Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Starting David Diehl, could it be a salary issue?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Starting David Diehl, could it be a salary issue?

    I don't know anything about Locklear's contract. However, I don't think he was brought here to be a starter. And that means, he probably has some escalation factors in his contract regarding the number of snaps he takes, how many games he starts, etc.

    I think this could this be a salary cap issue. What do you think?
    Do not feed the trolls.

  • #2
    False. I mean, Victor Cruz last year was in a similar position and he performed well enough into a starting role. What would it be any different for Locklear?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by BigBlue wins View Post
      False. I mean, Victor Cruz last year was in a similar position and he performed well enough into a starting role. What would it be any different for Locklear?
      Locklear was an NFL vet who had a pretty big contract earlier in his career if I believe. He and his agent could command a better contract than Cruz at that time last year.

      Comment


      • #4
        Only a one year contract; there doesn't appear to be any frills:
        4/11/2012: Signed a one-year, $890,000 contract. The deal included a $65,000 signing bonus. 2012: $825,000, 2013: Free Agent
        http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/2667/sean-locklear

        Comment


        • #5
          There is no way Reese and the front office (and frankly the coaches going along with it) would sacrifice on the field performance to save a few $$ in incentives. C'mon now, that's a ridiculous theory.

          Having said that, has there been any official word that Locklear has been given back his starting role that he earned for Sunday's game?
          "Release the Kraken!"

          - Dan Dierdorf, Giants vs Dolphins, 10/30/2011

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by DaKraken View Post
            There is no way Reese and the front office (and frankly the coaches going along with it) would sacrifice on the field performance to save a few $$ in incentives. C'mon now, that's a ridiculous theory.

            Having said that, has there been any official word that Locklear has been given back his starting role that he earned for Sunday's game?
            I agree, I doubt any team would put a lesser talented player on the field and jeopardize the outcome of a game just to save a few bucks...
            Last edited by JesseJames; 11-08-2012, 04:47 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              I looked up Locklear's salary:
              http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/new-york-...sean-locklear/

              Locklear makes $890K total this year.
              Do not feed the trolls.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JesseJames View Post
                I agree, I doubt ant team would put a lesser talented player on the field and jeopardize the outcome of a game just to save a few bucks...
                What if it would put us over the cap? Would Reese go over the cap?
                Do not feed the trolls.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by DaKraken View Post
                  Having said that, has there been any official word that Locklear has been given back his starting role that he earned for Sunday's game?
                  I've been scouring sports news trying to find this out.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mercury View Post
                    What if it would put us over the cap? Would Reese go over the cap?
                    How would it put them over the cap? His salary has already been accounted for.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Flip Empty View Post
                      How would it put them over the cap? His salary has already been accounted for.
                      Sometimes there are escalator clauses in contracts. For example, he may be contracted to earn more if he starts so many games, takes so many snaps, etc. David Diehl, for example, had one for when he played LT vs. LG. Clauses don't count toward base salary, but could be significant money, especially to a Cap-stretched team.
                      Do not feed the trolls.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The max his contract can hit the cap for is 890k. We have over 2 mill in cap space. So even if all of the 890k isnt accounted for against the cap it is still mathematically impossible for potential escalators in his contract to push us over the cap. That said, I believe his 890k was fully guaranteed regardless of playing time.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mercury View Post
                          Sometimes there are escalator clauses in contracts. For example, he may be contracted to earn more if he starts so many games, takes so many snaps, etc. David Diehl, for example, had one for when he played LT vs. LG. Clauses don't count toward base salary, but could be significant money, especially to a Cap-stretched team.
                          Hmm, I would hope not. I guess we'll never know since the exact terms of a contract aren't always disclosed.

                          Hopefully Locklear gets the start this week and this can all go away.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Once again another dumb move by this coaching staff. Its clear Diehl is done along with tip toe Bradshaw but they continue to pit there trust in these players. Makes 0 sense

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              i love how tom coughlin sits david wilson the entire season for one fumble, but continues to play diehl after his pathetic play

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X