Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Brian Hartline and Chris Canty to be released


Mr Mojo Risin

Recommended Posts

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000474584/article/ravens-terminate-contract-of-de-chris-canty

Chris Canty could be a solid part of our rotation, but he may end up retiring

Hartline will also be released after back to back 1000 yard seasons in 2012 and 2013 but he only had 400 yards last season.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000474565/article/miami-dolphins-cut-wide-receiver-brian-hartline

I wouldn't mind either signing and I'd think both would be good depth and relatively cheap. Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let them both retire

Hartline is only 28 and would easily be our 2nd best Wr. I know the market is flooded with veteran wrs but I really like Hartline. He's a lot faster than people give him credit for and he can consistently get separation from DBs. He would definitely be an upgrade over Cotch and Philly plus we won't have to break the bank for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imo, this could fit gettlemen's bargain strategy perfectly. we won't overpay for Torrey smith or randall cobb. Hartline would be an excellent number 2.

Exactly. I still think Hartline can be productive enough for us and Canty is someone whom I've wanted.since before we drafted Star. Both of them fall into the area of FAs we'll be looking at.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...