Drafting a safety.

[skinsWill]

i siad this in another post but We all remember what a beast Matt Bowen was b4 he hurt his knee... wasnt it like 5 sacks in the first 3 games? But he was a liability in coverage too. GW was trying to get a guy like that in AA but benched him for being so weak against the pass, which SOMETIMES is reflective of the pass rush (or lack there of)... but hes a good enough athlete to play in the NFL and for us, maybe we should keep him IF HE WILL RESTRUCTURE to earn a chance prove himself.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by skinsWill

i siad this in another post but We all remember what a beast Matt Bowen was b4 he hurt his knee... wasnt it like 5 sacks in the first 3 games? But he was a liability in coverage too. GW was trying to get a guy like that in AA but benched him for being so weak against the pass, which SOMETIMES is reflective of the pass rush (or lack there of)... but hes a good enough athlete to play in the NFL and for us, maybe we should keep him IF HE WILL RESTRUCTURE to earn a chance prove himself.

Yeah, I'd be in favor of keeping AA at the vet minimum, or close to it. However, I can't see ANY way he'd do that. He's not going to give money back, and we're not going to convert his base salary into signing bonuses as far as restructuring goes.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by skinsWill

i siad this in another post but We all remember what a beast Matt Bowen was b4 he hurt his knee... wasnt it like 5 sacks in the first 3 games? But he was a liability in coverage too. GW was trying to get a guy like that in AA but benched him for being so weak against the pass, which SOMETIMES is reflective of the pass rush (or lack there of)... but hes a good enough athlete to play in the NFL and for us, maybe we should keep him IF HE WILL RESTRUCTURE to earn a chance prove himself.

Good thought on restructuring AA, but the point is moot on creating cap space for 2007 or 2008. He's on the books to make the vet minimum base salary in 2007, and only $2 million in roster bonus and base salary combined in 2008.

If you're going to try to reduce a player's cap hit by asking them to take a paycut, the only way the cap number can go down is if they reduce the base salary or reduce the roster bonus. Most of Archuleta's cap hit in 2007 and 2008 is tied to his signing bonus. There's no way a player will actually agree to pay back part of his signing bonus. And since Arch is scheduled to make the vet minimum in 2007, you can't go any lower than that.

With Arch, the choices are simple:

1) Keep the bum.
2) Cut him before June 1 and take the $7.6 million cap hit in 2007.
3) Cut him after June 1, save $600K in space in '07, and take the $7 million cap hit in 2008.

Asking for a paycut isn't an option, simply because there's no pay to cut in '07.

[Bill B]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Good thought on restructuring AA, but the point is moot on creating cap space for 2007 or 2008. He's on the books to make the vet minimum base salary in 2007, and only $2 million in roster bonus and base salary combined in 2008.

If you're going to try to reduce a player's cap hit by asking them to take a paycut, the only way the cap number can go down is if they reduce the base salary or reduce the roster bonus. Most of Archuleta's cap hit in 2007 and 2008 is tied to his signing bonus. There's no way a player will actually agree to pay back part of his signing bonus. And since Arch is scheduled to make the vet minimum in 2007, you can't go any lower than that.

With Arch, the choices are simple:

1) Keep the bum.
2) Cut him before June 1 and take the $7.6 million cap hit in 2007.
3) Cut him after June 1, save $600K in space in '07, and take the $7 million cap hit in 2008.

Asking for a paycut isn't an option, simply because there's no pay to cut in '07.

Schneed you are dead on as far as cap savings. In addition the NFL implemented another rule after the Lavar Arrington fiasco that prohibits a player from returning a signing bonus in order to gain cap credits. When Lavar "returned" $4 million of his bonus the Skins got this credited to their cap, but after this happened the NFL changed the rule and teams no longer can gain cap space for this type of transaction. So even if AA said "here take back part of my signing bonus" the Skins would not get any credit for the refund.