Tank?

[Joemailman]

Oh Anti-Polar Bear, Oh Anti-Polar Bear. Where fore art thou, Oh Anti-Polar Bear? :mrgreen:

[RashanGary]

Funny how Thompson is using roster bonuses wich in essence save cap space for future years and Tank claims it is impossible to save money with a cap.


Tank has been wrong about everything he's posted over the last year and with ever passing day he looks less valid.

[MJZiggy]

And he owes me some Kool-Aid. You promised, Tank!!

[Partial]

While this is all good and nice today, you're ignoring the fact he could be a bitch about making less than other corners in a year or two. That always seems to happen with players like this...

[MJZiggy]

If so, he'd damn well better be playing better than everyone.

[Joemailman]

If it's true he got no bonus money, then getting rid of him will have no salary-cap implications if he becomes a problem.

[Partial]

this is true. Then we can go after someone else and structure the contract the same way!!

[ND72]

lets also remember that Andrew Brandt actually writes up the price tags...teddy just approves or whatever. but Brandt is the "cap specialist" that does the pricing.

[MJZiggy]

Yay Andy Cap!!

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Why did it took Thompson this long to sign Woodson?

Why is Woodson the ONLY Pro Bowler to have been signed?]

Didnt Thompson have $35 mil, right?

Signing Woodson is good, but it is not enough. Thompson couldve and shouldve done more.

[MJZiggy]

I believe the terms to our agreement were that he only needed to sign ONE, during the offseason (which it still is) and anything else was irrelevant to the bargain, SO PAY UP!!!

[RashanGary]

Tank,

We barely have enough cap space left to sign our rookies. What the hell are you talking about?

[Bretsky]

Tank,

We barely have enough cap space left to sign our rookies. What the hell are you talking about?

Tank can surely make this argument; if we are cash strapped it's because GB chose to frontload this contract so sharply instead of giving him a big signing bonus and spreading it out so we have a lot more money to sign more FA's to win now.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Tank,

We barely have enough cap space left to sign our rookies. What the hell are you talking about?

Are you saying that Woodson's new contract is wholly front loaded and he will eat up $19 mil this year?

Tell me, as I havent check yet.

[MJZiggy]

That would be money that would accelerate should we decide in 2 years that his performance has slipped. Then we'd be in cap hell and that would suck.

[Bretsky]

Tank,

We barely have enough cap space left to sign our rookies. What the hell are you talking about?

Are you saying that Woodson's new contract is wholly front loaded and he will eat up $19 mil this year?

Tell me, as I havent check yet.

From the sounds of it the deal is frontloaded; remember of that 19MIL we need 7-8 MIL for the rookie cap.

[RashanGary]

I know Bretsky. I'm baiting Tank into saying that so I can shove it back in his face. He's been claiming that there was no way to save for tomorrow by paying for your guys today when that is exactly what Thompson just did.

Tank made a big thread calling me out. He stated that I did not know what I was talking about and that there was no way to save for the future. Thompson just proved once again that Tank doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

There are ways to essentially save for the future and ways to borrow from it. Tank is well versed in how to borrow from it. He calls it creative cap structuring but he's completely oblivious to it when it’s done the other way.

[RashanGary]

From what I understand Tank there is no signing bonus to push the $$ off into future years. From what I understand it eats up 10.5 million this year. We have about 8.5 to go.

[RashanGary]

8.5 - 7 = 1.5

[Joemailman]

Tank,

We barely have enough cap space left to sign our rookies. What the hell are you talking about?

Are you saying that Woodson's new contract is wholly front loaded and he will eat up $19 mil this year?

Tell me, as I havent check yet.


We need money to sign our draft picks, Tank. Or do you think TT should trade all the draft picks for Donovan Darius?

[RashanGary]

LOL..

[CyclonePackFan]

Tank,

We barely have enough cap space left to sign our rookies. What the hell are you talking about?

Are you saying that Woodson's new contract is wholly front loaded and he will eat up $19 mil this year?

Tell me, as I havent check yet.

Woodson is guaranteed $10.5 mil this year. That would appear to leave us with approximately 8.5 mil under the cap. Take away $6 mil to sign rookies, and we're now at $2.5 mil remaining under the cap. That would be nowhere near enough to sign another pro-bowl calibur player. On the flip side, if Woodson doesn't turn out, we can cut him without incurring a huge loss in the future.

However, I took a look at PackerChatters' cap estimate, and it would appear we have a little over $13 mil remaining with Woodson factored in. I think they might alter it once the full details of the contract become available. IF this is accurate, I think TT plans on using that last $8 mil to grant contract extensions at the end of the year. Almost everybody we've signed this year, Green, Davenport, Cundiff, Taylor, Gardner, Boerigter, and Allen, have been to one-year deals, and factor in that Gado, Cole, Jenkins, Leach, and a handful of others are on the last year of their contract, it might be wise to keep some money around, especially if Green returns to form.

[CyclonePackFan]

DAMMIT while I was orchestrating that post just about everything I noted had already been said....early bird....

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Tank,

We barely have enough cap space left to sign our rookies. What the hell are you talking about?

Are you saying that Woodson's new contract is wholly front loaded and he will eat up $19 mil this year?

Tell me, as I havent check yet.

From the sounds of it the deal is frontloaded; remember of that 19MIL we need 7-8 MIL for the rookie cap.

More like $5 mil, not $7-8 mil. To use 7-8 mil to sign your picks is just plain stupid. The picks, especially, the top 3 picks is likely to be around for 4-5 years, so if you dont back load their SB, you are well...inefficient.

To allow Woodson to eat up $10 mil of cap space in one season (if that is true) is just, again, plain inefficient. The guy signed a 7 years deal, which means that he would likely be around for at least 3 seasons.

The efficient way to sign Woodson is to gave him a $7 mil SB and 3 mil roster bonus and 1 mil base salary this year. He would only eat up about 5.4 mil this year, yet still get get 11 mil in total salary.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Ever wonder how Mike Sherman used to be able to sign all the players he signed, yet every off season during is tenture, he never had more than 3 mil to spend? Ever wonder why that is possible and Pack still end up with $35 mil this year?

Efficient cap management and contracts creativity.

[CyclonePackFan]

Ever wonder how Mike Sherman used to be able to sign all the players he signed, yet every off season during is tenture, he never had more than 3 mil to spend? Ever wonder why that is possible and Pack still end up with $35 mil this year?

Efficient cap management and contracts creativity.

Sherman did it by asking Favre to take one for the team every year and mortgaging the future, preventing him from ever signing any real impact FA's. This IS creative contracting. Woodson got a SB of $0. There aren't really any more big FA's out there with the exception of Ty Law, who right now isn't a need for us. If Woodson doesn't pan out in two or three years, we can cut his ass and we don't have to waste any cap space then by giving him a prorated SB. TT's used that $35M in cap room to sign an impact player (a former two-time franchise player, I might add). He got Favre back. He hasn't sacrificed the future cap. There is NO way that we would be able to afford both Arrington and Woodson. We tried for Arrington, he turned down a better contract offer for the chance to play the 'Skins twice a year and be in a big city. For the first time in a long time, I feel comfortable with our defensive backfield. I don't feel like we have a glaring weakness at one corner spot, I don't have to worry about Sharper taking a poor angle and getting beat by Moss when it was his job to take deep cover, and we have a hitter at strong safety for the first time since Butler left. If that's all because TT fucks up every minute of his existence, I say we keep letting him dismantle us and fucking up. Right now all your ranting about TT reminds me of all the bullshit I heard Nebraska bitching about after Calahan's first year, calling to fire him. Guess what? He (unfortunately) got one of the best recruiting classes in the nation and beat Michigan in a bowl game in his second year. Football is not a sport of instant gratification. It takes more than one year to build a team. Sure, Sherman's teams had winning records, but they always started off 1-4, won a weak-ass division because the Vikings choked, and got eliminated in the first round of the playoffs. If that's what you want, you can have it. I want more Lombardi Trophys. Last time I checked, we're using the model of the Patriots, Eagles, and Steelers and focusing on building through the draft with a few FA acquisitions thrown in. Hey, it's won the Pats three Super Bowls and one for Pittsburgh. I'll take that.

Whew, what a rant. Time to get back to work.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Sherman did it by asking Favre to take one for the team every year and mortgaging the future, preventing him from ever signing any real impact FA's. This IS creative contracting.

Sherman had far less COMBINED in his 3 years than the $35 mil thompson have this season, and still did more. THAT IS CREATIVITY AND EFFICENT CAP MANAGEMENT.

Tell me, how is it that Washington was able to do more than the Pack and they were almost 5 mil over at the start of the FA period?

Woodson got a SB of $0.
Show me the source. Until I see it I wont believe. I'm betting trm you will change this statement

There aren't really any more big FA's out there with the exception of Ty Law, who right now isn't a need for us.

EXACTLY. And who is the GM when players like Bently, Hutchinson, Peterson, Archulete, among others were still around? Couldve, shouldve, can you say Thompson fucked up during the peak of FA...with $35 mil?

If Woodson doesn't pan out in two or three years, we can cut his ass and we don't have to waste any cap space then by giving him a prorated SB. TT's used that $35M in cap room to sign an impact player (a former two-time franchise player, I might add).

And you call using up to $10-15 mil of a cap space on a SINGLE PLAYER efficent? For 10-15 mil, an efficent GM (see Washington, Gibbs) wouldve gotten 2-3 top-tier free agents.

There is NO way that we would be able to afford both Arrington and Woodson.
YEAH, NO WAY COS THOMPSON ONLY HAVE $35 MILLION. I RECALL MIKE SHERMAN SIGNING BOTH DIGGS AND KGB TO EXPENSIVE CONTRACTS IN THE SAME SEASON WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN $3 MIL. I RECALL SHERMAN SIGNING JOE JOHNSON TO A CONTRACT WITH A 6 MIL SB WITH ONLY $3 MIL TO SPEND.

YEAH, NO WAY IN HELL WE CAN OFFER WOODSON AND ARRINGTON WITH $35 MIL.

We tried for Arrington, he turned down a better contract offer for the chance to play the 'Skins twice a year and be in a big city

Why then didnt he go for Peterson? If you say that Peterson also did not want to play in GB, then we have a pattern here: Most players with exceptional talant don't want to play for Thompson (see Arrington, Wahle, Sharper).

Might it then, be wise to bring some one else in, another GM who players actually want to play for?

[CyclonePackFan]

Awwwww...Tank....now you got me all meticulous...

Sherman did it by asking Favre to take one for the team every year and mortgaging the future, preventing him from ever signing any real impact FA's. This IS creative contracting.

Sherman had far less COMBINED in his 3 years than the $35 mil thompson have this season, and still did more. THAT IS CREATIVITY AND EFFICENT CAP MANAGEMENT.

Tell me, how is it that Washington was able to do more than the Pack and they were almost 5 mil over at the start of the FA period?"



Yeah, Sherman sure did more. He signed such wonderous FA's as Joe Johnson, Cletius Hunt, and KGB. He did it exactly how the Redskins are doing it, signing players to huge, backloaded contracts. In theory, it works out fine, except when a player doesn't perform. Take Hunt for example. Thanks to Sherman's "creativity and efficient cap management", we are paying Hunt $3.6M out of our cap this year. KGB is being paid $5.4M, far more than he is worth based on his recent performance. (Source: http://members.cox.net/cappage/2006cap.htm) The Redskins are able to do more with less by the same system (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/13/AR2006031300558.html by reworking contracts and mortgaging the future. This is exactly what TT has avoided and is the beauty of the contract. If Archuleta turns out poorly, the 'Skins are going to have to cut him and absorb his cap number. If Woodson turns out poorly, we don't have to pay him any prorated signing bonus. This is what Packers News had to say about KGB's contract:

The Packers re-signed Gbaja-Biamila, a restricted free agent whom the Philadelphia Eagles also were interested in, to a $37.3 million, seven-year deal with an $11 million signing bonus, the second largest in team history. By doing so, they were hinging a good portion of their salary cap for some years to come on a player with only a little over half of a season as a full-time starter.

(Source: http://www.packersnews.com/topics/mini03/mini_1_10730740.shtml)
Great job Sherman...




"Woodson got a SB of $0.
Show me the source. Until I see it I wont believe. I'm betting trm you will change this statement"

Source: http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm Can't verify it with ESPN or SI.com right now. Have to wait for details.




"There aren't really any more big FA's out there with the exception of Ty Law, who right now isn't a need for us.

EXACTLY. And who is the GM when players like Bently, Hutchinson, Peterson, Archulete, among others were still around? Couldve, shouldve, can you say Thompson fucked up during the peak of FA...with $35 mil?"

See the next point.



" If Woodson doesn't pan out in two or three years, we can cut his ass and we don't have to waste any cap space then by giving him a prorated SB. TT's used that $35M in cap room to sign an impact player (a former two-time franchise player, I might add).

And you call using up to $10-15 mil of a cap space on a SINGLE PLAYER efficent? For 10-15 mil, an efficent GM (see Washington, Gibbs) wouldve gotten 2-3 top-tier free agents. "

http://tinypic.com/8whxf6.jpg

Let's look at the cap numbers of a couple of those "top-tier free agents" you mentioned: (this is for THIS YEAR)

Julian Peterson: $10 mil (Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/football/263758_hawks21.html)
Steve Hutchinson: $13 mil (Source: http://fantasyhockey.usatoday.com/content/player_news.asp?sport=NFL&id=535&line=65627)
Terrell Owens: $10 mil (Source:http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2374189)

Our $35 mil could have gotten us probably 2 big-name free agents, our draft picks and one or two mid-level FAs. Instead, we got 1 big-name free agent and a bunch of good- to mid-level FA's, including Pickett, Kampman, Henderson, Boerigter, Taylor, and Allen. As you are so fond of pointing out, we went 4-12 last year. We're a little more than 2 guys away from the playoffs. That $10.5 mil you think is so bad for Woodson looks like it's pretty much in line with what other FA's are receiving, and these guys, again, have more guaranteed money in the future.



"There is NO way that we would be able to afford both Arrington and Woodson.
YEAH, NO WAY COS THOMPSON ONLY HAVE $35 MILLION. I RECALL MIKE SHERMAN SIGNING BOTH DIGGS AND KGB TO EXPENSIVE CONTRACTS IN THE SAME SEASON WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN $3 MIL. I RECALL SHERMAN SIGNING JOE JOHNSON TO A CONTRACT WITH A 6 MIL SB WITH ONLY $3 MIL TO SPEND.

YEAH, NO WAY IN HELL WE CAN OFFER WOODSON AND ARRINGTON WITH $35 MIL."

First of all, Arrington wasn't even interested in GB until we had $19 mil left. Subtract $5 mil for rookies and we have $14 mil. Arrington signed for (about) $5 mil per year (at current deal). That would put Woodson and Arrington at $15.5 mil. I must change my statement a bit, we COULD have gotten them both if we prorated part of Woodson's cap number. Still, we're mortgaging the future again.

As for the "I RECALL MIKE SHERMAN SIGNING BOTH DIGGS AND KGB TO EXPENSIVE CONTRACTS IN THE SAME SEASON WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN $3 MIL. I RECALL SHERMAN SIGNING JOE JOHNSON TO A CONTRACT WITH A 6 MIL SB WITH ONLY $3 MIL TO SPEND."

You're right. Johnson was signed for a $6 mil SB with about $3 mil. Then what happened? He got injured, was cut, and we had to pay him a lot of money for a couple of years when he wasn't on the team. It's the same reason we're paying Hunt $3.6 mil this year. IF SHERMAN HADN'T SIGNED ALL THESE GUYS TO BACKLOADED CONTRACTS WE WOULD HAVE HAD ENOUGH CAP ROOM TO RE-SIGN WAHLE OR RIVERA LAST YEAR, INSTEAD WE WERE LOCKED DOWN WITH NO CAP ROOM TO WORK WITH.


We tried for Arrington, he turned down a better contract offer for the chance to play the 'Skins twice a year and be in a big city

Why then didnt he go for Peterson? If you say that Peterson also did not want to play in GB, then we have a pattern here: Most players with exceptional talant don't want to play for Thompson (see Arrington, Wahle, Sharper).

Might it then, be wise to bring some one else in, another GM who players actually want to play for? [/quote]

Find me EXACTLY where I said Peterson didn't want to play in GB. In fact, I never said ANYBODY "didn't want to play in GB." I said Arrington wanted to play in the NFC East, a statement he made from day 1. Ultimately, he turned down a better offer from GB to play for New York. And the last time I checked, TT wasn't the reason Wahle and Sharper left, I believe the reasons were an $11.5 mil signing bonus for Wahle and about a $4 mil signing bonus for Sharper, whose release gave us $3.6 mil in cap space.

Finally, I challenge you to FIND ME A QUOTE where a player says, SPECIFICALLY, that he doesn't want to play for Thompson. Last time I checked, players are usually pretty indifferent to their GM, they tend to care more about their coach.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

[quote="CyclonePackFan"]Awwwww...Tank....now you got me all meticulous...

Sherman did it by asking Favre to take one for the team every year and mortgaging the future, preventing him from ever signing any real impact FA's. This IS creative contracting.

Sherman had far less COMBINED in his 3 years than the $35 mil thompson have this season, and still did more. THAT IS CREATIVITY AND EFFICENT CAP MANAGEMENT.

Tell me, how is it that Washington was able to do more than the Pack and they were almost 5 mil over at the start of the FA period?"



Yeah, Sherman sure did more. He signed such wonderous FA's as Joe Johnson, Cletius Hunt, and KGB. He did it exactly how the Redskins are doing it, signing players to huge, backloaded contracts. In theory, it works out fine, except when a player doesn't perform. Take Hunt for example. Thanks to Sherman's "creativity and efficient cap management", we are paying Hunt $3.6M out of our cap this year. KGB is being paid $5.4M, far more than he is worth based on his recent performance. (Source: http://members.cox.net/cappage/2006cap.htm) The Redskins are able to do more with less by the same system (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/13/AR2006031300558.html by reworking contracts and mortgaging the future. This is exactly what TT has avoided and is the beauty of the contract. If Archuleta turns out poorly, the 'Skins are going to have to cut him and absorb his cap number. If Woodson turns out poorly, we don't have to pay him any prorated signing bonus. This is what Packers News had to say about KGB's contract:

The Packers re-signed Gbaja-Biamila, a restricted free agent whom the Philadelphia Eagles also were interested in, to a $37.3 million, seven-year deal with an $11 million signing bonus, the second largest in team history. By doing so, they were hinging a good portion of their salary cap for some years to come on a player with only a little over half of a season as a full-time starter.

(Source: http://www.packersnews.com/topics/mini03/mini_1_10730740.shtml)
Great job Sherman...

Your right Sherman did good. Let's look at the opposite end of the spectrum now: Thompson refused to overpay Wahle; He refused to restructure Sharper's contract. He refused to sign anyone else, except for players willing to accept the minimum; he bought in Arturo Freeman, Thompson, navies, etc.

The Pack go 4-12.

This year with $35 mil, and before the Woodson signing, Thompson only got a average DT, a 4th string WR and a backup S.

Almost everybody, even you, agree that Pack probably is not good enough to make the playoffs.

Sherman, on the other hand, spend money like the Redskins does for 3 years. He made the playoffs all those years. The Packers were competitive and they never went 4-12.

Whats better? Winning or losing?

This year, Thompson have 35 mil, even though Sherman was a big spender. How is that possible. I mean if Sherman mismanaged the cap, we wouldnt have that much money, would we?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

"Woodson got a SB of $0.
Show me the source. Until I see it I wont believe. I'm betting trm you will change this statement"

Source: http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm Can't verify it with ESPN or SI.com right now. Have to wait for details.

LOL. Yeah, that’s a credible source; I will admit im wrong if that turns out to be true, but a “rumormill?Ã� �¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚ Well, I hope this end up on the rumormill too: Randy Moss is coming to Green Bay!”

[Anti-Polar Bear]

First of all, Arrington wasn't even interested in GB until we had $19 mil left. Subtract $5 mil for rookies and we have $14 mil. Arrington signed for (about) $5 mil per year (at current deal). That would put Woodson and Arrington at $15.5 mil. I must change my statement a bit, we COULD have gotten them both if we prorated part of Woodson's cap number. Still, we're mortgaging the future again.

Again, the Redskins have been “mortgagingÃ� �¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚ their future for years now and every off season, they continue to overpay players. No cap hell in sight for them; shows that they are managing their cap efficiently and signing players to creative, cap-friendly contracts.

If Washington can make it work, and they are subjected to the same salary cap as any other team in the NFL, then there is no reason the Packers couldn’t also.

Unless ofcourse, your GM is shitty.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Julian Peterson: $10 mil (Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/football/263758_hawks21.html)
Steve Hutchinson: $13 mil (Source: http://fantasyhockey.usatoday.com/content/player_news.asp?sport=NFL&id=535&line=65627)
Terrell Owens: $10 mil (Source:http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2374189)

Our $35 mil could have gotten us probably 2 big-name free agents, our draft picks and one or two mid-level FAs. Instead, we got 1 big-name free agent and a bunch of good- to mid-level FA's, including Pickett, Kampman, Henderson, Boerigter, Taylor, and Allen. As you are so fond of pointing out, we went 4-12 last year. We're a little more than 2 guys away from the playoffs. That $10.5 mil you think is so bad for Woodson looks like it's pretty much in line with what other FA's are receiving, and these guys, again, have more guaranteed money in the future.

Singing bonus total of the players you mentioned {Peterson, Hutchinson, Owens): 33 mil; say Woodson’s is 10 mil; that makes it 40 mil. A few years ago Daniel Snider handed out almost $100 mil in signing bonuses to a free agent class, the one that included Deion Sanders. Years later, the Redskins’ cap is still in good condition, as is evident by their constant signing of big time players”

Do you know that SB are pro-rated into 5 years?

Yeah, only an inefficient and dull GM could have “gotten us probably 2 big-name free agents.” And that GM is Ted Thompson.

[Tarlam!]

How many Super Bowls have the skins had in the last 5 years again, Tank?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

You're right. Johnson was signed for a $6 mil SB with about $3 mil. Then what happened? He got injured, was cut, and we had to pay him a lot of money for a couple of years when he wasn't on the team. It's the same reason we're paying Hunt $3.6 mil this year. IF SHERMAN HADN'T SIGNED ALL THESE GUYS TO BACKLOADED CONTRACTS WE WOULD HAVE HAD ENOUGH CAP ROOM TO RE-SIGN WAHLE OR RIVERA LAST YEAR, INSTEAD WE WERE LOCKED DOWN WITH NO CAP ROOM TO WORK WITH.



There WAS enough money to resign Wahle. After cutting Wahle and Sharper, Thompson had $7.5 mil available. Wahle signed a contract with Carolina that includes 11.5 mil in SB. $12 mil would’ve been enough to lure the OG back. The cheap polar bear withdrew from the competition after he heard about the 11.5 mil. According the NFLPA web site, Wahle base salary last year was 1 mil. Bonus are always prorated, so if Wahle accepted 12 mil SB from the Packers, all things equal, his cap hit in 05 would only be around $3.4 mil. 3.4 mil is less than 7.5 mil. That is just one option.

Logan Mankin could’ve easily replaced Rivera without any setbacks. Thompson chose to draft the football wife instead. Not only that, but he waited until the 5th rd to draft an OG. Wasted a 2nd rounder on a WR named Murphy.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Finally, I challenge you to FIND ME A QUOTE where a player says, SPECIFICALLY, that he doesn't want to play for Thompson. Last time I checked, players are usually pretty indifferent to their GM, they tend to care more about their coach.

$35 mil; team has many holes; only 1 elite FA from another team is signed. Nuff said.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

How many Super Bowls have the skins had in the last 5 years again, Tank?

Sherman mimic ked the Redskins. How many 4-12 seasond did sherman have?

[Scott Campbell]

Backpeddle faster Tank.

[MJZiggy]

First off, it's a moot point because Sherman got FIRED!! Excellent GM's usually don't get FIRED. Secondly, this is NOT the Kool-aid you owe me so PAY UP!!!

[Scott Campbell]

First off, it's a moot point because Sherman got FIRED!! Excellent GM's usually don't get FIRED. Secondly, this is NOT the Kool-aid you owe me so PAY UP!!!


He's ignoring you. I think he doesn't pay off on his bets.

[Tarlam!]

How many Super Bowls have the skins had in the last 5 years again, Tank?

Sherman mimic ked the Redskins. How many 4-12 seasond did sherman have?

As many as he won Super Bowls, Tank.

[KYPack]

First off, it's a moot point because Sherman got FIRED!! Excellent GM's usually don't get FIRED. Secondly, this is NOT the Kool-aid you owe me so PAY UP!!!


He's ignoring you. I think he doesn't pay off on his bets.

Or admit he's wrong.

Basically all Tank does is form half-baked opinions, then spend all his time defending them.

Fer instance, he doesn't really know anything one way or the other whether Thompson is a good GM or a bad GM. He doesn't know enough about pro Football, managing the cap, or managing an NFL roster to have a postiion about Thompson's value to the Pack. All Tank knows is that when he was a teenager, Sherman was the coach and GM of his favorite team, The Packers.

When Sherman was fired from his GM job, Tank attacked the new guy, Thompson. As Tank continues to attack Thompson, because that's all he knows to do.

Tank is on this Forum to create controvery, not provide any information.

That's all he knows to do.

Every village needs an idiot, Tank's ours.

I know Swede and some of the posters like Tank, so I've racheted way down on attacking the boy. I'll only do it when it's needed,

Like now.

[CyclonePackFan]

Julian Peterson: $10 mil (Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/football/263758_hawks21.html)
Steve Hutchinson: $13 mil (Source: http://fantasyhockey.usatoday.com/content/player_news.asp?sport=NFL&id=535&line=65627)
Terrell Owens: $10 mil (Source:http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2374189)

Our $35 mil could have gotten us probably 2 big-name free agents, our draft picks and one or two mid-level FAs. Instead, we got 1 big-name free agent and a bunch of good- to mid-level FA's, including Pickett, Kampman, Henderson, Boerigter, Taylor, and Allen. As you are so fond of pointing out, we went 4-12 last year. We're a little more than 2 guys away from the playoffs. That $10.5 mil you think is so bad for Woodson looks like it's pretty much in line with what other FA's are receiving, and these guys, again, have more guaranteed money in the future.

Singing bonus total of the players you mentioned {Peterson, Hutchinson, Owens): 33 mil; say Woodson’s is 10 mil; that makes it 40 mil. A few years ago Daniel Snider handed out almost $100 mil in signing bonuses to a free agent class, the one that included Deion Sanders. Years later, the Redskins’ cap is still in good condition, as is evident by their constant signing of big time players”

Do you know that SB are pro-rated into 5 years?

Yeah, only an inefficient and dull GM could have “gotten us probably 2 big-name free agents.” And that GM is Ted Thompson.

Tank,

THOSE AREN'T THE SIGNING BONUSES, THEY ARE THE 2006 CAP NUMBERS FOR THOSE PLAYERS. They aren't pro-rated. If you checked my sources, you'd find that those are the cap numbers the players cost THIS YEAR due to BASE SALARY, ROSTER BONUSES, and THIS YEAR'S PORTION OF THE PRO-RATED SIGNING BONUS. The Seahawks are going to pay ANOTHER 8.5 mil to Peterson in pro-rated bonuses/guaranteed money, the Vikings another $1.5 mil in future SB/guaranteed money Owens' number of $10 mil is a $5 mil guaranteed SB THIS YEAR along with a $5 mil base salary. He will get another $8 mil and $7 mil in the next two seasons, respectively.

[CyclonePackFan]

Finally, I challenge you to FIND ME A QUOTE where a player says, SPECIFICALLY, that he doesn't want to play for Thompson. Last time I checked, players are usually pretty indifferent to their GM, they tend to care more about their coach.

$35 mil; team has many holes; only 1 elite FA from another team is signed. Nuff said.

I'm also still waiting on the quote...You asked me to prove my arguements, I took the time, did some research, and backed up my statements. Now I'm asking you to do the same. The door swings both ways. Find me my quote.

[CyclonePackFan]

Sherman, on the other hand, spend money like the Redskins does for 3 years. He made the playoffs all those years. The Packers were competitive and they never went 4-12.

Whats better? Winning or losing?

Sure we won, we got in the playoffs, where it was obvious we were outmatched because we were playing in a weak division. If one or two 4-12 years are the price to pay for making it past the Wild-Card round, that's a sacrifice I'm willing to accept.



This year, Thompson have 35 mil, even though Sherman was a big spender. How is that possible. I mean if Sherman mismanaged the cap, we wouldnt have that much money, would we?[/b]

I refer you to the following salary cap websites:

http://redskins.scout.com/3/salary_cap_chart.html

The Redskins are in trouble next year, they're already $2 mil over the current salary cap for 2007, before rookies. They also got REALLY lucky. Before the new CBA was signed, their cap number was $113 mil, $18 mil OVER the $95 mil cap. Once the new CBA was signed, they were able to push back bonuses and restructure contracts to bring them under the cap with some room to spend. They're avoiding cap hell, but barely.

As for "how could we have this much money if Sherman mismanaged the cap?", I refer you to:

http://members.cox.net/cappage/2005cap.htm
http://members.cox.net/cappage/2006cap.htm

Where was our cap money last year? On the 2005 cap site, check under "Players no longer with team":

Johnson, Joe $3,250,004
Reynolds, Jamal $1,300,000
Sharper, Darren $5,266,666
Wahle, Mike $1,125,000

There's $11 mil that we don't have to pay this year. Add in that the cap went up $17 million from $85.5 mil to $102 mil, and we're at $28 mil. Another $2 mil comes from all the minor players who aren't on the team anymore, bringing us up to about $30 mil. The rest comes from changes in the current player's bonuses. [/quote]

[CyclonePackFan]

I actually have to thank you, Tank, I've learned a lot about the salary cap in the past day.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Julian Peterson: $10 mil (Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/football/263758_hawks21.html)
Steve Hutchinson: $13 mil (Source: http://fantasyhockey.usatoday.com/content/player_news.asp?sport=NFL&id=535&line=65627)
Terrell Owens: $10 mil (Source:http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2374189)

Our $35 mil could have gotten us probably 2 big-name free agents, our draft picks and one or two mid-level FAs. Instead, we got 1 big-name free agent and a bunch of good- to mid-level FA's, including Pickett, Kampman, Henderson, Boerigter, Taylor, and Allen. As you are so fond of pointing out, we went 4-12 last year. We're a little more than 2 guys away from the playoffs. That $10.5 mil you think is so bad for Woodson looks like it's pretty much in line with what other FA's are receiving, and these guys, again, have more guaranteed money in the future.

Singing bonus total of the players you mentioned {Peterson, Hutchinson, Owens): 33 mil; say Woodson’s is 10 mil; that makes it 40 mil. A few years ago Daniel Snider handed out almost $100 mil in signing bonuses to a free agent class, the one that included Deion Sanders. Years later, the Redskins’ cap is still in good condition, as is evident by their constant signing of big time players”

Do you know that SB are pro-rated into 5 years?

Yeah, only an inefficient and dull GM could have “gotten us probably 2 big-name free agents.” And that GM is Ted Thompson.

Tank,

THOSE AREN'T THE SIGNING BONUSES, THEY ARE THE 2006 CAP NUMBERS FOR THOSE PLAYERS. They aren't pro-rated. If you checked my sources, you'd find that those are the cap numbers the players cost THIS YEAR due to BASE SALARY, ROSTER BONUSES, and THIS YEAR'S PORTION OF THE PRO-RATED SIGNING BONUS. The Seahawks are going to pay ANOTHER 8.5 mil to Peterson in pro-rated bonuses/guaranteed money, the Vikings another $1.5 mil in future SB/guaranteed money Owens' number of $10 mil is a $5 mil guaranteed SB THIS YEAR along with a $5 mil base salary. He will get another $8 mil and $7 mil in the next two seasons, respectively.

Ok, pardon me for my mistake. I thought they were signing bonus. But if you think the ONLY way for the Packers sign those players is to hand out that much money upfront, then you have no idea how the cap work. The reason those teams are willing to hand out that much money upfront is because they do not have a lot of holes to fill and they have a lot of money. Minnesota, Seattle, Dallas all started the season with more than $20 mil in cap space and they are all playoffs contender. They don’t need to sign 3-4 players; just 1 or two.

But in the Packers’ case, they need more than 2 players. signing the players I mentioned, with $35 mil, can be done through the art of handing out more signing bonuses, instead of roster bonus. SB are pro-rated, roster bonuses are not. Contracts can be creatively and efficiently back loaded; Washington does that all the time; Sherman did that all the time. Is Washington in a cap hell? Is the Pack in a cap hell?

So according to you Washington is estimated to be 2 mil over in 07. However, doesn’t it hit you in the head that the NFL cap will be inflated more in that next year…like $10-20 mil? Again, I have to laugh cos you seem to think the Redskins are in trouble because are now 2 mil over in 07. Washington is efficiently using their cap, getting the most out of the money the have.

[Scott Campbell]

Why would you think the cap is going up $20M next year?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Sherman, on the other hand, spend money like the Redskins does for 3 years. He made the playoffs all those years. The Packers were competitive and they never went 4-12.

Whats better? Winning or losing?

Sure we won, we got in the playoffs, where it was obvious we were outmatched because we were playing in a weak division. If one or two 4-12 years are the price to pay for making it past the Wild-Card round, that's a sacrifice I'm willing to accept.



This year, Thompson have 35 mil, even though Sherman was a big spender. How is that possible. I mean if Sherman mismanaged the cap, we wouldnt have that much money, would we?[/b]

I refer you to the following salary cap websites:

http://redskins.scout.com/3/salary_cap_chart.html

The Redskins are in trouble next year, they're already $2 mil over the current salary cap for 2007, before rookies. They also got REALLY lucky. Before the new CBA was signed, their cap number was $113 mil, $18 mil OVER the $95 mil cap. Once the new CBA was signed, they were able to push back bonuses and restructure contracts to bring them under the cap with some room to spend. They're avoiding cap hell, but barely.

As for "how could we have this much money if Sherman mismanaged the cap?", I refer you to:

http://members.cox.net/cappage/2005cap.htm
http://members.cox.net/cappage/2006cap.htm

Where was our cap money last year? On the 2005 cap site, check under "Players no longer with team":

Johnson, Joe $3,250,004
Reynolds, Jamal $1,300,000
Sharper, Darren $5,266,666
Wahle, Mike $1,125,000

There's $11 mil that we don't have to pay this year. Add in that the cap went up $17 million from $85.5 mil to $102 mil, and we're at $28 mil. Another $2 mil comes from all the minor players who aren't on the team anymore, bringing us up to about $30 mil. The rest comes from changes in the current player's bonuses. [/quote]

Again, if you think the Redskins “are in trouble next” because “theyre already 2 mil over” then you have no idea how the cap work. Let me put this in a way so you can understand: Cap numbers for 07 increase, say, $10 mil; 10-2 leaves Washington with 8 mil. That is not cap hell; that is not barely avoiding cap hell. That shows efficient cap management, especially for this year.

Dead money is an expense that is part of doing business in the NFL. Every team has dead money to account for. Sherman had to work with the dead money of Freeman and Levens among others, players signed by Wolf.

After accounting for dead money and you still end up with $35 mil and the only marquee free agent you can sign is Woodson, they you are inefficiently managing the cap. You are not getting the most out of the money you have. You are not helping your team, at least playoffs wise.

You fucked up.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Why would you think the cap is going up $20M next year?

Who said it is going to increase exactly $20 mil.?

I based my estimation of 10-20 mil on historcal data and the fact that revenue sharing in the NFL continue to skyrocket.

heres a histocral data for you: In 1998, the cap number was 52,388,000; up 10,938,000 from the 41,4450,000 in 1997.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Read, The Washington WAY:

Salary cap lets teams legally go over the top
By Larry Weisman, USA TODAY
The Washington Redskins set a single-season spending record with a payroll of $118 million for the 2004 season. But how is that possible when the NFL salary cap was $80.5 million a team?
Cap computations include all salaries and applicable bonuses at full value each year, but a signing bonus gets a slightly different treatment that permits what the NFL calls "cash over cap."

Signing bonuses, while often paid immediately, count against the cap in equal portions for each year of a player's contract. A $5 million bonus on a five-year deal is amortized at $1 million a season. That math changes if the player is cut or traded before his contract expires.

Big bonuses usually are tied to lower base salaries in the early stages of a contract to give the club a favorable salary-cap number in what should be the player's most productive years. Example: A player signs a five-year contract worth $10 million and gets that $5 million signing bonus. His annual salaries are $500,000, $1 million, $1.5 million and $2 million. His cap number starts at $1.5M ($1 million of prorated signing bonus plus base). It ends at $3M. The club paid the signing bonus long before it finished accounting for it. Hence, room for cash over cap.

[CyclonePackFan]

Ok, pardon me for my mistake. I thought they were signing bonus. But if you think the ONLY way for the Packers sign those players is to hand out that much money upfront, then you have no idea how the cap work. The reason those teams are willing to hand out that much money upfront is because they do not have a lot of holes to fill and they have a lot of money. Minnesota, Seattle, Dallas all started the season with more than $20 mil in cap space and they are all playoffs contender. They don’t need to sign 3-4 players; just 1 or two.

But in the Packers’ case, they need more than 2 players. signing the players I mentioned, with $35 mil, can be done through the art of handing out more signing bonuses, instead of roster bonus. SB are pro-rated, roster bonuses are not. Contracts can be creatively and efficiently back loaded; Washington does that all the time; Sherman did that all the time. Is Washington in a cap hell? Is the Pack in a cap hell?

So according to you Washington is estimated to be 2 mil over in 07. However, doesn’t it hit you in the head that the NFL cap will be inflated more in that next year…like $10-20 mil? Again, I have to laugh cos you seem to think the Redskins are in trouble because are now 2 mil over in 07. Washington is efficiently using their cap, getting the most out of the money the have.

These are the NFL cap numbers of the past couple of years:

http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/

2001: $67.4 mil
2002: $71.1 mil
2003: $75.01 mil
2004: $80.782 mil
2005: $85.5 mil
2006: $102 mil (due to a new CBA)
2007: (projected) $109 mil

That's a $7 mil increase. They're $2 mil over, and will need $5-6 to pay rookies next year, putting them right near the limit. They're also probably going to pro-rate some of the SB's for this year's rookies into next year. That's not going to enable them to sign many big FA's next year. I'm pretty sure I understand the cap, and I get that SB's can be spread out over years, which is why I meantioned that we still paid Johnson, Reynolds, Sharper, and Wahle a total $11 mil last year, even though they didn't play for us. THAT'S the beauty of paying money in roster bonuses. If say, Peterson gets hurt and is forced to retire, or if he flat out doesn't perform, the Seahawks are going to be paying him the remaining part of his guaranteed $18 mil over the next few years, plus his salary if he's still with the team. If Woodson was paid entirely through roster bonuses and has a career threatening injury this year, we can cut him and pick someone up next year, because we won't have to waste future cap room like we did with Reynolds, Hunt, and Johnson. If Hutchinson gets hurt this year, the Vikings are pretty much screwed because if they pay another lineman more than him, he's guaranteed $50 mil. Sure, we probably could have signed more big-name FA's, but in order to compete with the teams you meantioned, we'd have to guarantee more money than they signed for, setting us up for an even greater fall if they don't turn out right. It's like paying with a credit card. You don't have to pay it off right now, but eventually you have to pony up. Even if we pro-rated their SB's, we'd still probably be paying $7 mil a year, since they demand such high base salaries. Owen's base is $5 mil, Peterson's is somewhere around $6-8 mil.

Given the circumstances we are currently in, however, there is no point to pro-rating Woodson's contract. Who else are we going to spend the $12ish million on? This way, we'll have lots of cap room again next year, and serves as a failsafe because of Woodson's injury history. Doing what Washington is doing is, in theory, a great way to manage the cap. However, in theory, communism works. Washington's method is also what most of the teams in the NFL do, and they still have to make cap cuts. Case of the failure in action: Steve McNair. Every year he's restructured his contract to keep Tennessee under the cap, which is one of the ways Washington is staying under. As a result, McNair has a $24 million cap number, which, for refrence, is twice of Brett Favre's. Using pro-rated SB's works as long as nobody you sign is a bust and as long as nobody gets injured. Eventually, the 'Skins will get bitten.

[CyclonePackFan]

Why would you think the cap is going up $20M next year?

Who said it is going to increase exactly $20 mil.?

I based my estimation of 10-20 mil on historcal data and the fact that revenue sharing in the NFL continue to skyrocket.

heres a histocral data for you: In 1998, the cap number was 52,388,000; up 10,938,000 from the 41,4450,000 in 1997.

Historical data? You based a statistic off of an outlier data point that's eight years old. The cap has increased, on average, about $5 million a year from 2001-2005, with the skyrocketing revenue shares.

Year Cap Limit Increase
2005 $86,000,000 $5,418,000
2004 $80,582,000 $5,575,000
2003 $75,007,000 $3,907,000
2002 $71,100,000 $3,700,000
2001 $67,400,000 $5,228,000
2000 $62,172,000 $3,819,000
1999 $58,353,000 $5,965,000
1998 $52,388,000 $10,938,000
1997 $41,450,000 $673,000
1996 $40,777,000 $3,677,000
1995 $37,100,000 $2,500,000
1994 $34,600,000

Average increase: $4,672,727

Saying that the cap will increase $10 mil because of the 97-98 increase is no different than me saying the cap will increase $675,000 because of the 96-67 increase. Improper statistics can be used to prove any point if you abuse it properly. Hell, I can statistically prove that global warming is due to a decreasing number of pirates:

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

(Courtesy the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, http://www.venganza.org/)

You cannot base an assumption off of an outling data point, it makes no statistical sense. From a historical standpoint, the cap should increase by about $5 mil next year, which is predicted to be beaten by $2 mil for a $7 mil increase.

[Scott Campbell]

Why would you think the cap is going up $20M next year?

Who said it is going to increase exactly $20 mil.?

I based my estimation of 10-20 mil on historcal data and the fact that revenue sharing in the NFL continue to skyrocket.

heres a histocral data for you: In 1998, the cap number was 52,388,000; up 10,938,000 from the 41,4450,000 in 1997.


Did there happen to be a new CBA in place that year with increased revenue sharing percentages?

[RashanGary]

Year Cap Limit Increase in Dollars Increase in %
2005 $86,000,000 $5,418,000 6.7%
2004 $80,582,000 $5,575,000 7.4%
2003 $75,007,000 $3,907,000 5.2%
2002 $71,100,000 $3,700,000 5.2%
2001 $67,400,000 $5,228,000 8.4%
2000 $62,172,000 $3,819,000 6.5%
1999 $58,353,000 $5,965,000 11.3%Year following CBA
1998 $52,388,000 $10,938,000 26.3% New CBA
1997 $41,450,000 $673,000
1996 $40,777,000 $3,677,000
1995 $37,100,000 $2,500,000
1994 $34,600,000

Average increase: $4,672,727

Things have changed since the new CBA. It is going to be impossible to predict because we don't know how the new incorporated numbers are going to fluctuate. I think this new increas is probably going to be close to the 11% increase that occured after the last CBA. I'm guessing it will go up 8% or so. Probably 8 or 9 mil increase if I had to project it.
I believe you are correct SC

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Ok, pardon me for my mistake. I thought they were signing bonus. But if you think the ONLY way for the Packers sign those players is to hand out that much money upfront, then you have no idea how the cap work. The reason those teams are willing to hand out that much money upfront is because they do not have a lot of holes to fill and they have a lot of money. Minnesota, Seattle, Dallas all started the season with more than $20 mil in cap space and they are all playoffs contender. They don’t need to sign 3-4 players; just 1 or two.

But in the Packers’ case, they need more than 2 players. signing the players I mentioned, with $35 mil, can be done through the art of handing out more signing bonuses, instead of roster bonus. SB are pro-rated, roster bonuses are not. Contracts can be creatively and efficiently back loaded; Washington does that all the time; Sherman did that all the time. Is Washington in a cap hell? Is the Pack in a cap hell?

So according to you Washington is estimated to be 2 mil over in 07. However, doesn’t it hit you in the head that the NFL cap will be inflated more in that next year…like $10-20 mil? Again, I have to laugh cos you seem to think the Redskins are in trouble because are now 2 mil over in 07. Washington is efficiently using their cap, getting the most out of the money the have.

These are the NFL cap numbers of the past couple of years:

http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/

2001: $67.4 mil
2002: $71.1 mil
2003: $75.01 mil
2004: $80.782 mil
2005: $85.5 mil
2006: $102 mil (due to a new CBA)
2007: (projected) $109 mil

That's a $7 mil increase. They're $2 mil over, and will need $5-6 to pay rookies next year, putting them right near the limit. They're also probably going to pro-rate some of the SB's for this year's rookies into next year. That's not going to enable them to sign many big FA's next year. I'm pretty sure I understand the cap, and I get that SB's can be spread out over years, which is why I meantioned that we still paid Johnson, Reynolds, Sharper, and Wahle a total $11 mil last year, even though they didn't play for us. THAT'S the beauty of paying money in bonuses. If say, Peterson gets hurt and is forced to retire, or if he flat out doesn't perform, the Seahawks are going to be paying him the remaining part of his guaranteed $18 mil over the next few years, plus his salary if he's still with the team. If Woodson was paid entirely through roster bonuses and has a career threatening injury this year, we can cut him and pick someone up next year, because we won't have to waste future cap room like we did with Reynolds, Hunt, and Johnson. If Hutchinson gets hurt this year, the Vikings are pretty much screwed because if they pay another lineman more than him, he's guaranteed $50 mil. Sure, we probably could have signed more big-name FA's, but in order to compete with the teams you meantioned, we'd have to guarantee more money than they signed for, setting us up for an even greater fall if they don't turn out right. It's like paying with a credit card. You don't have to pay it off right now, but eventually you have to pony up. Even if we pro-rated their SB's, we'd still probably be paying $7 mil a year, since they demand such high base salaries. Owen's base is $5 mil, Peterson's is somewhere around $6-8 mil.

Given the circumstances we are currently in, however, there is no point to pro-rating Woodson's contract. Who else are we going to spend the $12ish million on? This way, we'll have lots of cap room again next year, and serves as a failsafe because of Woodson's injury history.

And what if Peterson, Owens and Hutchinson turn out to be instrumental in their respective team's quest for the SB? What if the players play out their contracts without getting hurt? The chances of a player getting hurt are equal to the chances of him NOT getting hurt; 50/50.

The ultimate goal of every team is to win the Super Bowl. You have to take a risk if you want a reward.

You can’t argue that the Vikings, Seahawks, and Cowboys are inferior to the Packers. All 3 of those teams are playoffs contenders.
.
As for Washington, if your estimate is correct, then they can always restructure more contracts for more cap room. In fact, the Redskins have been doing just that since Snyder too over.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Things have changed since the new CBA. It is going to be impossible to predict because we don't know how the new incorporated numbers are going to fluctuate. I think this new increas is probably going to be close to the 11% increase that occured after the last CBA. I'm guessing it will go up 8% or so. Probably 8 or 9 mil increase if I had to project it.
I believe you are correct SC

What collins wrote.

Oh crap, collins just edited it: to I believe you are correct campbell, from agreeing with me on the 10-20% increase.

[Scott Campbell]

Oh crap, collins just edited it: to I believe you are correct campbell, from agreeing with me on the 10-20% increase.


I think the lesson to be learned here is go with what you know. Thompson's cheap. Thompson's gay. Thompson's a polar bear. Thompson's the mother of all screw ups. Be yourself. You know the drill. It got you your own thread.

Leave the math stuff to Patler.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

[quote=Anti-Polar Bear]

Leave the math stuff to Patler.

Is this the same Patler who said it was impossible to resign Wahle because Thompson only have $7.5 mil?

Oh yeah, leave the math to patler.

[Scott Campbell]

[quote=Anti-Polar Bear]

Leave the math stuff to Patler.

Is this the same Patler who said it was impossible to resign Wahle because Thompson only have $7.5 mil?

Oh yeah, leave the math to patler.

You'll have to show me the quote. I've never known Patler to get that boxed in by his own comments.

[CyclonePackFan]

And what if Peterson, Owens and Hutchinson turn out to be instrumental in their respective team's quest for the SB? What if the players play out their contracts without getting hurt? The chances of a player getting hurt are equal to the chances of him NOT getting hurt; 50/50.

The ultimate goal of every team is to win the Super Bowl. You have to take a risk if you want a reward.

You can’t argue that the Vikings, Seahawks, and Cowboys are inferior to the Packers. All 3 of those teams are playoffs contenders.
.
As for Washington, if your estimate is correct, then they can always restructure more contracts for more cap room. In fact, the Redskins have been doing just that since Snyder too over.

I don't recall ever saying that the Vikings, Seahawks, and Cowboys are inferior to the Packers. I merely stated a potential outcome if their signing gets injured, and if the odds really are 50/50, since I haven't heard too many cases of players for those three teams being critcally injured in the past few years, they're due for a bust. While you twist my words to imply that these teams are inferior to Green Bay, I'd argue that the Vikings are the best team in the NFL at managing the cap, because they use the player's high opinion of himself. Most of their big-time contracts are loaded with performance bonuses which the players think they can attain, but are fairly lofty goals. Then, when the player fails, the Vikes get a ton of cap room. With the Skins, again, they'll eventually run into a Steve McNair problem where they owe someone over $20 mil.

You say the ultimate goal is to win the Super Bowl. I agree. However, I'm looking at it and seeing the teams like Minnesota and Washington paying big bucks every year, yet teams like the Patriots rarely make any huge FA signings, yet are winning Super Bowls.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

[quote=Anti-Polar Bear]

Leave the math stuff to Patler.

Is this the same Patler who said it was impossible to resign Wahle because Thompson only have $7.5 mil?

Oh yeah, leave the math to patler.

You'll have to show me the quote. I've never known Patler to get that boxed in by his own comments.

Read my archieves from JSONLINE. one of chickenhawks thread. I asked Patler if he thought it was impossible. He confirms so. I then provided him with the numbers. That was one of my best post cos i actually did some research.

I;m too lazy to look it up now. Look it up for yourself.

[Scott Campbell]

Well then call me crazy, but I'd leave the math stuff to Patler.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Well then call me crazy, but I'd leave the math stuff to Patler.

Just cos Patler said something is true doesnt mean it is true.

One time Patler told me Mike Sherman got absolutely nothing from Dallas for the Glenn trade.

Sherman got a 6th round pick.

If you say 6th round picks are crap, then Sherman only traded away crap when he moved up in the draft by trading away 6th rd picks.

[Scott Campbell]

One time Patler told me Mike Sherman got absolutely nothing from Dallas for the Glenn trade.


You'll have to show me the quote.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

One time Patler told me Mike Sherman got absolutely nothing from Dallas for the Glenn trade.


You'll have to show me the quote.

Oh fuck; I'll do it after dinner. Hold while i go get some shit to eat.

[Scott Campbell]

It ain't no biggie Tank.

[Fritz]

Basically all Tank does is form half-baked opinions




I have to correct you on this, KY. By his own admission, Tank is fully baked most of the time.

[KYPack]

[quote=Anti-Polar Bear]

Leave the math stuff to Patler.

Is this the same Patler who said it was impossible to resign Wahle because Thompson only have $7.5 mil?

Oh yeah, leave the math to patler.

You'll have to show me the quote. I've never known Patler to get that boxed in by his own comments.

Read my archieves from JSONLINE. one of chickenhawks thread. I asked Patler if he thought it was impossible. He confirms so. I then provided him with the numbers. That was one of my best post cos i actually did some research.

I;m too lazy to look it up now. Look it up for yourself.

Cyclone, good work and nice posts on the cap situations.

Don't bother to do a great deal of work explaining to Tank the cap and where he is wrong. He pays them no attention. His usual MO it then to lie about the conclusions you worked to reach, maybe to refer to them later.

The exchange Tank had with Patler on JSO was a full blown Patler victory. It also is an example of Tank's research. When he is finally cornered in one of his imaginary busllshit arguments. he scrambles around on the net until he finds enough "facts" to support his arguments. Then he shoe-horns his logic into a situation to support his one point. & it's all bullshit.

The Wahle argument is a prime example. Tanks bleated on for weeks that TT was an awful GM because he didn't sign the guards or Sharper. Patler did the work and proved how it couldn't have been done.

Tank scarfed around and "claimed" that there was room to sign Wahle, which proved Patler wrong. This was still wrong and Patler said so at the time. For several reasons:

-Tank distorted (or outright lied) about the timeline. The cap room that he claimed was available after the cuts of the big 3.

- If Wahle could have signed, many more cuts of veterans would've have had to happen to sign the rookies. That's unacceptable from a roster management standpoint.

- The whole Tank argument is moot be cause the whole Wahle deal required the cooperation of Wahle and his representation. The word seeping out of Carolina after the signing was that Wahle wanted out of GB. He was sick of both Shermy and Beightol. Mike W. had a huge money deal taking him to greener pastures. Tank's "deal" wasn't gonna happen because Wahle wasn't gonna take it.

That's Tank' big victory over Patler - it only exists in Tank's mind. Patler waxed Tank's ass in every argument they ever had. Because Tank is a liar who doesn't know what in the hell he's talking about.

Clone, you are a good poster.

Don't waste your time or efforts trying to straighten out the silly Baby Tanky.

[Tarlam!]

KY, don't bother. Tank fessed up that we are all just guinea pigs in his psychology experiment and that he really only pretends to be this argumentative dipstick. This is done solely to observe our reactions and he collects the data for his thesis over cyber-something-or-other.

I thought everybody knew that..... :twisted:

[KYPack]

KY, don't bother. Tank fessed up that we are all just guinea pigs in his psychology experiment and that he really only pretends to be this argumentative dipstick. This is done solely to observe our reactions and he collects the data for his thesis over cyber-something-or-other.

I thought everybody knew that..... :twisted:

I know, Tar.

I will be a good boy & go back on "Tank Radio Silence"

These Forum Feuds are super annoying and I don't wanna get involved in bothering all the "non-involved". So I will drop out as of now.

I'm well aware of Baby Tanky's "thesis over cyber-something-or-other" (LOL BTW). More APB bullshit.

I was moved to post by Tank's "re-visionist" history regarding Patler. When the worst (or second worst poster) denigrates arguably the best poster in Forum history, I MUST POST. Tanks is a fool and Patler is brilliant. When a fool makes fun of a resource, it must be stopped.

Sounds like things are goin' better for ya, eh, Tar?

[Tarlam!]

Yeah, KY, we should stick up for ol Patler, since he missed the cyber-hop and he's not here to defend himself!

I have to admit, this last week of viscious attacks by Tankanator had me reeling. I am usually pretty immune, but T put the kiss of death into that Huff guy for me. If we draft him, I think I'll have too many Johnnies...

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Kentucky, you son of a whore, I will post this article again because you seems to be ingoring it.

BTW: I got Patler good that time; too lazy to search the thread for you or Campbell; well do so when i feel like it.

Anyway, please read this:

Salary cap lets teams legally go over the top
By Larry Weisman, USA TODAY
The Washington Redskins set a single-season spending record with a payroll of $118 million for the 2004 season. But how is that possible when the NFL salary cap was $80.5 million a team?
Cap computations include all salaries and applicable bonuses at full value each year, but a signing bonus gets a slightly different treatment that permits what the NFL calls "cash over cap."

Signing bonuses, while often paid immediately, count against the cap in equal portions for each year of a player's contract. A $5 million bonus on a five-year deal is amortized at $1 million a season. That math changes if the player is cut or traded before his contract expires.

Big bonuses usually are tied to lower base salaries in the early stages of a contract to give the club a favorable salary-cap number in what should be the player's most productive years. Example: A player signs a five-year contract worth $10 million and gets that $5 million signing bonus. His annual salaries are $500,000, $1 million, $1.5 million and $2 million. His cap number starts at $1.5M ($1 million of prorated signing bonus plus base). It ends at $3M. The club paid the signing bonus long before it finished accounting for it. Hence, room for cash over cap.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

BTW, old man,


The main reason Wahle left GB for Carolina is for more money. Isn't it logical that if thompson offered Wahle more money, like 12 M or even 13 M in SB, he wouldve resigned?

Read the article above, and then prove to me, with numbers, how 12 Mil prorated over 5 years, plus a 1 M base salary (wahle's base for last year) would be MORE then 7.5 M (which was the amount thompson had after terminating Wahle and Sharper's contract; there is no law in the NFL that said the players you cut cant resign with you).

[RashanGary]

I completely agree that Thompson should have resigned Wahle for the same $ amount acctually. They didn't even have to offer more.

Thompson F'ed that up and if he continues to lose the teams best players I'll be right along with Tank.

I do think that Thompson is one of the NFL's top scouts so I think over time he will shine in the most important area of running a team *the draft*.

So far though I believe Thompson messed up on Wahle. In hindsight though we get a star player at #5 because of it. I just hope it doesn't continue.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Kentucky: "If Wahle could have signed, many more cuts of veterans would've have had to happen to sign the rookies. That's unacceptable from a roster management standpoint."

Oh, forgot about this, Kentucky. If you do the math, you'll discover that the only vet who needed to be cut, and cut before TC, to sign the rookies (4 M allotment) is Cletidus Hunt (assuming that Thompson also signed Wahle to a contract similar to the one the Panthers gave him). Cut Hunt before TC, and you save almost 2 M. Thompson instead waited until AFTER TC to cut the NOW INJURED, underachieving DT. Consequently, Pack were forced pay Hunt's 05 salary, which brings his cap hit to over 3 ML (I've posted the exact numbers before, but because of the consequences of Mary Jane, my memory is a bit twisted; check out my or JSONLINE's archives if you want to know the exact numbers).

Will the real whore who thinks Hunt deserved to be in camp last year please stand up, please stand up.

[MJZiggy]

but because of the consequences of Mary Jane, my memory is a bit twisted;

It's more than your memory, Tank. PAY UP!!!

[Anti-Polar Bear]

but because of the consequences of Mary Jane, my memory is a bit twisted;

It's more than your memory, Tank. PAY UP!!!

Does the MJ in your alias stand for Mary Jane? :cool:

[MJZiggy]

No. One of us is straight and sober and expects the other to honor his word.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

No. One of us is straight and sober and expects the other to honor his word.

C'mon, you cant expect me to drink even a drop of kool aid, when the GM has $35 M and only got ONE Pro Bowler out of it. There is no justification for that, except to say that Thompson is terrible.

I can't bring myself to applaud terrible GMs, especially one who is wasting Brett Favre's last couple of years.

[MJZiggy]

yes I can. If you couldn't pay the price, you shouldn't have made the deal assuming wrongly that TT wouldn't sign any. He did, you owe.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

yes I can. If you couldn't pay the price, you shouldn't have made the deal assuming wrongly that TT wouldn't sign any. He did, you owe.

I will admit that I may have broken a non-binding promise. But I will call Sherman terrible before I call Thompson a good GM.

[MJZiggy]

A man is only as good as his word. Quit being so damned Republican about it.

[KYPack]

Tank,

You call me names?

Your word isn't any good.

You constantly post lies.

You don't know what you're talking about, so I don't know what you're talking about.