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!

     

Bill Barnwell on Matt Kalil roster status


TheSpecialJuan

Recommended Posts

this is my take - if we do not plan on making any other moves than it is better to keep him. 

cuttin him (post june 1) saves us 7.25 mil, but cost us 9.8 next year. if we arent spending that 7.25 this year, pay him

if we cut him next year (post june 1) saves us 11 mil next year and only cost is 4.9 the following. 

 

if he is on the roster it doesn't mean he has to start. he is good DEPTH. need depth on the oline. yes i dont like paying someone that kind of money for depth, but keeping him this year is better for us next year, especially if we are done with big splashes in FA. he has no future on this team and we could still draft OL in the 1st round. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ericr0319 said:

this is my take - if we do not plan on making any other moves than it is better to keep him. 

cuttin him (post june 1) saves us 7.25 mil, but cost us 9.8 next year. if we arent spending that 7.25 this year, pay him

if we cut him next year (post june 1) saves us 11 mil next year and only cost is 4.9 the following. 

 

if he is on the roster it doesn't mean he has to start. he is good DEPTH. need depth on the oline. yes i dont like paying someone that kind of money for depth, but keeping him this year is better for us next year, especially if we are done with big splashes in FA. he has no future on this team and we could still draft OL in the 1st round. 

With Daryl William's knee being a question mark we might wanna hang onto Matt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Proudiddy said:

I'd rather have Chris Clark or Newhouse be the backup before Kalil steps on the field again.

If we weren't on the hook for Kalil's contract then I agree.

But it honestly makes more sense to keep him financially this season as a backup rather than cut him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cracka McNasty said:

If we weren't on the hook for Kalil's contract then I agree.

But it honestly makes more sense to keep him financially this season as a backup rather than cut him. 

How? You're still going to have to pay him an additional $7M. His dead cap is just that. There's no way to get to the it back. It'll hit us no matter what. That's a terrible excuse to throw good money after bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...