Quote:
|
Originally Posted by That Guy
thats wrong, you do add more gauranteed money then whats left on the last contract or players don't sign it. If you didn't understand my post that's fine, but that doesn't make it either ridiculous or inaccurate. And your wrong if you don't think players care about what they're making or how much gauranteed money is in the deal. Samuels has refused to rework his contract a while back, wynn reufsed to rework his i believe under spurrier, it happens.
|
No man. You're confusing a contract extension with a contract renegotiation. Here's an example so you can understand: in 2006 Portis is due a $3 million roster bonus. He is owed that money if we keep him, it's just not guaranteed that we'll keep him and pay him. Of course Gibbs loves Portis, so they'll want to keep him. That $3 million, if paid as a roster bonus, counts all in 2006 against the cap. Portis will renegotiate it into a signing bonus, where he gets the $3 million in 2006 just as he would have under his old contract. Except now that is a signing bonus it will hit the cap over a couple years. Brunell, Jansen, and several others did this with their base salaries over this very offseason.
Now when you are saying that they're adding guaranteed money, that's a contract extension like what we gave Chris Samuels. His situation was different because he was still on his rookie contract, and was looking for his big pay day. We had to give him a larger signing bonus, but we also now have him for more years. But for the guys who already had their first big pay day like Moss, Griffin, Washington, Springs, Portis, Jansen, and Brunell, they're all willing to renegotiate their contract's structure as long as it means they still get the same amount of cash.
This leverages the salary cap to manageable levels and allows us to keep the team's core together in the long haul.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by That Guy
I have no idea where this came from... am i not allowed to discuss topics here without being accused of not liking gibbs, the team or whatever you're trying to imply?
|
When I said we needed a reality check, I was intending to address everyone. So I'm sorry if it came out like I was talking just to you. I just meant to point out that it seems ridiculous to criticize Gibbs' GM moves when the vast majority have worked out and are now producing a winning team that figures to be competitive all season long. The proof is in the pudding.