Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

McKinnie restructures contract
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Baltimore Ravens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
FlaccoForever


Joined: 12 Jul 2011
Posts: 280
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From Jason LaCanfora:

Quote:
jasonlacanfora Jason La Canfora
McKinnie's agent said "Bryant really wanted to remain a Raven" and wanted to stay with "a winning team" thus lowered salary ...
30 minutes ago Reply Retweet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RavensTillIDie


Moderator
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 13156
Location: N.W.O
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nooooooooooo!!!!

I was so happy when I heard this news. Not necessarily because I have anything against McKinnie, but I thought Oher and KO/Reid would have made for a much better tackle rotation.

Eh, if this event has shown us anything though, it is that the organization does see McKinnie as an expendable player. And if he does under-perform in anyway, they won't hesitate to give him the boot.

Hopefully, after all this, we actually see a highly motivated McKinnie this season.
_________________

Matts4313 wrote:
Speaking of attacking kids
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coordinator0


Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 7523
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And thus why I didn't want to get too excited... Crying or Very sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Integrity


Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4208
Location: Columbia
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thread title should be changed. d'oh!
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FlaccoForever


Joined: 12 Jul 2011
Posts: 280
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Integrity wrote:
Thread title should be changed. d'oh!


I changed the thread title do I get a gold star now?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SnA ExclusiVe


Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 25405
Location: Spokane, WA
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As McKinnie's agent put it: "The Ravens are a better team with him than without him" and I think that's true.

KO is a good future offensive tackle, but for now I trust McKinnie more than I trust him, and I trust Oher more on the right side than on the left.

Now, if McKinnie starts struggling and can't keep up, we have to just go with our future plan early and cut ties with McKinnie, which I also have no problem with but for now, this is our best option.
_________________


Steve Smith Sr. on Panthers Secondary wrote:
"I'm 35 years old and I ran around those boys like they was schoolyard kids."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bmorecareful


Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 576
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SnA ExclusiVe wrote:
As McKinnie's agent put it: "The Ravens are a better team with him than without him" and I think that's true.

KO is a good future offensive tackle, but for now I trust McKinnie more than I trust him, and I trust Oher more on the right side than on the left.

Now, if McKinnie starts struggling and can't keep up, we have to just go with our future plan early and cut ties with McKinnie, which I also have no problem with but for now, this is our best option.


If nothing else we need the depth I mean do we really want Harewood as our first Tackle off the bench. I mean I liked the potential of Jah Reid but Ive never got to see him play, and at this point I wonder if he will ever get healthy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
diamondbull424


Moderator
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 12982
Location: Baltimore, MD
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bmorecareful wrote:
SnA ExclusiVe wrote:
As McKinnie's agent put it: "The Ravens are a better team with him than without him" and I think that's true.

KO is a good future offensive tackle, but for now I trust McKinnie more than I trust him, and I trust Oher more on the right side than on the left.

Now, if McKinnie starts struggling and can't keep up, we have to just go with our future plan early and cut ties with McKinnie, which I also have no problem with but for now, this is our best option.


If nothing else we need the depth I mean do we really want Harewood as our first Tackle off the bench. I mean I liked the potential of Jah Reid but Ive never got to see him play, and at this point I wonder if he will ever get healthy

I missed the drama, but I'm happy with the way that it was resolved- with McKinnie being back. The depth is simply infinitesmally better WITH McKinnie than without... also the ability of the Ravens to restructure his deal makes it better just in case of the posibility that at a later time in the season we decide to reduce McKinnie's role from "starter" to "backup"...

Other then that, I have to wonder why else the Ravens would want to reduce McKinnie's salary. They are about $4m under the salary cap and still have the extra $1.5m that they could borrow from a future cap- if they wanted- so I wonder exactly why they would need an extra $1.5m or so. I doubt the new safety could've cost more than the minimum. Could Flacco's deal really need THAT much space? Or are we preparing to sign or trade for some sort of pass rusher and need the extra cash roll? It just seems like this was a "funny" time to go about this situation.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bmorecareful


Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 576
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

diamondbull424 wrote:
bmorecareful wrote:
SnA ExclusiVe wrote:
As McKinnie's agent put it: "The Ravens are a better team with him than without him" and I think that's true.

KO is a good future offensive tackle, but for now I trust McKinnie more than I trust him, and I trust Oher more on the right side than on the left.

Now, if McKinnie starts struggling and can't keep up, we have to just go with our future plan early and cut ties with McKinnie, which I also have no problem with but for now, this is our best option.


If nothing else we need the depth I mean do we really want Harewood as our first Tackle off the bench. I mean I liked the potential of Jah Reid but Ive never got to see him play, and at this point I wonder if he will ever get healthy

I missed the drama, but I'm happy with the way that it was resolved- with McKinnie being back. The depth is simply infinitesmally better WITH McKinnie than without... also the ability of the Ravens to restructure his deal makes it better just in case of the posibility that at a later time in the season we decide to reduce McKinnie's role from "starter" to "backup"...

Other then that, I have to wonder why else the Ravens would want to reduce McKinnie's salary. They are about $4m under the salary cap and still have the extra $1.5m that they could borrow from a future cap- if they wanted- so I wonder exactly why they would need an extra $1.5m or so. I doubt the new safety could've cost more than the minimum. Could Flacco's deal really need THAT much space? Or are we preparing to sign or trade for some sort of pass rusher and need the extra cash roll? It just seems like this was a "funny" time to go about this situation.



I believe something is brewing whether it be Flaccos deal or a trade of some sort or a release thats on the way from another team that creates a free agent worth bidding on. I find it hard to believe we are just cutting cost for the sake of cutting cost
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Integrity


Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4208
Location: Columbia
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FlaccoForever wrote:
Integrity wrote:
Thread title should be changed. d'oh!


I changed the thread title do I get a gold star now?


One gold star for you sir!



diamondbull424 wrote:
bmorecareful wrote:
SnA ExclusiVe wrote:
As McKinnie's agent put it: "The Ravens are a better team with him than without him" and I think that's true.

KO is a good future offensive tackle, but for now I trust McKinnie more than I trust him, and I trust Oher more on the right side than on the left.

Now, if McKinnie starts struggling and can't keep up, we have to just go with our future plan early and cut ties with McKinnie, which I also have no problem with but for now, this is our best option.


If nothing else we need the depth I mean do we really want Harewood as our first Tackle off the bench. I mean I liked the potential of Jah Reid but Ive never got to see him play, and at this point I wonder if he will ever get healthy

I missed the drama, but I'm happy with the way that it was resolved- with McKinnie being back. The depth is simply infinitesmally better WITH McKinnie than without... also the ability of the Ravens to restructure his deal makes it better just in case of the posibility that at a later time in the season we decide to reduce McKinnie's role from "starter" to "backup"...

Other then that, I have to wonder why else the Ravens would want to reduce McKinnie's salary. They are about $4m under the salary cap and still have the extra $1.5m that they could borrow from a future cap- if they wanted- so I wonder exactly why they would need an extra $1.5m or so. I doubt the new safety could've cost more than the minimum. Could Flacco's deal really need THAT much space? Or are we preparing to sign or trade for some sort of pass rusher and need the extra cash roll? It just seems like this was a "funny" time to go about this situation.


The NFL's waiver deadline was today at 4pm. The Ravens front office would not have been able to restructure McKinnie's contract without the threat of releasing him.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
diamondbull424


Moderator
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 12982
Location: Baltimore, MD
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Integrity wrote:
diamondbull424 wrote:
bmorecareful wrote:
SnA ExclusiVe wrote:
As McKinnie's agent put it: "The Ravens are a better team with him than without him" and I think that's true.

KO is a good future offensive tackle, but for now I trust McKinnie more than I trust him, and I trust Oher more on the right side than on the left.

Now, if McKinnie starts struggling and can't keep up, we have to just go with our future plan early and cut ties with McKinnie, which I also have no problem with but for now, this is our best option.


If nothing else we need the depth I mean do we really want Harewood as our first Tackle off the bench. I mean I liked the potential of Jah Reid but Ive never got to see him play, and at this point I wonder if he will ever get healthy

I missed the drama, but I'm happy with the way that it was resolved- with McKinnie being back. The depth is simply infinitesmally better WITH McKinnie than without... also the ability of the Ravens to restructure his deal makes it better just in case of the posibility that at a later time in the season we decide to reduce McKinnie's role from "starter" to "backup"...

Other then that, I have to wonder why else the Ravens would want to reduce McKinnie's salary. They are about $4m under the salary cap and still have the extra $1.5m that they could borrow from a future cap- if they wanted- so I wonder exactly why they would need an extra $1.5m or so. I doubt the new safety could've cost more than the minimum. Could Flacco's deal really need THAT much space? Or are we preparing to sign or trade for some sort of pass rusher and need the extra cash roll? It just seems like this was a "funny" time to go about this situation.


The NFL's waiver deadline was today at 4pm. The Ravens front office would not have been able to restructure McKinnie's contract without the threat of releasing him.

I wasn't referring to the deadline, I was referring to this point in the process. McKinnie said being called into the office about his contract was "out of left field" and there weren't any prior talks of the front office looking to restructure McKinnie's deal. So why all of a sudden did the Ravens decide that a day before the deadline and after the preseason (where if we were to cut McKinnie we would've had more time to work the Oher/KO starting lineup) did we decide to approach McKinnie with this contract issue? I mean, what changed to spell this on at the last minute?

Was this simply some sort of Ninja-Jedi Mind trick to make McKinnie feel welcomed and then ask him for a paycut or release at the last minute because they thought it was there best strategy in getting him to resign with the team (as in, he might be more comfortable moving to another team with more preseason time to get acclimated with that squad).

So either it was a planned strategy all along (which I wouldn't put past the front office) OR something unexpectedly changed to spur this on from a financial perspective. The team knew about the rule of 51 and their financial position, so I don't think that would be it. So if it's financially motivated, I can only think Flacco's negotiations are getting close and we just need a few extra million to get a deal done... or we're getting some extra cash in gear to throw at a veteran OLB.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coordinator0


Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 7523
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Before the deadline today the Ravens had a nice chunk of space under the cap but after that the Rule of 51 isn't in effect anymore and their cap space takes a hit. The guys on IR and the PUP list now count against the cap as well as two more on the active roster. That's about the only explanation I can come up with. They knew about the Rule of 51 but they still had to do something about it regardless.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
INbengalfan


Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 5674
Location: Richmond, IN
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 7:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great ploy by the front office. Had they approached him earlier, he would have said no, got cut and moved on. By waiting this long, he had no other real options. Ownership beats the player.....again.

Just hope that he isn't disgruntled on the field.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flaccomania


Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 22839
Location: Parkville, MD
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

INbengalfan wrote:
Great ploy by the front office. Had they approached him earlier, he would have said no, got cut and moved on. By waiting this long, he had no other real options. Ownership beats the player.....again.

Just hope that he isn't disgruntled on the field.


Maybe I don't understand an aspect of it, but I don't see how it's any sort of "ploy". If they approached him earlier, I'm not sure there would have been any different of a result, granted probably took longer because the deadline wasn't looming. Either way, if we approach him about a paycut and he wants nothing of it, he'd be cut. Whether we would have cut him sooner rather than later, I don't think it'd have really impacted his chances of finding a team necessarily.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
INbengalfan


Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 5674
Location: Richmond, IN
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Flaccomania wrote:
INbengalfan wrote:
Great ploy by the front office. Had they approached him earlier, he would have said no, got cut and moved on. By waiting this long, he had no other real options. Ownership beats the player.....again.

Just hope that he isn't disgruntled on the field.


Maybe I don't understand an aspect of it, but I don't see how it's any sort of "ploy". If they approached him earlier, I'm not sure there would have been any different of a result, granted probably took longer because the deadline wasn't looming. Either way, if we approach him about a paycut and he wants nothing of it, he'd be cut. Whether we would have cut him sooner rather than later, I don't think it'd have really impacted his chances of finding a team necessarily.


Mostly the time involved. if that happened, say, six weeks ago, he could have taken his chances and signed elsewhere. Now he can't. Teams are settled, the lines are somewhat cohesive. Another team taking him now would wreak havoc on the opening day offenseive line. Since noone would pay big $ now, he faces a paycut vs. no job at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Baltimore Ravens All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
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