| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jrry32
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 31315
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:13 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| scar988 wrote: | | I had to adjust the re-structures slightly. minimum salary for those players is 715k not 650k. However, you still gain almost all of the cap. I re-adjusted the terms and fixed it for you. great moves and those two are logical fits. |
I don't like it one bit.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
scar988
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 28712
Location: Charleston, SC
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jrry32 wrote: | | scar988 wrote: | | I had to adjust the re-structures slightly. minimum salary for those players is 715k not 650k. However, you still gain almost all of the cap. I re-adjusted the terms and fixed it for you. great moves and those two are logical fits. |
I don't like it one bit. |
Then follow the rules correctly. (Lawful evil here.)
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrry32
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 31315
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| scar988 wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | scar988 wrote: | | I had to adjust the re-structures slightly. minimum salary for those players is 715k not 650k. However, you still gain almost all of the cap. I re-adjusted the terms and fixed it for you. great moves and those two are logical fits. |
I don't like it one bit. |
Then follow the rules correctly. (Lawful evil here.) |
I don't care about the rules. It's a mistake to restructure those players. Completely unnecessary move.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StLunatic88
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 7215
Location: How good is your Good?
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jrry32 wrote: | | I don't care about the rules. It's a mistake to restructure those players. Completely unnecessary move. |
Within the frame work of the game this year, that is absolutely the correct move. Its dumb to completely handicap yourself the rest of the way because you want to be "realistic". And who is to say these arent possible, because they absolutely would be the options if we desperately needed to create some space.
And we did it with the cornerstone of our defense and our Franchise QB, two guys who are going to be paid anyway, and who we expect to be building this team around long term. This isnt just some overpaid Safety that we are skirting reality with for a major restructure, just to get us some unnecessary cap room.
The space we created just gave us the room that we need to sign our Draft picks, and bring back a few of our own guys. Not a whole lot more.
If we were doing restructures for real, like last year, then we wouldnt even take the time to restructure these guys, but these are the rules of the game, and at some point you have to just "play the game" to be able to play the rest of the game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrry32
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 31315
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| StLunatic88 wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | I don't care about the rules. It's a mistake to restructure those players. Completely unnecessary move. |
Within the frame work of the game this year, that is absolutely the correct move. Its dumb to completely handicap yourself the rest of the way because you want to be "realistic". And who is to say these arent possible, because they absolutely would be the options if we desperately needed to create some space.
And we did it with the cornerstone of our defense and our Franchise QB, two guys who are going to be paid anyway, and who we expect to be building this team around long term. This isnt just some overpaid Safety that we are skirting reality with for a major restructure, just to get us some unnecessary cap room.
The space we created just gave us the room that we need to sign our Draft picks, and bring back a few of our own guys. Not a whole lot more.
If we were doing restructures for real, like last year, then we wouldnt even take the time to restructure these guys, but these are the rules of the game, and at some point you have to just "play the game" to be able to play the rest of the game. |
You could get the same space if you made some cuts.
Long's deal was specifically structured in a certain way. There was no reason to push a bunch of money into the future, it's a mistake.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris00cm
Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 16216
Location: St. Charles, Missouri
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
RFA's can not be traded in this FFMD. This means the Darian Stewart for Danny Watkins trade is off.
_________________
Xbox Live Gamertag: Chris Sanity |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrry32
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 31315
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| chris00cm wrote: | | RFA's can not be traded in this FFMD. This means the Darian Stewart for Danny Watkins trade is off. |
I'd remove the tender from Stewart then.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris00cm
Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 16216
Location: St. Charles, Missouri
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jrry32 wrote: | | chris00cm wrote: | | RFA's can not be traded in this FFMD. This means the Darian Stewart for Danny Watkins trade is off. |
I'd remove the tender from Stewart then. |
We can cut him without a penalty. Pretty much the same thing.
_________________
Xbox Live Gamertag: Chris Sanity |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iRaMs
Joined: 05 May 2010
Posts: 2582
Location: Teletran 1
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| chris00cm wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | chris00cm wrote: | | RFA's can not be traded in this FFMD. This means the Darian Stewart for Danny Watkins trade is off. |
I'd remove the tender from Stewart then. |
We can cut him without a penalty. Pretty much the same thing. |
either one works
_________________
Robert Quinn
23 Tackles 8.5 sacks 1 Fumble |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrry32
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 31315
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I just had a real interesting thought...it's kind of ripping off of a Randy Karraker thought but I think what he said was really insightful. It bucks the trend of conventional wisdom to an extent but it might just be an ahead of its time type thought. It's all about evolving and countering what changes the defenses have made to counter recent trends on offense.
It's very interesting to think about.
If you guys are curious, PM me. I'll explain further.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris00cm
Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 16216
Location: St. Charles, Missouri
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
We have been offered Austin Pettis for Danny Watkins and Clay Harbor. Thoughts?
_________________
Xbox Live Gamertag: Chris Sanity |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iRaMs
Joined: 05 May 2010
Posts: 2582
Location: Teletran 1
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| chris00cm wrote: | | We have been offered Austin Pettis for Danny Watkins and Clay Harbor. Thoughts? |
I'm game for it.
_________________
Robert Quinn
23 Tackles 8.5 sacks 1 Fumble |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iRaMs
Joined: 05 May 2010
Posts: 2582
Location: Teletran 1
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jrry32 wrote: | I just had a real interesting thought...it's kind of ripping off of a Randy Karraker thought but I think what he said was really insightful. It bucks the trend of conventional wisdom to an extent but it might just be an ahead of its time type thought. It's all about evolving and countering what changes the defenses have made to counter recent trends on offense.
It's very interesting to think about.
If you guys are curious, PM me. I'll explain further. |
hit me up, I'm always up for learning jrry style.
_________________
Robert Quinn
23 Tackles 8.5 sacks 1 Fumble |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flatlyner
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 4508
Location: WESTCOAST
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| chris00cm wrote: | | We have been offered Austin Pettis for Danny Watkins and Clay Harbor. Thoughts? |
I think that helps us out quite a bit. There isn't even a guarantee that Pettis makes the team next year, particularly if we pick up a WR in the draft this year.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chris00cm
Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 16216
Location: St. Charles, Missouri
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
On to the Eagles trade, would you guys rather have Clay Harbor or Jamar Chaney? I think I'd rather have Chaney but it's your guys call.
_________________
Xbox Live Gamertag: Chris Sanity |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
