Cuts to get 100 million in Cap Space???

[KillBill26]

5 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

This is an excellent point that will fall flat on many. So many people ****ed and moaned about Trent - and virtually any player - dares to want to restructure r want a new contract screaming - he signed a contract, player X must live up to it!  But didn't the team sign the same contract? But it's Ok for them to kick a player to the curb. 

But both sides know the rules when they negotiate and agree to a deal.  The fact that teams can cut a player and not have to pay the base salaries is leverage for the agent to demand a bigger signing bonus, guarantees, etc.  So i have zero sympathy for the player, they agreed to the deal and you have to play it out under the terms you agreed to.  If you don't like the parameters of a long term deal with low base salaries and/or low guaranteed money at the back end of the deal, then don't agree to it.  

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, KillBill26 said:

But both sides know the rules when they negotiate and agree to a deal.  The fact that teams can cut a player and not have to pay the base salaries is leverage for the agent to demand a bigger signing bonus, guarantees, etc.  So i have zero sympathy for the player, they agreed to the deal and you have to play it out under the terms you agreed to.  If you don't like the parameters of a long term deal with low base salaries and/or low guaranteed money at the back end of the deal, then don't agree to it.  

You are missing or purposely ignoring the point.  The system is unfairly stacked.  It’s easy for you to say don’t sign it.  The fact is they do not have that choice if they want to actually play.  
 

We BBC are in a state of change as players are starting to get more guarantees money including some players like Kirk getting a fully guarantees contract which is what they should be.  
 

So again it’s hypocritical to trash a player for wanting to renegotiate early or get out of a contract But believes it’s more than ok to cut players with time left.  

[Renegade7]

I dont like where this is going, danger of getting offtopic.

 

Technically they arent employees or contractors, it something in the middle.  As a current federal contractor, it feels like they arent treated like either one based on the situation. I get a W2 but my contract is under negotiations, its not as fuzzy, but not straightforward.

 

But if every player did what Trent did, the whole thing would collapse.

[tibbidoe]

Alex Smith - stuck with his contract

Josh Norman - already cut

Trent Williams - extend and get lower hit this year

Ryan Kerrigan - extend and get lower hit this year

Jordan Reed - cut unless he retires

Morgan Moses - restructure or trade/cut

Paul Richardson - already cut

Quinton Dunbar - extend

[Robbob]

Did Trent Williams count against the salary cap last year?  If not, is that money rolled over into this year’s cap and included In our currently projected cap space?  I am assuming if he were to stay, we would pay him at least some of that.

[KillBill26]

2 hours ago, goskins10 said:

You are missing or purposely ignoring the point.  The system is unfairly stacked.  It’s easy for you to say don’t sign it.  The fact is they do not have that choice if they want to actually play.  

I could easily say you are missing the point as well, so it sounds like we probably just have to agree to disagree. 

 

They do have a choice if they want to play: a short term deal.  If they really feel they aren't getting what they are worth in a long term deal, bet on yourself and sign a short term deal. 

 

Or, being a dangerous sport you want the financial security a long term deal provides, then the player certainly can take that route as well.   But thats the trade off: financial security with good money up front via signing bonus etc for base salaries at the back end that you may outperform.

 

You act as if the long term deal only benefits the team.  Look at Alex Smith.  Should the Redskins be able to say: well we didn't anticipate him getting hurt so early, so I know we agreed to all this guaranteed money, but now I'd like to back out of my side of the commitment and not pay that to you.  Of course not.  They agreed to pay it when they signed the deal, so they have to live up to it.  Just like a player who was thrilled with signing a deal at his current market value with a signing bonus he was happy with at the time, then deciding he'd like to back out of the commitment bc he didn't realize he would be that successful.  Cry me a river.

 

It reminds me of when people bust my chops about being a teacher, and how nice it must be to get July and August off.  I remind them they can go back to school just like I did, and be one as well.  Then come the "well I couldn't deal with kids today" and "yeah but teachers don't make much money" yada yada yada.   That's part of the deal man!!  You can't say I want a teachers schedule, not have to deal with kids, and get paid like a lawyer.  You can't only pick aspects you like, and ignore the rest.  You take everything the situation entails.

 

So when a player says, well, I liked that extension the day of, I loved that nice little signing bonus, but now that those checks have been cashed, I'd like to back out of the agreement now (while not returning any of the signing bonus or early annual salaries), then I don't agree with that.  Every agent is going to try to get the team to pay as much upfront as possible due to the time value of money.  The earlier you get it, the sooner you can invest / spend / pay down debt, so it's a huge benefit to the player.  But if the team agrees to front loading the contract, they are inviting discontentment after the player deposited those checks and now the checks aren't as big as they were before.  But it's the deal the player agreed to.  

 

I understand your view on the issue, I just don't agree with it.   Long terms deals have advantages and disadvantages for both sides, I don't think a player should be able to reap the rewards of the advantages (financial security of long term deal) but back out of the disadvantage ( back end salaries aren't as much as you could get as free agent today). 

 

I like to keep an open mind, and I've changed my mind on this board before, and I respect your knowledge.  So the million dollar question I have for you is: knowing that agents are aware teams can cut their player at anytime to get out of paying base salaries, which certainly has an impact on a deal's framework, and knowing that an owner can't rewrite the deal due to unforseen circumstances (ie Redskins not wanting to pay Smith all this guaranteed money after his injury although it was agreed upon), then why should the other side be able to rewrite the deal due to unforseen circumstances (player outperforming contract he agreed to)?  When the cba allows for every player to earn free agency after a defined service time requirement, thereby allowing him to have 32 organizations bid on his services and he has the right to choose the best deal.  This isn't pre free agency period where owners could strong arm you with a take it or leave it offer.  These guys have the right to chase the best deal, and if they find one they like and sign on the dotted line, they should live up to their side of the agreement imo.

[goskins10]

15 minutes ago, KillBill26 said:

I could easily say you are missing the point as well, so it sounds like we probably just have to agree to disagree. 

 

They do have a choice if they want to play: a short term deal.  If they really feel they aren't getting what they are worth in a long term deal, bet on yourself and sign a short term deal. 

 

Or, being a dangerous sport you want the financial security a long term deal provides, then the player certainly can take that route as well.   But thats the trade off: financial security with good money up front via signing bonus etc for base salaries at the back end that you may outperform.

 

You act as if the long term deal only benefits the team.  Look at Alex Smith.  Should the Redskins be able to say: well we didn't anticipate him getting hurt so early, so I know we agreed to all this guaranteed money, but now I'd like to back out of my side of the commitment and not pay that to you.  Of course not.  They agreed to pay it when they signed the deal, so they have to live up to it.  Just like a player who was thrilled with signing a deal at his current market value with a signing bonus he was happy with at the time, then deciding he'd like to back out of the commitment bc he didn't realize he would be that successful.  Cry me a river.

 

It reminds me of when people bust my chops about being a teacher, and how nice it must be to get July and August off.  I remind them they can go back to school just like I did, and be one as well.  Then come the "well I couldn't deal with kids today" and "yeah but teachers don't make much money" yada yada yada.   That's part of the deal man!!  You can't say I want a teachers schedule, not have to deal with kids, and get paid like a lawyer.  You can't only pick aspects you like, and ignore the rest.  You take everything the situation entails.

 

It's interesting you bring up teachers. My best friend is a professor at a University. I do give him grief for having summers off and when he makes the same comment you do - although he makes the point we all have choices of careers - I then make the point that had I done that he and I would not have been able to travel the world playing golf and other vacations he would take with me and my girlfriend. 

 

So yes, all of us have choices. However, do you not work towards getting more money? Better tools for teaching? Generally trying to improve your working conditions right? I assume you do. When players want to renegotiate contracts that are not fully guaranteed they are working towards changing their situation. It's one of only a few ways to get owners to change. All other major sports have fully guaranteed contracts. NFL should.

 

Here is where I would agree - If contracts were fully guaranteed and then players wanted to restructure I would be with you. 

 

Alex Smith is not a good example for your argument - the only part the team can't get out from under is the guaranteed part. And as much as it sucks for the team I hve no problem with Alex getting paid the guaranteed part. 

 

15 minutes ago, KillBill26 said:

 

So when a player says, well, I liked that extension the day of, I loved that nice little signing bonus, but now that those checks have been cashed, I'd like to back out of the agreement now (while not returning any of the signing bonus or early annual salaries), then I don't agree with that.  Every agent is going to try to get the team to pay as much upfront as possible due to the time value of money.  The earlier you get it, the sooner you can invest / spend / pay down debt, so it's a huge benefit to the player.  But if the team agrees to front loading the contract, they are inviting discontentment after the player deposited those checks and now the checks aren't as big as they were before.  But it's the deal the player agreed to.  

 

Teams can get signing bonuses back if a player does not play out their contract. Look at Barry Sanders. 

 

15 minutes ago, KillBill26 said:

 

I understand your view on the issue, I just don't agree with it.   Long terms deals have advantages and disadvantages for both sides, I don't think a player should be able to reap the rewards of the advantages (financial security of long term deal) but back out of the disadvantage ( back end salaries aren't as much as you could get as free agent today). 

 

I like to keep an open mind, and I've changed my mind on this board before, and I respect your knowledge.  So the million dollar question I have for you is: knowing that agents are aware teams can cut their player at anytime to get out of paying base salaries, which certainly has an impact on a deal's framework, and knowing that an owner can't rewrite the deal due to unforseen circumstances (ie Redskins not wanting to pay Smith all this guaranteed money after his injury although it was agreed upon), then why should the other side be able to rewrite the deal due to unforseen circumstances (player outperforming contract he agreed to)?  When the cba allows for every player to earn free agency after a defined service time requirement, thereby allowing him to have 32 organizations bid on his services and he has the right to choose the best deal.  This isn't pre free agency period where owners could strong arm you with a take it or leave it offer.  These guys have the right to chase the best deal, and if they find one they like and sign on the dotted line, they should live up to their side of the agreement imo.

 

You may not fully understand my position - which could fully well be me not explaining it very well. My point is that if teams can release players - which they can, then players should be able to ask for contracts to be restructured. I have no problem with either. And actually teams do rewrite players contracts down all the time. They are just not high profile players. But they are given a take it or be released ultimatums. 

 

In the end to make it fair all the way around all contracts should be fully guaranteed. Then both live with what they sign, period. 

 

[Veryoldschool]

Alex Smith - stuck with his contract?

Josh Norman - already cut

Trent Williams - trade for whatever they can get and draft a replacement 

Ryan Kerrigan - extend and get lower hit this year

Jordan Reed - cut 

Morgan Moses - cut

Paul Richardson - already cut

Quinton Dunbar - extend

[Jericho]

4 hours ago, goskins10 said:

All other major sports have fully guaranteed contracts. NFL should.

 

 

Actually, unless there's been some recent changes I'm not up to date on, no sport requires guaranteed contracts. For example, the NBA has made more use of non-guaranteed contracts in recent years, though arguably it's also for salary cap purposes. But the other sports leave it up the individual negotiations. And obviously you can have fully guaranteed NFL contracts. Kirk Cousins has one. But it is rare. If NFL contracts had to became fully guaranteed for some reason, you'd see a much different system where the overwhelming number of players would be on 1-2 year deals. I also doubt it would result in more money to the players. The salary cap would still be there, though you should be able remove the "dead" money from the cap. Instead you'd just have bad contracts eating up your cap. But with most players on 1-2 year deals, you'd also likely see a lot more player movement.

[goskins10]

15 minutes ago, Jericho said:

 

Actually, unless there's been some recent changes I'm not up to date on, no sport requires guaranteed contracts. For example, the NBA has made more use of non-guaranteed contracts in recent years, though arguably it's also for salary cap purposes. But the other sports leave it up the individual negotiations. And obviously you can have fully guaranteed NFL contracts. Kirk Cousins has one. But it is rare. If NFL contracts had to became fully guaranteed for some reason, you'd see a much different system where the overwhelming number of players would be on 1-2 year deals. I also doubt it would result in more money to the players. The salary cap would still be there, though you should be able remove the "dead" money from the cap. Instead you'd just have bad contracts eating up your cap. But with most players on 1-2 year deals, you'd also likely see a lot more player movement.

 

I never once said they were required. Where did you get that from? I said they have fully guaranteed contracts. Having said that, it's a fact that the other major leagues players get guaranteed contracts. Fully guaranteed contracts are rare but they are becoming closer to a reality. 

 

After the potential 1 yr contracts and players moving a bit more, the rest doesn't really track So what if there are a lot one yr contracts? Although I think you exaggerate the number. What there would be are more 3 yr fully guaranteed contracts, which is what they have now - just with a few extra years that gives the teams extra control. 

 

And you will have to explain how if you have 1 or 2 contacts you have bad contracts eating up CAP - especially if it doesn't result in higher player salaries, although player salaries will go up with the CAP regardless.  You already have bad contracts - you said it yourself much of the dead money would go away. 

 

Also, the NBA and MLB find a way to make it happen. I do not buy that somehow the NFL is different. 

 

 

[Jericho]

15 hours ago, goskins10 said:

Expect this to get addressed during the next CBA negotiations that unfortunately will very likely lead to a shut down/lock out that could last for a season or maybe more. 

 

3 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

I never once said they were required. Where did you get that from? I said they have fully guaranteed contracts. Having said that, it's a fact that the other major leagues players get guaranteed contracts. Fully guaranteed contracts are rare but they are becoming closer to a reality. 

 

 

Basically from your prior post. If you aren't advocating fully guaranteed contracts be required in the NFL, then what is that you want? And what is it you think will get addressed at the next CBA negotiations? Maybe I'm just lost. Because all the other sports allow players to negotiate their contract and their own terms, including whether or not any or all of a contract is guaranteed. The NBA doesn't mandate that contracts are guaranteed. The NHL does not mandate it. MLB does not mandate. So what exactly do you think the NFL should do? And how do you think the CBA needs to change? Because it seems like you're advocating that the NFL must have fully guaranteed contracts for all players.

 

11 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

After the potential 1 yr contracts and players moving a bit more, the rest doesn't really track So what if there are a lot one yr contracts? Although I think you exaggerate the number. What there would be are more 3 yr fully guaranteed contracts, which is what they have now - just with a few extra years that gives the teams extra control. 

 

 

Besides QBs, what players/positions do you think teams are really going to commit big money and multiple years to? Injury and performance issues are serious risks for virtually anyone and the risk is probably only worth it with the very elite players. You reference teams giving out "3 yr fully guaranteed contracts, which is what they have now - just with a few extra years that gives the teams extra control". Not sure that's particularly prevalent, but the "few extra years" is something the team negotiates for to be in their favor. They give the early guaranteed money so they get extra years on the back end to either get a bargain or allow them to move on if its not. If the teams are not getting that back end benefit, they'll likely offer less guaranteed money up front.. If the teams have no way to get out from a contract, they'll offer less years. Everything will be reduced.

 

15 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

And you will have to explain how if you have 1 or 2 contacts you have bad contracts eating up CAP - especially if it doesn't result in higher player salaries, although player salaries will go up with the CAP regardless.  You already have bad contracts - you said it yourself much of the dead money would go away. 

 

 

I don't understand what you are arguing here. Are you trying to claim that sports don't have bad contracts? Every sport does, including the NFL. Even on short term deals, you'll have bad contracts. You sign a RB to a 2 year deal for $16 million dollars. He blows out his ACL in Week 17 of year 1. He's probably on IR all year two eating up $8 million dollars of cap. You sign free agents like Stephen Paea or Stacy McGee or Terrell McClain who instantly suck and become anchors. Hopefully you didn't give any of them 2 year deals. It's inevitable teams will pay a lot of money for poor production. Yes, that will essentially replace the "dead" money on the salary cap. Though not sure how you'd even address rookies. None should get very much money, because there's a good chance they just suck or don't even make the final 53.

 

I think the bigger issue is that teams don't want 70% of the league on one year deals and most of the roster switching teams every year. I'm also not sure why there's a problem with the current system. My point is moving to fully guaranteed contracts does not seem to solve anything. Players salaries are dictated by the salary cap. They get a percentage of revenue. They'd still get the same percentage. So even with fully guaranteed contracts, players aren't getting more money. So I'm not sure what it solves.

 

36 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

Also, the NBA and MLB find a way to make it happen. I do not buy that somehow the NFL is different.

 

Make what happen? I mean the NFL is pretty different in that careers are short and the risk of injury is quite high compared to the NBA and much of MLB (though pitchers are a significant injury risk). But you seem to now be advocating that you're not asking for contracts to be guaranteed. So I'm not sure what exactly you want to change.

[goskins10]

7 hours ago, Jericho said:

 

 

Basically from your prior post. If you aren't advocating fully guaranteed contracts be required in the NFL, then what is that you want? And what is it you think will get addressed at the next CBA negotiations? Maybe I'm just lost. Because all the other sports allow players to negotiate their contract and their own terms, including whether or not any or all of a contract is guaranteed. The NBA doesn't mandate that contracts are guaranteed. The NHL does not mandate it. MLB does not mandate. So what exactly do you think the NFL should do? And how do you think the CBA needs to change? Because it seems like you're advocating that the NFL must have fully guaranteed contracts for all players.

 

tou are drawing the conclusions you want to.  But just to be as clear as possible, I am NOT advocating required fully guaranteed contracts nor did I ever say the other leagues are required.  However I do believe that NFL players should get fully guaranteed contracts just like most other leagues.  

 

7 hours ago, Jericho said:

 

 

Besides QBs, what players/positions do you think teams are really going to commit big money and multiple years to? Injury and performance issues are serious risks for virtually anyone and the risk is probably only worth it with the very elite players. You reference teams giving out "3 yr fully guaranteed contracts, which is what they have now - just with a few extra years that gives the teams extra control". Not sure that's particularly prevalent, but the "few extra years" is something the team negotiates for to be in their favor. They give the early guaranteed money so they get extra years on the back end to either get a bargain or allow them to move on if its not. If the teams are not getting that back end benefit, they'll likely offer less guaranteed money up front.. If the teams have no way to get out from a contract, they'll offer less years. Everything will be reduced.
 

 

big money and extended years are two different things.  Not all 4 or 5 yr contracts are big money. I would like to see the smaller contracts be fully guaranteed.  Yes this will likely lead to shorter term contracts.  I see no problem with that.  

 

7 hours ago, Jericho said:

 

 

I don't understand what you are arguing here. Are you trying to claim that sports don't have bad contracts? Every sport does, including the NFL. Even on short term deals, you'll have bad contracts. You sign a RB to a 2 year deal for $16 million dollars. He blows out his ACL in Week 17 of year 1. He's probably on IR all year two eating up $8 million dollars of cap. You sign free agents like Stephen Paea or Stacy McGee or Terrell McClain who instantly suck and become anchors. Hopefully you didn't give any of them 2 year deals. It's inevitable teams will pay a lot of money for poor production. Yes, that will essentially replace the "dead" money on the salary cap. Though not sure how you'd even address rookies. None should get very much money, because there's a good chance they just suck or don't even make the final 53.
 

 

I have no idea where you are going here. In fact I made the exact opposite argument that there are already many bad contracts why would there be more, which was you implication.  
 

nothing past this really made enough sense to respond to.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Jericho]

8 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

tou are drawing the conclusions you want to.  But just to be as clear as possible, I am NOT advocating required fully guaranteed contracts nor did I ever say the other leagues are required.  However I do believe that NFL players should get fully guaranteed contracts just like most other leagues.  

 

 

Okay, I'll take one more stab here, cause I'm still not clear what it is you are trying to advocate. You specifically say you are not advocating fully guaranteed contracts. But in the next sentence you literally say "NFL players should get fully guaranteed contracts". So is this just a personal preference? Since no league requires guaranteed contracts and contracts are negotiated individually, it sounds like you want players to change their preferences and just aim for shorter guaranteed deals. Which is fine, if that floats your boat. I'm not sure what that would accomplish or why it would be any better than the current system. Also not sure why you reference the CBA several posts back as this would have nothing to do with the CBA. Maybe that's why I misunderstood you. Really, it sounds like you think NFL agents just do a really crappy job of negotiating deals for their clients. But if you want to try and change hearts and minds of NFL players, I see no harm.

[Darrell Green Fan]

On 2/16/2020 at 8:40 AM, goskins10 said:

 

This is an excellent point that will fall flat on many. So many people ****ed and moaned about Trent - and virtually any player - dares to want to restructure r want a new contract screaming - he signed a contract, player X must live up to it!  But didn't the team sign the same contract? But it's Ok for them to kick a player to the curb. 

 

NFL contracts - like the other sports - should have fully guaranteed contracts, period. This would likely lead to shorter term contracts which is fine. This 5 yr contract with only 60% guaranteed is really a 3 yr contract taking control of the players life out of their hands for an additional 2 while giving the team all the control. This needs to change. And it is slowly - more players are getting shorter fully guaranteed contracts. 

 

 

Expect this to get addressed during the next CBA negotiations that unfortunately will very likely lead to a shut down/lock out that could last for a season or maybe more. 

 

I get what you are saying, I tend to side with the players too for this reason.  But let's not forget all the upfront money the players make in the form of a signing bonus. In Trent's case the gave him a front loaded contract with an $8 million signing bonus. Now that he's on the back end of that deal, a deal he agreed to, he wants a new deal. When asked about the upfront money his response was "that's in the past". Sorry but that's really not right either.  

[goskins10]

2 hours ago, Jericho said:

 

Okay, I'll take one more stab here, cause I'm still not clear what it is you are trying to advocate. You specifically say you are not advocating fully guaranteed contracts. But in the next sentence you literally say "NFL players should get fully guaranteed contracts". So is this just a personal preference? Since no league requires guaranteed contracts and contracts are negotiated individually, it sounds like you want players to change their preferences and just aim for shorter guaranteed deals. Which is fine, if that floats your boat. I'm not sure what that would accomplish or why it would be any better than the current system. Also not sure why you reference the CBA several posts back as this would have nothing to do with the CBA. Maybe that's why I misunderstood you. Really, it sounds like you think NFL agents just do a really crappy job of negotiating deals for their clients. But if you want to try and change hearts and minds of NFL players, I see no harm.

 

I said I am not advocating "MANDATORY" fully guaranteed contracts which seemed to be a bone of contention for you. But I do believe players should have fully guaranteed contracts as standard practice.  Not trying to be an ass here but not sure how much more specific I can be. You are hung up a single non-related point but linking mandatory to fully guaranteed - they can be and are two separate things. 

 

There are things that can encourage fully guaranteed contracts - but they do not have to be mandated. 

 

And no where do i even remotely say agents negotiate really crappy deals. You keep finds conclusions that are just not there. 

 

It's really just as simple as how it works now - not fully guaranteed to how I believe it should work fully guaranteed. The rest has no real relevance. 

25 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

I get what you are saying, I tend to side with the players too for this reason.  But let's not forget all the upfront money the players make in the form of a signing bonus. In Trent's case the gave him a front loaded contract with an $8 million signing bonus. Now that he's on the back end of that deal, a deal he agreed to, he wants a new deal. When asked about the upfront money his response was "that's in the past". Sorry but that's really not right either.  

 

I do agree the signing bonus should be returned by the player if they don't play it out - see Barry Sanders. But most time it's not about that and the player stays. But I get what yo are saying. 

[Warhead36]

I'm all for all contracts being guaranteed. Would you rather the owners pocket the money? The league makes billions, the money's gotta go somewhere. I'd rather it go to the guys that actually play.

[Skinn]

I must have come to the wrong thread? I thought this was "cuts to get to 100 million in cap space".

[Jericho]

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

I said I am not advocating "MANDATORY" fully guaranteed contracts which seemed to be a bone of contention for you. But I do believe players should have fully guaranteed contracts as standard practice.  Not trying to be an ass here but not sure how much more specific I can be. You are hung up a single non-related point but linking mandatory to fully guaranteed - they can be and are two separate things. 

 

There are things that can encourage fully guaranteed contracts - but they do not have to be mandated. 

 

And no where do i even remotely say agents negotiate really crappy deals. You keep finds conclusions that are just not there. 

 

It's really just as simple as how it works now - not fully guaranteed to how I believe it should work fully guaranteed. The rest has no real relevance. 

 

 

I feel I write something and you interpret something completely different. It seems you want players to aim for guaranteed contacts. Fine. I get that. You conceded you don't want the NFL to mandate guaranteed contracts. Okay, I get that. Since contracts are negotiated between player and team, are you're specifically saying you don't want the team to change. Isn't the only option left for the player to change? And since agents negotiate on the player's behalf, aren't you then essentially saying agents should change their tactics? Specifically because it seems like you disagree with the tactics the agents are currently employing? Or at least you don't like the end results of the contracts the players sign. So something, somewhere in the system has to change to get what you want. I'm just still not clear what it is you want to change. Because it seems like the only thing left is to say you think players should aim for shorter, fully guaranteed contracts. Which is basically just a choice. Which is what I thought was my conclusion from my last post. But I'm not sure you agree with that.

 

1 hour ago, Warhead36 said:

I'm all for all contracts being guaranteed. Would you rather the owners pocket the money? The league makes billions, the money's gotta go somewhere. I'd rather it go to the guys that actually play.

 

The owners aren't pocketing the money, they're just spending it on different players. When the Redskins cut Norman and Richardson, it's not like Daniel Snyder found an extra $20 million lying around to buy another yacht. Instead the team will throw that money at other free agents, like Austin Hooper or Jame Bradberry. Fully guaranteed contracts does not mean the players, on the whole, get more money. It will just change how contracts are negotiated.

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, Skinn said:

I must have come to the wrong thread? I thought this was "cuts to get to 100 million in cap space".

@goskins10 and @Jericho please make your own thread and stop derailing this one, I asked nicely earily here without quoting you directly

[Burgold]

Slightly different topic, but what I thought would be fair is that players on injured reserve count for half. That is, if I'm injured half my salary counts against the cap. I think you could do something similar with retirement due to injury, creating a partial cap hit, as the cut was not the fault of player or team.

[goskins10]

34 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

@goskins10 and @Jericho please make your own thread and stop derailing this one, I asked nicely earily here without quoting you directly

I am done as I think we reached an impasse, which is ok.  
 

but I disagree it was derailing. Contract discussions are a natural part of CAP space discussion. 

[Acworth skins fan]

5 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

I'm all for all contracts being guaranteed. Would you rather the owners pocket the money? The league makes billions, the money's gotta go somewhere. I'd rather it go to the guys that actually play.

I started this, so here goes. The owners split about $260 million between the teams. The salary cap last year was 188 million. After uniforms, doctors, Front office, stadium leases ect. Ect. The profit is a lot less then 80 million. Quite a bit of profit still, but as a capitalist, I think the owners don’t make as much as people think, and it is their businesses. But what do I know. 

[Darrell Green Fan]

5 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

I'm all for all contracts being guaranteed. Would you rather the owners pocket the money? The league makes billions, the money's gotta go somewhere. I'd rather it go to the guys that actually play.

 

That means Josh Norman will still be getting huge paydays from the Redskins.  Guaranteed contracts lead to bad contracts for crappy players. Think Mahinmi on the Wizards, Chris Davis on the Orioles. These are players being paid over $15 million/year and they absolutely suck. At least in the NFL players are played based on their production, at least to some extent.  Sure teams are heartless but if you were productive another team will give you another big deal just as Washington did with Norman.  

[dyst]

Bruce Allen and Dan Snyder are worse at their jobs then Norman was at his. If we’re talking about not living up to what is expected. 😛

[BleedBNG]

22 hours ago, Robbob said:

Did Trent Williams count against the salary cap last year?  If not, is that money rolled over into this year’s cap and included In our currently projected cap space?  I am assuming if he were to stay, we would pay him at least some of that.

 

He actually counted $1.5M more than if he had played. He'll count $14.5M cap but only $2M dead cap for this year. Not sure if the $1.5M dead cap from last year rolls over to this year.