- 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
Bush's future
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:55 pm
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:55 pm
Now that we have Bush matched, do we try to move him to another team for a pick or do we roll with what we have? I really like how our secondary is shaping up, but I also realize that we are dangerously close to going over the cap. Do you think we are perhaps signing him so we can trade him and get some value back?
6
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:57 pm to Waldeaux24
possible, but I don't think so...I think we like having Vaccaro, Byrd, and Bush on the field at the same time often
...he won't play as much as he did last year, but he should still get significant playing time, and we need the depth at S regardless
...he won't play as much as he did last year, but he should still get significant playing time, and we need the depth at S regardless
This post was edited on 4/7/14 at 5:59 pm
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:58 pm to Waldeaux24
We need the depth at safety so I say he probably stays. Cut bunkley to help with the cap
Posted on 4/7/14 at 6:04 pm to Waldeaux24
they needed another safety, they will keep him.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 6:11 pm to fightingtigers98
I would be very happy with keeping him. Just a possible scenario that I stumbled upon. I wouldn't put it last Loomis to use him as bait and see how interested other teams are. We now know that at least one team thinks he's worth a contract, and $2.25mil/yr isn't a bad salary for a starting caliber safety.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 6:16 pm to Waldeaux24
Losing him would have left us with once again only 3 safeties on the roster.
I think they looked at it as: quality depth, and we were going to have to find some depth somewhere anyways... Whether it meant using a draft pick or getting another FA. Might as well get a proven guy in our system and keep him away from a division rival.
I think they looked at it as: quality depth, and we were going to have to find some depth somewhere anyways... Whether it meant using a draft pick or getting another FA. Might as well get a proven guy in our system and keep him away from a division rival.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 6:20 pm to Waldeaux24
I think we will keep him as you never can have too much depth for a position. I can definitely see packages with him, Vacarro, and Byrd on the field together a lot.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 6:23 pm to Waldeaux24
If you say for ease he is making about $2.25m per year then he only costs $850,000 more than he did before.
But the deal was supposedly incentive laden and I imagine we back loaded so he's likely costing us less on the cap now than he did before at $1.4m.
But the deal was supposedly incentive laden and I imagine we back loaded so he's likely costing us less on the cap now than he did before at $1.4m.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 6:23 pm to zzemme
I do believe/hope that we will keep him. Just offering another scenario that I hadn't seen anybody else bring up.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 6:27 pm to bonethug0108
I was just doing simple math to break it in half as a point of reference. I didn't look at the details other than seeing that his offer from Atlanta was a 2 year/$4.5mil contract. My main point was that his average annual salary is a good deal for a quality starting safety.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 6:31 pm to shortstop1627
quote:That's weird logic because then we'd only have one true NT.
We need the depth at safety so I say he probably stays. Cut bunkley to help with the cap
Not saying that we shouldn't cut him though, but you don't cut a shallow position to keep another from being shallow.
Also, Bunkley doesn't help much at all if we were to cut him now vs. after June 1st($1.25m to $4.5m).
Edit:
Yeah it is a pretty good deal for someone who could start.
This post was edited on 4/7/14 at 6:32 pm
Posted on 4/7/14 at 6:36 pm to bonethug0108
He would be a June 1st candidate then.
This post was edited on 4/7/14 at 6:37 pm
Posted on 4/7/14 at 7:06 pm to shortstop1627
Yup I've been saying he is the most likely guy left to get cut. We can afford to keep him one more year, but if we draft someone and they show out good in camp I think Bunkley is gone.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 8:21 pm to bonethug0108
I still think we'll find a way to keep Bunkley. The best way I see that happening is we sign Jimmy to his long term deal. Loomis loves his back loaded contracts, so I'd have to assume whatever cap number Jimmy will have for his first year will be lower than the $7 mil he's counting now.
Posted on 4/7/14 at 8:36 pm to Waldeaux24
It'll be lower, but it would be very hard to get it any lower than $4m given his likely signing bonus. $5m seems more likely.
But yeah it is possible to keep Bunkley this year but we really need to cut bait soon if he isn't going to get more than a quarter of the snaps(what he got last year).
But yeah it is possible to keep Bunkley this year but we really need to cut bait soon if he isn't going to get more than a quarter of the snaps(what he got last year).
This post was edited on 4/7/14 at 8:37 pm
Posted on 4/7/14 at 8:46 pm to bonethug0108
Yea I was assuming his realistic figure would be around $5 mil, which is still much better than $7 mil. And I agree. I like Bunkley. He's a good player, but if he won't be on the field that often then he needs to take a cut.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News