Brunell Reworks Deal (FKA "Brunell Reluctant to Renegotiate Deal")

[Hog1]

It might be a bit early to lead him down the Green Mile. As Tafkas pointed out, all is not known at this point. I'm sure he will do the right thing. If not, don't let the door hit you in.........................

[dmek25]

its all strictly business.by the way,what kind of cap hit if we cut brunell loose?

[jdlea]

If Mark Brunell doesn't restructure we should cut him. Go into the season with Campbell and Ramsey. I don't know what the cap savings is, but if it's considerable, then he should go. This isn't emotional, it's just business, remember. Everyone who said that about LaVar should apply it to MB, right now. It's the same situation.

[That Guy]

for the fifthteenth time, brunell costs 300k more to cut then to keep. ramsey costs 1.7mill more to keep then to cut. If a new cba gets done then the situation flips. right now MB has the leverage though.

and without a new cba we literally can't afford even a 300k (+230-310k replacement cost) hit just to be spiteful.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by That Guy

for the fifthteenth time, brunell costs 300k more to cut then to keep. ramsey costs 1.7mill more to keep then to cut. If a new cba gets done then the situation flips. right now MR has the leverage though.

and without a new cba we literally can't afford even a 300k (+230-310k replacement cost) hit just to be spiteful.

wow, thanks and sorry for making you repeat it so many times. So, Mark holds all the cards on this one I guess. He doesn't have to restructure cause the Skins don't gain much by cutting him. That makes him even more of an ass if he doesn't restructure.

[Luxorreb]

I think we're all reading more into this than we should at this point. With the cba thing still unresolved noone is jumping the gun in any direction. Problem for Brunnell he might find himself not in a Redskins uniform next season if cba doesn't pass...

[MTK]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

My guess is that this decision is less about Brunell the person than it is about Brunell the union member. He's probably, as are other NFL players around the league, to not acquiesce during this time of negotiations

That makes way too much sense, it's easier to just label him a bitch.

He's probably on roids too, and in his roid rage he's refusing to restructure.

[Pocono]

That article is deceptive where it says they want him to convert salary into bonus and reduce his cap number. In order for that to happen he has to take less not only this year but every year of the contract because of the 30% rule. If it were a simple restructure he'd do it in a heartbeat. They can't even do what they did last year and make salary into incentives because in the last capped year all incentives count against the cap as if they were likely to be earned so his cap hit wouldn't change.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by offiss

Gibbs has kept him off the scrap heap the last 2 years, and basically treated Brunell like the son he never had

First, Gibbs has a son.

Second, yes, it's crazy to rely on players to restructure their deals, but I think it's understood that you are going to have to restructure if you want to stick around for long. If Brunell restructures, maybe he lasts 2 years. If he doesn't restructure, he's gone after next year. Yes, it would be a paycut (looking at yearly average salary), but I think it was understood from the outset that his contract was not meant to run its course.

[irish]

Remember all the posts on the LA threat about should he receive special treatment from the skins? A line used in most all those posts was no he should not because business is business. Well for MB, business is business. He owes the skins nothing but a days work for a days pay.

Whether its a good idea (career wise) for him to restructure is something he has to decide for himself but the notion that he needs to do this to help the skins out is off base. Business is business and for MB, nearing the end of his career, he's in the business of getting as much $ as he can in the best playing situation he can find.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by That Guy

for the fifthteenth time, brunell costs 300k more to cut then to keep. ramsey costs 1.7mill more to keep then to cut. If a new cba gets done then the situation flips. right now MR has the leverage though.

and without a new cba we literally can't afford even a 300k (+230-310k replacement cost) hit just to be spiteful.

MR? Is that Pat and Mark's love child?

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

MR? Is that Pat and Mark's love child?

you have angered the tiki gods.


if MB gave up 500k this year, he'd also have to give up 650k next year to have his contract be legal within the confines of the 30% rule, as someone pointed out a few posts up. therefore its real money.

that means to cut his base saslary this year by 500k requires turning 1.15mill of base salary (500k in 2006 and 650k in 2007 due to the 30% rule) into a bonus that only prorates out 4 years (to 2009)... that's nearly 300k that still counts against the cap this year.

So a 500k cut this year and 650k cut next year combined only saves the skins 200k on the cap in 2006... talk about diminishing returns. If he nuked his entire base salary to vet min, thats till only about 600k savings this year and it virtually gaurantees he won't be on the roster in 2007.

of course, he could actually give up a lot of money in both 2006 AND 2007, but not many people are going to agree to a massive paycut, regardless of the situation.

[Twilbert07]

This all goes back to the decision to waaaaay overpay Brunell when we signed him. It's coming back to bite us in the ass.

[That Guy]

overpaid wynn and lavar (and samuels, we had a chance to get him much cheaper before the walter jones deal) too

[Hog1]

It's much easier to make rational, logical decisions when the future is known. Unfortunately, the future is...........not...............