Culliver Released

[Warhead36]

Count me as someone who is still confused how we could cut Culliver while he is injured. Has that been explained?

His suspension allowed us to void the contract.

[MartinC]

His suspension allowed us to void the contract.

Thanks. I was confused ...again.

[ExoDus84]

Gillette (~10-12 mill per?)

 

The best a man can get.

 

[CommDownMan]

There isn't a single reason why we should keep Garcon after this year over DJax.

Garcon does nothing at an elite level. He's an above average WR with an overinflated sense of his ability and salary expectations.

DJax still has elite level ability in speed and as a deep threat which brings something that nobody else on the roster can.

What Garcon brings to the table is easily replicated. I would prefer to cut or trade him now but I get that we won't do that for whatever reasons. Either way, I wouldn't want him back next year anyway, especially not over DJax

 

Guys like Sanu went for 5yr/32.5 mill (others in link).  Garcon will likely sign a team deal, so I'm curious who you think will come in and replace him.

 

SM talks about him being a football player.  (you may not care, but SM and the Skins do).

He is a better blocker than Jackson.  I think this is a big one people ignore.

Jackson missed 7 games with leg injuries.

Jackson is likely to sign a bigger deal and bring a comp pick, which are important to SM. 

 

Doctson/Reed will be our big targets.  Crowder should develop and start seeing more action.

At a reduced cost, great blocking skills and attitude, there are at least a few reasons to like Garcon.  I'm not looking at him as a #1.  Personally, it fits more with what it seems the skins are trying to do. 

[Burgold]

On top of which, people often undervalue chain movers. Sure, it's nice to hit a homer un, but you get those opportunities maybe twice or three times a game. A player who moves the sticks and consistently hits that single that keeps the offense on the field is really important. You absolutely want a Bryce Harper, but you also want a Murphy.  Garcon right now makes the clutch catches, the tough catches, and keeps the play alive. When you're not looking he still can sneak in a big play. He's a good number two. He was a borderline number 1 when he first got here, but disappears a bit too often or is too often taken away to be a pure number one. That said, we would not have made the playoffs without Garcon's contributions.

[Robbob]

Apparently, Culliver is post June 1st.

[dswerdlw]

I read that he won't be cut officially until June 1, saving us 8 million in cap.  Isn't Norman counted 8 million against the cap next year?  So, this is an even $ swap for the season.  Nice. 

[Burgold]

Apparently, Culliver is post June 1st.

Huh? I think I'd rather swallow the full cost this year. Next year with all the big contracts in front of us I think we'll need max cap, but these guys know a lot more about it than I do.

[Robbob]

It was a surprise for me too, but if we don't spend it this year, I'm sure we'll carry it over to next year.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

No great loss there at all. 

 

Just a vet. body to help out last season. 

 

Now we've upgraded this. Stepping stones to better things. The way to build. 

 

Hail. 

[Tress Is The Way]

Apparently, Culliver is post June 1st.

Nope, pre June 1st cut.. we save in the long run. We are only getting 5.5 back for cully

[Momma There Goes That Man]

I read that he won't be cut officially until June 1, saving us 8 million in cap. Isn't Norman counted 8 million against the cap next year? So, this is an even $ swap for the season. Nice.

Norman is like $18-20mil next year

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

im seriously questioning my representation if "we" accept the clause on suspension that results in losing most of my guaranteed $ AND being cut from the team. I mean wow. It's all in the fine print!

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Nope, pre June 1st cut.. we save in the long run. We are only getting 5.5 back for cully

They designated it as a post June 1 cut so we get $8mil

This season and carry only a $2.5mil hit next season

[Koolblue13]

I hope nothing happens to Bash or Norman. Watching Rodgers attack Blackmon and Dunbar aggressively and repeatedly is still a painful memory.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

I hope nothing happens to Bash or Norman. Watching Rodgers attack Blackmon and Dunbar aggressively and repeatedly is still a painful memory.

Fuller will be ready to go and Toler is decent depth as well

[carex]

I hope nothing happens to Bash or Norman. Watching Rodgers attack Blackmon and Dunbar aggressively and repeatedly is still a painful memory.

 

well who says Culliver would even be playing?  He was just one injury after another

[clskinsfan]

No loss in Culliver. He was terrible when healthy last year. Hats off to Bruce for negotiating one hell of a team friendly deal. Cullivers agent must be sweating right now.

[pcbothwel]

I need someone to explain to me why in the hell we are designating Culliver (and probably Roberts) as Post June 1st cuts?!?

The question is "Would you like to have 3.5M more in cap space this year or next year?"

- The answer is next year, hands down. Unless they are going to extend Cousins this year and pay him a huge Base Salary this year, I dont see how we are going to use it... Thoughts?

 

***Please note, The Salary Cap "Roll Over" cannot be used from 2016 to 2017. It is 4 year blocks from 2013-2016 and 2017-2020. I must be missing something, because we now have about 12M in cap room and we can easily eat another 2.5M so we can save it until next year.

[gooseneck]

Geeze, If Allen can't figure out the cap situation better than us I will be seriously depressed. 

[Robbob]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/12/new-cba-gives-teams-the-right-to-carry-over-cap-space-automatically/

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/3/2/8134891/nfl-salary-cap-2015-franchise-tag-explained

I am finding different info...It seems that it is rolled over every year.

[pcbothwel]

As you can see, the first link alludes to it and mentions how the 2016 FA period is going to be big because teams have been rolling over money for 4 years and now must spend it to reach that salary floor.

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2377271-the-confusing-truth-about-salary-cap-space

 

Between 2013 and 2017, teams are required by the CBA to spend at least 89 percent of the cap. Some years, they can fall short of that number, so long as they make up for it later. That's why they're given the ability to "roll over" unused cap space from year to year. 

 

And the reality is that if you have a massive surplus right now, you'd be smart to save some of your money in order to create extra cap space for 2016 and 2017. 

 

 

http://www.cincyjungle.com/salary-cap-cba/2016/2/15/11002670/nfl-salary-cap-reportedly-jumping-to-at-least-155-million-in-2016

 

The rollover period exists in four year increments, the most recent of which being from 2013 to 2016. With this methodology, funds from 2016 won't roll over to 2017 though, so the Bengals would be wise to use up their 2016 cap space including the rollover to the best of their ability this offseason. We addressed the minimum cash spend and rollover language a few years ago, for reference.

 

Here are a couple of excerpts from the CBA, citing language on "carrying over" funds and minimum team spending:

 

Article 13, Section 6, subsection ((v) A Club may "carry over" Room from one League Year to the following League Year by submitting notice in writing signed by the owner to the NFL no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the start of the next League Year indicating the maximum amount of Room that the Club wishes to carry over. The NFL shall promptly provide a copy of any such notice to the NFLPA. The amount of Room carried over will be adjusted downward based on the final Room available after the year-end reconciliation.

 

Article 13, Section 9, subsection (a) For each of the following four-League Year periods, 2013–2016 and 2017–2020, there shall be a guaranteed Minimum Team Cash Spending of 89% of the Salary Caps for such periods (e.g., if the Salary Caps for the 2013–16 and 2017–2020 are $100, 120, 130, and 150 million, respectively, each Club shall have a Minimum Team Cash Spending for that period of $445 million (89% of $500 million)).

[NoCalMike]

Culliver was playing hurt last season almost from the get-go.  His highlight probably was the would-be pick 6 off Cam that was overturned, thus turning the game in a different direction.

[Rufus T Firefly]

With this methodology, funds from 2016 won't roll over to 2017 though,

 

I have never heard anything about such a rule, and I really can't think of why it would exist. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe it's not true, absent proof.

 

And the link you provide say that such is the case, but don't actually provide any of that proof. In fact, they link to another of their own articles which they say addresses it, but I don't see anything that actually does. So, again, I'm going with the assumption that it isn't the case.

[goskins10]

I have never heard anything about such a rule, and I really can't think of why it would exist. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe it's not true, absent proof.

 

And the link you provide say that such is the case, but don't actually provide any of that proof. In fact, they link to another of their own articles which they say addresses it, but I don't see anything that actually does. So, again, I'm going with the assumption that it isn't the case.

 

Here is an ESPN story talking about the 4 yr spend period. It's over a year old, but it's true. 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12404543/oakland-raiders-jacksonville-jaguars-big-free-agency-spenders-clayton-mailbag

 

Here is one from Pro Football Talk from NBC. It's also a year old, but again the rules are real.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/26/raiders-panthers-among-10-teams-in-need-of-increasing-cash-spending/

 

Here is another one that is much more recent. It shows only Jacksonville and Oakland as behind the minimum spend. Both were pretty big players in free agency because of it.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/18/as-to-cap-space-the-minimum-means-as-much-the-maximum/

 

I said 4 yrs ago this would raise players salaries and you would see higher than usual contracts for average guys and that is happening. At least some of it's due to the minimum spend requirement.