Gonzales

[KYPack]

Tony is making a lot of noise about leaving KC. I know everyone hates whiny players, but the guy's got a beef. Why should he have to play for a team that's in permanent rebuild mode?

Would you do the deal that was on the table last year? The one Petersen (former KC GM) reneged on?

A 3rd for Tony. If they would take a 4th, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Gonzales is a special guy with two years left, at least.

[Joemailman]

I'd give them the 3 we're getting from the Jets, which I believe is about the 20th pick. Might be just the guy to teach Finley the finer points of being an NFL player, while giving Arod a great target.

[red]

a third was good last year, but now its one year later, and there's one less year left in gonzo's tank

i'd go no higher then a 4th

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't care about Tony Gonzalez. TE's don't usually age well.

[Patler]

I'd give them the 3 we're getting from the Jets, which I believe is about the 20th pick. Might be just the guy to teach Finley the finer points of being an NFL player, while giving Arod a great target.

But would you have traded Brett Favre for Tony Gonzales in a straight up deal last August? :lol: :lol: It doesn't look too bad right now, but back then people would have thought you crazy!!

[Patler]

I don't care about Tony Gonzalez. TE's don't usually age well.

He sure hasn't shown any signs of slowing down. Darn good year in 2008 even with all the controversy.

[Joemailman]

I'd give them the 3 we're getting from the Jets, which I believe is about the 20th pick. Might be just the guy to teach Finley the finer points of being an NFL player, while giving Arod a great target.

But would you have traded Brett Favre for Tony Gonzales in a straight up deal last August? :lol: :lol: It doesn't look too bad right now, but back then people would have thought you crazy!!

By August I would have been ok with that trade, since it was pretty clear the Packers were going with Arod. I was not one of those who thought TT should be drawn and quartered.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't care about Tony Gonzalez. TE's don't usually age well.

He sure hasn't shown any signs of slowing down. Darn good year in 2008 even with all the controversy.

I think he should retire and stay retired, ride off into the sunset with his dignity intact as a HOF QB.

[Fritz]

I don't care about Tony Gonzalez. TE's don't usually age well.

If you keep exercising and watch your diet, a tight end can age quite well.

[Harlan Huckleby]

ya, but its never like a perky 22 year old's again.

[Fritz]

It is if you put a little catholic schoolgirl plaid skirt on it.

[Cheesehead Craig]

It is if you put a little catholic schoolgirl plaid skirt on it.
Harlan won't do that anymore, he says it makes his ass look too big.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

a third was good last year, but now its one year later, and there's one less year left in gonzo's tank

i'd go no higher then a 4th

I agree.

[Gunakor]

a third was good last year, but now its one year later, and there's one less year left in gonzo's tank

i'd go no higher then a 4th

I agree.

I'd give up the free 3rd. rd. pick we are getting from the Jets. Even if Gonzo is on the decline - and there's no evidence to support that he is - but even if that were the case, his knowledge of the position and the game in general would be invaluable on such a young team. D-Lee and Finley could learn a thing or two from Gonzo.

[Bretsky]

No brainer; give up a third

Lee is just a guy

Finley will hopefully develop more under Gonzo

[wpony]

I agree I think we should pick him up for a 3rd or 4th rd pick we have good young tight ends that can watch and learn from him that would be almost as good as what he does on the field, If his time is good here maybe when he retires he could become the tight end coach.
To this day I still say Jim McMahon Helped to make Brett as good as he was Brett Always had the strong arm but when we first got him there was something just missing couldn't quite name it but then we picked up Jim McMahon which I was totally against at the time how could we pick up the Antichrist LOL but then I noticed Brett and him were together all the time on the sideline after every series and it started to show Brett started to get the swagger and the things he was missing even though we did not have Jim McMahon long he did what he was brought into do LOL that must have really killed the bear fans anyway if we could bring in Tony Gonzalez for just a few years and have him do the same thing for our young tight ends it would be well worth the price.

[DonHutson]

Would you do the deal that was on the table last year? The one Petersen (former KC GM) reneged on?

Not only is it a year later, but they deserve a 1 round penalty for dicking us around last year. If they can do better than a 4th from someone else, let 'em.

[Harlan Huckleby]

if we could bring in Tony Gonzalez for just a few years and have him do the same thing for our young tight ends it would be well worth the price.

for a few years? He's 35, already played 12 NFL seasons. TE is a very physical position, those guys get beat up. Maybe Gonzalez is the exception, but I seem to remember most of the good ones retiring in their early 30s.

You mentioned the geriatric McMahon, but QB is a very different situation.

[Merlin]

I don't think Gonzalez brings us anything at the age of 35. He isn't as dominating at TE as he once was and our TE's did a decent job this past season. I don't think bringing him in will do anything positive for the offense. Rodgers has a year of starting under his belt and the skill positions aren't in need of an upgrade. Now, if he was a 25 year old all pro guard, I would give up whatever it took to get him in camp.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I don't think Gonzalez brings us anything at the age of 35. He isn't as dominating at TE as he once was and our TE's did a decent job this past season. I don't think bringing him in will do anything positive for the offense. Rodgers has a year of starting under his belt and the skill positions aren't in need of an upgrade. Now, if he was a 25 year old all pro guard, I would give up whatever it took to get him in camp.

He isn't as dominating? He had one of his best seasons last year. I just don't think we should give higher than a 4th for a player with one or two years left.

[Bretsky]

I don't think Gonzalez brings us anything at the age of 35. He isn't as dominating at TE as he once was and our TE's did a decent job this past season. I don't think bringing him in will do anything positive for the offense. Rodgers has a year of starting under his belt and the skill positions aren't in need of an upgrade. Now, if he was a 25 year old all pro guard, I would give up whatever it took to get him in camp.

Not dominating ? WOW; if Gonzo was not dominating last year....for a TE....I don't know what the standard is.

[Joemailman]

Oh, come on B. He only had 96 catches and 10 TD's. You call that dominant? :D
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GonzTo00.htm

[KYPack]

Oh, come on B. He only had 96 catches and 10 TD's. You call that dominant? :D
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GonzTo00.htm

I saw him play last year, Joe.

He is a dominant player and still one of the top TE's.

He's cut, still quick, strong, and fast.

I'd say he's got a couple left in the tank and would be a special guy for at least the first one.

If the old KC GM would have stuck nwith the deal TT had on the table, TG would have 8 games under his belt already for the G&G.

[Joemailman]

I quite agree. He probably wouldn't catch 96 passes with the Packers because Arod has plenty of other weapons, but he would be a major upgrade to this offense, especially in the red zone.

[Zool]

I quite agree. He probably wouldn't catch 96 passes with the Packers because Arod has plenty of other weapons, but he would be a major upgrade to this offense, especially in the red zone.

And that would make him worth a 3rd IMO.

[texaspackerbacker]

It is if you put a little catholic schoolgirl plaid skirt on it.
Harlan won't do that anymore, he says it makes his ass look too big.

He's been converted from TE to WR--Harlan, not Tony.


Seriously, last season I was opposed to trading for Gonzales, and as has been said, he's a year older with a year less on his contract now. But he was still effective. The reason many TEs don't age well is injuries. The ones who stay healthy do tend to stay good.

The reason I change my mind now is the Packers TEs. Lee took a large step backward last year, and, as far as I know, it wasn't injury related. Humphrey showed signs, but never did much. We could stand to lose him. And Finley is still a project. As somebody said, it would do him good to play with Gonzales--partly the learning aspect and partly by getting coverage that Lee might not, leaving Finley more open.

[KYPack]

It is if you put a little catholic schoolgirl plaid skirt on it.
Harlan won't do that anymore, he says it makes his ass look too big.

He's been converted from TE to WR--Harlan, not Tony.


Seriously, last season I was opposed to trading for Gonzales, and as has been said, he's a year older with a year less on his contract now. But he was still effective. The reason many TEs don't age well is injuries. The ones who stay healthy do tend to stay good.

The reason I change my mind now is the Packers TEs. Lee took a large step backward last year, and, as far as I know, it wasn't injury related. Humphrey showed signs, but never did much. We could stand to lose him. And Finley is still a project. As somebody said, it would do him good to play with Gonzales--partly the learning aspect and partly by getting coverage that Lee might not, leaving Finley more open.

Tex, agree with you 100%

Lee's decline is a total puzzle to me. Both TT and the coach know the value an effective TE has in MM's offense. Tony would jump start the passing offense and give us one of the more effective units in the league.

Our # 3 pick, the Jets 3 and our #4 range from picks 73 - 105. One of 'em is a stiff price, but I'd trade a potential Corey Rogers type guy for Tony any day.

Let's re-kindle that trade and get it done.

Gonzales make 5 mil per year.

[Waldo]

It is if you put a little catholic schoolgirl plaid skirt on it.
Harlan won't do that anymore, he says it makes his ass look too big.

He's been converted from TE to WR--Harlan, not Tony.


Seriously, last season I was opposed to trading for Gonzales, and as has been said, he's a year older with a year less on his contract now. But he was still effective. The reason many TEs don't age well is injuries. The ones who stay healthy do tend to stay good.

The reason I change my mind now is the Packers TEs. Lee took a large step backward last year, and, as far as I know, it wasn't injury related. Humphrey showed signs, but never did much. We could stand to lose him. And Finley is still a project. As somebody said, it would do him good to play with Gonzales--partly the learning aspect and partly by getting coverage that Lee might not, leaving Finley more open.

Tex, agree with you 100%

Lee's decline is a total puzzle to me. Both TT and the coach know the value an effective TE has in MM's offense. Tony would jump start the passing offense and give us one of the more effective units in the league.

Our # 3 pick, the Jets 3 and our #4 range from picks 73 - 105. One of 'em is a stiff price, but I'd trade a potential Corey Rogers type guy for Tony any day.

Let's re-kindle that trade and get it done.

Gonzales make 5 mil per year.

What was wrong with the passing offense, it was top 5 with a first year starter at the helm. A lack of targets is surely not a problem. If our passing offense is going to get better, it needs more time, not different targets.

Lee's "decline" has more the do with use than his play. Lee caught the highest % of targets of any TE in the league with 25 or more targets (79%). He is clutch. And scored on 10% of his targets. Tony caught 62% of his targets and scored on 6% of them. Tony was thrown to more than any single player on our team (Tony had 155 targets, Jennings had 140 targets, Lee had 49 targets). Tony was the 4th most thrown to receiver in the NFL.

We are not overflowing with $$. If we don't contract over the natural cap (123M), all top 3 round draft picks displace near minimum wage players, we don't cut any expensive players, and extend Jennings, Colledge, Collins, Kamp, Pickett, Williams, and Spitz to deals fair for their level of play, we will have between 2M-7M in cap space left over. Tony would be our only move in FA/trade. If we cut Grant or Clifton, Tony would be a viable option. If Clifton isn't cut in the next 3 weeks, he isn't going to be cut this season.

[Guiness]

I wonder as well if Lee really had a 'down' year, or if it was just a matter of there not being enough balls to go around in the passing game. At first glance, it may not seem so - our top 4 WR's are going to get the lion's share of the attention in the passing game.

However, being that Grant doesn't seem to be much of a receiver, you'd think there's room for a TE to make a living catching outlet passes. Is he sent on those routes? Has he been successful? I really don't know.

[K-town]

I though one of the reasons Donald Lee had a "down" year was that, especially in the first half of the year, he was often lined up in the backfield and used as a pass blocker.

[KYPack]

[Tex, agree with you 100%

Lee's decline is a total puzzle to me. Both TT and the coach know the value an effective TE has in MM's offense. Tony would jump start the passing offense and give us one of the more effective units in the league.

Our # 3 pick, the Jets 3 and our #4 range from picks 73 - 105. One of 'em is a stiff price, but I'd trade a potential Corey Rogers type guy for Tony any day.

Let's re-kindle that trade and get it done.

Gonzales make 5 mil per year.

What was wrong with the passing offense, it was top 5 with a first year starter at the helm. A lack of targets is surely not a problem. If our passing offense is going to get better, it needs more time, not different targets.

Lee's "decline" has more the do with use than his play. Lee caught the highest % of targets of any TE in the league with 25 or more targets (79%). He is clutch. And scored on 10% of his targets. Tony caught 62% of his targets and scored on 6% of them. Tony was thrown to more than any single player on our team (Tony had 155 targets, Jennings had 140 targets, Lee had 49 targets). Tony was the 4th most thrown to receiver in the NFL.

We are not overflowing with $$. If we don't contract over the natural cap (123M), all top 3 round draft picks displace near minimum wage players, we don't cut any expensive players, and extend Jennings, Colledge, Collins, Kamp, Pickett, Williams, and Spitz to deals fair for their level of play, we will have between 2M-7M in cap space left over. Tony would be our only move in FA/trade. If we cut Grant or Clifton, Tony would be a viable option. If Clifton isn't cut in the next 3 weeks, he isn't going to be cut this season.


Yes, we have a real live passing offense at present. But a threat like Tony Gonzales is a toy that Mike McCarthy could use to jump start this offense. I have a lot of faith in MM and think he could use a guy like him to greatly increase our offensive firepower. I'm not one of those fans who want every 'flavor of the month' FA's that come down the pike.

A guy like Tony is different story. Lee had 39 catches for 303 yards and 5 touchdowns. TG? 96 catches for 10 TD's with woeful QB's. It is true that he was featured. Other than D Bowe, Big Tony was all they had. He still is a special player and we could use some of them.

As far as your financial analysis that we can't afford a player with that salary? I don't agree with it. We are far enough under the cap to make a 10 million dollar player over a couple years fit in our total salary picture easily.

We have a solid young team. A move like this could really ramp our offense. I'd like to see it happen.

McCarthy and TT agree with me. They wanted to trade a 3 to get Tony last season. Except for a goofy political situation in KC, this trade would have already been made.

[KYPack]

if we could bring in Tony Gonzalez for just a few years and have him do the same thing for our young tight ends it would be well worth the price.

for a few years? He's 35, already played 12 NFL seasons. TE is a very physical position, those guys get beat up. Maybe Gonzalez is the exception, but I seem to remember most of the good ones retiring in their early 30s.

You mentioned the geriatric McMahon, but QB is a very different situation.

He's 32.

He'll be 33 in 22 days, HH (or should I say tartan girl?).

Send him a card, now.

[Waldo]

What was wrong with the passing offense, it was top 5 with a first year starter at the helm. A lack of targets is surely not a problem. If our passing offense is going to get better, it needs more time, not different targets.

Lee's "decline" has more the do with use than his play. Lee caught the highest % of targets of any TE in the league with 25 or more targets (79%). He is clutch. And scored on 10% of his targets. Tony caught 62% of his targets and scored on 6% of them. Tony was thrown to more than any single player on our team (Tony had 155 targets, Jennings had 140 targets, Lee had 49 targets). Tony was the 4th most thrown to receiver in the NFL.

We are not overflowing with $$. If we don't contract over the natural cap (123M), all top 3 round draft picks displace near minimum wage players, we don't cut any expensive players, and extend Jennings, Colledge, Collins, Kamp, Pickett, Williams, and Spitz to deals fair for their level of play, we will have between 2M-7M in cap space left over. Tony would be our only move in FA/trade. If we cut Grant or Clifton, Tony would be a viable option. If Clifton isn't cut in the next 3 weeks, he isn't going to be cut this season.

Yes, we have a real live passing offense at present. But a threat like Tony Gonzales is a toy that Mike McCarthy could use to jump start this offense. I have a lot of faith in MM and think he could use a guy like him to greatly increase our offensive firepower. I'm not one of those fans who want every 'flavor of the month' FA's that come down the pike.

A guy like Tony is different story. Lee had 39 catches for 303 yards and 5 touchdowns. TG? 96 catches for 10 TD's with woeful QB's. It is true that he was featured. Other than D Bowe, Big Tony was all they had. He still is a special player and we could use some of them.

As far as your financial analysis that we can't afford a player with that salary? I don't agree with it. We are far enough under the cap to make a 10 million dollar player over a couple years fit in our total salary picture easily.

We have a solid young team. A move like this could really ramp our offense. I'd like to see it happen.

McCarthy and TT agree with me. They wanted to trade a 3 to get Tony last season. Except for a goofy political situation in KC, this trade would have already been made.

Right now we are 25.5 M under the actual 123M cap.

Assuming:
We would rather not extend players in an uncapped year, and don't want to franchise them.

We would rather not contract up to the carry forward cap, instead using the actual cap as the team cap in average/yr, frontloading with the carry forward.

Our rookies will cost 2M when offset players are considered.

No older players are cut.

Bigby, Hunter, Martin, Kuhn, Tramon, and Humphrey are tendered.

If we extend the following:
Kampman at 6.5M/yr (+.5M/yr net)
Pickett at 4M/yr (+.5M/yr net)
Jennings at 8M/yr (+7.2M/yr net) (ex B Berrian contract (7.2M/yr)
Colledge at 5M/yr (+4.1M/yr net) (ex J. Scott contract (5M/yr))
Collins at 5M/yr (+4.0M/yr net) (ex K. Hamlin contract (5.5M/yr))
Spitz at 2.5M/yr (+1.8M/yr net) (ex S. Wells contract (1.8M/yr))
Williams at 2M/yr (+1.6M/yr net) (assumed #)

That is a +19.7M change. Those #'s are more conservative than generous.

Add in the rookies and we are up to +21.7M.

If we are not exceeding the actual 123M cap, we have 3.8M for free agency.
Most likely, even if TT doesn't resign all those guys, he will keep the money in case he wants to keep them. Sorry, no Tony.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

But isn't that 25.5 million before the cap increase? I was under the impression that the final figure would be close to 32-33 million.

[Waldo]

But isn't that 25.5 million before the cap increase? I was under the impression that the final figure would be close to 32-33 million.

Cap increase as in the amount we pushed forward from '08? Or from 116M to 123M.
We have 32.8M in true cap space and 25.5M in space above the actual 123M cap. I highly doubt that TT will spend above 123M unless the money is used to front load.

It is a philosophical question. Do you spend above the actual cap when you use a pay as you go system (we do)? It may be legal to spend up to the push forward cap, but what happens if a new CBA is reached before the 2010 season begins? Here come the cap cuts. The push forward is only 1 year of money. You can also use that push forward to front load and keep contracts cheap over their life, so that it creates more space in the future, making the pay as you go amount lower.

We aren't a good enough team to even consider backloading at this point.

[vince]

According to your projections Waldo, which I too think may be a bit too conservative, and this 2009 cap projection (http://cappage.timesfour.com/2009gbpcapprojection.html), we could cut Clifton prior to the start of the season and save an additional 7.3 mil in cap space. That would be $18.4 million left, including the carry forward from last year.

I like Gonzalez, but I think TT targets a younger but experienced OT and possibly also a 3-4 DE in FA this year. Both would be key need-based signings. If Clifton sticks this year, I'm all about a DE in FA.

[Fritz]

Here's a slightly unrelated issue, but one that matters spending-wise: if you have limited cash to spend, why spend it - as so many posters (not the ones posting here necessarily) seem to want to do - on linebackers just because we're going to a 3-4?

It seems to me there's actually a plethora of linebackers already on the team. In addition to last year's crew of Bishop, Hawk, Poppinga, Chillar, Barnett and Lansanah, we now have at least three "new" linebackers named Kampman, Hunter, and Thompson.

What we really might ought to consider in free agency is the area of real need: the defensive line. Harrell's a question mark, Pickett can't hold down the nose tackle spot alone, Cole is spotty, Montgomery seems a misfit, Jenkins is a banana peel away from the DL, and Alfred Malone plays like the english butler his name sounds like.

So I suggest that TT put the Gonzalez thing on hold and hope no one snaps up Gonzalez in the meantime. Then maybe he needs to explore the defensive end/nose tackle FA market and see what he can do.

Then, closer to draft time, when you've got a better sense of the draft, and how deep it is and what you need - then, if you want to, pull the trigger with the third. Or better yet, wait til draft day to see how things play out.

And if your waiting costs you Gonzalez, I would argue that that's okay. He is, as one poster put it, a nice "toy" for MM. Not a need.

[KYPack]

Firstly, I don't think we will get TG from the Chiefs. Pioli is over there and that boy will get all the value he can. Petersen was a GM on the firing line and made a stupid deal to try and look good at the end.

Waldo, that is some damned good work on your anaysis. Most of the time, guys don't come close to reality on those things, but you seem to be right on the beam with your numbers.

As good a job as you did, it's all supposition. No matter what, it's not factual to say we can't afford a player given the CBA uncertainity and number of signings it would take to run us out of money. Most of the guys you predict numbers for will be resigned, I think. Clifton is the huge wildcard.

Nobody knows who, when, or how much players are going to get. So to say we don't have the $ is bullshit.

TE isn't our biggest need, that's also a problem. I tend to think we won't get Tony, but damn, I'd like to see coach Mac get a toy like that. That boy would go nuts with him on the roster.

[Waldo]

Firstly, I don't think we will get TG from the Chiefs. Pioli is over there and that boy will get all the value he can. Petersen was a GM on the firing line and made a stupid deal to try and look good at the end.

Waldo, that is some damned good work on your anaysis. Most of the time, guys don't come close to reality on those things, but you seem to be right on the beam with your numbers.

As good a job as you did, it's all supposition. No matter what, it's not factual to say we can't afford a player given the CBA uncertainity and number of signings it would take to run us out of money. Most of the guys you predict numbers for will be resigned, I think. Clifton is the huge wildcard.

Nobody knows who, when, or how much players are going to get. So to say we don't have the $ is bullshit.

TE isn't our biggest need, that's also a problem. I tend to think we won't get Tony, but damn, I'd like to see coach Mac get a toy like that. That boy would go nuts with him on the roster.

The big rule with being accurate predicting contracts is to figure out whose contract their agent/TT is using as a starting point, and adjust from there. I might be a bit low on Colledge/Collins. Colledge can play T, a big premium comes from that, Collins has been to a pro bowl and a 2nd team all-pro recently, though Hamlin was a big money FA. Spitz is a bit more versatile than Wells, but really locked into the ZBS, whereas Colledge is not.

There's a lot of ways to shift things around (push as much of the $$ on the contract into next year as possible, if they have confidence it will be uncapped) to get the necessary money to sign a couple of guys, but don't expect a spending spree. IMO a bigger name guy and a smaller guy is what we'll get. If we got Olshansky and Lechler I'd be giddy.

[Harlan Huckleby]

if we could bring in Tony Gonzalez for just a few years and have him do the same thing for our young tight ends it would be well worth the price.

for a few years? He's 35, already played 12 NFL seasons. TE is a very physical position, those guys get beat up. Maybe Gonzalez is the exception, but I seem to remember most of the good ones retiring in their early 30s.

You mentioned the geriatric McMahon, but QB is a very different situation.

He's 32.

He'll be 33 in 22 days, HH (or should I say tartan girl?).

Send him a card, now.

Woah! Woah! How did I get that so wrong? I use the same google you do. He was born in 1976. 2009-1976 is ... 2, carry the 7, I come up with 38 this time. The fucker is 38 years old - forget him.

[bobblehead]

I quite agree. He probably wouldn't catch 96 passes with the Packers because Arod has plenty of other weapons, but he would be a major upgrade to this offense, especially in the red zone.

And that would make him worth a 3rd IMO.

Our red zone offense was pretty fucking amazing this year. I would be more interested in what he could do on 3rd and 7

[Bretsky]

never have too many playmakers; giving up a 3rd for him IMO is still an easy call. Remember what Keith Jackson did for our offense. He'd bring in another dimension. For a third ? In a heartbeat.

[KYPack]

Firstly, I don't think we will get TG from the Chiefs. Pioli is over there and that boy will get all the value he can. Petersen was a GM on the firing line and made a stupid deal to try and look good at the end.

Waldo, that is some damned good work on your anaysis. Most of the time, guys don't come close to reality on those things, but you seem to be right on the beam with your numbers.

As good a job as you did, it's all supposition. No matter what, it's not factual to say we can't afford a player given the CBA uncertainity and number of signings it would take to run us out of money. Most of the guys you predict numbers for will be resigned, I think. Clifton is the huge wildcard.

Nobody knows who, when, or how much players are going to get. So to say we don't have the $ is bullshit.

TE isn't our biggest need, that's also a problem. I tend to think we won't get Tony, but damn, I'd like to see coach Mac get a toy like that. That boy would go nuts with him on the roster.

The big rule with being accurate predicting contracts is to figure out whose contract their agent/TT is using as a starting point, and adjust from there. I might be a bit low on Colledge/Collins. Colledge can play T, a big premium comes from that, Collins has been to a pro bowl and a 2nd team all-pro recently, though Hamlin was a big money FA. Spitz is a bit more versatile than Wells, but really locked into the ZBS, whereas Colledge is not.

There's a lot of ways to shift things around (push as much of the $$ on the contract into next year as possible, if they have confidence it will be uncapped) to get the necessary money to sign a couple of guys, but don't expect a spending spree. IMO a bigger name guy and a smaller guy is what we'll get. If we got Olshansky and Lechler I'd be giddy.

Well, I think your projections are pretty good, but...

Clifton is a big "if",
How do you figure Tauser's deal? This was his last year on his old deal, which was 6.2 mil last year?
Would we really keep Lee? He's 28. You could keep the cheap guy (Humphrey) and Finley and have another 2.8 mil to play with.

In spite of the good work on your projections, there's a lot of water yet to go under the bridge before we can say we can't sign a vet at 5 mil per, it'll ruin our '09 cap.

Olshansky and Lechler?

Oh yeah, I'd take those two myself. Lechler especially. He had a Ray Guy-like season last year.