DC9

2018 Free Agency Database - (Signed: WILLIAMS - McPhee - Scandrick - P-Rich) - (Lauvao, Bergstrom, Nsehke, Taylor, Z. Brown and Quick re-signed)

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

I believe the 'prorated' part is the guaranteed money - 3 mil for each of the 3 remaining years of his contract.   

 

That's correct.  That's the part that would become dead cap if we were to cut him in any of those years.  An outright cut would incur 9m in 2018.  And I should edit my previous post about pickup up 14m in savings.  That's only if it's a June 1 cut.  If outright cut, the cap saving would only be 8m.  I hope he's open to renegotiation and a lowering of his salary demands this offseason in order to sign others.  Kinda doubt it though.

 

6 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

We can definitely push money out (turning it into bonuses) if he agrees, but doesn't that just push the dead money hit till later, as well as add to the cap hit later?  

 

Yep, that's what's called restructuring - where future salary is turned into signing bonus and pushes out cap consequences down the road.  This was a typical Vinny move which we've gotten away from when Bruce came along (his only saving grace, IMO).

 

6 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

The good news is that we're mostly looking to add/keep smaller contracts - Foster, Hopkins, maybe Murphy, etc.  So while we only have a little leeway, we should be able to retain who we want (besides a few guys, Breeland in particular) with small adjustments/cuts.  Of course that means we are pretty much out of the running for a higher priced FA (NT, receiver, LG). Not great to go into the draft with needs, but at least we have some options there - they're just far from ideal at the moment - in Hood, Kalis/Koaundijo/Catalina, Harris/Davis.  

 

Everything hinges on what we do with Kirk, as you know.  We can be players for some higher end FAs if he goes, but barely a player if he signs - even if it's on a LTD structured in a way to get a low 2018 cap hit..  I'm on record for not wanting any tag.  That said, not gonna turn this into a Kirk thread.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, carex said:

I'd rather just try to renegotiate Norman's contract.  And cutting someone to try to re-sign someone sounds like a good way to lose both

 

Same here. Him, Trent and Kerrigan. Switch 5mil from each ones 2018 base salary into bonus and we get 10mil in 2018 space. Granted that's taken from 2019 and 2020 but I'd do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

Same here. Him, Trent and Kerrigan. Switch 5mil from each ones 2018 base salary into bonus and we get 10mil in 2018 space. Granted that's taken from 2019 and 2020 but I'd do it.

Could they also/instead take a portion of this years salary, convert it to guaranteed money, and then replace part of their future salary with it?  

 

So, if we take 5 million of Norman's current year, and convert it to guaranteed money due next year, Norman loses out on the 5 million, but now he's guaranteed 8 million in 2019 - making him less likely to be cut that year (in which case he pockets the full 15.5 or whatever he's signed for), and owed more money if he is.  Means a bit less potential earning for him, but more stability.  

 

Thats essentially how I'd like to see us treat Cousins - offer him a lesser annual salary in exchange for higher guarantees i.e. more stability for him and more cap space for us.  I wouldn't be keen on this model for an outside FA (it's burned us before), but I have faith that Kirk isn't the type to let that backfire.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, skinny21 said:

Thats essentially how I'd like to see us treat Cousins - offer him a lesser annual salary in exchange for higher guarantees i.e. more stability for him and more cap space for us.  I wouldn't be keen on this model for an outside FA (it's burned us before), but I have faith that Kirk isn't the type to let that backfire.  

25M annually with 75M guarantees.  I feel like this offsets the lower APY but would also be a tremendous win for Kirk, his agent, and the players after Kirk when it comes  to contracts. 

 

The chances I see Bruce even thinking about such an idea, 0.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just cut Norman and designate as a June 1st deal. Paying a 30 year old that much money doesn't make any sense to do when a 25 year old playing the same position is walking out the door so the older player can stay. I'd rather cut Norman, put that money owed him into Bree, lock him up for 3 years and if they save anything end of day use that on no one. 

 

Signing a teams own FA's doesn't hurt that team in the compensatory pick evaluation. As long as they don't sign other teams players. That's all that matters

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

Why not just cut Norman and designate as a June 1st deal. Paying a 30 year old that much money doesn't make any sense to do when a 25 year old playing the same position is walking out the door so the older player can stay. I'd rather cut Norman, put that money owed him into Bree, lock him up for 3 years and if they save anything end of day use that on no one. 

 

Signing a teams own FA's doesn't hurt that team in the compensatory pick evaluation. As long as they don't sign other teams players. That's all that matters

 

first Breeland has no obligation to us so he could leave anyway.  Second Breeland is good, Norman is better.  Excuse the hyperbole but it would be close to cutting Darrell Green to retain Fred Smoot

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

Could they also/instead take a portion of this years salary, convert it to guaranteed money, and then replace part of their future salary with it?  

 

So, if we take 5 million of Norman's current year, and convert it to guaranteed money due next year, Norman loses out on the 5 million, but now he's guaranteed 8 million in 2019 - making him less likely to be cut that year (in which case he pockets the full 15.5 or whatever he's signed for), and owed more money if he is.  Means a bit less potential earning for him, but more stability.  

 

 

Norman isn't taking a pay cut, no chance. I mean if he was cut someone will probably give him more than we are going to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

Why not just cut Norman and designate as a June 1st deal. Paying a 30 year old that much money doesn't make any sense to do when a 25 year old playing the same position is walking out the door so the older player can stay. I'd rather cut Norman, put that money owed him into Bree, lock him up for 3 years and if they save anything end of day use that on no one. 

 

Only problem with this is the funds from a June 1 cut don't actually hit the cap for use until June 2 and I doubt Breeland would wait 2 and a half months for the Skins to sign him.. He'll have plenty of suitors..  Starting corners are hard to come by.  My guess is he'll get signed by someone early once the FA bell rings on 3/14.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

Norman isn't taking a pay cut, no chance. I mean if he was cut someone will probably give him more than we are going to.

I tend to agree (Williams and Kerrigan might be more open to it... maybe).  However, it’s exchanging a lower salary for more guarantees... so there is some upside for him as well, just maybe not enough.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, skinny21 said:

I tend to agree (Williams and Kerrigan might be more open to it... maybe).  However, it’s exchanging a lower salary for more guarantees... so there is some upside for him as well, just maybe not enough.  

 

All that being said, I think we are fine with the space we have this year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

Why not just cut Norman and designate as a June 1st deal. Paying a 30 year old that much money doesn't make any sense to do when a 25 year old playing the same position is walking out the door so the older player can stay. I'd rather cut Norman, put that money owed him into Bree, lock him up for 3 years and if they save anything end of day use that on no one. 

 

Signing a teams own FA's doesn't hurt that team in the compensatory pick evaluation. As long as they don't sign other teams players. That's all that matters

Thanks for that last part.  

 

As to the first part - it was already answered, but...

 

4.5 mil in dead cap, plus Breeland making 8 mil, subtracted from Norman’s 17 mil cap hit means we’re saving 4.5 for a lesser player.  Next year it would be 15.5 - 12.5 (4.5 + 8), So we save 3 for a lesser player.  That’s assuming Breeland commands 8, could easily be more than that (though perhaps a bit less).  Add to that, as far as intangibles, I personally like what Norman brings to the team more than Breeland.  It’s not an easy choice though IMO, and I’d at least explore what Breeland wants first.  If Cousins signs a LTD though, we likely don’t have the money to even try that route (though I suppose the rule of 51 may allow us to).  

 

Edit:  @UK SKINS FAN '74 Could you explain what you mean by ‘fine’ this year?  Like, we could rework things and sign Cousins, Brown, a few others as well as a good/pricey FA?  Or fine like Cousins probably won’t be signed so we’ll have plenty of money?

Edited by skinny21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bobandweave said:

Why not just cut Norman and designate as a June 1st deal. Paying a 30 year old that much money doesn't make any sense to do when a 25 year old playing the same position is walking out the door so the older player can stay. I'd rather cut Norman, put that money owed him into Bree, lock him up for 3 years and if they save anything end of day use that on no one. 

 

Signing a teams own FA's doesn't hurt that team in the compensatory pick evaluation. As long as they don't sign other teams players. That's all that matters

His deal states that as of March 18, 2018 his contract for 2018 is fully guaranteed... so if im not mistaken, designating it for June 1 would still qualify as he would technically be on the roster as of March 18, thus we save $0 because the contract is paid anyways.. If we dont cut him prior to March 18, then we dont cut him at all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

Norman isn't taking a pay cut, no chance. I mean if he was cut someone will probably give him more than we are going to.

 

not suggesting a pay cut.  Just moving the money around

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, carex said:

 

McClain can be a June 1 cut to split his cap cost between this year and next, and you're allowed to do two of them at the start of free agency

His salary for 2018 is guaranteed, and that hit isn't spread out even if he's cut after June 1. So, cutting him after June 1 and replacing him with a minimum salary player would actually cost us cap (not a lot, but the main point is it certainly doesn't benefit us), while still carrying over a 2.5 mil dead cap hit to 2019.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, carex said:

 

not suggesting a pay cut.  Just moving the money around

 

I was replying to @skinny21post who I thought was suggesting a cut, using the phrase replace future base salary with deferred money from 2018, but gtd that deferment as a means of tempting Norman with gtd 2019 money instead of non gtd salary. May have picked that up wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skinny21 said:

Edit:  @UK SKINS FAN '74 Could you explain what you mean by ‘fine’ this year?  Like, we could rework things and sign Cousins, Brown, a few others as well as a good/pricey FA?  Or fine like Cousins probably won’t be signed so we’ll have plenty of money?

 

The numbers out there are all guess work, but if you assume we've got 50mil in the tank then we will need a good 20mil+for RFA, draftees, Bruce loves 10mil contingency etc.  So we've maybe got 25mil in other usable space.

 

I personally don't think the FA crop is great. I'd like Brown back. IF we also re-sign Cousins the space is all but gone. I think we'd hit WR and RB high in the draft to keep Cousins happy. The rest of the moves would be small change in context. You get a similar outcome if Cousins goes and we bring another vet in. Alex Smith will be getting 20mil plus. We'd just have to draft damn well.

 

Another alternative is that we roll with McCoy and a first round QB. If that were the case then we'd have that Cousins/other vet QB cap space free. So you've got 25mil plus to spend. Brown, maybe one of the top DT's would drop 8-10mil, target Norwell although I'd be amazed he doesn't land with the Giants, maybe target a safety. I still think we need to go WR and RB in the draft anyway.

 

I just dont think we need more cap space. Once the tags are handed out and 3 or 4 big hitters get LTDs the rest will be an expensive wash. Wait and see all these 4 year 35mil deals get doled out and be thankful it's not us doing it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@UK SKINS FAN '74Gotcha.  I’m pretty much in the same boat.  I think the team will be fine if we re-sign Cousins and Brown and a few of the cheaper guys, even if I’d love to add Norwell or one of the top NTs or a decent receiver.  

 

With that said, we’ll improve just by getting our guys healthy, young guys improving, and finding a few contributors via the draft and UDFA.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure there is THAT much of a difference between Norman and Breeland right now. I'd rather keep Breeland who's younger and will probably be cheaper. Good organizations would resign Breeland and cut Norman. Then again we're STILL keeping Deangelo Hall who should have been cut three years ago at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

I'm not sure there is THAT much of a difference between Norman and Breeland right now. I'd rather keep Breeland who's younger and will probably be cheaper. Good organizations would resign Breeland and cut Norman. Then again we're STILL keeping Deangelo Hall who should have been cut three years ago at least.

I'm pretty sure there is.  I mean just last year people were still willing to give up on Breeland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, carex said:

I'm pretty sure there is.  I mean just last year people were still willing to give up on Breeland

If we went with people’s reactions to players, we’d never be able to field a team, lol.  Breeland has some struggles last year and ups and downs this year - I’m not sure if he’s worth a hefty price tag.  With that said, I’d at least find out what he’s asking for and offer a potential match in FA.  

 

Honestly, I’d be far more likely to consider that option (keeping Breeland over Norman) if I had more faith in Breeland as a person.  Don’t want to be too hard on the guy, but Norman has shown he’ll still work hard and have the same fiery passion after getting paid.  I can’t say that about Breeland (and some of his antics, while mild, have turned me off).  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, carex said:

 

first Breeland has no obligation to us so he could leave anyway.  Second Breeland is good, Norman is better.  Excuse the hyperbole but it would be close to cutting Darrell Green to retain Fred Smoot

 

the average peaking age is 27 for the position and age plays a huge part in this and is the only force saying consider it.

 

Yes Norman is better that’s not the long range outlook though that’s what I was saying 

 

http://socalledfantasyexperts.com/aging-curve-nfl-defensive-players-dl-lb-db

 

At age 30 three years past the average peaking age for the position letting a good 25 year old go to keep the older player at such a high price doesn’t seem the way to go.

 

This rebuild is going to take a few years to happen 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

the average peaking age is 27 for the position and age plays a huge part in this and is the only force saying consider it.

 

Yes Norman is better that’s not the long range outlook though that’s what I was saying 

 

http://socalledfantasyexperts.com/aging-curve-nfl-defensive-players-dl-lb-db

 

At age 30 three years past the average peaking age for the position letting a good 25 year old go to keep the older player at such a high price doesn’t seem the way to go.

 

This rebuild is going to take a few years to happen 

 

we're not doing a rebuild. and the best last longer than the average.  Releasing Norman to re-sign Breeland is a flat out dumb idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, carex said:

 

we're not doing a rebuild. and the best last longer than the average.  Releasing Norman to re-sign Breeland is a flat out dumb idea

 

If you don’t think this teams rebuilding then I guess we aren’t watching the same game. This team is seriously years from being a serious contender for the title. It needs many pieces to be considered serious in the league

 

There is a reason why the better teams don’t find themselves strapped paying 20 million to a 30 year old corner. That’s a luxury very very few teams can afford and at 7-9 we just aren’t one of them.

 

When the peaking age of the player is three years ago and we’ve all seen the beginnings of the decline in Norman’s play already showing signs of happening to let a guy a team drafted and is 5 years younger go to keep the aging star is a dumb idea. The only teams that don’t make this decision are the ones on the doorstep to a championship who have a home town hero worth considering and Norman is not that for us. He’s on a long list of rented guys and on a short list of guys who played well here but age is the issue and no one beats Father Time. Not even the great ones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

If you don’t think this teams rebuilding then I guess we aren’t watching the same game. This team is seriously years from being a serious contender for the title. It needs many pieces to be considered serious in the league

 

There is a reason why the better teams don’t find themselves strapped paying 20 million to a 30 year old corner. That’s a luxury very very few teams can afford and at 7-9 we just aren’t one of them.

 

When the peaking age of the player is three years ago and we’ve all seen the beginnings of the decline in Norman’s play already showing signs of happening to let a guy a team drafted and is 5 years younger go to keep the aging star is a dumb idea. The only teams that don’t make this decision are the ones on the doorstep to a championship who have a home town hero worth considering and Norman is not that for us. He’s on a long list of rented guys and on a short list of guys who played well here but age is the issue and no one beats Father Time. Not even the great ones

 

whether we need a rebuild or not is not the question.  The question is are we going to do one and the answer is no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, carex said:

 

whether we need a rebuild or not is not the question.  The question is are we going to do one and the answer is no

 

So I’m speaking to the owner or the GM now? I don’t pretend to know what they are going to do, I just post what makes the most sense to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.