- 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
Brees a bargain compared to Flacco if #s I'm hearing are correct...
Posted on 3/2/13 at 11:07 am
Posted on 3/2/13 at 11:07 am
Man I bet GB is cringing after hearing the Flacco deal. 
3
Posted on 3/2/13 at 11:20 am to STEVED00
ATL too
Posted on 3/2/13 at 11:46 am to STEVED00
Yeah if Brees and flacco got what they got, Rodgers will probably get ~25 mil over 6-7 years
Posted on 3/2/13 at 12:03 pm to motorbreath
Unless a large percent of that is guaranteed, he f*cked over their salary cap and abiltiy to pay other people IMO. 
Posted on 3/2/13 at 1:41 pm to STEVED00
Flacco got as much as he did due to supply and demand…. right now, there aren't a bunch of great prospects at QB, so if you got a good one, you GOTTA keep him, regardless of if you overpay and/or leverage your future….
look at the FA's… look at the draft…. who can Baltimore replace him with, especially since their defense is about to take a major hit? they HAD to pay the guy, even though by all estimations, they overpaid for him… granted he did just win SB MVP and brought the Lombardi to Baltimore in the process, but still, he's paid like a top 3 QB and he's not a top 3 QB…
but due to low supply, his production this year demanded the price he got paid…. good for him… bad for the Ravens in the future...
look at the FA's… look at the draft…. who can Baltimore replace him with, especially since their defense is about to take a major hit? they HAD to pay the guy, even though by all estimations, they overpaid for him… granted he did just win SB MVP and brought the Lombardi to Baltimore in the process, but still, he's paid like a top 3 QB and he's not a top 3 QB…
but due to low supply, his production this year demanded the price he got paid…. good for him… bad for the Ravens in the future...
Posted on 3/2/13 at 1:42 pm to LuzianaFootball
When does the shite stop? With a salary cap, teams just cannot keep escalating one players salary to ludicrous levels. Teams will field a top flight QB with 2nd and 3rd string talent.
Posted on 3/2/13 at 1:51 pm to LuzianaFootball
quote:
Unless a large percent of that is guaranteed, he f*cked over their salary cap and abiltiy to pay other people IMO.
You mean unless it isnt guarenteed?
Posted on 3/2/13 at 1:58 pm to whodatfan
The thing is, I'm fine giving a qb that money if you have a Brees, Brady, Rodgers, someone like that. You don't make a guy who has really not been that great in the regular season the highest paid qb in the NFL.
Until this year, the defense and Ray Rice were why they won games. They might not have even wanted Flacco back if the Denver safety doesn't make one of the worst plays in NFL history.
Lewis is gone. Ed Reed is probably gone. Boldin might be gone. Kruger is gone. And now Flacco has this awful contract. Ravens just killed their franchise in my opinion.
Until this year, the defense and Ray Rice were why they won games. They might not have even wanted Flacco back if the Denver safety doesn't make one of the worst plays in NFL history.
Lewis is gone. Ed Reed is probably gone. Boldin might be gone. Kruger is gone. And now Flacco has this awful contract. Ravens just killed their franchise in my opinion.
Posted on 3/2/13 at 2:01 pm to wildtigercat93
quote:
You mean unless it isnt guarenteed?
No. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the more there is of guaranteed money, the easier it is on the cap. That's what the person you quoted meant.
Posted on 3/2/13 at 2:03 pm to landrywasbeast30
quote:
No. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the more there is of guaranteed money, the easier it is on the cap. That's what the person you quoted meant.
I dont think thats right at all.
Posted on 3/2/13 at 2:14 pm to wildtigercat93
quote:
I dont think thats right at all
How do you think these contracts get restructured to make cap room? Why do you think guaranteed money is the most important part of deals now? It's what's best for the player and the team. It's all about guaranteed money.
This post was edited on 3/2/13 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 3/2/13 at 2:36 pm to landrywasbeast30
quote:
How do you think these contracts get restructured to make cap room? Why do you think guaranteed money is the most important part of deals now? It's what's best for the player and the team. It's all about guaranteed money.
All the non guaranteed parts of the contracts are easy to move around (incentive based, roster bonuses etc) but guaranteed money has to be payed to the player and will definitely be on the cap at some point
Guarantees are the most important part of the deal because thats the true guaranteed value of that contract. The rest of it is based on performance and other factors
So a higher amount of guaranteed money would be harder to move around for cap relief.
ETA im no cap expert or anything so i could be wrong but i think thTs how it works
This post was edited on 3/2/13 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 3/2/13 at 3:02 pm to wildtigercat93
These teams wouldn't hand out these huge guaranteed money contracts if it didn't also benefit them.
Posted on 3/2/13 at 3:33 pm to landrywasbeast30
They would to get that player to sign
By that logic why wouldn't they sign them to 100 percent guaranteed contracts?
ETA most contracts are only truely guarenteed half the entire contract worth if that
By that logic why wouldn't they sign them to 100 percent guaranteed contracts?
ETA most contracts are only truely guarenteed half the entire contract worth if that
This post was edited on 3/2/13 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 3/2/13 at 3:46 pm to wildtigercat93
quote:
By that logic why wouldn't they sign them to 100 percent guaranteed contracts?
Don't guys like Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder basically try doing this lol. I'm guessing there is some sort of rule stopping teams from going 100%. If there was no rule and you could just go 100% guaranteed contract, wouldn't it just be a no salary cap league at that point? The owners who are willing to spend the most money are also usually the one's who hand out the most guaranteed money.
Remember when the Redskins would spend a ton of money every offseason? They did that by handing out a ton of guaranteed money I think. But I could be wrong about all of this.
Posted on 3/2/13 at 3:50 pm to wildtigercat93
Yeah the salary, which isn't guarateed is what gets moved around.
Like with Lofton this year. His contract runs for 5 more years. So by taking his 5 million salary for this year and converting it to a roster bonus, which is now guaranteed, they were able to spread that money out for the next 5 years. 5 million for this year thus became 1 million a year over the next 5.....plus of course what he was already guaranteed in those other years.
Like with Lofton this year. His contract runs for 5 more years. So by taking his 5 million salary for this year and converting it to a roster bonus, which is now guaranteed, they were able to spread that money out for the next 5 years. 5 million for this year thus became 1 million a year over the next 5.....plus of course what he was already guaranteed in those other years.
Posted on 3/2/13 at 4:01 pm to landrywasbeast30
quote:
By that logic why wouldn't they sign them to 100 percent guaranteed contracts?
Right again. It's the players who shoot for the guaranteed money. Say Joe Blow signs a 100 million contract for 5 years with 50 million guaranteed and the rest in salary. For the next 5 years Joe gets 10 million automatically in Bonus money. But the contract is backloaded so that his 1st yrs. salary is only 1 million. Well after 1 year the team doesn't want Joe anymore so they cut him. Well the team paid him 11 million for that 1 year but they only have the 10 million a year (dead money) for 4 more years due from the original bonus left to pay him. So the 100 million contract Joe signed actually becomes 51 million altogether.
:edit:
I said they paid him 11 million that 1st year. They actually paid him 51 million the 1st year. But only 11 million counts against the cap for the 1st year.
This post was edited on 3/2/13 at 4:07 pm
Posted on 3/2/13 at 4:09 pm to monroesaintsfan
Knew i wasnt crazy
Posted on 3/2/13 at 4:10 pm to monroesaintsfan
But wouldn't that team take a massive cap hit if they let that player go? The more there is in guaranteed money, the less the cap hit when they do decide to let that player go right? That's the point of doing these kinds of contracts now. If the player doesn't work out, but you gave him a ton of up front guaranteed money, the owner has to pay up, but it doesn't hurt the team as much cap wise.
This post was edited on 3/2/13 at 4:12 pm
Posted on 3/2/13 at 4:14 pm to landrywasbeast30
No the cap hit comes from the guarenteed money
ETA think about what youre saying
The money that is guaranteed = Team has to pay the player that no matter what so cutting him would cause the cap hit
The money that is not guaranteed = Teams can cut without repercussion because the player did not hit the incentive or bonus to earn that part of the contract
ETA think about what youre saying
The money that is guaranteed = Team has to pay the player that no matter what so cutting him would cause the cap hit
The money that is not guaranteed = Teams can cut without repercussion because the player did not hit the incentive or bonus to earn that part of the contract
This post was edited on 3/2/13 at 4:18 pm
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News