Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A good idea

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

  • Mercury
    started a topic A good idea

    A good idea

    It would be a good idea if someone (who knows what they are doing) could calculate (or approximately calculate) the Cap hits for various players, particularly the ones that often creep up in these MB conversations of late. Then they could be posted in a sticky topic, like the snap count thread. Then we could all refer to them in our many MB conversations, (and blast the fools who don't know what they are talking about! Fun!)

    Thank you in advance, person who knows what they are doing.
    You are all welcome for my good idea.

  • BlueReign
    replied
    Originally posted by moosedrool View Post
    I know that. The point is contract length when signed. Did the contracts really have to be 5 and 6 years in length? Why not 3 or 4 years?
    Players are also looking to have a decently long contract because at the root, they are just like us when it comes to families and not wanting to move them,

    Leave a comment:


  • slipknottin
    replied
    Originally posted by ELI_HOF_NYG View Post
    at the end of the day these contracts are not worth the paper they are written on. not gauranteed like MLB or the NBA,,sure some of the money is gauranteed but the majority is not.
    this does not help the discussion

    Leave a comment:


  • giants8493
    replied
    I have a good idea too! But im not sharing. Its a secret for if I ever want to be a NFL GM one day.

    Leave a comment:


  • ELI_HOF_NYG
    replied
    at the end of the day these contracts are not worth the paper they are written on. not gauranteed like MLB or the NBA,,sure some of the money is gauranteed but the majority is not.

    Leave a comment:


  • slipknottin
    replied
    Originally posted by moosedrool View Post
    I know that. The point is contract length when signed. Did the contracts really have to be 5 and 6 years in length? Why not 3 or 4 years?
    Because a longer term deal spreads out the cap hit of the signing bonus

    Leave a comment:


  • moosedrool
    replied
    Originally posted by slipknottin View Post
    Huh? These are players that WERE signed in their prime. 26 or so years old, get a 5 year contract. Means they will be 30-31 when the backloaded deal maxes out.
    I know that. The point is contract length when signed. Did the contracts really have to be 5 and 6 years in length? Why not 3 or 4 years?
    Last edited by moosedrool; 01-03-2013, 04:54 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • slipknottin
    replied
    Originally posted by moosedrool View Post
    I can see shelling out the big bucks for players in their prime. But to have the contracts that large for players over 30 and declining is not good. It's a young man's game.
    Huh? These are players that WERE signed in their prime. 26 or so years old, get a 5 year contract. Means they will be 30-31 when the backloaded deal maxes out.

    Leave a comment:


  • moosedrool
    replied
    Originally posted by slipknottin View Post
    I am not sure what you are asking.
    I can see shelling out the big bucks for players in their prime. But to have the contracts that large for players over 30 and declining is not good. It's a young man's game.

    Leave a comment:


  • slipknottin
    replied
    Originally posted by moosedrool View Post
    Right, but are the good players all/most over age 30 at the end of the contract?
    I am not sure what you are asking.

    Leave a comment:


  • moosedrool
    replied
    Originally posted by slipknottin View Post
    Youll find the same thing on every team if you look at good players who are at the end of their contracts. Almost all contracts get backloaded now
    Right, but are the good players all/most over age 30 at the end of the contract?

    Leave a comment:


  • slipknottin
    replied
    Originally posted by moosedrool View Post
    After reviewing the cap hits for 2013 of Diehl, Boley, Webster, Baas, Canty, and Tuck, I think "In Reese we trust" should be changed to "In Reese we can't trust".

    2013 cap hits
    ------------------
    Boley 5,900,000
    Diehl 4,550,000
    Tuck 5,650,000
    Rolle 9,250,000
    Baas 6,725,000
    Webster 9.975,000
    Canty 8,200,000
    Youll find the same thing on every team if you look at good players who are at the end of their contracts. Almost all contracts get backloaded now

    Leave a comment:


  • moosedrool
    replied
    After reviewing the cap hits for 2013 of Diehl, Boley, Webster, Baas, Canty, and Tuck, I think "In Reese we trust" should be changed to "In Reese we can't trust".

    2013 cap hits
    ------------------
    Boley 5,900,000 (age 30)
    Diehl 4,550,000 (age 32)
    Tuck 5,650,000 (age 29)
    Rolle 9,250,000 (age 30)
    Baas 6,725,000 (age 31)
    Webster 9.975,000 (age 30)
    Canty 8,200,000 (age 30)
    Last edited by moosedrool; 01-03-2013, 04:44 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • slipknottin
    replied
    Originally posted by Kruunch View Post
    I was under the impression that for cap purposes the money is deferred (if the team wants to) over the original life the contract once the player is cut. So if a player signs a 5 year, $10 million contract with a $5 million signing bonus and is cut after the first year, the cap hit is spread out over the remaining 4 years (i.e. $1 million per year in this case to the tune of $4 million over the next 4 years).
    I thought I had read that all of the cap hit has to hit within 2 years. So it is indeed accelerated.

    Leave a comment:


  • Drez
    replied
    Originally posted by slipknottin View Post
    Problem is we dont know the actual contract details. Those arent public info.

    For instance, I believe Rolle restructured last season, but what are the details of that restructuring?
    Yeah. We don't get the official numbers. Patricia Traina seems to think we'll have a decent chunk of change to work with (basing it off of a $121m cap), but hasn't given that number out yet (or even a ballpark), lol.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X