eSJayDee

Geez, looks like I'm one of the more experienced of the bunch. My sole coaching experience was 1 season of volunteer coaching HS kickers & punters. My involvement basically entailed my standing around playing w/ myself for about an hour & 50 minutes, then about 10 minutes having about 6 kids vying for my attention trying to do 3 different things (KOs, punting & PK).

See my avatar for Pooch Wilson. He just turned 4. And he's about 100 pounds heavier than when that pic was taken.

Depends on the term of the contracts. Once you sign a player, it's just like they were already on your roster. We would not be responsible for any salary hits, but would be stuck w/ any bonuses they were already paid out. For instance, if Josh Reed really did sign a contract w/ a $2.5m bonus, his cap hit would be either $2.5m or optionally $1.25m if we cut him after June 1 and elected to carry the other $1.25m forward to next year. If this really is the case (which I doubt for this very reason), it would be more costly to cut him than to keep him on the roster. (Assume he has a relatively minimal salary for this year like $500k, so his cap hit would only be $1.125m if he signed for 4 years if he remained on the team.) Please note that the new CBA agreement may have changed how things work slightly, I don't know.

From the article linked above: That's BS. W/ the news of Hayes quitting due to his link w/ Scientology, the Scientology episode would be a far bigger draw. From a personal perspective, once I saw it was the "Salty Chocolate Balls" episode, I changed the channel.

If you were basing that the intended episode was based on the guide that I get through Time Warner, I know that they frequently have errors. FWIW, TP & MS happended to be very briefly on Letterman last night. They mentioned that when they did the episode, they thought that Isaac Hayes might quit, so it seemingly wasn't that much of a surprise & they appeared quite indifferent to it.

Marv wasn't the 1st to say it. When Marv used it in his acceptance speech or whatever, I looked up who originally said it. I don't recall whom, but someone else also found the quote attributable to another (3rd) person. So crediting Marv wouldn't have been appropriate.

Funny, either in that RS article linked to above or some Isaac Hayes news thingy, they mention that Paramount isn't allowed to show it anymore. I seem to recall an episode where that the credits were like John & Jane Smith as mentioned, but I don't remember the episode itself, so was hoping to see it.

While on the subject of South Park, how 'bout Crack Whore Magazine?

'Near' the tracks? Unless 'near' constitutes like one foot, I assume she was walking ON the tracks. I'm not an expert, but I assume those trains are pretty good at following the tracks & not deviating too much.

I have an ~8 pound Claimore that I've refrained from hanging from the wall for fear of that very thing happening (I think even getting bonked on the head w/ the hilt would potentially cause serious injury). The only place it would fit is above the bed.

Actually, I think it will be difficult to make ANY substantial signings due to future cap uncertainty. Players w/ clout will be reluctant to sign long term deals cuz of an impending no cap or much higher cap situation. Teams, even those that would be otherwise willing/able to spend the cash were there to be a higher or no cap will be reluctant to do so on the chance that there will be a more moderate cap and by doing so would severely damage their cap position. BTW, I think I know who you are/were, but I can't figure out the significance of your moniker.

I have a SUBSTANTIAL preference for brunettes relative to blondes. However, in this case, you've gotta take a gorgeous blonde over a somewhat scary looking brunette.

No, I won't. Although I initially took no position as to belief or disbelief in you having inside sources. It has become increasingly evident that those sources, even if they do exist, are not very accurate. As such, let me add ... Even the blind squirrel occasionally finds the nut. And A broken clock is right twice a day.

The ideal handling of the cap is to be close to it, but not put yourself 'in trouble'. Bear in mind, you need to spend $ to get quality players. (At least in theory - and let's it also requires the leap of faith that we were trying to field as competitive of a team as possible ) We are UNDER the cap AND in a managable situation. Sure, we're not in as good of shape as some teams (w/o looking at # & each team's FA situation I can't sight specific teams better off, but I'll guess SF.), but considering that we all felt that we should have been a playoff caliber team last year, I think our situation is/was in pretty good shape.

I'd be hesitant to use "can't miss" even w/ the qualifier of barring injury. I'm not disputing your claims that he indeed has the potential to be phenomenal, just that there's no such thing as "can't miss". We had this lineman named Mike Williams...

I could be wrong about this, but isn't Levy Jewish?

I an only imagine that this means when intend to be active in free agency. Clearly, MW has as much potential as any other OL man. Since we apparently have the cap room, it would have only made since to keep around until that $3m bonus was due (IIRC, July 1st), to see if he was going to shape up (figuratively & perhaps even literally) unless we figure we need the room to pursue other FAs. Could be an exciting off-season.

Let me clarify my point of view w/ some #s. Using Champ Baileys contract as a basis (let's momentarily ignore whether or not NC is worth that sort of $). I saw #s indicating CB's contract was 7 yrs, $63m, $18 SB. W/o the SB his contract avgs $6.43m/yr. One can assume that the later yrs are for higher salary, so apart from the SB, he'll be playing for perhaps $5m/yr. NC will be making more than that but will have to wait for that SB. Looked at another way, assume CB never sees the last 2 yrs of his contract which let's assume pay him $10m/yr (which might even be conservative). So he's playing for $8.6m/yr avg. Again, NC won't be making that much, but it's not like he's obscenely off. Basically all he would have a right to be bummed/upset about is that he's not getting that nice bonus check upfront having to perhaps wait a year for it (or make an even better salary the following year).

What having the franchise tag slapped on does is eliminate the huge signing bonus he was hoping for. The $5.89m is not THAT low relative to what his contract would have likely paid him on avg. (Remember, later years often have inflated #s that the player likely won't see.) It merely delays him going into free agency, which might almost be perceived as a good thing by him & his agent, as he could potentially improve his market value. (He didn't do too well last year.) Also, take into consideration that if he plays under the tag this year, to tag him next year will result in at least a 20% raise. Although we all seem to be pleased that we're getting the svcs of a top notch CB for the 'bargain' price of $5.89m this year, $7.1m I don't think is such a bargain AND there's no assurances that the tag price won't go up substantially above that.

It was my understanding that he offered to resign but wanted to stay presumably thereby eliminating any obligation that Ralph would have for paying the remainder of the contract. I think that Ralph announced that he accepted his (TD) resignation.

Okay, what was the point of that? Cuz I can't figure it out, even after watching it 4 times! (Maybe a few more times will do it.)

I tend to think it's good to have that back loaded contract for a couple of reasons (relative to more 'fair' values) from the player's perspective. 1) You don't know how much salaries are going to escalate, so the last thing you want to be is locked in at under market values. and 2) When it comes time that your contract/pay levels become prohibitive (i.e. your salary is for more than you're worth), it forms a starting point and gives you leverage in the renegotiation.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0129359 That movie doesn't exist, does it??

Good one.

IIRC, he took over toward the end of the season for the (very) substandard Arians. Again, IIRC, he was adequate in his limited appearances. Why he wasn't asked to training camp or even mini-camps the following season is what is perplexing and disturbing. If he had gotten beat out in preseason that's one thing, but we had what turned out to be a top notch kicker on our roster only to throw him away. (But kickers are a dime a dozen, so I guess it's really no big deal, huh TD? )