Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

if this wasn't touched on

 

Both Evans and fellow guard Ben Grubbs -- set to count $9.6 million -- could be shown the door.

id seriously doubt both, simply from a need standpoint. you only save 3.5m with grubbs cut and the cost to replace him at a lower level would be atleast that high plus youd need both starting guards... makes little sense as far as roster planning and loomis has been pretty good about planning.

 

at this point it may even just be using grubbs as leverage to help reduce evans pay. additionally id venture evans knows hes unlikely to see 2016s pay day with the saints or elsewhere so theres some additional motivation to work from his side. extend a year or two, spread out the dollars, with a little bit of fresh money. turn his 2 year 15m deal into a 4 year 20m situation and retire a saint for instance.

Posted

I would take either or. Evans/Grubbs plus a well behaved (off the field) Incognito would be a 500% improvement over what we fielded last year. Free agency can't come soon enough.

Posted

Ravens are still going strong, Seattle made it back, and do you really think we've seen the last of pats? One can only wish.

Seattle hasn't signed a QB yet. Give it a couple years after that contract. It takes away 2 pro bowl quality players from your team. Key is good drafting.
Posted

interesting article on the saints situation on nola.com today.

 

due to drews large signing bonus (and a few others) they are in danger of hitting a spot where despite being over the cap, they will not hit the minimum cash spent value next year. The penalty would be taking the gap between their cash spent, to the 89% minimum, and distributing it amongst the players outside the cap.

 

we had discussed what would happen if a team underspent, but i think everyone here assumed it would be due to thriftiness, and not overly aggressive accounting.

Posted

interesting article on the saints situation on nola.com today.

 

due to drews large signing bonus (and a few others) they are in danger of hitting a spot where despite being over the cap, they will not hit the minimum cash spent value next year. The penalty would be taking the gap between their cash spent, to the 89% minimum, and distributing it amongst the players outside the cap.

 

we had discussed what would happen if a team underspent, but i think everyone here assumed it would be due to thriftiness, and not overly aggressive accounting.

wow what a mess. i wonder if the nfl ever contemplated there'd be this reverse gap between cap accounting and cash spending

×
×
  • Create New...