Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

Best way to play trading for him might be to just accept his contract. Suck up the 14 mil next year keeping it strictly as a two year move. Rosie just can’t do that though..we all know. Now the part of contracts I’m not positive about is: his contract has already been reworked. So not sure how many times you keep adding to one contract. Like it would be best to rip up this contract replaced with a new one year deal next offseason. Then spread things out by utilizing signing bonus more than roster money.

Ham... please stop showing your ignorance of how contracts work.   Absolutely stupid move to " suck up"  anything for one year...it then goes permanently on the books...on a rolling cap you take the full amount off....forever.   just dumb not to spread it out as the cap goes up.

Look back 5 years to the cap #.... look ahead 5 years.   You always want the cap hit to have least effect .

6 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

It's not arrogance...it's the proper way to do a contract if you believe the player can play a couple of years.   

Are you arrogant enough to say he can't play 2 more years?

The proper way to do a contract is not extend players past their prime at large amounts. Much more than your proper way of contract extending to lock up the oldest starting DB group around. Terrible idea!

2 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Three starting DBs over 30 you talking extensions? Nahhh

See ....it seems you feel the word extension...as something that costs a team.   When done correctly it saves the team money. 

The Eagles are in great shape cap wise.... if they were to make this trade ....they have 3 options

The worst one is to suck up 14 mil next year.    Cutting him is better than sucking up 14 mil.     

And I'll explain why... if your way of thinking that it's dumb for a team to give him a long term deal... then do you think a team would give him $14 mil next year?    Have it all count vs the cap? 

Then it makes no sense  for the Eagles to do it.

18 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Because you don't understand contracts.  You never " suck up money " in one year. Absolutely the worst thing you can do with a rolling cap. 

Sucking up paying the two years at his trade contract numbers. Small number this year and market value price next year. 18 mil for two seasons for a top S. What’s wrong with just accepting that? He’s arguably worth 14 mil a season. Making this a real good deal. Why would he be holding leverage contracted at 14 next season and accept extending to 20 over two seasons? Not getting your logic on why he’d love to sign that? Guess you figure on the open market he won’t be valued much. Because 14 mil a season sounds about right to me for him. Him just abandoning all his 14 mil leverage to sign for two seasons at 20 is hard to see why he would. Would think he’d just force to be released and test FA full market. Would believe his lowest floor couldn’t be much less than 2 years at 20 mil. Not much reason for him not to just try gambling on himself instead of just bending over for Rosie.

15 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Idk...to me the words " Have to" means that the team is obligated...or doesn't have a choice. 

Am I wrong here?   Does " have to" mean something different?

Have to in order to control for sure his rights for the next two seasons. They can get him to sign a new contract. But he has the leverage of 14 mil for next season. So negotiations would have to begin with this being the position of things. Feels like you are just trying to nitpick. But your nitpick isn’t even accurate.

6 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

The proper way to do a contract is not extend players past their prime at large amounts. Much more than your proper way of contract extending to lock up the oldest starting DB group around. Terrible idea!

Right.. I never said " large amounts " you associate " extension " with  " large amounts "  That's for 3rd to 5th year guys.     When older dudes get " extensions" it's to get the huge salary for one year off the books ( for the team) and give the older player some guaranteed money. 

The $14 mil is a dummie # at the moment.   It's not his worth.  It comes with zero guarantee.  The extension...means at least one more year... obviously would be a way to spread out the $14 mil...and guarantee some of it.  

Let's say $20 mil...spread out over 5 years...he plays 2 or 3 more. 

You save $10 mil or more cap hit next year... you get the player for more than one year... 

14 mil cap hit at 2024 #   vs 20 mil cap hit spread out over 2024-2028 caps...with caps increasing. Absolutely best way to write the contract.

 

5 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Sucking up paying the two years at his trade contract numbers. Small number this year and market value price next year. 18 mil for two seasons for a top S. What’s wrong with just accepting that? He’s arguably worth 14 mil a season. Making this a real good deal. Why would he be holding leverage contracted at 14 next season and accept extending to 20 over two seasons? Not getting your logic on why he’d love to sign that? Guess you figure on the open market he won’t be valued much. Because 14 mil a season sounds about right to me for him. Him just abandoning all his 14 mil leverage to sign for two seasons at 20 is hard to see why he would. Would think he’d just force to be released and test FA full market. Would believe his lowest floor couldn’t be much less than 2 years at 20 mil. Not much reason for him not to just try gambling on himself instead of just bending over for Rosie.

Because the $14 mil isn't guaranteed.   How did it work out for CGJ?

Which is it?   Is he worth 14 mil a season.... or is it stupid to keep him more than one season?

You can't have it both ways.  

It's why I'm saying the team uses the leverage of zero guarantee.  Using multiple years to lower the cap hit.   It's not 5 years at 14 mil per....lol.

16 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Ham... please stop showing your ignorance of how contracts work.   Absolutely stupid move to " suck up"  anything for one year...it then goes permanently on the books...on a rolling cap you take the full amount off....forever.   just dumb not to spread it out as the cap goes up.

Look back 5 years to the cap #.... look ahead 5 years.   You always want the cap hit to have least effect .

You don’t always want cap hit to have least effect. You’re using the cap number always increasing fails to factor in a very key factor: salaries rise as well. Cap number rises…players salaries rise. Hand in hand. You are missing that you’ll need more money for the same talent to be obtained/retained. More money to spend? Yes. More money needed to spend though…you are sone how missing.

4 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Have to in order to control for sure his rights for the next two seasons. They can get him to sign a new contract. But he has the leverage of 14 mil for next season. So negotiations would have to begin with this being the position of things. Feels like you are just trying to nitpick. But your nitpick isn’t even accurate.

He isn't making $14 mil next season if he gets cut. Zero obligation to pay him from the Eagles.  It's not nitpick. 

3 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

You don’t always want cap hit to have least effect. You’re using the cap number always increasing fails to factor in a very key factor: salaries rise as well. Cap number rises…players salaries rise. Hand in hand. You are missing that you’ll need more money for the same talent to be obtained/retained. More money to spend? Yes. More money needed to spend though…you are sone how missing.

Yes... you always want the cap hit to have the least effect.   Always 

Because you can never get back the cap space you spend.   It's why Dallas has been handcuffed for years.

14 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

See ....it seems you feel the word extension...as something that costs a team.   When done correctly it saves the team money. 

The Eagles are in great shape cap wise.... if they were to make this trade ....they have 3 options

The worst one is to suck up 14 mil next year.    Cutting him is better than sucking up 14 mil.     

And I'll explain why... if your way of thinking that it's dumb for a team to give him a long term deal... then do you think a team would give him $14 mil next year?    Have it all count vs the cap? 

Then it makes no sense  for the Eagles to do it.

Your final statement seemed more like you were getting there actually. Makes zero sense that we’d give up a third for a partial season rental. Unless able to trade him next season off it. Of course I think extension would mean retaining his rights more than just next season. I’m against that. But like I was saying…Rosie could maybe convert much of the 14 to signing bonus to spread out the hits. But you miss that the player doesn’t have to sign and do that. Think there are rules about how this could even be done. You give a third for a guy you’d cut instead of pay 14? Don’t get that. Especially since it’s 18 over the two seasons. 9 mil per for a stud proven S. Nothing crazy about that for me.

5 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

He isn't making $14 mil next season if he gets cut. Zero obligation to pay him from the Eagles.  It's not nitpick. 

To retain him..that’s his leverage. However else I need to word it if you are strictly trying to nitpick all options

The franchise tag is the best example of how you always want the least effect.  Dallas still is feeling the effects of tagging Dak.  The lost space is gone forever.  Plus then they start at new numbers. 

A team is better off missing on a player ...but writing the contract the right way so they can get out of it...than waiting and messing up the contract.  Paying huge numbers one year is absolutely the worst way to handle the cap

12 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Right.. I never said " large amounts " you associate " extension " with  " large amounts "  That's for 3rd to 5th year guys.     When older dudes get " extensions" it's to get the huge salary for one year off the books ( for the team) and give the older player some guaranteed money. 

The $14 mil is a dummie # at the moment.   It's not his worth.  It comes with zero guarantee.  The extension...means at least one more year... obviously would be a way to spread out the $14 mil...and guarantee some of it.  

Let's say $20 mil...spread out over 5 years...he plays 2 or 3 more. 

You save $10 mil or more cap hit next year... you get the player for more than one year... 

14 mil cap hit at 2024 #   vs 20 mil cap hit spread out over 2024-2028 caps...with caps increasing. Absolutely best way to write the contract.

 

Yet it’s not dummie 14 mil. That’s his leverage. It’s important instead of dummie

12 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Because the $14 mil isn't guaranteed.   How did it work out for CGJ?

CJG chose to test the FA market again next season.

2 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Your final statement seemed more like you were getting there actually. Makes zero sense that we’d give up a third for a partial season rental. Unless able to trade him next season off it. Of course I think extension would mean retaining his rights more than just next season. I’m against that. But like I was saying…Rosie could maybe convert much of the 14 to signing bonus to spread out the hits. But you miss that the player doesn’t have to sign and do that. Think there are rules about how this could even be done. You give a third for a guy you’d cut instead of pay 14? Don’t get that. Especially since it’s 18 over the two seasons. 9 mil per for a stud proven S. Nothing crazy about that for me.

Right....it's why I don't see this trade happening without an extension in place

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Yet it’s not dummie 14 mil. That’s his leverage. It’s important instead of dummie

The team has better leverage...no guarantees 

11 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Which is it?   Is he worth 14 mil a season.... or is it stupid to keep him more than one season?

You can't have it both ways.  

It's why I'm saying the team uses the leverage of zero guarantee.  Using multiple years to lower the cap hit.   It's not 5 years at 14 mil per....lol.

Nobody ever thought 14 for 5 years. You keep making bad assumptions and arguing against yourself only here

Just now, joemas6 said:

The team has better leverage...no guarantees 

The team and player have leverage. He sits at costing us 14 for the second season to retain his rights.

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

CJG chose to test the FA market again next season.

And?  What does he have to get to make up for taking less this season?

A 30 year old doesn't have the same leverage to test the market

7 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Yes... you always want the cap hit to have the least effect.   Always 

Because you can never get back the cap space you spend.   It's why Dallas has been handcuffed for years.

Not the case. I’m not getting into six hours of you not comprehending any different path though…again.

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Nobody ever thought 14 for 5 years. You keep making bad assumptions and arguing against yourself only here

So again....14 mil for next season..

Or 20 mil for 2 seasons ...cap spread out over 5?

Which is better?

1 minute ago, joemas6 said:

And?  What does he have to get to make up for taking less this season?

A 30 year old doesn't have the same leverage to test the market

BS. Byard I valued at 14 ish if he hits the open market.

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

Not the case. I’m not getting into six hours of you not comprehending any different path though…again.

But show the numbers...we can look at numbers and see.. .you keep using vague theories without examples and it's why it takes 6 hours.