No announcement yet.

manu and the cap part 2

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • manu and the cap part 2

    According to barry waller, manus 2006 salary is 1.325 million (he didnt answer as to what the total cap number is if you include the prorated signing bonus)

    barry says that if manu is cut pre june 1 (which obviously would give you the most use of the savings since presumably that is when there are better guys available to sign), we would save only 125k this year. That is a big big cap hit, over a million dollars. It wont happen guys.

    if he is cut after june 1, we would take a cap hit of a bit over 400k this year and about 600k next year.

    These numbers may not be exact, but i think it makes the point (as barry does) that it is unlikely that manu is going anywhere for this season.

    In 2006, lets throw him the ball and see if he can actually catch and get someone else on the relative cheap who can block. I have no objection to a middle round developmental tight end, but this cap view seems to rule out a high dollar free agent.

    ramming speed to all

    general counsel

  • #2
    Re: manu and the cap part 2

    You know I look back now, wow did we make a mistake on this guy, never should of matched that offer...

    "The breakfast Club":helmet:


    • #3
      Re: manu and the cap part 2

      Sure we have to keep him cap wise for now, but I don't think Roland Williams will be back. We need another TE, so we draft one of the studs hopefully, and they become our #1TE and Manu can sit and rot til we can cut him when it's cap friendly.


      • #4
        Re: manu and the cap part 2

        I don't necessarily think that Manu is a great player by any means, however he is worth keeping around for roughly $1.3 million. I have always thought he had soft hands but the TE position (until now) just never has a very significant role in the Rams style of offense. Giving Manu one more year couldn't hurt given the cap numbers quoted above.:helmet:


        • #5
          Re: manu and the cap part 2

          At the time, I wondered why we matched that contract offer. It was an enormous amount of money for a guy who hadn't proven anything and I was willing to let him walk, especially considering how infrequently we threw to the TE in Martz's offense. But I agree 100% -- it makes no cap sense to cut the guy, so we might as well see what he's made of.

          RE: another TE. Don't forget the kid we drafted last year (Collins, right?). Who knows if he's any good or not.


          • #6
            Re: manu and the cap part 2

            At one time I was a Manu fan. Then it happened! I do not remember the game, but Bulger threw a strike to Manu down the middle of the field. All Manu had to do was extend his arms to make the reception - BUT HE SHORT ARMED IT and MADE A HALF A** attempt. The replay made me ill!!!!

            Ever since then I have been wishing he was gone!

            It's funny how one play can change your opinion of a player - ONE PLAY!

            ARF ARF!!


            • #7
              Re: manu and the cap part 2

              It funny all I remember about Manu is that catch he made against the Hawks in that famous come from behind game and THATS IT!!!!! yep well worth his salary :bored: but we are stuck with it!!

              "The breakfast Club":helmet:


              • #8
                Re: manu and the cap part 2

                I believe that very few are willing to cut him loose with the cap implications. I just think that most people see him as a big disappointment and can't understand why we matched that offer. I just think that for what we are paying him that he has failed to meet the expectation or is worth his salary. Perhaps, under the new regime and in a new scheme he can prove his worth. Then again, he is Manu...we shall see...


                • #9
                  Re: manu and the cap part 2

                  Thats true lets see what happens and go from their ?? But I do agree with what has been said here ...
                  :helmet::ram::helmet: :ram::helmet::ram:


                  • #10
                    Re: manu and the cap part 2

                    Originally posted by SFCRamFan
                    I just think that most people see him as a big disappointment and can't understand why we matched that offer.
                    I understand why we matched the offer -- Mike Martz thought he was a bigger, badder Trung Candidate. :tongue:


                    Related Topics


                    • general counsel
                      Important cap question relating to potential trades
                      by general counsel
                      Does anyone know exactly how much cap we have available and what we might do to create more room via restructuring if need be to make a deal or two? Janoris Jenkins is a great example. I am confident the giants would trade him for a mid round pick to dump him (ie 5th or maybe lower) but its a 15 million cap hit. they want a first round pick for landon collins allegedly. I dont think safety is the real need, as highly as i think of collins (and he is a free agent at the end of the year)

                      Ramming speed to all

                      general counsel
                      -10-29-2018, 12:54 PM
                    • ManofGod
                      Updated: Rams not over the cap!!!
                      by ManofGod
                      Many of the Rams faithful have been excited over the recent free agent moves made by the front office, but there is one problem....we are now over the mandatory salary cap. Now compared to other teams in the league who are several million dollars over the cap, the Rams 100K is laughable but this still means that unless the Rams make a few cuts and/or restructure a few contracts, several of the free agent moves made by the team will not be allowed to take effect. We have until 4pm to "make a deal", do any of you guys have an idea of possible moves the front office will make?
                      -08-04-2011, 06:17 AM
                    • Richbert88
                      $39m one-time cap charge?
                      by Richbert88
                      ESPN is reporting "The St. Louis Rams have $39 million of one-time cap charges .......regarding Bradford, J Smith and Long.....but will still have $12m in cap space, the lowest in the NFC West."

                      Can anybody clarify the "one-time cap charge" thing for me?
                      -07-25-2011, 12:31 PM
                    • Nick_Weasel
                      Some musings about why the Rams approach makes sense under new salary cap structure
                      by Nick_Weasel
                      There are different ways to build a roster in the NFL, and each team approaches it slightly differently. I've been doing a little thinking about how teams should adapt their approach based on the new CBA and the current trend of flat-to-slightly-increased salary cap each year. I think the Rams approach of not back-loading contracts and concentrating on locking up their core veterans years in advance both take advantage of the "new normal." A lot of this is just me thinking out loud so please correct me where I'm wrong.

                      First, the issue of the (more or less) stagnant salary cap. This may change in the medium- and long-term, but at least for the next couple years the salary cap is expected to remain relatively flat. This affects the merits of backloading contracts and/or using huge signing bonuses to delay salary cap charges. One of the major advantages to delaying salary cap hits when the cap is growing rapidly is that the same charge is a smaller fraction of the salary cap in future years than in the current year. Let's say the salary cap is $100M (just to use a nice round number) and you have $5M in charges that you need to take. That's 5% of your team's salary cap. But if you delay the charge for a couple years to when the salary cap is (let's say) $125M, the same $5M represents only 4% of the salary cap. Salary cap inflation has solved part of the problem for you, essentially reducing the "cost" of that salary cap hit by 20% (from 5% -> 4%), while still allowing you to pay your player $5M in cash this year. If the salary cap remains at $100M though, 5% is 5% no matter when you take it.

                      Second, the rookie wage scale. The days of massive (relatively speaking) rookie contracts are over. Sam Bradford signed a 6-year/$78M ($50M guaranteed) contract while a year later the #1 overall pick Cam Newton signed "only" a 4-year/$22M ($22M guaranteed) contract. But holding the overall salary cap constant, rookies making less means veterans making more. With players receiving a larger portion of their career earnings in their veteran contracts, it makes these contracts more important for them. It also means that rookies should put a larger premium on the safety of long-term contracts, especially if you are talking about offering players extensions while they still have a year or two existing under their current contract.

                      For example, Sam Bradford should be less risk averse than Cam Newton when it comes to a 2nd contract - he has already made substantially more and so an injury/poor play affects his total earnings less than it would Newton. This means Newton should be more likely to accept a contract extension with a year left in his rookie contract, even if it means giving up a couple million over what he'd likely earn by waiting. A player like Bradford is better able to wait a year and test the FA waters because of the security his rookie contract afforded him (let's hope he doesn't!).
                      -03-15-2013, 12:19 PM
                    • RamsFanSam
                      Cap Questions
                      by RamsFanSam
                      I end up asking a bunch of questions about the cap every year, but this year it's different. We need space - and a lot of it.

                      1. I've heard $8 million, $14 million, and everything in between. Since I can't seem to find any official amount, exactly where are we?

                      2. What is the date we MUST be at or below the cap?

                      3. It may sound stupid, but... What will happen if we aren't under the cap?

                      4. If I remember correctly, it's only the top 52 who count against the cap. How many of those are likely to be gone before camp, and about how much space will that give us?
                      -02-19-2009, 04:02 PM