Falcons: Jason La Canfora On Brent Grimes

[atljbo]

Link

Quote:Falcons: Two emerging talents on defense are worthy -- linebacker Curtis Lofton and corner Brent Grimes -- but in the end look for Grimes to get the tag. Corners are in short supply, and Atlanta's secondary already is iffy. Grimes is vital for them and another player the team wants to lock up long-term, according to a league source. The corner free agent market is also thin, so Grimes would be a prized asset.

[Anomaly]

I read a story today about how contract talks were ongoing but in the early stages, also it said they weren't likely to use the tag on Grimes.

So I think this is just both sides "leaking" out information. I believe March 5th is the deadline to slap the tag on somebody so it will be an interesting two weeks.

[atljbo]

(02-20-2012 01:36 AM)Va Falcon 88 Wrote:  I read a story today about how contract talks were ongoing but in the early stages, also it said they weren't likely to use the tag on Grimes.

So I think this is just both sides "leaking" out information. I believe March 5th is the deadline to slap the tag on somebody so it will be an interesting two weeks.

I think we will have him signed before FA hit.. Because if we dont.. The Bucs will bring the Brinks truck to his house.... They have ALOT of money they have to spend and they need another CB

[Anomaly]

(02-20-2012 02:20 AM)atljbo Wrote:  I think we will have him signed before FA hit

If we do I will not be surprised in the least bit. And I wouldn't be surprised if we don't hear anything about it until it's officially announced with how tight lip the organization is.

[ggp]

One way to judge how good our own player are is to project how difficult they could be to play against.

Like someone just posted, imagine Grimes playing for the Bucs. While we are at it, imagine Lofton, or even Turner playing for them. Now, how much damage could each one of those players do to us?

If I had to rank those three players working against us, I would have to say that the most-to-least damage list would go like this:

1. Grimes. His leaping ability is extr-ordinary. I could see him picking off two Ryan passes/game.

2. Lofton. He is a terrific run stopper and he could really force our offense into a one dimensional passing mode.

3. Turner. His powerful rushing would inflict damage but our defense has handled power runners pretty well. I could see him gaining 100 yards but I don't think that he would win the game for the Bucs. I don't think that he would present more of a threat than Blount.

Looking at our roster, from that point of view, I think that it would be wisest to re-sign both Grimes and Lofton. If cap space becomes an issue, then I would not feel bad trading Turner in order to gain 7.5M of cap space.

[dmo_dlo]

(02-20-2012 10:20 AM)ggp Wrote:  If cap space becomes an issue, then I would not feel bad trading Turner in order to gain 7.5M of cap space.

Trading Turner will not give us $7.5M extra cap. His cap number comes from $5M salary plus $2.5/yr guaranteed. If we trade him we get rid of $5M salary but will have an accelerated cap hit of $5M for a net cap saving of $2.5M. Hardly worth moving a player like Turner.

[cnasty]

Hell, for all we know, our coaches/FO could like what they saw out of Franks & Owens. I'm not against bringing in Grimes. Lord knows I love the little guy. I just wouldn't want it to inhibit our ability to address other needs as well.

[Beef]

(02-20-2012 10:43 AM)dmo_dlo Wrote:  Trading Turner will not give us $7.5M extra cap. His cap number comes from $5M salary plus $2.5/yr guaranteed. If we trade him we get rid of $5M salary but will have an accelerated cap hit of $5M for a net cap saving of $2.5M. Hardly worth moving a player like Turner.

That's what would happen if we realeased him. If you trade him, it's a different story. You don't get cap hits for trades unless you work it into the trade deal to cover some of his guaranteed salary, but that's unlikely.

If we traded Turner, it would free up $7.5M and then add whatever the incoming player's contract is worth. Typically though, trades result in new/re-negotiated contracts between the swapped players.

[dmo_dlo]

(02-20-2012 12:37 PM)Beef Wrote:  That's what would happen if we realeased him. If you trade him, it's a different story. You don't get cap hits for trades unless you work it into the trade deal to cover some of his guaranteed salary, but that's unlikely.

If we traded Turner, it would free up $7.5M and then add whatever the incoming player's contract is worth. Typically though, trades result in new/re-negotiated contracts between the swapped players.

As far as I know there is no difference between trading or cutting a player in terms of salary cap implications. Take a look here for example:

http://www.falcfans.com/features/capmain.html

For example, that is exactly why Colts have such a dilemma with Manning in terms of dead cap money. Otherwise they could just trade him away with no cap consequences.

[Paprika Neck]

I don't see the big deal in losing grimes if you're able to get a constant pass rush.