Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman3. Show Patsman3's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    New light on the Talib contract and why its not that bad at all for Denver:

     

    3a. Similar to Revis, the details of cornerback Aqib Talib's contract with the Broncos reveal a few things that somewhat alter our initial impression of the pact. It was a reported six-year, $57 million contract with $26 million in guarantees when Talib signed it. But that’s a bit misleading because $8.5 million of the “guarantee” is his 2016 base salary, and that’s only guaranteed in the event of injury. So if the Broncos decide Talib isn’t playing up to the desired level after two years, they can cut him and Talib wouldn’t see the $8.5 million or any remaining money in the deal. That’s why I’d more accurately describe the contract as a two-year, $18 million pact. When looking at it that way, it’s much more reasonable.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to Patsman3's comment:

     

    New light on the Talib contract and why its not that bad at all for Denver:

     

    3a. Similar to Revis, the details of cornerback Aqib Talib's contract with the Broncos reveal a few things that somewhat alter our initial impression of the pact. It was a reported six-year, $57 million contract with $26 million in guarantees when Talib signed it. But that’s a bit misleading because $8.5 million of the “guarantee” is his 2016 base salary, and that’s only guaranteed in the event of injury. So if the Broncos decide Talib isn’t playing up to the desired level after two years, they can cut him and Talib wouldn’t see the $8.5 million or any remaining money in the deal. That’s why I’d more accurately describe the contract as a two-year, $18 million pact. When looking at it that way, it’s much more reasonable.

     



    I expected something like this.  It's similar to the deal they signed with Welker last year, where the second-year guarantee only kicked in if the player wasn't released at the end of the first season. 

     

    People talk as if other teams are complete idiots who don't understand the salary cap.  It's not like Elway is doing the calculations himself on his HP-12c.  All teams have financial specialists who are running the numbers, and those guys know what they are doing.  

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    I look at it this way...Denver has probably a team of people to put these contracts together (just like everyone else), they know what they're doing (like most others). They weigh their options (like everyone else) and decide what is right for their team right now. What is the worst that can happen? They might not win it all and have to be very conservative going into free agency a year or two down the road...who cares? What's the big deal? They have a chance and they're going to go for it, looks like we are too. Good.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    Wait I was told by numerous people on the board these types of moves mortgaged the future and no team including ourselves could make them? It's funny the Pats finaaly make moves like these and those who said you can't mortgage the future are now celebrating saying, no this isn't mortgaging the future this is smart management. I feel vindicated

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wait I was told by numerous people on the board these types of moves mortgaged the future and no team including ourselves could make them? It's funny the Pats finaaly make moves like these and those who said you can't mortgage the future are now celebrating saying, no this isn't mortgaging the future this is smart management. I feel vindicated

    [/QUOTE]

    Some moves do negatively impact the future. Dallas clearly screwed itself years ago, and now they're paying. New Orleans has to deal with massive cap hits from its deal with Brees, so they had to dump a bunch of guys. Not all of "these types of moves" are created equal, all have future ramifications, even if in some cases it's just people on a message board whining about dead money.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    Some moves do negatively impact the future. Dallas clearly screwed itself years ago, and now they're paying. New Orleans has to deal with massive cap hits from its deal with Brees, so they had to dump a bunch of guys. Not all of "these types of moves" are created equal, all have future ramifications, even if in some cases it's just people on a message board whining about dead money.

    [/QUOTE]

    clearly true Muz but that was never people like Pro's and I arguments that you have to do moves like that. We've said all along if managed correctly and wisely you can make these moves without mortgaging the future and we were always meet with, no these moves always mortgage the future and you can't make these types of moves that it was going all in and it would hurt long term. That's where the vindication comes from, that not all these types of mves actualy mortgage the future.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wait I was told by numerous people on the board these types of moves mortgaged the future and no team including ourselves could make them? It's funny the Pats finaaly make moves like these and those who said you can't mortgage the future are now celebrating saying, no this isn't mortgaging the future this is smart management. I feel vindicated

    [/QUOTE]

    Some moves do negatively impact the future. Dallas clearly screwed itself years ago, and now they're paying. New Orleans has to deal with massive cap hits from its deal with Brees, so they had to dump a bunch of guys. Not all of "these types of moves" are created equal, all have future ramifications, even if in some cases it's just people on a message board whining about dead money.

    [/QUOTE]

    To a point you are right, but I would say you were one of those guys who took this whole thing to an extreme. You mention NO, yet here they are in "salary cap hell" and they go out and get maybe the best safety on the market and give him a nearly 60 million dollar deal. They retained their tightend and that is expensive under the franchise number. They cut some old players and I believe they got something for their 31 year old third down back. Not as horrible as you described a month ago. There are 32 teams and only maybe two of them are in salary cap trouble...not so scary after all. And here we are finally paying for quality starters, it's about time.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MileHighMike. Show MileHighMike's posts

    Re: Denver has not actually mortgaged the future

    In response to TravisBean's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mia76's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The issue is not just salary but dead money - not sure what the exact details of aqib's deal are, but part of what makes it work for Denver is the bonus money being spread over five years - so if they cut him after three they save the back loaded salary but get hit with two years of bonus proration in dead money. Same with when Payton retires (and when TB retires for the Pats.

    It is also why the Pats had no problem adding the second year to Revis - they have a huge projected hit from Aaron this year that is eating a hole in their cap - by adding the bogus second year to the contract they postpone a large portion (half the bonus) of the first year to next years cap.

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly. We have a base and keep it. They don't. Any FA we lose, it's one we don't want and have a contingency for.

    For example, they are due to lose Demarius Thomas and Welker after this season as Welker is paid far more than what the higher valued Thomas is. That's bad management.

    That's the difference between our way and Denver's way.  Denver is essentially following the Baltimore way, which is push everything to the hilt, cross your fingers, and then react when the time comes.

    BB usually drafts someone a year prior to that positional player going to FA, might even like someone due for FA elsewhere, and combines each for leverage. It usually works and works well.

    Elway doesn't know what day it is.  lol

    [/QUOTE]

    Like signing an aging CB to make him the highest paid at his position by 20%, but need to push 50% of his salary into the future?  That kind of bad management?  

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share