We can lead the hordes to water-cooler talk, but we can't make them thinkDoes anyone read the thread before posting "news"?
I know you're loving this and I am as well - I agree 100% with owners (especially Snyder) getting their financial comeuppance (especially Snyder) and players in general making every dime they can - but I'm wondering what their option really was?Probably already signed.
We're up to $44 over two years. If he plays here 2017 and they don't find a successor, then it's $28 for a transition tag next year. That brings you to $72,000,000 for three years, the most any NFL player has ever made in a three-year stretch, every penny of it against the cap.
Perfect is the enemy of good. The team's position has been as irrational as that of an investor who wants to buy this year's growth stock at last year's prices.
"Show me." He did.
Correct. They paid more for Revis for the last 2 years than the Pats did for Brady.Since cap money rolls over, it's basically the same as mortgaging the future. Bottom line is he cost them 41 million in cap space for 2 years of play - one of which was averagish and the other of which was terrible. The Jets played it like dogshit.
You're saying that plenty of SoSH posters wouldn't necessarily be better at running an NFL team than Jets management? I don't know about that one...He wasn't worth what they paid him the last two years but they get a clean break. Or at least partially clean depending on where he goes. If they'd paid him $25m of the $39m in signing bonus, they'd have at least $15m more in cap hits coming. Who knows if they really would have rolled it all forward?
Everyone makes bad signings. There were plenty here who probably would have jumped at a 2/32 contract if we could have gotten it. At least they limited the damage to two years where, in retrospect, whether he was great or shitty didn't much matter because nobody could throw the ball to Jets players.
You cannot see twitter postings in the app as they are not parsed correctly.Does anyone read the thread before posting "news"?
Just a quick question about the whole "setting the market" idea. The Texans gave Osweiler a crazy contract last year, and I've heard people say that that "set the market" for what other FA QB could expect this year. Why does one stupid contract "set the market"? Why don't other GMs simply say, uh, no, just because the Texans made one idiotic deal doesn't mean that the rest of us are gonna do that? Why does one dumb contract mean that everyone else has to start paying that kind of money?Logan and Bouye can't wait for the other to set the market.
First rate. Dorothy Parker is nodding wryly from the grave.We can lead the hordes to water-cooler talk, but we can't make them think
Both are good moves, I think, although the instant replay thing could go awry in terms of the perception of "fixing"Per rotoworld: The league is considering hiring 17 full time refs and changing instant replays to a centralized/league review process
It doesn't mean you have to. The option is paying it or not getting the player. Your choice.Just a quick question about the whole "setting the market" idea. The Texans gave Osweiler a crazy contract last year, and I've heard people say that that "set the market" for what other FA QB could expect this year. Why does one stupid contract "set the market"? Why don't other GMs simply say, uh, no, just because the Texans made one idiotic deal doesn't mean that the rest of us are gonna do that? Why does one dumb contract mean that everyone else has to start paying that kind of money?
So in this case, if someone offered Ryan crazy money, why does that mean that someone ELSE needs to pay Bouye that kind of crazy money?
I guess my question is why don't the other owners recognize when a stupid contract is given out? In other words, one owner hands out a ridiculous contract, and now everyone else just shrugs and says, well, I guess now we ALL have to start paying that kind of money for similar players? Why don't the other owners just go, oh wow THAT was stupid, and not go there?It doesn't mean you have to. The option is paying it or not getting the player. Your choice.
Have you heard of collusion? It kinda happened once.I guess my question is why don't the other owners recognize when a stupid contract is given out? In other words, one owner hands out a ridiculous contract, and now everyone else just shrugs and says, well, I guess now we ALL have to start paying that kind of money for similar players? Why don't the other owners just go, oh wow THAT was stupid, and not go there?
Or is it the case if one guy goes there, SOMEONE else will, and as long as someone else will, the next player in line is gonna get that kind of money?
In other words, it sounds like one owner's stupidity basically forces that same stupidity on everyone else. Which is just even more stupidity.
It's a fair point but there are reasons this happens:I guess my question is why don't the other owners recognize when a stupid contract is given out? In other words, one owner hands out a ridiculous contract, and now everyone else just shrugs and says, well, I guess now we ALL have to start paying that kind of money for similar players? Why don't the other owners just go, oh wow THAT was stupid, and not go there?
Or is it the case if one guy goes there, SOMEONE else will, and as long as someone else will, the next player in line is gonna get that kind of money?
In other words, it sounds like one owner's stupidity basically forces that same stupidity on everyone else. Which is just even more stupidity.
Yeah, that's not what I'm thinking about. I'm not suggesting they all sit around together and decide collectively not to pay players XYZ. I'm just thinking that if one owner signs a player to a ridiculous contract, all the other owners independently (and correctly) think, "Geez that's frigging ridiculous, I'm not paying anyone THAT kind of money at that position." That obviously wouldn't be collusion.Have you heard of collusion? It kinda happened once.
Yeah, fair points.It's a fair point but there are reasons this happens:
1. Few contracts are that obviously stupid. Given how rapid the salary cap has risen, GMs don't really have perfect information about whether a contract was truly stupid or whether a contract was a true reflection of the new state of the market.
2. GMs often have to show success in a time frame that's shorter than contract structures. So if one player gets a stupid contract and a GM thinks getting the other requires a similar contract that GM may offer a similar contract as long as cap hits are spread to years 4 and 5.
3. Some of the "stupid" contracts do end up affecting the overall market in future because they affect franchise tag values. And if a bad CB contract pulls up future franchise tag value for a CB this also means it'll affect future and present valuations for a CB.
He is the last outside linebacker to be born as a British subject.Adam SchefterVerified account @AdamSchefter 38s38 seconds ago
James Harrison and Steelers reached agreement on 2 year, $3.5 million deal, per source.
I can't believe he is still playing
"Hopes"? Yeah, that can be done pretty easily, NFL.Adam SchefterVerified account @AdamSchefter 9m9 minutes ago
NFL hopes to relax penalties for excessive celebrations, per @kevinseifert. http://es.pn/2lzob7U
Not anymore it's not, but it was before last year. He may have been crazy to restructure the way he did, costing himself that amount in guarantees:Or he and his agent don't think it's likely he'll see that.
The money is not guaranteed so SF can cut him at any time. By opting out he controls the timing and can work on deals at the start of FA before teams sign other QBs.
But probably they feel he'll make more.
Totally crazy move for 2017 Kaepernick. Would have been a boss decision for 2012-2013 Kaepernick though. Wonder if coaching (Edit: or ownership being nucking futs) had anything to do with the difference...Kaepernick's contract was originally supposed to keep him with the Niners through 2020, but the team worked with the 29-year-old to revamp it before he reclaimed the starting job in October.
As part of the deal's reconfiguration, Kaepernick traded $14.5 million in injury guarantees during the 2017 season for the opportunity to opt out of the deal early. His decision saves the Niners his $14.5 million base salary in 2017 though he will still count nearly $2.5 million in dead money for the remainder of his signing bonus proration.
Joe Banner said yesterday that he has never seen an NFL player with this kind of negotiating leverage. It's greater today with the McCloughan circus.Kirk Cousins is going to make like $90MM guaranteed by the time this runs its course, good for him.
Having a QB in that above average/non-elite tier continues to be a really tough spot for teams. I probably agree that they should probably have moved Cousins last offseason or should move him now (although if I was Cousins now Id make it 100% clear I was hitting the open market next year if the Redskins trade me, he's better off staying in that offense/system for another year now), but man that's hard to sell to a fanbase. At the same time, I think signing Cousins to a giant long-term deal sort of caps where the Redskins can go as a team. Those mid-tier massive QB extensions have mostly been a path to team mediocrity and a Cousins contract was going to be the worst of the bunch.
Well played, sir. Well played.Adam SchefterVerified account @AdamSchefter 47m47 minutes ago
Eagles win coin toss and pick 14th in first round; Colts lose flip and pick 15th.
*
Banner: "Mid-Round Coin Toss Participant 2017"
Or they want some compensation for him instead of letting him walk for nothing.
Rappaport: Play a potential and unprecedented three-way deal forward… #49ers inquire about Cousins. #Redskins talk about Tony Romo. #Cowboys get picks
Why to Washington if Denver is in the hunt to? If this goes down, I guess Dallas believes Romo is toast and doesn't care about him playing in the division.
Eh. If the draft picks outweigh the incremental value that Romo gives the Redskins over Cousins, Jerrah makes that trade between hits of Viagra.ProFootballTalkVerified account @ProFootballTalk 11m11 minutes ago
If Cowboys are willing to send Romo to Washington, Washington should be very leery.