Jump to content

Sperm Edwards

Moderators
  • Content count

    40,327
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    95

Sperm Edwards last won the day on September 28 2016

Sperm Edwards had the most liked content!

About Sperm Edwards

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.jetnation.com
  • Yahoo
    spermedwards@yahoo.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

23,470 profile views
  1. Mo Wilkerson ~ ~ ~

    We save what we don't pay out. Even guaranteed money (like that $6m for Revis this year) is new money paid out in 2017. What you're looking at, and getting confused by in all likelihood, is the theoretical 2018 savings after the other 2 years of amortized signing bonus (at $3m a pop) accelerates to this year. But it's an artificially lower "savings" (seems like only $11m the way you're looking at it). But if they have it all hit this year, then it frees up $6m later. It's 6 in one, half dozen in the other (in this case literally, though in millions). $3m is already scheduled to come off in 2018 and it will no matter what we do with Mo. What's up in the air is the $6m still left (that would be $3m/year for 2019 and 2020). If we keep him, it'll come off in $3m increments until the end of his contract. If we dump him, well the league rules say you can't keep amortizing past bonus for a player that isn't on your roster anymore. It all accelerates to the current year's cap. The exception is if the player's cut after June 1 (and the league lets a team designate 1 player as a June 1 cut even if we actually cut him in March). If on/after June 1, then the same $3m comes off this year and the rest of the accelerated amount ($6m in Mo's case) hits next year. It's $9m no matter what, because that was already paid to him back in 2016. But whether it all accelerates to this year or not is just a team's decision. Most likely they'll let it all accelerate to the 2018 because they have so much space as it is. But in the end there's no net savings one way or the other. If they cut him they save $17m quite simply because they won't be paying him another $17m.
  2. Mo Wilkerson ~ ~ ~

    It's $17m even with the workout bonus. Plus it saves $17m (the amount they won't be paying him), not $11m. He's clearly getting dumped. His entire extension was a stupid blunder, guaranteeing him $37m no matter what, with Mo already on year-to-year deals where he had to keep proving himself..
  3. Kirk Cousins is trash

    Lol, I'm picturing this... Only with heavy eyeliner.
  4. Kirk Cousins is trash

    Lol. Whatever floats your boat, but you're the one who tried putting forth the nonsense that no one ever used the pricetag of $30m for Cousins, despite it being floated around regularly, going back well over a month. Carry on if you must, though.
  5. Here we see Mo Wilkerson in practice, showing his perfect form of laying an egg on the field.
  6. Kirk Cousins is trash

    They're all real, as you of course know. I think it's pretty obvious that they're paraphrases, as this is hardly worth spending an hour to find your actual words. These were your positions, as anyone who was here remembers well. Don't run from them now, my sweet. Own it and embrace them . I can help you with your anger (it's quite clear you're seething): just agree with me on everything and you'll be in heaven. You'll also get to be right about a bunch of things as well. Bonus! FYI I'm perfectly willing to get back to a football discussion if you are.
  7. They had all 4 on the roster in the summer of 2015, with all of them locked in for 2016 (we exercised the 5th year option for Coples at $7m in the 2015 offseason before cutting him midseason). After we cut Mo in March, there will be only 1 of them left. Not even just the active/inactive roster; the entire roster. Obviously it's a draft need for us. You know it's happening. Gotta get the BAP!
  8. He participates in practice; it's just the meetings he skips. Obviously team meetings are beneath him.
  9. Kirk Cousins is trash

    Lol, if this makes you feel better about yourself then go ahead. This is the site that cares and I want to help. But going back to the whole "Revis isn't seeking $16m" you angrily harped on about on & on for weeks, to the "Mo Wilkerson is a future HOFer" stuff, I'm struggling to recall anything you've been correct about all these years. Your own blatant "agenda" - or one of them, anyway - is to try to put me in my place, so you could hopefully be correct about something. You should shoot for something within your reach. It will never happen. As far as your latest failed attempt to prevail on any one point in a discussion, there's no shortage of posts for and against paying upwards of some $30m for Kirk Cousins, and again, there was an entire thread recently that floated the idea of paying him $30m.
  10. Kirk Cousins is trash

    I suppose I'd be as angry as you are if I was wrong as often as you are. Does shaking your fists at the sky feel good? I'll have to add it to my bucket list lol.
  11. Nor should they appreciate it. There are guidelines for discipline. A team can't just suspend a player without pay week after week after week. 1 game, fine. More than that, the remedy is to cut him. There's precedent for benching him. Washington benched a healthy RGIII after exercising his 5th year option 6 months earlier. Everyone knew the reason why all season long: they didn't want him getting injured, and kick in an injury guarantee for that $13m option year. But honestly they should just cut him now. If anyone picks him up, it'll be at the league minimum for negligible savings, but far more importantly then there's no legitimate gripe from the player or from the union: he's free to sign on with anyone else. Now that I think about it for more than 30 seconds, the only reason for the team to keep+bench him (instead of cutting him) is just for pure spite: so he doesn't get added to a playoff team to laugh in our faces, and so it maximizes harming his future earning potential. It's a stupid reason. The main goal should be to prevent being forced to keep him in 2018 at another $17m, and cutting him outright accomplishes that the cleanest. Screw getting even with him. Even if he's benched, he can still get seriously injured in practice (see Enunwa, Watson, etc.).
  12. Kirk Cousins is trash

    Nope. There were entire threads about it as any regulars know. You can do your own homework. Or you can still go on and on if it makes you feel good.
  13. They already had a 1 year out
  14. Kirk Cousins is trash

    Yes plenty of people here have said they'd pay him $30m/year.
  15. Probably not, as the union would surely have something to say about that (as well they should). They could bench him, citing the missed meetings stuff as their reason why, but they'd still have to pay him. At best they could suspend him for 1 game probably. I can still think of 2 reasons they could bench him, even without suspension: First, it would theoretically show anybody can be benched (though it's doubtful that would carry much weight; anyone could plainly see it's all for show now that they're mathematically out of the playoffs, and that he was going to be a cap casualty anyway). Second, and this would have some weight, is it prevents him from getting seriously injured while there's still additional injury guarantees on his contract. The injury would have to be so great that he's still be injured through final roster cutdowns and game 1, but any knee ligament injury would do the trick there. A so-so injury, even one that takes 3-6 months to heal, and they could still cut him once he's cleared to play again (before his salary is guaranteed). If they're going to bother, then they might as well cut him.
×