Welp, maybe now the Texans might trade for him.
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
NFL 2017-2018 Season
Posted 09 March 2017 - 12:44 PM
Posted 09 March 2017 - 01:08 PM
Now this is something. The Texans trade Orsweiler to the Browns and had to throw in a 2nd round pick to pay them to take out the trash. All the Texans got in return was to swap comp picks. And of course they got rid of a problem.
Posted 09 March 2017 - 01:57 PM
- Guard Dog likes this
Posted 10 March 2017 - 03:48 PM
Huh, the Packers signed somebody kinda major. Fancy that.
Posted 16 March 2017 - 01:05 PM
Posted 16 March 2017 - 09:14 PM
My only regret is that the Packers didn't poach one of them...especially because we'd get all 4 compensatory picks even if we had taken two of them because of how many UFAs we've lost.
Posted 17 March 2017 - 07:18 AM
Sweet, Ravens added a CB and a safety that should be upgrades over the guys they cut.
Posted 17 March 2017 - 07:21 AM
Sweet, Ravens added a CB...
Posted 25 March 2017 - 08:12 AM
What's weird is that cutting Tony Romo could've covered both Carr and Claiborne. Sure, there would have been some heavy dead money this year, but getting them both on 3 year-contracts would've made it workable. Instead, he's still being held on to on the hope of trading him, and free agency has passed the Cowboys by.
Posted 25 March 2017 - 08:38 AM
Meh. Claiborne has been a career disappointment, the first half of last season notwithstanding. Carr was the bigger loss just with his ability to never come off the field. Anthony Brown was a pleasant surprise for a 6th rounder though. There's a lot of holes to fill...
And iirc, cutting Romo wouldn't have freed cap space until 1 Jun, right?
Posted 25 March 2017 - 08:45 AM
For this year, more or less. Like I said, there'd have been a hefty dead cap penalty for this year...but if you sign your guy(s) on a 3 year deal and push their cap hits a year or two off into the future (which would be easy to do, and would make sense to do, because cutting Romo pre-June 1st means less cap space this year...which means more cap space in the next year or two, because his dead money would've normally been spread over the next couple of years instead of the majority of it hitting immediately like it would with a pre-June 1st cut). It being a pre or post-June 1st cut is not really a huge limiting factor EXCEPT for guys you might only want to sign for one year instead of multiple.
Edited by Bartimaeus, 25 March 2017 - 08:47 AM.
Posted 28 March 2017 - 07:41 AM
Sign on a church in San Diego:
- ShadySands and ManifestedISO like this
Posted 28 March 2017 - 11:16 AM
It's a NFL team. What did you expect? This is the league that the owners don't even have to honour signed contracts (NFLPA deserves blame too for being annoyingly weak in negotiations).
Sign a guy for 7 years. that guy is stuck with you for 3 years no matter what. You can dump him after 3. LMAO
Posted 28 March 2017 - 11:31 AM
Technically, it's in their contracts that the teams can dump them. But yeah, it's a crappy player's union...and more, it's a crappy sport to be a player in, period, due to how many players are needed to fill out a roster. Football is too physically demanding, which means you have to have more players, which means you need to spread the money around in order to pay those players, which means those players get paid less, and it means they individually have less power, etc., etc.
Anyone who has options in multiple major sports should go anywhere but football - with brain (and other physical) damage, less pay, less guaranteed pay, and the possibility of being thrown out the door at almost any given second, it's just a no brainer to go elsewhere. Relatively speaking to the rest of us, though, it's not a terrible deal...but it could still be better.
Edited by Bartimaeus, 28 March 2017 - 11:32 AM.
Posted 28 March 2017 - 02:06 PM
Interesting to nobody except me (), I think this is a nice move.
Posted 28 March 2017 - 02:39 PM
"Technically, it's in their contracts that the teams can dump them."
I know. That's why I didn't agrue the legalities. It is legal by the rules but it isn't honourable. And, like we both said, the NFLPA is at fault too.
Posted 29 March 2017 - 04:29 AM
Yeah, it'd be neat to see how contracts would work if the players could opt out at any point, too. Of course, if that were the case, the league would probably want to get rid of guaranteed money entirely to make it a more equal playing field...if the players want something, they always have to give something up, unfortunately. I'm pretty sure they'd prefer to have more guaranteed money than being able to opt out of their own contracts for seeking not totally significantly more money - outside of a few cases where players are getting criminally underpaid outside of the rookie contract, anyways; also, the crappy rookie wage scale is a thing the NFLPA argued for in order to benefit veterans...but the situation hasn't honestly changed that much, because it's just made rookies that much more valuable by guaranteeing that they're cheap - but that's just conjecture. Teams would fight back that on anyways by only signing shorter deals with players "known" to be money-seekers, I think.
Edited by Bartimaeus, 29 March 2017 - 04:30 AM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users