Franchise Amounts (bad news for Flo)

[theogt]

I think you're low on your tenders for rookies and the Canty/Barber contracts.

Maybe. But if at all, then only by $.5-1.

No way will Hamlin have a cap hit of less than $3 mil.

Yes, way. It's totally plausible.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We have no idea whether they've asked for anything.

No, I don't think they will.

It's called a rookie cap. Teams are given a certain amount to spend on rookies.

Foolish? You come out looking like an idiot in nearly every thread.

Its called a salary cap teams are given a certain amount to spend on players.

And why wouldnt they look at what transpired in the past with a player with a different club in identical circumstances?

Really? A first and a third huh theo? You thought that was fair value, remember? What did the Lions come out asking for? Now realize that the initial proposal from the seller is the high end of what theyre looking for remember....

Whatever theo its obvious youve taken your 'I refuse to ever admit I could be wrong' stance and its so obvious to your answer about the Runyan deal.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Maybe. But if at all, then only by $.5-1.

Yes, way. It's totally plausible.

Really, thats funny. Hamlins coming off one of the best years of his career and just turned 27 years old. Oh and the only other starting quality safety on the market is Doss.

Since we cant look at precedents what is your backside tellign you is a feasible deal that Hamlin will accept and will result in a cap hit for less than $3mil?

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Really, thats funny. Hamlins coming off one of the best years of his career and just turned 27 years old.

Since we cant look at precedents what is your backside tellign you is a feasible deal that Hamlin will accept and will result in a cap hit for less than $3mil?

I was thinking the same.

First off Hamlin will want at least $10 mil in guaranteed money right now. And since you can't amortize bonus over more than 5 seasons, there's a $2 mil cap charge right there in just bonus.

 

[theogt]

And why wouldnt they look at what transpired in the past with a player with a different club in identical circumstances?

I didn't say they wouldn't.

Really? A first and a third huh theo? You thought that was fair value, remember?

I didn't say it was fair value. I said I'd be willing to give up that much. I also said that I would ask for much less and see what the market demands. I didn't think that the market would be that high, but that's what I would be willing to give up (i.e., a max).

What did the Lions come out asking for? Now realize that the initial proposal from the seller is the high end of what theyre looking for remember....

We have no idea what the Lions came out asking for.

Whatever theo its obvious youve taken your 'I refuse to ever admit I could be wrong' stance and its so obvious to your answer about the Runyan deal.

When I argue with you, I'm not wrong. That's not fair, though, because you make it so easy.

 

[theogt]

Really, thats funny. Hamlins coming off one of the best years of his career and just turned 27 years old. Oh and the only other starting quality safety on the market is Doss.

Since we cant look at precedents what is your backside tellign you is a feasible deal that Hamlin will accept and will result in a cap hit for less than $3mil?

I was thinking the same.

First off Hamlin will want at least $10 mil in guaranteed money right now. And since you can't amortize bonus over more than 5 seasons, there's a $2 mil cap charge right there in just bonus.

Do you think he could demand as much as Nate Clements?

If so, according to AdamJT, Nate Clements' contract could have been structured to where his cap hit for '07 would have been about $2.5 million.

Honestly, I don't think he will cost nearly as much as Clements. But if it's possible to structure Clements' contract that way, then it'd be possible to structure Hamlin's.

 

[theogt]

Have a nice night fellas, I'm off for drinks!

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Do you think he could demand as much as Nate Clements?

If so, according to AdamJT, Nate Clements' contract could have been structured to where his cap hit for '07 would have been about $2.5 million.

Honestly, I don't think he will cost nearly as much as Clements. But if it's possible to structure Clements' contract that way, then it'd be possible to structure Hamlin's.

Being possible and being likely are two different things.

This team hasn't done doofus back-loaded contracts in a while.

I doubt they start now.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Other news includes the rumor that Lions wide receiver Roy Williams is on the trading block, and one report said Detroit would look for a second-round pick in return. Williams played for two seasons under former Lions offensive coordinator Mike Martz, who's now with the 49ers, so would the 49ers look to make a deal for Williams?



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...;entry_id=23734

Yeah we do.... Thats a newpaper not your backside talking.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didn't say they wouldn't.

I didn't say it was fair value. I said I'd be willing to give up that much. I also said that I would ask for much less and see what the market demands. I didn't think that the market would be that high, but that's what I would be willing to give up (i.e., a max).

We have no idea what the Lions came out asking for.

When I argue with you, I'm not wrong. That's not fair, though, because you make it so easy.

Yes you did, Theo you specifically said.

No, I don't think they will.

So youd be willing to give up that much but you dont think thats fair value? I have some real estate out by the NO levees you might want to take a look at.

And please dont come back and drunk post.

 

[AdamJT13]

Being possible and being likely are two different things.

This team hasn't done doofus back-loaded contracts in a while.

I doubt they start now.

There's nothing "doofus" about structuring contracts to fit under your cap ("backloading" them). Smart teams do it all of the time. We did it last year with Leonard Davis, and we've done it with most of the players we've re-signed lately (Witten, James, Gurode, etc.). In the past few years, it wasn't as big of an issue for us because we didn't have certain big-money players (such as a franchise QB) and never came close to the cap. Now it'll be more important because we've got a lot of talented players who'll need to be compensated.

It's the lame franchises who never contend or maximize their cap room who sign players to flat contracts or try to take the biggest possible hits in the first season (teams such as Arizona, Minnesota, San Francisco and Buffalo).

If Hamlin wants a $10 million signing bonus, his cap hit likely would be $2,271,666 this season. And because of the Rule of 51, it would reduce our cap room by less than $2 million. Or we could give him a split bonus, like we did with Witten, and his cap number would be only $1,438,333 this season, reducing our cap room by less than $1.15 million.

 

[dillinger319]

Leave it to the voice of reasoning to chime in... Thanks Adam you pretty much set everyone straight.. :laugh1:

 

[MichaelWinicki]

There's nothing "doofus" about structuring contracts to fit under your cap ("backloading" them). Smart teams do it all of the time. We did it last year with Leonard Davis, and we've done it with most of the players we've re-signed lately (Witten, James, Gurode, etc.). In the past few years, it wasn't as big of an issue for us because we didn't have certain big-money players (such as a franchise QB) and never came close to the cap. Now it'll be more important because we've got a lot of talented players who'll need to be compensated.

It's the lame franchises who never contend or maximize their cap room who sign players to flat contracts or try to take the biggest possible hits in the first season (teams such as Arizona, Minnesota, San Francisco and Buffalo).

If Hamlin wants a $10 million signing bonus, his cap hit likely would be $2,271,666 this season. And because of the Rule of 51, it would reduce our cap room by less than $2 million. Or we could give him a split bonus, like we did with Witten, and his cap number would be only $1,438,333 this season, reducing our cap room by less than $1.15 million.

Adam you're right on being able to fit guys under the cap.

What I was referring to was giving guys a 5-year contract even though you only expected them to play for 3 years. That's "doofus" territory.

 

[Woods]

Adam you're right on being able to fit guys under the cap.

What I was referring to was giving guys a 5-year contract even though you only expected them to play for 3 years. That's "doofus" territory.

But with respect to Hamlin, he should be able to play well for 5 years.

Flo is another deal entirely, of course . . . .

 

[Derinyar]

Adam you're right on being able to fit guys under the cap.

What I was referring to was giving guys a 5-year contract even though you only expected them to play for 3 years. That's "doofus" territory.

Thats SOP in the NFL. It seems that the 5 year contract is usually a 3 year contract. You back load the contract enough that letting the player see the last year or two of the contract just doesn't make reasonable fiscal sense.

I wouldn't be too surprised to see us offer Hamlin something very similar to the Roy Williams contract.

If you think your a superbowl level team I don't think you necessarily want to go into the season with a massive question mark at left tackle. Thats the big question. Are we willing to stake our season next year on McQuistan, Columbo, and Free amounting to two good OTs.

 

[Hostile]

Adam you're right on being able to fit guys under the cap.

What I was referring to was giving guys a 5-year contract even though you only expected them to play for 3 years. That's "doofus" territory.

It is really rare that we employ that tactic though MW. Some teams do, but we don't. Signing Hamlin is entirely possible, very plausible, and I think likely. I'm not sure why you think either Hamlin or Flo have to go or we're out of Cap room to re-sign Barber and Canty. That isn't the case at all. We could do all 4 and still have cap room to re-work Newman's deal during the season.

 

[starfrombirth]

No, it was your statement. You were being that dumb.

There's actually substantially less risk to signing a healthy pro bowl 33 year old OT to a 1 year deal for $7 million than there is to signing a healthy pro bowl 28 year old OT to a 5 year deal with the final 2 years being $7 million.

Based on how Flo broke down the stretch (when we really needed him) do you really think Flo is worth that kind of money. Remember, he did the same thing last year and the year before. He folds down the stretch. I don't know if he gets wore down or cracks under pressure but seriously, be honest with yourself. Deep down you know he's not worth that kind of money. Your being loyal and that's commendable but you know in the "What's best for the team" sense, he is NOT worth that kind of money. :starspin

 

[theogt]

Yeah we do.... Thats a newpaper not your backside talking.

We have no idea of the validity of that report. There were also conflicting "reports" that he wanted to come to both Texas and San Francisco. The bottom line is we don't know what they'd ask for or where he'd even want to go.

Yes you did, Theo you specifically said.



So youd be willing to give up that much but you dont think thats fair value? I have some real estate out by the NO levees you might want to take a look at.

And please dont come back and drunk post.

I said I'd be willing to give up that much if that's what it took to get him. If it took less to get him, then I'd only be willing to give up that lesser amount. Whatever amount a willing buyer and willing seller agree to is the "fair value." That's very different from the maximum price a buyer would be willing to pay.

 

[AdamJT13]

Adam you're right on being able to fit guys under the cap.

What I was referring to was giving guys a 5-year contract even though you only expected them to play for 3 years. That's "doofus" territory.

I completely disagree. If you can get the player to agree to a six-year deal, you absolutely do it. That minimizes the bonus proration in the current year and maximizes your cap room. All you have to do is cut them in the fourth year, and the only difference between that and the three-year deal is that you helped your salary cap.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I completely disagree. If you can get the player to agree to a six-year deal, you absolutely do it. That minimizes the bonus proration in the current year and maximizes your cap room. All you have to do is cut them in the fourth year, and the only difference between that and the three-year deal is that you helped your salary cap.

Then we choose to disagree then.


From a business perspective I don't like seeing dead money.