the same league year as the offer sheet is signed.
A signed offer sheet with a new team includes Principal Terms that must be matched by the prior club. However, if the new team includes terms that waive or limit its ability to designate the RFA a franchise player, the old team will not have to match this term if it has tendered the player with an offer worth $500,000 more than the first-round tender ($5.141 million in 2020).
Second-round tender: One-year contract worth the greater of (a) $3.259 million or (b) 110 percent of the player's prior-year base salary. Draft-choice compensation: second-round pick.
Original-round tender: One-year contract worth the greater of (a) $2.133 million or (b) 110 percent of the player's prior-year base salary. Draft-choice compensation: a pick in the round the player was originally drafted in.
Right-of-first-refusal tender: One-year contract worth $2.133 million. Team has the right to match any offer sheet signed with another team, but there is no draft compensation tied to this tender.

Full article

So yeah, like I thought the only tender options were 1st, 2nd, or just the right of first refusal since Cole's original round was "undrafted."

Why would a team trade a player for less than the tender round? Easy. Suppose you wanted at least a 4th round pick for your player. You can't trade him if he's a free agent. If you tender him lower than 4th round then you risk losing him with no compensation if the other team makes a ridiculous offer, or finds a poison pill to add to the contract. You can't tender him with a 4th round tender because it doesn't exist, the lowest tender you can use that guarantees you get full value is a second round tender although you're willing to trade him for less.

And I saw nothing in the description that says you can't sign him and then trade him for a lower pick.

None of this is saying the Jags are actually trying to trade Cole or that anyone is interested, just that it's at least remotely possible.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

It’s my understanding that the tender is there to give teams the opportunity to develop their  undrafted or late pick players by giving teams the chance to retain them affordably for one year rather than risking losing them to a higher bidder. Attaching the draft pick compensation requirement keeps other suitors at bay.

Therefore, it is highly unlikely a team would bother to tender a player they intend to trade. The point of the tender is to keep them affordably for one more year.

Now, once a player has signed that tender agreement - which is essentially a one year contract with a clause that could land them elsewhere  for more money - the question is now “can the original team trade them for  less than the tender designation and why the hell would they?”

From NFL.com

The RFA tenders are classified as follows:
First-round tender: One-year contract worth the greater of (a) $4.641 million or (b) 110 percent of the player's prior-year base salary. If the player's original team decides not to match an offer sheet signed with another team, it is entitled to a first-round draft pick from the player's new team. Unless received two days or later prior to the NFL draft, draft compensation for each tender is due in the same league year as the offer sheet is signed.
A signed offer sheet with a new team includes Principal Terms that must be matched by the prior club. However, if the new team includes terms that waive or limit its ability to designate the RFA a franchise player, the old team will not have to match this term if it has tendered the player with an offer worth $500,000 more than the first-round tender ($5.141 million in 2020).
Second-round tender: One-year contract worth the greater of (a) $3.259 million or (b) 110 percent of the player's prior-year base salary. Draft-choice compensation: second-round pick.
Original-round tender: One-year contract worth the greater of (a) $2.133 million or (b) 110 percent of the player's prior-year base salary. Draft-choice compensation: a pick in the round the player was originally drafted in.
Right-of-first-refusal tender: One-year contract worth $2.133 million. Team has the right to match any offer sheet signed with another team, but there is no draft compensation tied to this tender.

Full article

So yeah, like I thought the only tender options were 1st, 2nd, or just the right of first refusal since Cole's original round was "undrafted."

Why would a team trade a player for less than the tender round? Easy. Suppose you wanted at least a 4th round pick for your player. You can't trade him if he's a free agent. If you tender him lower than 4th round then you risk losing him with no compensation if the other team makes a ridiculous offer, or finds a poison pill to add to the contract. You can't tender him with a 4th round tender because it doesn't exist, the lowest tender you can use that guarantees you get full value is a second round tender although you're willing to trade him for less.

And I saw nothing in the description that says you can't sign him and then trade him for a lower pick.

None of this is saying the Jags are actually trying to trade Cole or that anyone is interested, just that it's at least remotely possible.

Poison pills are illegal now.

---

From NFL.com


Full article

So yeah, like I thought the only tender options were 1st, 2nd, or just the right of first refusal since Cole's original round was "undrafted."

Why would a team trade a player for less than the tender round? Easy. Suppose you wanted at least a 4th round pick for your player. You can't trade him if he's a free agent. If you tender him lower than 4th round then you risk losing him with no compensation if the other team makes a ridiculous offer, or finds a poison pill to add to the contract. You can't tender him with a 4th round tender because it doesn't exist, the lowest tender you can use that guarantees you get full value is a second round tender although you're willing to trade him for less.

And I saw nothing in the description that says you can't sign him and then trade him for a lower pick.

None of this is saying the Jags are actually trying to trade Cole or that anyone is interested, just that it's at least remotely possible.

Poison pills are illegal now.

There are "poison pills" that are legal. For example, the one the Jags employed in the Alex Mack offer which was a clause that allowed Mack to void the remainder of the contract after two years. In that case Cleveland swallowed the poison, and Mack did void the contract and leave after two years.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"