Falcons: Jason La Canfora On Brent Grimes

[Paprika Neck]

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

[Jimusmc]

(02-20-2012 02:37 PM)Paprika Neck Wrote:  I don't see the big deal in losing grimes if you're able to get a constant pass rush.

this.

you see how giants/pats were.

both got a constant passrush.. but their DBs were ass.

[Beef]

(02-20-2012 01:12 PM)dmo_dlo Wrote:  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.

It only has implications if the other team is unwilling to take on the traded players entire contract.

Think about the logic here for a second. If you trade away a player, are you going to be paying his salary or is the team you traded him to that he's actually going to play for going to pay his salary?

The OBVIOUS answer is the other team will pay.

Now IF the other team isn't willing to pay the entire salary of the player they're taking on, then the current team may agree, as part of the negotiation of the deal, to pay some of the guaranteed money, but that doesn't often happen.

In Mannings case, he's due $28M dollars, so the problem is they aren't going to find anyone willing to take on that contract. He's either going to have to re-negotiate or they're going to release him and he becomes a UFA. However, IF they release him, he's still due any guaranteed money. But if by some miracle some other team were to trade for him, they would have to take on his entire contract and Indy would be in the clear.

[dmo_dlo]

(02-20-2012 04:32 PM)Beef Wrote:  It only has implications if the other team is unwilling to take on the traded players entire contract.

Think about the logic here for a second. If you trade away a player, are you going to be paying his salary or is the team you traded him to that he's actually going to play for going to pay his salary?

The OBVIOUS answer is the other team will pay.

Now IF the other team isn't willing to pay the entire salary of the player they're taking on, then the current team may agree, as part of the negotiation of the deal, to pay some of the guaranteed money, but that doesn't often happen.

In Mannings case, he's due $28M dollars, so the problem is they aren't going to find anyone willing to take on that contract. He's either going to have to re-negotiate or they're going to release him and he becomes a UFA. However, IF they release him, he's still due any guaranteed money. But if by some miracle some other team were to trade for him, they would have to take on his entire contract and Indy would be in the clear.

Of course if a team is trading for a player it will assume his salary, that's the definition of a trade. The point is not about salary but about the already paid bonus that is spread over the remaining years of a contract. The player's original team that has paid that bonus is stuck with that regardless of a trade and that cap hit can never be transferred in a trade (unlike salary portion of the cap number.)

We paid Turner $15M in signing bonus on a 6 year contract which is $2.5M/year when spread equally over six years. $5M of that is still left for 2012 and 2013. If we trade or release Turner before next year starts, that spread cap hit is accelerated to the amount of an instant $5M cap hit (instead of the original $7.5M).

The same applies for Manning's contract but only on the portion of the bonus that he's already received not the pending $28M. If they exercise that bonus, then again they commit themselves to the dead money.

[Beef]

It's incorrect to call the up front money a "bonus". It's not a bonus, it's just guaranteed.

I understand what you're saying, but you need to also understand that we can get the trading team to absorb that $5M as part of the negotiations and they can take on that cap hit, not us. Which, btw happens all the time. We paid Turner $15M up front on a 6 year contract. If he only plays for us for 4 years, we have every right to sell those 2 years at $5M that he didn't earn with us to the trading team.

If the team Turner is traded to gives him a brand new 4 year contract with $10M up front guaranteed, he's not going to get $10M from them and also keep the full $15M from us. That's like paying the guy double for 2012 and 2013, which ain't gonna happen. That $10M they are going to pay him doesn't all go to him. We would get $5M of it, because we've already paid him $15M up front, of which $2.5M was for 2012 and $2.5M was for 2013.

Players make a lot of money already, they don't also need to get double-paid just because they're traded. That would be ridiculous.

[Beef]

And this works conversely too. If the player we trade Turner for received guaranteed money up front for any remaining years on his contract, we would have to pay that money back to the trading team to wipe it off their cap numbers and add them to our cap numbers. At least that's if it's negotiated that way, which normally it is.

The way you're phrasing this, you're making it sound like these guys can get double-pay and that's just not the case. There's a reason they are able to spread out guaranteed money to the cap over the life of a contract. It's because it's NOT a signing bonus. They're getting paid up front pro-rated salary for future contract years because it's technically "guaranteed".

[dmo_dlo]

I don't think that's the way it works Beef.

NFL will not allow cap money to be transferred as part of a trade or in any other way. Once you pay a player any money, it has to come off your cap, and only your cap. You can't transfer or trade that. The only option you have in the case of upfront (so called bonus) money is to spread it over all or some years of the contract. But once the player is not with you anymore, for whatever reason (trade or release), the money that was spread becomes an instant, accelerated cap hit. These are NFL rules (different than NBA for example). If dead money was transferrable then it would become a trading commodity by itself but it's not in NFL. At least that's my understanding.

[Beef]

(02-20-2012 08:21 PM)dmo_dlo Wrote:  I don't think that's the way it works Beef.

NFL will not allow cap money to be transferred as part of a trade or in any other way. Once you pay a player any money, it has to come off your cap, and only your cap. You can't transfer or trade that. The only option you have in the case of upfront (so called bonus) money is to spread it over all or some years of the contract. But once the player is not with you anymore, for whatever reason (trade or release), the money that was spread becomes an instant, accelerated cap hit. These are NFL rules (different than NBA for example). If dead money was transferrable then it would become a trading commodity by itself but it's not in NFL. At least that's my understanding.

Well that's just not true.

Why do you think we were waiting to see what would happen with Mike Vick's Philly contract to see if we would get cap relief? Because up front money we paid him he didn't actually earn. He still owes the Falcons around $17M. We're listed as a creditor on his bankruptcy. And whenever he actually pays Blank some money back, we will get corresponding relief to our cap numbers.

It's not "dead money". Again, guaranteed money does not equal bonus money. You still have to EARN your guaranteed money.

Why do you think Ricky Williams had to pay so much money back when he quit? It was "guaranteed money" and was paid to him up front and then pro-rated over the life of his contract. But when he quit, he had to pay back the pro-rated amount for the years he didn't play and that money was washed from the cap numbers.

Think about it. If we gave Spoon a $30M 6 year contract with $15M guaranteed, what would prevent him from quiting the Falcons after 1 year and just walking away with his $15M? And then after the 2nd year, he decides to sign with another team who also gives him a $30M 6 year contract with $15M up front guaranteed. Then he decides after 1 year to quit again.

Now he's played 2 years and gets to just keep $30M dollars???? And the 2 teams have to take $2.5M/year cap hits for the whole 6 years? BOTH of them?

NO NO NO. That's not how this works. The ONLY way you get to keep guaranteed money is if the team releases you or you are forced out because of a football related injury. If you quit or get traded, the team does not have to pay you for something you did not earn. It's that simple.

[phocis850]

(02-20-2012 10:20 AM)ggp Wrote:  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.

Why you gotta throw Ryan under the bus like that?
Where is the logic in Ryan throwing 4 ints to Grimes?

We have a big enough field to avoid CBs. I'm just not seeing it.

Also, I think everyone knows where I stand. Its been proven that a great line can make up for a lacking backfield. And with effective playcalling, our offense can keep up with anyone.

We need to stop losing 2 games a year to Brees. We need a line that can take him down, not just get close and watch him get loose.

[pauliwood]

If the Bucs manage to pry him away, it will make Freeman's Int numbers go down.