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

Raiders cut LB Rolando McClain; Update - Suspended instead
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27 ... 29, 30, 31  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
dante9876


Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 21114
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2012 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DOCLEW 28 wrote:
Doesn't look like its too much time. Don't these numbers come off the books for next year? That would mean a lot more money for free agents.


oakdb36 wrote:

Yeah, something like that. And i have our projected cap number for 2013 at 119.301.770 with the players currently under contracts for 2013. Crazy thing is that it's only 34 players.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baggabonez


Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 5470
Location: RaiderNation
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

holyghost wrote:
Not sure what anyone means when they say "pay" for these changes?

Cap hits and dead money are just cap numbers, they're not real money. You "pay" for them by suffering the cap dead money, limiting you from paying part of your cap allotment to actual players, and then seeing it wiped off the next year thus freeing it up to then pay to actual active players. The cap hit is not a number you are actually paying anyone. It's just the portion of your allotted payroll assigned to that player on your roster or off it. It's an allotment, a mathematical calculation standardized for each team. It's monopoly money.

As far as guaranteed money, if there is remaining guaranteed money and you cut the guy, you pay him the money. Just like Deangelo Hall, or Jamarcus Russell, or the guy they just did the same thing with in Routt, or a host of others.. What's the question here?

You make it sound as if you all know what the details are of Seymour, Huff, Kelly, and McClain's contracts. You really don't, you only know what is reported by others, and those others who really can't say for certain either but need to report something. And even then those details are always incomplete. There could be dates by which guaranteed roster bonuses are due, etc. etc. etc.

All I am doing here is reading into the changes going on right now, on the field with Allen's decisions, in the press conferences with McKenzie's comments. So far, McKenzie has done exactly what he said he was going to do, and has focused on exactly what he said he would focus on. So why is anyone under the impression that won't continue despite the suffering caused by a heap more dead money on our cap? The dude said straight out it's a long term rebuild he has in mind, and has backed it up all along the way. Long term rebuilds like this happen by clearing out crap like this, dead money, guaranteed money to underperformers, scholarships, suffocating contracts, bad seed players, etc.
Short term suffering leads to long term cap health and proper payroll management from scratch. The staff and McKenzie are trying to get to scratch, a zero point at which they can build their team and no longer have to steal Peter to pay Paul like the team was run in the past. Anyone thinking that this staff will not remove underperformers because of salary cap issues, guaranteed payouts, and dead money is not paying attention to what they have been saying all along is their plan.

I'll repeat now what a wise poster said not a week ago. "Stop thinking the organization and staff thinks the way you do."

Honestly, maybe Huff survives. But he's definitely not worth 10 mil so I wouldn't count on it. I hope to God Kelly doesn't survive and I wouldn't count on that either. And I cannot see, at 15 million, how Seymour possibly survives this. As for McClain, I would think his suspension and demotion says quite a bit about his future here. 6.6 mil in salary paid out or 7.2 mil in dead money not paid out doesn't make any difference of note to the cap. The difference is in actually paying 6.6 mil to a slop, with a poor attitude and even worse play. Do you really expect to believe they will pay him 6.6 million dollars to avoid an additional half million on the cap, rather than eat the half million on the cap and pay him nothing?
Anyone believing that needs to stop posting until they read alot of material in order to garner a better understanding of football economics. Cap figures are not real money.


I was the one who used the quote "Stop thinking the organization and staff thinks the way you do." Let me use TK as a case example of why I believe there may not be as many wholesale changes as you might think. TK was one of the few prognostications that I missed on. I could not figure out why the organization would keep him around at his cap number especially considering that he isn't a NT. Everyone said I didn't now what I was talking about UNTIL TK came out in an interview and said he wasn't a NT but he could it if he had to (read: this will end badly), and it did.

While "dead money" is only a FIGURATIVE number and not literal it does affect an organizations ability to sign it's players and FA because although its figurative money it does literally affect the salary cap. The NFL has to have some vehicle to hold organizations that give out bad contracts accountable. No team could cut EVERY single player on their roster if they wanted to and still field a team.

Somewhere in there there is an equilibrium point at which an NFL organization must allow some of its bad paper play out or have the lack of salary cap room affect operations. NOT because they've run out of actual dollars but out of the "monopoly money" you referred to.
_________________
Raiders 2014 Draft (check out my draft review tell me what you think)
Mancrush 2014: DE Clowney, WR Watkins, OT Robinson, LB Shazier, FS Brooks, TE ASJ, OG Jackson, WR Janis, OT Lucas, OT Tiny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 14108
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 5:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baggabonez wrote:

Somewhere in there there is an equilibrium point at which an NFL organization must allow some of its bad paper play out or have the lack of salary cap room affect operations.


What if they already lack the salary cap room?
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitty


Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 3622
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 6:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

big_palooka wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
bitty wrote:
Take a look at all the dead money


Kamerion Wimbley DE 6,500,000 - - 6,500,000
Stanford Routt CB 5,000,000 - - 5,000,000
Kevin Boss TE 4,250,000 - - 4,250,000
John Henderson DT 2,250,000 - - 2,250,000
Hiram Eugene S 1,225,000 - - 1,225,000
Chris Johnson CB 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000
Aaron Curry LB 754,000 - - 754,000
Cooper Carlisle G 600,000 - - 600,000
Daniel Loper T 300,000 - - 300,000
Bruce Campbell T 261,250 - - 261,250
DeMarcus Van Dyke CB 147,844 - - 147,844
Joe Barksdale T 134,950 - - 134,950
Louis Murphy WR 112,000 - - 112,000
Chimdi Chekwa CB 111,300 - - 111,300






http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/oakland-raiders/cap-hit/


It's for this year though.


How can that be correct? Campbell and Murphy were traded with their contracts right?


It could be work-out bonuses they received before they where traded.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 14108
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitty wrote:
big_palooka wrote:

How can that be correct? Campbell and Murphy were traded with their contracts right?


It could be work-out bonuses they received before they where traded.


The signing bonus isn't traded away though.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rolni


Joined: 08 Jun 2008
Posts: 2495
Location: Europe
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
bitty wrote:
big_palooka wrote:

How can that be correct? Campbell and Murphy were traded with their contracts right?


It could be work-out bonuses they received before they where traded.


The signing bonus isn't traded away though.

that's it...
_________________
WIN LOSE OR TIE...RAIDER FAN 'TIL I DIE!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
holyghost


Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 5754
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baggabonez wrote:
holyghost wrote:
Not sure what anyone means when they say "pay" for these changes?

Cap hits and dead money are just cap numbers, they're not real money. You "pay" for them by suffering the cap dead money, limiting you from paying part of your cap allotment to actual players, and then seeing it wiped off the next year thus freeing it up to then pay to actual active players. The cap hit is not a number you are actually paying anyone. It's just the portion of your allotted payroll assigned to that player on your roster or off it. It's an allotment, a mathematical calculation standardized for each team. It's monopoly money.

As far as guaranteed money, if there is remaining guaranteed money and you cut the guy, you pay him the money. Just like Deangelo Hall, or Jamarcus Russell, or the guy they just did the same thing with in Routt, or a host of others.. What's the question here?

You make it sound as if you all know what the details are of Seymour, Huff, Kelly, and McClain's contracts. You really don't, you only know what is reported by others, and those others who really can't say for certain either but need to report something. And even then those details are always incomplete. There could be dates by which guaranteed roster bonuses are due, etc. etc. etc.

All I am doing here is reading into the changes going on right now, on the field with Allen's decisions, in the press conferences with McKenzie's comments. So far, McKenzie has done exactly what he said he was going to do, and has focused on exactly what he said he would focus on. So why is anyone under the impression that won't continue despite the suffering caused by a heap more dead money on our cap? The dude said straight out it's a long term rebuild he has in mind, and has backed it up all along the way. Long term rebuilds like this happen by clearing out crap like this, dead money, guaranteed money to underperformers, scholarships, suffocating contracts, bad seed players, etc.
Short term suffering leads to long term cap health and proper payroll management from scratch. The staff and McKenzie are trying to get to scratch, a zero point at which they can build their team and no longer have to steal Peter to pay Paul like the team was run in the past. Anyone thinking that this staff will not remove underperformers because of salary cap issues, guaranteed payouts, and dead money is not paying attention to what they have been saying all along is their plan.

I'll repeat now what a wise poster said not a week ago. "Stop thinking the organization and staff thinks the way you do."

Honestly, maybe Huff survives. But he's definitely not worth 10 mil so I wouldn't count on it. I hope to God Kelly doesn't survive and I wouldn't count on that either. And I cannot see, at 15 million, how Seymour possibly survives this. As for McClain, I would think his suspension and demotion says quite a bit about his future here. 6.6 mil in salary paid out or 7.2 mil in dead money not paid out doesn't make any difference of note to the cap. The difference is in actually paying 6.6 mil to a slop, with a poor attitude and even worse play. Do you really expect to believe they will pay him 6.6 million dollars to avoid an additional half million on the cap, rather than eat the half million on the cap and pay him nothing?
Anyone believing that needs to stop posting until they read alot of material in order to garner a better understanding of football economics. Cap figures are not real money.


I was the one who used the quote "Stop thinking the organization and staff thinks the way you do." Let me use TK as a case example of why I believe there may not be as many wholesale changes as you might think. TK was one of the few prognostications that I missed on. I could not figure out why the organization would keep him around at his cap number especially considering that he isn't a NT. Everyone said I didn't now what I was talking about UNTIL TK came out in an interview and said he wasn't a NT but he could it if he had to (read: this will end badly), and it did.

While "dead money" is only a FIGURATIVE number and not literal it does affect an organizations ability to sign it's players and FA because although its figurative money it does literally affect the salary cap. The NFL has to have some vehicle to hold organizations that give out bad contracts accountable. No team could cut EVERY single player on their roster if they wanted to and still field a team.

Somewhere in there there is an equilibrium point at which an NFL organization must allow some of its bad paper play out or have the lack of salary cap room affect operations. NOT because they've run out of actual dollars but out of the "monopoly money" you referred to.


I think Kelly is a great example of why the changes will be made, in opposition to what you're saying.
Kelly's ability to move to NT is what kept him on the roster in the first place. If he couldn't have made the move he surely wouldn't be here, not while taking on a high end starter's salary and playing behind the 15 million dollar man. (as an aside, this illustrates very nicely why our defense is so badly constructed - you can't commit 25 million dollars to the UT position, and get poor run defense and average pass rushing out of that?!!? Talk about mismanagement) And another large part of what kept him here was the absolute lack of cap room or draft picks with which to replace a guy such as him. Do you genuinely think the staff needed him to move to NT for lack of a better option and lack of the extra cap space in which to carry his dead money, or that they view him as a great NT option even if they had the choice? The former I think..

I would expect more changes than last year, in direct correlation to the fact that we will have more picks and more money / cap room to sign players. I think they will go in direct relation to eachother. So any house cleaning that happened last year, and it did happen, will only accelerate in my mind. Now we can actually replace people. I genuinely thin last year's house cleaning was scaled back far more than Reggie McKenzie woul have chose to right off the bat, because his hands were tied in so many ways in regards to finding ways to replace these guys.

His only open avenue to replace people was really minimum contract FAs or UDFAs. There's only so many guys you can get that way who even belong on a football team. It's no coincidence that we spent one of our few draft picks on Bilukidi and saw Dominique Hamilton talked up in camp as a possible guy who makes the roster. If Hamilton was actually as good as Raider fans were hoping and hyping, he'd be here and Kelly wouldn't be. Maybe he was better than Kelly, or could evolve into being, we don't know. For all we know Kelly's contract restrained us from cutting him, for lack of the cap space to house his dead money. And that's another aspect a fan generally doesn't ever look at closely, but an aspect that can lead to a snowball effect of scholarship players. Often times even if a better player emerges in camp, you might not be able to cut a player with a bad contract that year. Especially if you manage the cap like Al Davis did, peaked out to every cent and always carrying dead money or restructuring money to the following year. If any extra money accelerates, and it always does in that case, cutting a player can add to your cap. So you keep the overpaid loser instead of the underpaid performer. Because of mismanagement, not because of football. For all we know that's why Huff is here and Stevie Brown, turnover machine that he is now, is not.

Watch for more of the same changes from last year to continue this offseason, at a more rapid pace IMO.

No I think the bell tolls for thee Tommy Kelly. And I know I hope it does. I just hope we get a better player in here, and not an equal one.


Last edited by holyghost on Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nodisrespect


Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 3573
Location: in the present
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitty wrote:
Take a look at all the dead money


Kamerion Wimbley DE 6,500,000 - - 6,500,000
Stanford Routt CB 5,000,000 - - 5,000,000
Kevin Boss TE 4,250,000 - - 4,250,000
John Henderson DT 2,250,000 - - 2,250,000
Hiram Eugene S 1,225,000 - - 1,225,000
Chris Johnson CB 1,000,000 - - 1,000,000
Aaron Curry LB 754,000 - - 754,000
Cooper Carlisle G 600,000 - - 600,000
Daniel Loper T 300,000 - - 300,000
Bruce Campbell T 261,250 - - 261,250
DeMarcus Van Dyke CB 147,844 - - 147,844
Joe Barksdale T 134,950 - - 134,950
Louis Murphy WR 112,000 - - 112,000
Chimdi Chekwa CB 111,300 - - 111,300






http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/oakland-raiders/cap-hit/



I think these numbers are more accurate.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Dead-money-disasters.html

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baggabonez


Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 5470
Location: RaiderNation
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm....somehow ghost, I think we are saying the same thing but disagree on the extent. I would love to see both Seymour and Kelly gone. However, I'm not as confident as you that they BOTH will be.
_________________
Raiders 2014 Draft (check out my draft review tell me what you think)
Mancrush 2014: DE Clowney, WR Watkins, OT Robinson, LB Shazier, FS Brooks, TE ASJ, OG Jackson, WR Janis, OT Lucas, OT Tiny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
holyghost


Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 5754
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baggabonez wrote:
Hmm....somehow ghost, I think we are saying the same thing but disagree on the extent. I would love to see both Seymour and Kelly gone. However, I'm not as confident as you that they BOTH will be.


We are, and no I am not as confident in it as I seem. Anything can happen, a Raider fan must know this.

1, I only hope it will happen.
2, I only hope I am reading the situation the way it appears to be playing out and that's what I think I see coming. Only thing I am counting on is how direct McKenzie has been about what he'll do with this team, and how he's done exactly what he said he would so far.

When he says the problem is you gotta blow people off the ball, as he did Friday, I take that as a pretty lightly veiled implication he will overhaul the lines and sees that as the primary problem right now. Since Seymour hasn't played in weeks, I can't imagine it's not partially or greatly directed at Kelly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dessie


Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 4395
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

holyghost wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:
Hmm....somehow ghost, I think we are saying the same thing but disagree on the extent. I would love to see both Seymour and Kelly gone. However, I'm not as confident as you that they BOTH will be.


We are, and no I am not as confident in it as I seem. Anything can happen, a Raider fan must know this.

1, I only hope it will happen.
2, I only hope I am reading the situation the way it appears to be playing out and that's what I think I see coming. Only thing I am counting on is how direct McKenzie has been about what he'll do with this team, and how he's done exactly what he said he would so far.

When he says the problem is you gotta blow people off the ball, as he did Friday, I take that as a pretty lightly veiled implication he will overhaul the lines and sees that as the primary problem right now. Since Seymour hasn't played in weeks, I can't imagine it's not partially or greatly directed at Kelly.


Confused In Reggies press conference he explicitly said that he was happy with the D-line, and they weren't getting blown off the ball.


Quote:
But since then, if you look at game by game, and see the big plays, now, our D-line is not getting knocked around the ball. Weíre stout up front. But when you talk about run game, run defense, the one thing that you worry about is getting knocked around up front. And our guys are not. But the bottom line is, the gaps. I mean, yeah, thatís fixable, but you canít let it happen. So, thatís part of it right there. That and a big pass play, especially on third down, when you think you can get off the field. Too many of those since then. Especially in November

_________________
bitty wrote:
I don't understand why everybody thinks Green Bay is the pinnacle of NFL franchises?
In my opinion they are a joke. In the last ten years there drafts sucked.
#clueless
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
holyghost


Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 5754
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dessie wrote:
holyghost wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:
Hmm....somehow ghost, I think we are saying the same thing but disagree on the extent. I would love to see both Seymour and Kelly gone. However, I'm not as confident as you that they BOTH will be.


We are, and no I am not as confident in it as I seem. Anything can happen, a Raider fan must know this.

1, I only hope it will happen.
2, I only hope I am reading the situation the way it appears to be playing out and that's what I think I see coming. Only thing I am counting on is how direct McKenzie has been about what he'll do with this team, and how he's done exactly what he said he would so far.

When he says the problem is you gotta blow people off the ball, as he did Friday, I take that as a pretty lightly veiled implication he will overhaul the lines and sees that as the primary problem right now. Since Seymour hasn't played in weeks, I can't imagine it's not partially or greatly directed at Kelly.


Confused In Reggies press conference he explicitly said that he was happy with the D-line, he was referring to the o-line getting blown off the ball.


Quote:
But since then, if you look at game by game, and see the big plays, now, our D-line is not getting knocked around the ball. Weíre stout up front. But when you talk about run game, run defense, the one thing that you worry about is getting knocked around up front. And our guys are not. But the bottom line is, the gaps. I mean, yeah, thatís fixable, but you canít let it happen. So, thatís part of it right there. That and a big pass play, especially on third down, when you think you can get off the field. Too many of those since then. Especially in November


Hmmf. Well that sucks. Because I hate Kelly as a player. 0 sacks, crap run D, same high penalties, crap leader, and making 10 mil playing out of position. Please let good sense win out.

BTW, has anyone else noticed that at the NT slot taking on 2 blockers often, the guy has disappeared as a pass rusher? Turns out playing next to Burgess, Sapp, Seymour, Wimbley, have made Kelly look alot better than he is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
a4ce


Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 1028
Location: Paradise
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Per @CBSRaiders

On Fox NFL Sunday, Jay Glazier reported that LB Rolando McClain, who was suspended last week for two games, was fined $15,000 two weeks ago.

Glazier: "Players there, they're telling me this has been an ongoing problem with Rolando McClain. ..."

Glazier cont.: "The tipping point was last week.Somebody asked him, 'Do you even care?' He said, 'I've got 4 million reasons not to care.'"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LivingLegendWFC


Joined: 28 Oct 2009
Posts: 11081
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

a4ce wrote:
Per @CBSRaiders

On Fox NFL Sunday, Jay Glazier reported that LB Rolando McClain, who was suspended last week for two games, was fined $15,000 two weeks ago.

Glazier: "Players there, they're telling me this has been an ongoing problem with Rolando McClain. ..."

Glazier cont.: "The tipping point was last week.Somebody asked him, 'Do you even care?' He said, 'I've got 4 million reasons not to care.'"


And I've got four million different reasons to want to kick his a$$.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yogi


Joined: 30 Dec 2008
Posts: 1536
Location: Houston
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

a4ce wrote:

Glazier cont.: "The tipping point was last week.Somebody asked him, 'Do you even care?' He said, 'I've got 4 million reasons not to care.'"

Wow. The McClain meltdown continues. Sounds like what he really wants is go the JaMarcus route and take his dishonorable discharge from the NFL.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27 ... 29, 30, 31  Next
Page 26 of 31

 
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