| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BooyaCS
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 7290
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 10:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| Estonianzulu wrote: | | BooyaCS wrote: | | Estonianzulu wrote: | | BooyaCS wrote: |
I see his agent trying to go for a 6 year 60M contract with 30-40 M guarenteed within the first 2-3 years (basically causing his cap number to be 20M for the team that signs him).
Basically an offer that, if we match, we are in cap purgatory. |
Given that we have among the top amounts in cap space, what team could possibly do that? Oakland? |
Oakland and possibly Tampa (with that being the only FA that Tampa signs). |
I can't imagine a team breaking their cap for Alex Mack. Would surely make our front office look bad though.
Especially if ward also leaves and we dont get Byrd |
It would be a short term PR hit. If we win some games no one will care in the long run.
_________________
“From the ashes a fire shall be woken, a light from the shadows shall spring; renenwed shall be blade that was broken, the crownless again shall be king.” -- J R R Tolkien LOTR |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Estonianzulu
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 25352
Location: Middle of Nowhere VA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BooyaCS wrote: | | It would be a short term PR hit. If we win some games no one will care in the long run. |
It would be hard for me to believe we will be better without Ward, Byrd and Mack
Losing Mack for nothing isn't just bad in terms of adding talent to the team, its bad in terms of playing the system. Had he walked and we let him go, we'd at least get compensatory consideration. If we lose him to a ridiculous contract that we dont match we get nothing- unless I am mistaken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bonanza23
Joined: 10 Nov 2008
Posts: 7049
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Estonianzulu wrote: | | BooyaCS wrote: | | It would be a short term PR hit. If we win some games no one will care in the long run. |
It would be hard for me to believe we will be better without Ward, Byrd and Mack
Losing Mack for nothing isn't just bad in terms of adding talent to the team, its bad in terms of playing the system. Had he walked and we let him go, we'd at least get compensatory consideration. If we lose him to a ridiculous contract that we dont match we get nothing- unless I am mistaken |
Should have franchised him. If he doesn't want to be here then screw him.
Really hoping he didn't Boozer us.
_________________
Thanks to ReggieCamp on the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tully305
Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 1764
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ugh..talk of Baltimore making play for Mack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
buno67
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 30822
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Tully305 wrote: | | ugh..talk of Baltimore making play for Mack |
Its ok, I would like to see Taylor eat him up than! 
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BooyaCS
Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 7290
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Estonianzulu wrote: | | BooyaCS wrote: | | It would be a short term PR hit. If we win some games no one will care in the long run. |
It would be hard for me to believe we will be better without Ward, Byrd and Mack
Losing Mack for nothing isn't just bad in terms of adding talent to the team, its bad in terms of playing the system. Had he walked and we let him go, we'd at least get compensatory consideration. If we lose him to a ridiculous contract that we dont match we get nothing- unless I am mistaken |
Compensatory picks mean you lost a player and didn't sign a player of the same quality back.
Also the poison pill rules have to apply to every team.
So a contract that is completely guarenteed but the player is waived after year 2 if you don't make the playoffs is completely feasable.
Or a contract that states if you lose more than 6 games in a season then the entire contract is guaranteed.
Or if you don't make the playoffs in the first 2 season then the entire contract is guarenteed are all within the realm of possibility
Each of them destroys your cap and option 1 and 3 mean you are on the hook for the entire contract if you don't make the playoffs and the player, in option 1, is released on a fully guarenteed contract.
_________________
“From the ashes a fire shall be woken, a light from the shadows shall spring; renenwed shall be blade that was broken, the crownless again shall be king.” -- J R R Tolkien LOTR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Estonianzulu
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 25352
Location: Middle of Nowhere VA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BooyaCS wrote: |
Compensatory picks mean you lost a player and didn't sign a player of the same quality back. |
I know. But the question is does that apply to players tagged but lost (like RFA's for example)
| Quote: | | Each of them destroys your cap and option 1 and 3 mean you are on the hook for the entire contract if you don't make the playoffs and the player, in option 1, is released on a fully guarenteed contract. |
Sure, but what team is going to risk doing that to themselves? In the old case, where a pill could be designed specifically to ruin the team with the player, now its an equal opportunity wrecking ball. Do you think there is a GM out there willing to risk eating 60M guaranteed money because they miss the playoffs by a game? For a Center no less? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
