throwback week



Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 41 of 41
  1. #31
    Large_Ant Guest

    Re: Hawks sign Peterson

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    Technically it is if you purchase tickets or other merchandise. I spend a good bit of money on Rams merchandise and tickets each year, so I would hope they'd use that money wisely.




    Um, the Redskins were at $109 million as of March 1st, which put them largely over the projected non-CBA cap and still put them over any cap brought about after the CBA. They had to cut a number of veterans to make space, including Cory Raymer, Walt Harris, Matt Bowen, and Brandon Noble.

    The bottom line is this kind of spending does catch up with you. If your team is of the "win now" mentality, then I guess it doesn't matter. But if you want to try and build a team that's going to be competitive for years and won't have to go into the kind of purging that teams like the Titans have to, then I don't think the kind of spending the Seahawks are engaging in is all that wise.
    Remains to be seen. The Redskins cut all of those guys you named and then signed higher priced free agents. Those were all guys that were likely to have been cut regardless of the Redskins cap situation. And what you're not pointing out is that they were able to sign five higher profile guys in free agency.

    I'm just not buying the whole cap hell scenario. Those who end up in cap hell are there because they don't know how to structure contracts, not because they spent an extra five million in signing bonus that will be stretched out over five years with an ever increasing cap.


  2. #32
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,867
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Hawks sign Peterson

    Who are the five high profile guys they've signed? They signed Archuleta, Carter, and Randle El to very back loaded contracts.

    My point is that yes, the Redskins did have to get under the cap. They were able to resign bigger name free agents because the initial terms of the deals signed were low and wouldn't count as much toward the current cap.

    But the bottom line is that kind of technique catches up with you, and forces you to make some cuts to get under the cap in the future, as they did this year. Would the Redskins have cut those players anyways? I don't think we can tell one way or the other, but the fact remains that they were over the cap by quite a bit going into this offseason.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  3. #33
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    19,037
    Rep Power
    171

    Re: Hawks sign Peterson

    So Seattle is structuring contracts in a different manner than any other team? I don't buy it.

    The bottom line is that you want to avoid dead money. If you give a big contract with a big signing bonus, you should have a reasonable expectation that the player will remain productive long enough that the bonus will be pro-rated over several years. Otherwise, you end up with a choice between cutting a player and allowing the remaining bonus to go against the cap, or to keep the player on the roster despite his lack of productivity.

    I give the Hawks 2 years, 3 years tops, before they are dealing with this issue in a major way.

    The question is - will the gamble pay off? If the team wins a Championship in that window of time, everyone will accept the cap Hell that follows.

    But writing big checks is no guarantee. If it was, Daniel Snyder would have a Super Bowl ring.

  4. #34
    Large_Ant Guest

    Re: Hawks sign Peterson

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    ...

    But the bottom line is that kind of technique catches up with you, and forces you to make some cuts to get under the cap in the future, as they did this year. Would the Redskins have cut those players anyways? I don't think we can tell one way or the other, but the fact remains that they were over the cap by quite a bit going into this offseason.
    I think we can tell either way whether they would have cut those players. They replaced one safety with a better safety and two of the four were mediocre at best and already were on the down sides of their career. Besides, the Redskins cut them far before they ever knew whether it would be necessary or not. Every team cuts some dead weight at the beginning of the year (like Chris Claiborne). It doesn't seem to me that these guys had anything to do with "cap hell".

    All I'm saying is that these guys have had impending cap doom for years. If having to cut these four guys was it, I'll take cap hell any day. It's simply overblown.
    Last edited by Large_Ant; -03-25-2006 at 04:31 PM.

  5. #35
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,867
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Hawks sign Peterson

    Quote Originally Posted by Large_Ant
    Besides, the Redskins cut them far before they ever knew whether it would be necessary or not.
    Incorrect. I've already pointed out that the Redskins were vastly over the projected non-CBA cap figure, and were also over the estimated cap figure with a CBA. They were over the cap in both instances, so it was in fact necessary.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  6. #36
    Large_Ant Guest

    Re: Hawks sign Peterson

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    Incorrect. I've already pointed out that the Redskins were vastly over the projected non-CBA cap figure, and were also over the estimated cap figure with a CBA. They were over the cap in both instances, so it was in fact necessary.
    Fair point. But those guys careers were all on the downside. I don't think they will suffer for having let them go. I also think we'd both agree that their ability to sign five quality (not spectacular but certainly not bums) free agents would indicate that if they're going to ever hit "cap hell", it certainly hasn't happened yet. I envision that scenario as having to make deep cuts and replace them with garbage. Randle El and Kevin Carter are far from garbage at this point in their careers.
    Last edited by Large_Ant; -03-26-2006 at 02:46 AM.

  7. #37
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    19,037
    Rep Power
    171

    Re: Hawks sign Peterson

    Quote Originally Posted by Large_Ant
    Randle El and Kevin Carter are far from garbage at this point in their careers.
    You mean Andre Carter?

    Actually, the Redskins are guilty of poor spending. Carter is a guy who started his career strong, but has had only 6.5 sacks in the past two years. Randle-El is a very valuable role player, but if the Redskins intend to use him as a front-line WR, well, he hasn't proven that he has that in him. And then there's Adam Archuleta, a classic case of overpaying a big name/mediocre player.

    The Seahawks' current spending is, at least in the short run, likely to produce greater results. However, Alexander and Petersen are unlikely to remain productive through the life of their contracts. That could result in some tough choices down the road when some of their younger players are ready for new deals.

    Not an unusual problem... that's why there aren't many "dynasty" type success stories these days.

  8. #38
    Large_Ant Guest

    Re: Hawks sign Peterson

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam
    You mean Andre Carter?

    Actually, the Redskins are guilty of poor spending. Carter is a guy who started his career strong, but has had only 6.5 sacks in the past two years. Randle-El is a very valuable role player, but if the Redskins intend to use him as a front-line WR, well, he hasn't proven that he has that in him. And then there's Adam Archuleta, a classic case of overpaying a big name/mediocre player.

    The Seahawks' current spending is, at least in the short run, likely to produce greater results. However, Alexander and Petersen are unlikely to remain productive through the life of their contracts. That could result in some tough choices down the road when some of their younger players are ready for new deals.

    Not an unusual problem... that's why there aren't many "dynasty" type success stories these days.
    Yes, I did mean to say Andre not Kevin. And I left Archuleta out because I think he's overrated as well but still an upgrade for them.

    As far as Peterson and Alexander, I think it is reasonable to believe that they will perform well enough to be worth their guarantees but most likely neither will see the ends of their contracts, most certainly not Alexander.

    You asked before if Seattle is structuring their deals differently than the rest of the NFL. I don't know about all that but they're certainly structuring them in ways that allow them to place the biggest hit during times when they'll have the most available cap space. For example, Alexander's deal which carries an $11M signing bonus can have that bonus stretched out over 5 years. That's a $2.2M cap hit over the next 5 years. Assuming that Shaun only peforms for the next 3 years, releasing him will only cost them $4.4 and less if he remains productive longer. Everybody knows that he'll never see the end of his contract (which would expire when he's 37) so the $62 million price tag is irrelevant. The deal will end up being much more like 4 years/$30 million when it all shakes out which is a fair price for a RB of his caliber.

    With most of these contracts, it's the guaranteed money that really matters. Because when a guy slows down and you have to cut bait, that's all you're going to be stuck with on your books. Shaun got the highest paying contract ever for a RB with his 8 year / $62M dollar deal. But while it makes his ego feel real good, that $62M figure might as well have been $162M because he'll be cut before he ever even sees half of it. All some of these numbers we hear are are a bunch of really big numbers that don't mean squat.

  9. #39
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    19,037
    Rep Power
    171

    Re: Hawks sign Peterson

    I agree that the Hawks are being smart with the way that their contracts are being structured, but there's still a big risk any time you give a large signing bonus.

    The Rams got burned with the contracts they gave to Kurt Warner and Kyle Turley - not because they were above-market deals, but because the Rams had the bad luck of having those players suffer major injuries early in the contracts.

  10. #40
    Large_Ant Guest

    Re: Hawks sign Peterson

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam
    I agree that the Hawks are being smart with the way that their contracts are being structured, but there's still a big risk any time you give a large signing bonus.

    The Rams got burned with the contracts they gave to Kurt Warner and Kyle Turley - not because they were above-market deals, but because the Rams had the bad luck of having those players suffer major injuries early in the contracts.
    Yeah, that's always the big question mark - can the guy stay healthy. But unless you significantly "under"pay somebody, there's always going to be a certain amount of risk in the contract because of injury or them being flat out ineffective. I'm just saying that I'd rather a front office take some risks and sign some guys than to hord cash and be afraid of getting burned. It just seems than when they do that, it shows a commitment to trying not to be bad rather than a commitment to trying to win.

    Momma always said "Do SOMETHING, even if it's wrong. Just don't do NOTHING." Within in reason, I agree with that theory. The Rams could have just ridden out their investment in their LBs from last year but instead they admitted to themselves that it wasn't working and did what they needed to do to improve, despite how much money they might have to throw away. In comes Witherspoon, out goes Claiborne. IMO, that's the kind of mindset that wins games. When you're too afraid that spending some money might cost you some money, you end up being perpetually "mediocre" like the Seahawks have been for most of their history. At this point, I'm glad to see a different mentality, "even if it's wrong."

  11. #41
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    19,037
    Rep Power
    171

    Re: Hawks sign Peterson

    Actually, the Rams signed Claiborne and Coakley to moderate deals because they apparently didn't want to pay the big bucks to other FA LBs who were available such as Ed Hartwell and Kendrell Bell.

    The irony there is that neither strategy would have worked last year. Neither Bell (mediocre season) nor Hartwell (injured) earned their money, and neither did Claiborne and Coakley.

    The difference is that the Rams conservative strategy meant that cutting Claiborne didn't have a huge cap impact.

    So, the moral of the story is...

    You get what you pay for, except when you don't.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •