Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

panther4life

Everything you need to know about our cap, potential cuts and free agents.

176 posts in this topic

If Gamble was such a sure cut, why havent they done it yet?

No reason to cut anyone until the plan is figured out. I don't think you can uncut someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine the new GM is sorting through about 20 slightly different ways to "fix" this mess.

I bet currently the focus is on dealing with agents and once they know who they can restruture and have addressed.....heads then roll. Serves no real purpose to cut him today.

yep. you don't cut anyone until you have a better option.

it's like quitting your job before you've gone out to find a better one. it just puts you behind the 8 ball and limits viable options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at least we aren't the only team in cap trouble....

Albert Breer [email protected]

10 Ravens account for $69M in 2013 cap space. And that doesn't acct for Flacco, Reed, Ellerbe, Kruger, Dickson, Pitta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at least we aren't the only team in cap trouble....

Albert Breer [email protected]

10 Ravens account for $69M in 2013 cap space. And that doesn't acct for Flacco, Reed, Ellerbe, Kruger, Dickson, Pitta

Well, they really timed that win well then. Apparently Bolden is willing to extend to lower his cap number otherwise they'd have to cut him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are describing above would be a definite violation of the cap. Not maybe. Definite.

If it was that easy to get around the cap, every club would be doing it.

That is exactly what I said, that it isn't allowed. Hence it not being against the salary cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep. there's no way that would be allowed. huge violation. the team would get into a poo ton of trouble. you can not give players anything beyond what is stated in the contract.

I never said it would be allowed. I'm merely giving an example. The guy said paying for gas money affects the salary cap. It absolutely does not. Outside of the fact that no owner would bother to report that to the NFL, it doesn't go against the cap because it isn't in the contract.

What he was initial talking about was salary cap but that long article he posted was referring to team salary. Stuff like that affects that, I guess. But not salary cap.

I wasn't saying that was allowed. I was giving reasons as to why it isn't allowed. Anything paid to a player outside of the contract or special things like retirement and such do not go against the cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Stewarts contract equally as restrictive for us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is all nice and all. But no, money paid outside of the contract agreed upon by the player and team does not go against the salary cap. Sure, you can count it as the players salary if you want. But it wouldn't go against the cap.

So, if Jerry Richardson paid Newton $3 million for a new house, it wouldn't go against the salary cap because it wasn't in the contract. It would just be Richardson paying his own money to Newton. If Jerry Jones paid $3 dollars to Romo to pay for gas, it would not go against the cap.

Which is why that isn't allowed or else every big market team would do that (pay more money than they are allowed) to pry players to them.

Though, re-reading your post, I hope you know I'm talking about the salary cap (which is what you said). Not a teams salary (how much the team is making). They aren't the same thing.

Well, your wrong again as usual. Perhaps you need to go read the CBA yourself. It doesn't copy & paste well.

What in the world are you talking about salary cap vs salary ? What do mean they are not the same thing? It's SALARY and it HAS A CAP.

The CBA gives the definition of salary, including that: "Salary means the compensation in money, property, investments, loans or anything else of value..."

Then you say "if Jerry Richardson paid Newton $3 million for a new house, it wouldn't go against the salary cap because it wasn't in the contract."

Well, the CBA just said salary includes property or anything else of value. Well, a new house is "property" and you even put a "value on it" .... $3 million according to you. So IF that happens it counts as "salary" and does indeed go against the "salary cap".

The CBA when finishing up what counts against the salary cap says "Any other Salary not listed above paid to players shall be included in Team Salary."

Surely your reading comprehension isn't as bad as you make it out to be. Why on earth would the CBA be talking about "salary" in the "salary cap" section if salary doesn't count against the cap ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Posts

    • i want my organs with me when i board the spaceship to the planet Zebulon

      Sent using the amazing CarolinaHuddle mobile app

    • i dont get this on the app

      Sent using the amazing CarolinaHuddle mobile app

    • http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article149026764.html Graphic photos stir doubts about Darren Rainey’s ‘accidental’ prison death The photographs of Darren Rainey’s body are difficult to look at: skin curling from nearly every part of his body, from the top of his nose to his ankles. Large swaths of exposed body tissue, some of it blood red, and other portions straw yellow. Skin blistering on portions of his face, his ears and his neck. Deep red tissue exposed on his chest, his back, a thigh and an arm. Yellow tissue exposed on his buttocks and left leg. About the only portion of his body not affected are his feet. Paramedic Alexander Lopez saw the injuries firsthand that evening, after Rainey collapsed and died in a shower in the mental health unit at Dade Correctional Institution on Jan. 23, 2012. “[Patient] was found with second- and third-degree burns on 30 percent of his body,” Lopez wrote, adding that prison staff told him that “inmate was found on shower floor with hot water running.” The autopsy report, which inexplicably took three years to be completed and another year to be released, was puzzling to Rainey’s relatives, who said they were pressured by prison officials to immediately have him cremated. ... Fernández Rundle issued a final report on the case on March 17, announcing her decision not to file charges. She conducted the investigation after the Miami Herald reported that the makeshift shower had been used by guards to torment prisoners who suffered from mental illnesses. Unlike other showers in the prison, it was rigged so that the temperature controls were in an adjacent room, inaccessible to inmates locked inside. Inmates in the unit told the Herald — and later detectives — that Rainey had been placed in the shower by officer Roland Clarke after Rainey defecated on himself, and that other officers stood by as Rainey screamed and begged for help while banging on the shower door. He was found face up, in a pool of water, more than 90 minutes later.   Inmates and staff described how after Rainey was carried out of the shower, he was so red he looked like he had been “boiled’’ — and that his skin was peeling off his body “like fruit roll-ups.” ... Fernández Rundle said the absence of burns made it impossible to prove that a crime had been committed, since it meant the shower was not dangerously hot. She emphasized that “science” showed that Rainey did not die from the actions of the corrections officers. However, Marraccini and Baden both told the Herald the photos indicate burns over a significant portion of Rainey’s body. Marraccini, former medical examiner in Palm Beach County, faulted the Miami-Dade medical examiner for not taking additional skin tissue samples, since it is important to look at skin tissue from the area that suffered the most damage. The Herald asked Lew to indicate from where on Rainey’s anatomy she took the skin tissue sample. It was one of the questions she did not answer. ... Grimes, who declined to comment for this story, has suggested that police and state attorney investigators gave too much weight to corrections officers’ statements and not enough to the broader context — including evidence that the temperature of the rigged shower was a dangerous 160 degrees when turned on full hot — and that corrections officers had been abusing mentally ill prisoners for years. Among other things, the Herald has found the following problems with the state attorney’s (SAO) review of Rainey’s death: The SAO said a paramedic on the scene, Alexander Lopez, “noted that there were no signs of trauma on Rainey’s body …” In fact, Lopez, who examined Rainey’s body, did not mention in his report if there were or weren’t signs of trauma. But he did write that Rainey “was found with second- and third-degree burns on approximately 30 percent of his body.” The state attorney also failed to mention that Brittany McLaurin, an investigator with the medical examiner’s office, wrote in a report the day after Rainey’s death: “Visible trauma was noticed throughout the decedent’s body.” The SAO dismisses a finding by the prison health and safety inspector, Darlene Dixon, that the hot water in the shower tested at 160 degrees, far higher than is safe. Dixon took the reading two days after Rainey’s death. The state attorney said the reading was questionable for two reasons: Dixon used a meat thermometer and another staff member measured the water at 120 degrees earlier the same day. In fact, the Herald has learned, Dixon not only told investigators that the shower tested at 160 degrees when on full-hot, but that she had previously put in work orders on multiple occasions asking that the unsafe situation be fixed. Detectives and the state attorney failed to explore or even mention that in the final report.