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!

     

Trade Deadline is TODAY


MichaelNewtonII

Recommended Posts

seems to be some continuity and good chemistry going right now, to the point it could possibly be a mistake to tamper with it. i would love an upgrade, but i dont see it happening. i dont see Gordon being dealt at any cost, unless someone gave a first for him. the Browns used a second on him and he has proven to be worth it, why would they give him up for a draft pick? so they can just pick another wr? na, he stays in Cleveland. Fitz contract is crazy, so he stays and I'm pretty sure the Giants value Nicks, at least they did before the beginning of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see Nicks simply because of the Giants connection we have in the F.O. 

 

Cards won't move Fitz now, will wait until the offseason... no reason to unload him now. 

 

Don't see us trading for Gordon, simply because he's had too many off-field problems for our tastes - Carruth still haunts us. 

 

I would also imagine the asking price is MUCH lower on Nicks right now, he's struggled this year and will be a FA after this year so there's only so much the Giants can expect anyone to give up for him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this chatter the past few weeks about players being moved, etc. 

 

Nothing is going to happen - as usual. Maybe some reserve RB or OL gets dealt but nothing noteworthy. 

 

um what? players have been moved all over the league this year. it's becoming an increasingly growing part of building a team. well ran franchises aren't content to just sit put any more with "their guys" and lose games and smile because at least they didn't go and do anything "crazy,"

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...