Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Ye Auld 2019 Free Agency Tracker


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bakedtater1 said:

Nope I still haven't met anybody here in person..

 

 

Anyone who meets taterhead should know that after several colorful (but not "nasty") stumbles with a couple of mods, he continues to bring what seems to be a generally good nature, a thick skin, old-fashioned homerism (in a good way), and a very strong desire to be part of ES.

 

The latter calling into his question his overall sanity of course, but that's kind of already baked into his posting. :D

 

I'm glad he's survived....so far. :P

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jumbo said:

 

 

Anyone who meets taterhead should know that after several colorful (but not "nasty") stumbles with a couple of mods, he continues to bring what seems to be a generally good nature, a thick skin, old-fashioned homerism (in a good way), and a very strong desire to be part of ES.

 

The latter calling into his question his overall sanity of course, but that's kind of already baked into his posting. :D

 

I'm glad he's survived....so far. :P

Well wholy ****...a sun does shine on a dog's ass everuh now n den... Not being sarcastic or anything ..but thanks jumbo, I appreciate that..I been lurkin round these parts for some 15+ years now.. but no I'm not a hillbilly.lol...i really really wanna be more like Dan t to be honest...73-0 and nothing else said..

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, goskins10 said:

You are of course right teams have put voidable years at the end of contracts. However, I have only seen the last yr be voidable and there are no triggers that if the players is on the team the contract is voidable. That seems odd and i am not sure what it buys them. Not saying there have never been multiple voided yrs it's just the first time i have seen something like a 5 yr contract with 4 yrs voided. 

I'm sure there have been other voidable year deals with more than one season voiding, but I don't know them off the top of my head. The Jackson example immediately occurred to me. I certainly haven't seen a deal that is written for 5 years but voids after one. That is a little out there.

 

Yes, my assumption is this keeps the comp pick possibility alive. Otherwise, there is no reason to do it this way. The Darby deal basically pays him 4.5-6.5 mil for one year (depending on playing time) and then 15 mil per year in the phony years. So, without the voided years, he would have been cut and the effect would be exactly the same. And one would assume if Philly were not to cut him, he'd be fine raking in that cash. So, the only real advantage to the voidable years would be the comp picks, and maybe avoiding the PR hit of announcing a huge amount of money (ie, a 5 year, 65 mil contract) to a player with injury issues.

 

To the original post I was responding to, I don't see any reason we should be worried about it, or that they would deserve punishment for it.If he reaches his incentives, he'll get 6.5 mil for the one year. It would count 3.7 mil vs the cap this year, and 2.8 mil afterward. All the money is accounted for under the cap. That's how the cap works, there are different ways to spend out cap hits. There's really nothing to be upset over. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

I'm sure there have been other voidable year deals with more than one season voiding, but I don't know them off the top of my head. The Jackson example immediately occurred to me. I certainly haven't seen a deal that is written for 5 years but voids after one. That is a little out there.

 

Yes, my assumption is this keeps the comp pick possibility alive. Otherwise, there is no reason to do it this way. The Darby deal basically pays him 4.5-6.5 mil for one year (depending on playing time) and then 15 mil per year in the phony years. So, without the voided years, he would have been cut and the effect would be exactly the same. And one would assume if Philly were not to cut him, he'd be fine raking in that cash. So, the only real advantage to the voidable years would be the comp picks, and maybe avoiding the PR hit of announcing a huge amount of money (ie, a 5 year, 65 mil contract) to a player with injury issues.

 

To the original post I was responding to, I don't see any reason we should be worried about it, or that they would deserve punishment for it.If he reaches his incentives, he'll get 6.5 mil for the one year. It would count 3.7 mil vs the cap this year, and 2.8 mil afterward. All the money is accounted for under the cap. That's how the cap works, there are different ways to spend out cap hits. There's really nothing to be upset over. 

 

I definitely agree with the last sentence. For me it's more curiosity. Even if it impacts comp picks all teams will start doing it and then the next CBA will address it. 

 

But it would be interesting to know if there is a comp pick impact. If there is not, then there is really nothing to this at all.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HigSkin said:

 

 

Nice, can definitely get with the upside of this move with him at guard. Potentially perfect timing for the Skins to hit on an elite guard talent from a athletic and measurables standpoint. I’m sure other teams previous to this year wanted to move him to guard, but him and reps were reluctant to do so due to pride and money. 

 

Selfishly as a fan, it also provides an added underdog storyline to follow. Always in search of new nuggets. 3 top 10 picks sounds good at the moment lol. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

I'm sure I'm just being crazy when I think that if another team had offered Flowers an extra $100K, he'd have set aside his burning desire to work with Bill Callahan. 

 

So we are notoriously cheap, but in this instance Flowers came here for the money? Got it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

I'm sure I'm just being crazy when I think that if another team had offered Flowers an extra $100K, he'd have set aside his burning desire to work with Bill Callahan. 

 

I am willing to buy the notion that Flowers can take a longer term view.  It is always about the money but it is not a stretch to say $100k more this year to go play tackle on some scrub line might be the last contract you get whereas a year with Callahan at the position you think is your best might net you another contract with a couple of guaranteed years at a high salary.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, WelshSkinsFan said:

 

I am willing to buy the notion that Flowers can take a longer term view.  It is always about the money but it is not a stretch to say $100k more this year to go play tackle on some scrub line might be the last contract you get whereas a year with Callahan at the position you think is your best might net you another contract with a couple of guaranteed years at a high salary.

 

Exactly. Callahan is able to pull guys off the streets and have them game ready in a matter of days. Trent has continued to be one of if not the best LT in the league. Scherff is an excellent OL. Roullier is a starting center as a 6th round pick. Moses went from lost as a rookie to quality RT. If you are nearing bust status and about to be out of the league or destined to be career journeyman, why wouldn’t you want to sign a one year deal with a line coach as good as Callahan? Who knows, maybe we way overbid everyone else. Have a hard time believing that considering the way we operate and have zero trouble letting guys walk out the door for more than we think they are worth.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, HardcoreZorn said:

 

So we are notoriously cheap, but in this instance Flowers came here for the money? Got it.

Cheap is a relative term.  Bruce has a tendency to shop in the bargain bin for FA talent, yet still overpay bargain bin talent.

 

I think Rufus' point was that it's easy to say now, that he wants to be here to play at G and work with Callahan.  But we all know nobody was beating down Flowers' door with offers to do anything else for anything more.

 

I took it as a more of a knock on Flowers and his agents statement than a knock on anyone else.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

I'm sure I'm just being crazy when I think that if another team had offered Flowers an extra $100K, he'd have set aside his burning desire to work with Bill Callahan. 

 

well now that depends.  Was he going to be played at G or T?  How much was guaranteed?  Cause if someone offered him that 100K and said "we'll start you at LT" he'd know he wasn't making it

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm obviously hoping that we've pulled off some kind of master stoke by converting Flowers to guard, but it's been pointed out (by Mark Bullock breaking down film IIRC) that he's got poor hands (I'm assuming he meant hand-placement, strength and/or quickness).

 

I'm no expert by any means, but I thought that good hands is a bit of a requirement for a guard. Could any of you more knowledgeable ES'ers add anything to this?

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.

×
×
  • Create New...