Angelo on site for Mike Williams

[bringbackditka]

Fair enough, grrr.

I suppose if T.Jones was included in the deal that would be a 2M savings. RW will save 3M or so, and Tucker I think will save 1.6 or something like that. I agree that Alexander would make the Bears a legitimate threat. I just get a little nervous about some of our other missing pieces and finding ways to afford them.

I think we would have to send Jones out to bring anyone in, and still draft a RB at some point. I’m also concerned that we’ll take a RB at #4, which I would only consent to for Brown. I’m with you on wanting Williams.

[Los Osos]

No man. Your numbers are way off. If a player is cut or traded before June 1st, their remaining signing bonus counts against this years cap. R-Dub would save 2 mil, but Tucker would cost money (~0.5 mil), and TJ would save only $57,000.

[bringbackditka]

I thought that a portion of the remaining bonus would be a hit this year and the rest would be the next year (I guess that's for cuts after June 1). If it all hits this year then I am incorrect.

Here's how I thought it worked:
Tucker has 4 years left, so if he's cut after June 1, he will cost 790k (remaining bonuses/4) and the Bears will not be obligated to pay his salary of 1.9M. Next year he would hit the cap for 2.37M (remaining unpaid signing buonus). So he would cost 790k this year (in signing bonuses) and 2.37M next year, but this year's salary would not count against the cap and the net would save 1.9M - 790k = 1.11M (I was kind of guessing at 1.6M).
If Jones were traded, we would not have to pay his salary of 1.8M. So that money could pay another player, whoever it is, even if it costs 57k to do so.
Both RW and Tucker could be cut after June 1 and save 3.05M and 1.9M respectively. In fact, we can assume that these cuts would wait because they will save money to wait. Terrell was cut now because he will not save more against the cap by waiting.

Osos, please take a look at this and correct whatever is wrong. I thought I understood, by I'm not sure if this is right or not. Thanks

[Los Osos]

I didn't realize you were using post-June 1st numbers. In that case you are correct.