- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: USA today gets the Graham trade...
Posted on 3/11/15 at 2:23 pm to TigerBait1127
Posted on 3/11/15 at 2:23 pm to TigerBait1127
quote:
Dwayne Bowe
So you want two Colstons'? Gotcha
We made alot of moves because we were running out of time to get under the cap, everything yesterday felt rushed and hit people like a ton of bricks. Trading Jimmy really does nothing for us too significant in cap this season which is the same defense that many used to defend releasing Colston. Why not let colston go for "future" cap relief and actually keep people like PT, Lofton, who actually contribute. In trying to get under the cap 'IMO' we created just as many holes as we patched. FYI the cutting isn't over, its being reported that we are a little but over 1m under the cap. Yall must have forgotten what role Shannon Sharp played in those SB runs for Denver? Defense wins this, dallas does that, blah blah crap. They weren't saying this last offseason after virtually the same defense finished 5th in the league. In trying to take a step forward they took two backwards, just sayin. Why can we do what New England did and keep our TE and simply sign corners that can play....ooooh yea because their Qb took a pay decrease to make that happen. What was I thinking
This post was edited on 3/11/15 at 2:29 pm
2
Posted on 3/11/15 at 2:28 pm to kiNupe5
Rushed to get under the cap? 
The cap was projected to be AT LEAST $140 as early as last year. We've had AT LEAST since our season ended to start planning how to get under. And the trade of Graham actually cost us $2.5m in cap space (saved $2m on Graham but took on $4.5m for Unger).
And we reached out the them about Unger. They didn't reach out to us about Graham.
And for fricks sake we only lost two players since Sunday or Monday (whenever Lofton was cut; and many wanted him gone) and gained one plus a first rounder. The only other move was PT, a 30 year old HB. I disagree with the PT move but losing three players during just the start of FA while gaining one is hardly rushing to get under.
The cap was projected to be AT LEAST $140 as early as last year. We've had AT LEAST since our season ended to start planning how to get under. And the trade of Graham actually cost us $2.5m in cap space (saved $2m on Graham but took on $4.5m for Unger).
And we reached out the them about Unger. They didn't reach out to us about Graham.
And for fricks sake we only lost two players since Sunday or Monday (whenever Lofton was cut; and many wanted him gone) and gained one plus a first rounder. The only other move was PT, a 30 year old HB. I disagree with the PT move but losing three players during just the start of FA while gaining one is hardly rushing to get under.
This post was edited on 3/11/15 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 3/11/15 at 2:31 pm to kiNupe5
quote:
kiNupe5
Is that all you got from my entire post?
quote:
So you want two Colstons'? Gotcha
If by another Colston, you mean another big receiver? We could use another younger Colston
quote:
Trading Jimmy really does nothing for us too significant in cap this season
Ok? I was talking about the future. I'm not assuming that we're signing FAs to 1 year deals here....
quote:
Why not let colston go for "future" cap relief and actually keep people like PT, Lofton, who actually contribute.
I don't think you understand what you're saying here. If he's taking a pay cut, it makes more sense to release him next season. Per his old contract, there is only $2.7 million in dead money if we release him next year, compared to $5.4 million in dead money this year with just $4.3 million in cap savings. Next year, with the way his contract is structured, we save $7.8 million by cutting him. So, with a pay cut, it makes more sense to keep him this year and cut him next year.
I don't think PT was a cap casualty.
Lofton's contract made it an easy choice with $19 million in savings over the next 3 years for a limited MLB. I think that $19 million can be spent better somewhere else.
I think we're much better off having that $19 million and making that a draft priority.
quote:
FYI the cutting isn't over, its being reported that we are a little but over 1m under the cap
I hope not. Off the top of my head, we still have Bush, White, Evans, and Grubbs that need to be looked at
This post was edited on 3/11/15 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 3/11/15 at 2:32 pm to bonethug0108
quote:
Rushed to get under the cap?
The cap was projected to be AT LEAST $140 as early as last year. We've had AT LEAST since our season ended to start planning how to get under. And the trade of Graham actually cost us $2.5m in cap space (saved $2m on Graham but took on $4.5m for Unger).
And we reached out the them about Unger. They didn't reach out to us about Graham.
When you are trying to get under the cap you usually are the one reaching out dummy. So do you think they let players know they were going to restructure ahead of the off season? I for one can guarantee you that that's not the case because my grandfather is an agent with a firm and things did not heat up with contracted players and FA until very recently. Even if you know what the cap is you can't make someone take a pay decrease dude
Posted on 3/11/15 at 2:35 pm to kiNupe5
quote:
When you are trying to get under the cap you usually are the one reaching out dummy.
Dummy? This doesn't make any sense. The trade had nothing to do with us rushing to get under the cap.
Our cap was always manageable with the roster bonus conversions we had in place, usually up to the team b/c it has ZERO impact on a player's compensation.
quote:
So do you think they let players know they were going to restructure ahead of the off season? I for one can guarantee you that that's not the case because my grandfather is an agent with a firm and things did not heat up with contracted players and FA until very recently. Even if you know what the cap is you can't make someone take a pay decrease dude
This doesn't make any sense and you don't understand what a restructure is.
This post was edited on 3/11/15 at 2:37 pm
Posted on 3/11/15 at 2:39 pm to TigerBait1127
but you're over the cap as much as the saints were coming into the off season why not trade some of those guys for a "return" during the season? Its not as precise and calculated as you all make it seem or else you wouldn't have loyal guys in the locker room raising hell about it. They are trying to make sugar out of sh1t and I aint buying. You can build a team around a TE like graham, he's virtually Calvin Johnson. So he has times when he's less flashy I mean damn does he have to go for 200 every game. Tony Gonzales retired at 38, hoping Jimmy's able to play that far into his career we would have had an "OUTSTANDING" "UNMATCHED" talent for the next 7-10 'possibly' years, you can fix an oline within that time span, the reason that that isn't ideal is because it doesn't involve drew and thats the issue here for me.
This post was edited on 3/11/15 at 2:42 pm
Posted on 3/11/15 at 2:41 pm to TigerBait1127
quote:
This doesn't make any sense and you don't understand what a restructure is.
enlighten me then brother...im all ears
Posted on 3/11/15 at 2:43 pm to kiNupe5
quote:
enlighten me then brother...im all ears
I already explained it.
Most of the restructures are converting a roster bonus, already guaranteed, into a signing bonus that lets it get spread out over the remaining years of the contract.
That is built in to allow the team a lower cap early on and then prorating it over the length of the remaining contract. Byrd, Lofton, Junior, Graham, etc all had this built into their contract.
Pay cuts are completely different. That is what we asked Hawthorne to do in order to not get cut.
That is what we asked Bunkley to do, as cutting him cost us the exact same as what we saved.
And that is supposedly what we asked Colston to do, which would make cutting him completely foolish compared to next year
Posted on 3/11/15 at 2:45 pm to TigerBait1127
It's all termed as restructuring dude...... as it would require you to modify the current legal binding that is in place.
Posted on 3/11/15 at 2:47 pm to kiNupe5
quote:
but you're over the cap as much as the saints were coming into the off season why not trade some of those guys for a "return" during the season?
Trade what guys? You realize you need a trade partner right? We tried to trade Lofton, no one wanted him
quote:
Its not as precise and calculated as you all make it seem or else you wouldn't have loyal guys in the locker room raising hell about it.
I don't understand your point here. Of course players would be upset about losing their friends and teammates
quote:
. You can build a team around a TE like graham, he's virtually Calvin Johnson.
You build the team around your Hall of Fame QB. Also, I LOVE graham, and he's a great player. He isn't Calvin Johnson.
quote:
you can fix an oline within that time span, the reason that that isn't ideal is because it doesn't involve drew and thats the issue here for me.
What does this mean? You want to trade Drew instead?
Posted on 3/11/15 at 2:48 pm to kiNupe5
quote:
It's all termed as restructuring dude...... as it would require you to modify the current legal binding that is in place.
I understand that, but you didn't seem to. Most of the restructures were completely obvious and just that conversion. Why would any player be against that?
The Bunkley, Hawthorne, and Colston restructures were done instead of cutting them.
Not sure why you lump those all together and complain about it if you knew the difference.
This post was edited on 3/11/15 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 3/11/15 at 2:56 pm to TigerBait1127
the time to build around drew has come and gone, building around drew doesn't even give younger players 2-3 years to evolve its basically a right here right now thing. Drew isn't a spring chicken man, is this the "Let build around Drew 'AGAIN" campaign?
Its way easier to trade players during the season than the off season, in the off season you're basically saying trade with us or he'll be ava through FA for you to talk to 3 days later.
You should also compare statistics, Cj averages 1300 per season over the course of his career, Jimmy give you 1k easily when healthy.
quote:
Trade what guys? You realize you need a trade partner right? We tried to trade Lofton, no one wanted him
Its way easier to trade players during the season than the off season, in the off season you're basically saying trade with us or he'll be ava through FA for you to talk to 3 days later.
You should also compare statistics, Cj averages 1300 per season over the course of his career, Jimmy give you 1k easily when healthy.
Posted on 3/11/15 at 2:59 pm to kiNupe5
quote:
You can build a team around a TE like graham,
Name one?
Posted on 3/11/15 at 2:59 pm to TigerBait1127
my point was they didn't know before hand that the guys would agree to restructure "pay decrease" thus they truly had no way of knowing who would be cut and who would be spared and what voids would need to be filled. Even now you dont know if there were players that did not agree to take a pay cut that were asked and were deemed to valuable to cut. We will never know but you don't trade a player of Jimmy's caliber spur of the moment if everything all good. Name the last time a team did that lol
Posted on 3/11/15 at 3:01 pm to kiNupe5
quote:
you don't trade a player of Jimmy's caliber spur of the moment if everything all good. Name the last time a team did that lol
I can't name any and that includes the Saints.
Posted on 3/11/15 at 3:02 pm to goatmilker
Your team decided to start building around a 36 year old quarterback this off season
Posted on 3/11/15 at 3:07 pm to kiNupe5
F@ck yea sport.
He led the league in completion% last year.
He's still throwing darts.
You said it. Still waiting for you to support it. Sport.
He led the league in completion% last year.
He's still throwing darts.
quote:
You can build a team around a TE like graham,
You said it. Still waiting for you to support it. Sport.
This post was edited on 3/11/15 at 3:09 pm
Posted on 3/11/15 at 3:11 pm to kiNupe5
They didn't have to know which players would accept the pay cuts. In all three cases we would have saved more by releasing them. And the fact of the matter is if they didn't take the pay cuts they would have been cut and saved us more.
So no it wasn't a last second rush on the team's part. It was a last second decision to take a pay cut to avoid being cut.
So no it wasn't a last second rush on the team's part. It was a last second decision to take a pay cut to avoid being cut.
Posted on 3/11/15 at 3:12 pm to bonethug0108
He knows. Just being a dick.
Posted on 3/11/15 at 3:13 pm to bonethug0108
And you're still missing the fact that we LOST cap in the Graham trade. Are you really that fricking dense?
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News