Abraham gonna be a skin?!?!?!?!?!?

[mcalderone10]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Why would they get mad? They didn't give up one cent. They end up with more guaranteed money.

you think we are going to hold on to brunell once we don't need him because he took a pay cut for now?

i'm not thinking he's going to see his contract to the end

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by mcalderone10

you think we are going to hold on to brunell once we don't need him because he took a pay cut for now?

i'm not thinking he's going to see his contract to the end

Definitely not. When he originally signed it they said it was basically a 3 year deal. They want Campbell to be the starter but it won't be right away in 06. I am sure that Brunell doesn't mind all of the new toys though.

[mcalderone10]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Definitely not. When he originally signed it they said it was basically a 3 year deal. They want Campbell to be the starter but it won't be right away in 06. I am sure that Brunell doesn't mind all of the new toys though.

true it's nice for him to have more reciever help but he wont be getting as much as his original contract before being restructured. it seems like the had some overkill in their signings and it seems like itd be more personal that these core players did it more to keep the team together instead of change the team around a lot. sometimes change is better sometimes its not. on paper it looks like it was best but we wont know untill they play together.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by mcalderone10

you think we are going to hold on to brunell once we don't need him because he took a pay cut for now?

i'm not thinking he's going to see his contract to the end

the new cba passed and brunell didn't end up taking a pay cut, cause all those deals ONLY would have gone through if the cba died.

[mcalderone10]

Originally Posted by That Guy

the new cba passed and brunell didn't end up taking a pay cut, cause all those deals ONLY would have gone through if the cba died.

are you sure cuz i'm pretty sure they still restructured his contract.

sunra said earlier in the post:

"2. Massive re-structuring of Brunell, Portis and Springs contract. Approximately 10 millions dollars."

i'm guessing brunell is gonna be around for this and next season i dun think he's gonna be gettin paid more next year with us using him less and if he does i think we'll cut him for cap space. Dan Snyder wouldn't hold on to someone because they helped us out just to pay him back. He's a business man.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by mcalderone10

are you sure cuz i'm pretty sure they still restructured his contract.

sunra said earlier in the post:

"2. Massive re-structuring of Brunell, Portis and Springs contract. Approximately 10 millions dollars."

i'm guessing brunell is gonna be around for this and next season i dun think he's gonna be gettin paid more next year with us using him less and if he does i think we'll cut him for cap space. Dan Snyder wouldn't hold on to someone because they helped us out just to pay him back. He's a business man.

i'm sure. ALL that info said contingent on a dead cba, which obviously didn't happen.

we got closer to 16$mill in restructures, but it was bonus money to prorated signing bonus type stuff.

and you're right, it has the chance to hurt us in the long run. the total contract cost increases quite a bit faster than the cap, meaning cuts or more restructures.

the skins can win as long as they can plan it so the backloaded parts hit when new tv contracts or increased labor caps occur. that's what happened this year (a dead cba would have been awful for us though).

[mcalderone10]

Originally Posted by That Guy

i'm sure. ALL that info said contingent on a dead cba, which obviously didn't happen.

we got closer to 16$mill in restructures, but it was bonus money to prorated signing bonus type stuff.

o ok so then its gonna count over the years? and we can cut brunell later and not have to pay him all of it right?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by mcalderone10

o ok so then its gonna count over the years? and we can cut brunell later and not have to pay him all of it right?

If it was done as a normal restructure - no. sooner or later the money will count against the cap but instead of it all counting this year its spread out over the remaining years. If he gets cut early, the remaining portoin that has not been accounted through proration is accelerated. He has gotten all his money, it's just a questoin of when it counts against the cap. No matter how you cut it. when we let him go (most likely after this year or next) - it will be a pretty big hit. So long as we restructure and extend a couple of the younger guys in a couple years we'll be alright.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by mcalderone10

o ok so then its gonna count over the years? and we can cut brunell later and not have to pay him all of it right?

you always have to pay the acculmulated bonus money that's already actually been paid to the player. Roster bonuses that aren't yet due and base salaries do not have to be paid from the date the player is cut onwards.

[mcalderone10]

Originally Posted by That Guy

you always have to pay the acculmulated bonus money that's already actually been paid to the player. Roster bonuses that aren't yet due and base salaries do not have to be paid from the date the player is cut onwards.

o ok

yea i never paid attention to the money before comin this site. tried to focus on the actual game

money aint my thing

[RiggoRules]

Originally Posted by mcalderone10

are you sure cuz i'm pretty sure they still restructured his contract.

sunra said earlier in the post:

"2. Massive re-structuring of Brunell, Portis and Springs contract. Approximately 10 millions dollars."

i'm guessing brunell is gonna be around for this and next season i dun think he's gonna be gettin paid more next year with us using him less and if he does i think we'll cut him for cap space. Dan Snyder wouldn't hold on to someone because they helped us out just to pay him back. He's a business man.

It is a bit counter intuitive, but....

A restructure to get to a lower cap number does NOT equal pay cut under most circumstances. Most of the time, it ends up with more guaranteed $$ for the player.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by RiggoRules

It is a bit counter intuitive, but....

A restructure to get to a lower cap number does NOT equal pay cut under most circumstances. Most of the time, it ends up with more guaranteed $$ for the player.

in brunell'ss case it was an actual pay cut. 3 players would have had to take pay cuts to lower their cap values this year to be complaint with the 30% rule if no new cba had been signed.

the new cba eliminates the 30% rule, allows more bonus to prorated signing bonus options to be used and lets you prorate over 5 years (instead of 4).

[mcalderone10]

Originally Posted by That Guy

in brunell'ss case it was an actual pay cut. 3 players would have had to take pay cuts to lower their cap values this year to be complaint with the 30% rule if no new cba had been signed.

the new cba eliminates the 30% rule, allows more bonus to prorated signing bonus options to be used and lets you prorate over 5 years (instead of 4).

i was right pay cut to brunell that proves with this # 100 post i'm no longer a scrub...stupid scrubs

[Sociofan]

Originally Posted by That Guy

in brunell'ss case it was an actual pay cut. 3 players would have had to take pay cuts to lower their cap values this year to be complaint with the 30% rule if no new cba had been signed.

the new cba eliminates the 30% rule, allows more bonus to prorated signing bonus options to be used and lets you prorate over 5 years (instead of 4).

5 years instead of 4? That means nothing. Do you know how many players on this team were here 5 years ago?


One.

Chris Samuels


It just means you are more likely to get hit with a sizeable bonus write-off penalty (dead cap space) somewhere inside of five years from now.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Sociofan

5 years instead of 4? That means nothing. Do you know how many players on this team were here 5 years ago?


One.

Chris Samuels

really, i was under the impression that jon jansen was here as well.