Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rumors (PackerChatters)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Sparkey
    Originally posted by HarveyWallbangers
    Plus, trading in the NFL has increased, but there still aren't a whole lot of trades in the NFL. It's not baseball.
    There would be more trading if the cap acceleration wasn't so harsh when you trade a player. Basically a trade is even worse than releasing a guy outright, as ALL of his remaining signing bonus is assigned to the year in which the trade occurs.

    IF they would make is a 50/50 assignment of the remaining. 50% in the current year and 50% next year, it would be a bit easier for teams to stomach.
    I understand the new CBA now allows teams to carry over to the next season a portion of the signing bonus monies at their discretion.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by cheesner
      Originally posted by Sparkey
      Originally posted by HarveyWallbangers
      Plus, trading in the NFL has increased, but there still aren't a whole lot of trades in the NFL. It's not baseball.
      There would be more trading if the cap acceleration wasn't so harsh when you trade a player. Basically a trade is even worse than releasing a guy outright, as ALL of his remaining signing bonus is assigned to the year in which the trade occurs.

      IF they would make is a 50/50 assignment of the remaining. 50% in the current year and 50% next year, it would be a bit easier for teams to stomach.
      I understand the new CBA now allows teams to carry over to the next season a portion of the signing bonus monies at their discretion.
      You are correct.... see http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slu...nnsi&type=lgns
      for that very information. Thanks!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by MerlinWizard222
        Aaron Rodgers for Randy Moss straight up.

        That trade scenario and hell freezing over should occur around the same time.

        Comment


        • #19
          It's not going to be anyone for anyone anymore. The trading deadline has past.

          Comment


          • #20
            I've skimmed over to PackerChatters a few times, and I find a lot of this supposed "insider" stuff - the real deal, really, I know a guy in the front office....and then it turns out, over and over, to be a bunch of crap. Like this stuff. The trade deadline has passed. Rodgers is still here, Harris is still here. Hell, everybody is still here.

            I'd like to see the Packers trade Sh_ttenheimer for Leroy Butler, but it looks like that's about as likely as Randy Moss winning a good citizen award in Minneapolis.
            "The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."

            KYPack

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Sparkey
              Originally posted by HarveyWallbangers
              Plus, trading in the NFL has increased, but there still aren't a whole lot of trades in the NFL. It's not baseball.
              There would be more trading if the cap acceleration wasn't so harsh when you trade a player. Basically a trade is even worse than releasing a guy outright, as ALL of his remaining signing bonus is assigned to the year in which the trade occurs.

              IF they would make is a 50/50 assignment of the remaining. 50% in the current year and 50% next year, it would be a bit easier for teams to stomach.
              One wonders why there is a penalty attached to trading a player anyway. I do not see how league parity or player interests would be harmed by allowing teams to transfer the cap advantages of a player's contact over to the trading partner.

              Aren't players allowed to negotiate right-to-refusal clauses or no-trade clauses if they are concerned about such things?

              Personally, I think that more trades would be mo' better. One good reason for a team to trade anyway is use the leverage of an area of team strength to fix an area where the team lacks depth or has an outright hole.

              Another reason is to trade players is to send lockerroom problems packing, but even in that situation I don't see how trading a griping player is either a problem for the league or for the traded player. Yet the cap rules make it tough to swap players and improve teams.

              Come to think of it, even in the old days before capology the NFL was never as trade-happy as baseball. Is it possible that the league keeps prohibitive cap rules in place so that teams have a more stable identity?
              [QUOTE=George Cumby] ...every draft (Ted) would pick a solid, dependable, smart, athletically limited linebacker...the guy who isn't doing drugs, going to strip bars, knocking around his girlfriend or making any plays of game changing significance.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Fritz
                I'd like to see the Packers trade Sh_ttenheimer for Leroy Butler, but it looks like that's about as likely as Randy Moss winning a good citizen award in Minneapolis.
                All kidding aside, didn't Koran Robinson receive some kind of local "good guy" award last year? Rastak?.....

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Patler
                  Originally posted by Fritz
                  I'd like to see the Packers trade Sh_ttenheimer for Leroy Butler, but it looks like that's about as likely as Randy Moss winning a good citizen award in Minneapolis.
                  All kidding aside, didn't Koran Robinson receive some kind of local "good guy" award last year? Rastak?.....

                  Yes, he did.....he was voted by his teammates as the most inspirational player of something like that. I'm guessing he'd fall a couple votes short this year after letting his team down like he did. I'm surprised they didn't reposses the award....LOL.....

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X