Jump to content

NFL Transactions


C Mart

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 485
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

You must have a salary cap.  It is essential imo.  Leagues without meaningful caps like baseball and basketball suck awfully if you ask me.

Basketball is by far the worst. I love the sport but man the NBA is brutal when it comes to parity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

You must have a salary cap.  It is essential imo.  Leagues without meaningful caps like baseball and basketball suck awfully if you ask me.

I think the salary cap only ensures that good teams get punished inside of four years, which helps no one. The Pats have exploited the sh*t out of this by paying Brady off the books through TB12. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, T0mShane said:

I think the salary cap only ensures that good teams get punished inside of four years, which helps no one. The Pats have exploited the sh*t out of this by paying Brady off the books through TB12. 

This is why drafting well is so essential in this league.  Can’t sustain success without good drafts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

That CB is worth almost as much as Bridgewater? 

Sorry. I deleted it. It was a bogus report..apologies

 

NFL Update‏ @MySportsUpdate

Update: #Vikings trading CB Mackensie Alexander to the #Chiefs for a 2019 4th round pick is #FAKENEWS. Move on....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sec101row23 said:

This is why drafting well is so essential in this league.  Can’t sustain success without good drafts.  

We're talking to you Mack!!! You have your FQB..... Bettedr nail next year or Lil' Woody should be looking elsewhere!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sec101row23 said:

This is why drafting well is so essential in this league.  Can’t sustain success without good drafts.  

I’d argue that you can’t sustain success, period. The Seahawks were positioned to be an all-time empire and they’re rebuilding because they had to pay the QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, T0mShane said:

I’d argue that you can’t sustain success, period. The Seahawks were positioned to be an all-time empire and they’re rebuilding because they had to pay the QB.

As Sec101 pointed out, if you can draft successfully, you can flip some of the Sherman, Thomas, Bennett, Avril, Irvin for high picks.

 

Self sustaining if implemented and executed properly on the personnel side. IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

I’d argue that you can’t sustain success, period. The Seahawks were positioned to be an all-time empire and they’re rebuilding because they had to pay the QB.

The Seahawks will go into next year with $57 million in cap space, so not sure what you mean there.

That team is falling apart because they missed on their Oline picks, and let guys like Bruce Irvin go.  They also extend players like tyler lockett and refuse to negotiate with Earl Thomas who deserves an extension.  I wouldnt be surprised to see caroll gone after this season

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, T0mShane said:

I’d argue that you can’t sustain success, period. The Seahawks were positioned to be an all-time empire and they’re rebuilding because they had to pay the QB.

They didn’t continue to draft well during their run however.  They hit on some mid to late round guys to start their run but did nothing after that.  You may not be able to have a super bowl caliber team every year, but if the GM is good you build the team to make a 3 to 4 year run and then re-tool for a year or so and make another run.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d argue that you can’t sustain success, period. The Seahawks were positioned to be an all-time empire and they’re rebuilding because they had to pay the QB.


They mishandled a ton of personnel decisions since SEA won their SB and have drafted almost worse than we have. They’ve burned picks on Olineman who imploded, overpaid for ppl like Richardson in trades, lost talent like Irvin, Lynch and Sherman. There’s a laundry list of poor moves by Seattle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

I think the salary cap only ensures that good teams get punished inside of four years, which helps no one. The Pats have exploited the sh*t out of this by paying Brady off the books through TB12. 

make changes to the cap?  Have a one player exemption or such sure but totally neutering it is bad.  For a totally have team like the jets, hey great we can outspend anyone (see the yankees ad a few other MLB teams)  but it totally sucks awfully if you are a have not team and do all the right things only to see all your players leave after the 1st contract because you can never outbid the have teams.  Then you have the Basketball syndrome where the players themselves are now dictating everything and determining who wins and does not win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, BCJet said:

The Seahawks will go into next year with $57 million in cap space, so not sure what you mean there.

That team is falling apart because they missed on their Oline picks, and let guys like Bruce Irvin go.  They also extend players like tyler lockett and refuse to negotiate with Earl Thomas who deserves an extension.  I wouldnt be surprised to see caroll gone after this season

 

30 minutes ago, sec101row23 said:

They didn’t continue to draft well during their run however.  They hit on some mid to late round guys to start their run but did nothing after that.  You may not be able to have a super bowl caliber team every year, but if the GM is good you build the team to make a 3 to 4 year run and then re-tool for a year or so and make another run.  

 

14 minutes ago, Paradis said:

 


They mishandled a ton of personnel decisions since SEA won their SB and have drafted almost worse than we have. They’ve burned picks on Olineman who imploded, overpaid for ppl like Richardson in trades, lost talent like Irvin, Lynch and Sherman. There’s a laundry list of poor moves by Seattle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Every team makes mistakes in the draft. When you’re up against the cap, those mistakes are terminal because you’re cutting veterans besides to accommodate the cap. Who wants this? You fall out of contention because you paid your QB and the guard you drafted busts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Paradis said:

 


Do Jet fans want to pay a first AND a contract of this magnitude?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

If we've found our QB in Darnold, then the benefit of having a young/cheap franchise QB is that you can afford to overpay for a guy like Mack..of course giving up a 1st when we don't have a 2nd next year is a problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

Apparently the Raiders literally do not have the money to pay Mack which means compensation is likely less than a first rounder.

I would be shocked if he can be had for anything less than a 1st rounder.  I think it will take a minimum 1st & 3rd rounder to get him, and would be happy to make that trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

Apparently the Raiders literally do not have the money to pay Mack which means compensation is likely less than a first rounder.

That’s not even close to being true.  He is already on their books for 13.8 million this year.  Any extension would likely lower that number for this year anyway.  Plus they have almost $50 million in cap space next year.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sec101row23 said:

That’s not even close to being true.  He is already on their books for 13.8 million this year.  Any extension would likely lower that number for this year anyway.  Plus they have almost $50 million in cap space next year.  

The rumors of them not having enough money has more to do with not being able to set aside his bonus. That’s a different issue than cap space.

Not sure if any of this is true but supposedly teams have to put bonus money aside on day 1 regardless of when that bonus money will be paid. Supposedly that’s what they are not able to do. Again all rumors but that’s the story that is out there somewhere in the web.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GreenFish said:

The rumors of them not having enough money has more to do with not being able to set aside his bonus. That’s a different issue than cap space.

Not sure if any of this is true but supposedly teams have to put bonus money aside on day 1 regardless of when that bonus money will be paid. Supposedly that’s what they are not able to do. Again all rumors but that’s the story that is out there somewhere in the web.

Come on, tv revenue alone is about $255 million this year, they have plenty of money for a signing bonus...Lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, sec101row23 said:

That’s not even close to being true.  He is already on their books for 13.8 million this year.  Any extension would likely lower that number for this year anyway.  Plus they have almost $50 million in cap space next year.  

Cap "space" and cash are completely different things. Apparently according to multiple sources the Raiders literally do not have the actual money to pay him. Like for writing a check. My guess is that they are completely leveraged by the Vegas stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

Cap "space" and cash are completely different things. Apparently according to multiple sources the Raiders literally do not have the actual money to pay him. Like for writing a check. My guess is that they are completely leveraged by the Vegas stadium.

Well aware of the differences.  This year they spending roughly $192 million, next year they have about $129 million in cash liabilities.  

 

This year there are 15 teams with higher cash expenditures than the Raiders.  Plenty of money available.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

Apparently the Raiders literally do not have the money to pay Mack which means compensation is likely less than a first rounder.

all this speculation about Mack and the Jets from Jets fans, nowhere else...I mean, you folks are going to be awfully disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GreenFish said:

It sounds rediculous. I agree. But those are the rumors.

 https://www.nbcsports.com/video/oakland-raiders-may-be-forced-trade-khalil-mack-over-lack-cash

 

That’s Florio speculating.  There’s no way that not having the money is holding this up.  Look at the yearly revenue streams for these franchises.  The Raiders don’t have to do anything and there is nothing Mack can do about it unless he sits out the year, but he’ll be right back where he is now, plus he would have lost 13.8 million dollars.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, sec101row23 said:

Well aware of the differences.  This year they spending roughly $192 million, next year they have about $129 million in cash liabilities.  

 

This year there are 15 teams with higher cash expenditures than the Raiders.  Plenty of money available.  

That’s also different. The CBA says that a team must set aside in a separate account the discounted value of all guarantee money. So in Donald’s contract the $87 mil discounted by some rate (I don’t know the rate) less $2 mil has to be put aside. Let’s say the discount rate is 8%. That means in Donald’s case, the Rams have to set aside close to $60-$70 mil depending on the timing of gtd. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...