Childress Forces Eagles to Pony Up...

[tr1]

I love it when a former 'family' member forces the Eagles to spend money. :laugh:

Vikings Prompt Second Front Office Promotion

By Chuck Hixson

Date: Jan 21, 2006

The Philadelphia Eagles are obviously happy with their front office and coaching staff. While they allowed Brad Childress to take the head coaching job in Minnesota, they told him that he wasn't allowed to take any of the Eagles' assistants with him. Now, for the second time this off-season, the Eagles have promoted a player personnel staff member to prevent them from heading to Minnesota.


Earlier this off-season, Minnesota was interested in Eagles vice president of player personnel Tom Heckert. The Eagles blocked the move by giving Heckert a new title - General Manager - and a promotion, presumably with a nice raise. Now, they've promoted assistant director of player personnel Jason Licht to Heckert's old job to prevent Minnesota from hiring him away. The Vikings were interested in both men to take over as their personnel boss.

...
http://eagles.scout.com/2/491264.html

[Eagle091]

"The Philadelphia Eagles are obviously happy with their front office", it was a good fit for both. he deserves the chance to be a head coach. don't qite understand the " I love it when a former 'family' member forces the Eagles to spend money" part, since the eagles have spent the most money on players than any other team in recent history.

[dockeryfan]

Childress knew he was going to have to look elsewhere for his assistants.
I believe it was an understanding between him and Reid.
And Eagle, it's been discussed here about who spends the most on teams. It's not the Eagles, although they do spend a lot. Just because someone says they are the top on a message board, and it gets bounced around the echo chamber, doesn't mean it's true. Lets see how they spend their money in March rather than November.
We'll get to see just how much of a splash they make in free agency. The Eagles have a lot of holes to fill before they decide who they will target in the draft.

[tr1]

"The Philadelphia Eagles are obviously happy with their front office", it was a good fit for both. he deserves the chance to be a head coach. don't qite understand the " I love it when a former 'family' member forces the Eagles to spend money" part, since the eagles have spent the most money on players than any other team in recent history.

Repeat this myth if you want, but when you don't include bonuses, it rings hollow.

[Westbrook36]

tr1, why do you insist on continually repeating incorrect information? The numbers posted were total salary numbers, INCLUDING ALL BONUS'S for a period of 5 years where the Eagles led the NFL. Why on earth do you think they'd tabulate total money paid out by team but leave out bonuses? Deep down, you probably don't but you now realize an argument you've hung your hat on for so many threads makes you now look like a complete moron so you have to attempt to lie or spin obvious facts.

Good luck with that.

[tr1]

tr1, why do you insist on continually repeating incorrect information? The numbers posted were total salary numbers, INCLUDING ALL BONUS'S for a period of 5 years where the Eagles led the NFL. Why on earth do you think they'd tabulate total money paid out by team but leave out bonuses? Deep down, you probably don't but you now realize an argument you've hung your hat on for so many threads makes you now look like a complete moron so you have to attempt to lie or spin obvious facts.

Good luck with that.

You know, this is the third time I've asked if the figures included bonuses...the silence was deafening. Now what's the link to that USAToday story again?

[Westbrook36]

You know, this is the third time I've asked if the figures included bonuses...the silence was deafening. Now what's the link to that USAToday story again?

We were probably ignoring you because you get tiresome when you make definitive statements like "The Eagles are still cheap....those numbers don't include bonus's" when, in fact, you don't really know. Seriously, why don't we all just drop the bs and talk football without having to try to stick **** up each other's asses? There are like 20-30 people who consistantly post in Around the NFL. I'd like to think we have our own special place to talk about the NFL without opinions getting diluted by stupidity. Why don't you help us out and stop with the antagonistic crap?

[tr1]

We were probably ignoring you because you get tiresome when you make definitive statements like "The Eagles are still cheap....those numbers don't include bonus's" when, in fact, you don't really know. Seriously, why don't we all just drop the bs and talk football without having to try to stick **** up each other's asses? There are like 20-30 people who consistantly post in Around the NFL. I'd like to think we have our own special place to talk about the NFL without opinions getting diluted by stupidity. Why don't you help us out and stop with the antagonistic crap?

Here's an article where the Eagles weren't number one in spending:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44179-2005Jan28.html

Do you have the USAToday link?

[tr1]

And here's an interesting quote from that article, "The method utilized by the players' union for computing teams' payrolls allows for comparisons of the clubs' spending habits, but does not necessarily reflect how much cash a team actually spent on players in a year." Hmmm....

[Westbrook36]

And here's an interesting quote from that article, "The method utilized by the players' union for computing teams' payrolls allows for comparisons of the clubs' spending habits, but does not necessarily reflect how much cash a team actually spent on players in a year." Hmmm....

The USA today is TOTAL MONEY. The link you posted was for one year. But, even if we go off of your link, the Eagles are second. Do you think a team that is second in total money spent deserves a thread or two a day by you about how cheap they are? Pretty stupid right?

You can do your own search for the USA Today link. I've shown it to you like 5 times already. Do a search for "Eagles cheap" and I'm sure you'll find it in no time.

[tr1]

The reality is that no one knows (except the NFL who isn't sharing) how much teams spent on salaries over x number of years...it's all a guess.

So how does one come to the conclusion that a team is cheap? It's through the amount of money it comes in at under the cap...a number that says a team is not spending allocated money. And by the way it sends players packing when it can afford to pay them...(send them packing precisely because of their cost and nothing else.)

Wow...that Eagles spending more on players in the last five years really is looking like a myth, isn't it? And as for a discussion, I just gave you some points...go ahead and refute them, but don't lower yourself to name calling and patronization.

Maybe you want to take your ball and go home now? :laugh:

[Westbrook36]

The Eagles never come in under the cap. What are you talking about? They are right against the cap every year.....they were 6.5 million under this year but transferred the money to 06 because of the Simon cut on August 28th.....there was simply noone of any caliber to sign at that point.

I love how when faced with facts, you just say "Wow...that Eagles spending more on players in the last five years really is looking like a myth, isn't it?" when you are the only one who came up with that and with no facts to back the statement up.

[tr1]

The Eagles never come in under the cap. What are you talking about? They are right against the cap every year.....they were 6.5 million under this year but transferred the money to 06 because of the Simon cut on August 28th.....there was simply noone of any caliber to sign at that point.

I love how when faced with facts, you just say "Wow...that Eagles spending more on players in the last five years really is looking like a myth, isn't it?" when you are the only one who came up with that and with no facts to back the statement up.

So the Eagles sat on their cap because there was no one to sign? :doh:

I still haven't seen a link to that USAToday story...I'd like to read it.

As for the FACT that no one knows what teams are spending on players except the NFL, please, do you have a comment? No. I didn't think so.

Just because Eagles fans continue to say things over and over again doesn't make them true.

[Westbrook36]

So the Eagles sat on their cap because there was no one to sign? :doh:

I still haven't seen a link to that USAToday story...I'd like to read it.

As for the FACT that no one knows what teams are spending on players except the NFL, please, do you have a comment? No. I didn't think so.

Just because Eagles fans continue to say things over and over again doesn't make them true.

Why didn't you read the USA Today story when I posted in 5 previous times instead of just automatically denouncing it?

You say noone knows what teams are spending but we have a reputable source printing the numbers....hmmmm, who are we to believe?

[WinSkins]

We were probably ignoring you because you get tiresome when you make definitive statements like "The Eagles are still cheap....those numbers don't include bonus's" when, in fact, you don't really know. Seriously, why don't we all just drop the bs and talk football without having to try to stick **** up each other's asses? There are like 20-30 people who consistantly post in Around the NFL. I'd like to think we have our own special place to talk about the NFL without opinions getting diluted by stupidity. Why don't you help us out and stop with the antagonistic crap?

Seems like if you don't like the hotel or the neighborhood, you'd choose to go and stay elsewhere...did you lose your way while looking for extreme-iggles board?

[dockeryfan]

The Eagles never come in under the cap. What are you talking about? They are right against the cap every year.....they were 6.5 million under this year but transferred the money to 06 because of the Simon cut on August 28th.....there was simply noone of any caliber to sign at that point.

I love how when faced with facts, you just say "Wow...that Eagles spending more on players in the last five years really is looking like a myth, isn't it?" when you are the only one who came up with that and with no facts to back the statement up.
They could have spent it on the Westbrook or Akers deals pushing the money from later years to 2005.
They could have re-signed Michael Lewis, if they are still going in that direction.
They could have given Dawkins a well deserved bonus.
They could have signed Runyan to a lucrative 1 year extension with the bonus money in 2005.
They had options. Leaving money on the table was the worst if you are trying to build a winning franchise.

[TerpsEagles]

They could have spent it on the Westbrook or Akers deals pushing the money from later years to 2005.
They could have re-signed Michael Lewis, if they are still going in that direction.
They could have given Dawkins a well deserved bonus.
They could have signed Runyan to a lucrative 1 year extension with the bonus money in 2005.
They had options. Leaving money on the table was the worst if you are trying to build a winning franchise.

The worst ? ummmm, okay. Give me an example where spending all your $$ directly results or resulted in a championship.

How has it worked out for the Skins since Snyder took over ?

Fact is that some teams that spend unwisely and spend all they have, don't necessarily win. Just as some teams that don't spend like that, also don't win.

But I guess it's fun to say "If your team did X, then Y would be the result".... it just doesn't work that way in reality. There is absolutely no guarantee that the Eagles would have won a SB had they done the things on your list.

(btw, aside from the Pats, the Eagles have won more games than any other NFL team over the past 5 years. They've come up short of the ultimate goal each year, along w/ every other team not named the Pats, Bucs, or Rams or Ravens, but in comparison to the rest of the NFL, they are a winning franchise)

[dockeryfan]

The worst ? ummmm, okay. Give me an example where spending all your $$ directly results or resulted in a championship.

How has it worked out for the Skins since Snyder took over ?

Fact is that some teams that spend unwisely and spend all they have, don't necessarily win. Just as some teams that don't spend like that, also don't win.

But I guess it's fun to say "If your team did X, then Y would be the result".... it just doesn't work that way in reality. There is absolutely no guarantee that the Eagles would have won a SB had they done the things on your list.

(btw, aside from the Pats, the Eagles have won more games than any other NFL team over the past 5 years. They've come up short of the ultimate goal each year, along w/ every other team not named the Pats, Bucs, or Rams or Ravens, but in comparison to the rest of the NFL, they are a winning franchise)
WTF are you talking about?
This was money they were going to spend.
Tell me how NOT paying Westbrook his guaranteed money in 2005 helped them. It's guaranteed. He will get it in later years, if he gets cut, they will pay it immediately. Why not just pay it in 2005, rather than later where it will count against that years cap.
Same for the Akers deal.
This has to be one of the stupidest responses I've ever heard. You took my post and posted a response that was a blast against the Redskins and a stroke job for the Eagles.
Trouble is, you didn't even comment on my original post.
I think I'm stupider for having read your post.

[Westbrook36]

They could have spent it on the Westbrook or Akers deals pushing the money from later years to 2005.
They could have re-signed Michael Lewis, if they are still going in that direction.
They could have given Dawkins a well deserved bonus.
They could have signed Runyan to a lucrative 1 year extension with the bonus money in 2005.
They had options. Leaving money on the table was the worst if you are trying to build a winning franchise.

They still have the option to do all of those things right now as the money has been moved to 06. The same exact thing as the Skins did. Didn't Danny want to win the SB this year? Why would he not spend every dime he could?

[EnFoRcEr_uPu]

We'll get to see just how much of a splash they make in free agency. The Eagles have a lot of holes to fill before they decide who they will target in the draft.
Yea, people say our need for a WR is huge. Just imagine how the Eagles feel now w/o TO, lol.

[Westbrook36]

Dockery, its foolish for you to be on a messageboard and say it was foolish for the Eagles FO not to move X money to Y person in 05, etc. You don't know the Eagles longterm plan or who they have earmarked with that money.

Again, it's been pushed to 06. What if Heckert has his eye on Will Witherspoon and needed extra capital pushed into 06 so they could make a run at him? Or Rocky Benard. Or Reggie Wayne. Whoever. It doesn't matter, your point is still wrong.

They didn't lose the right to spend that money and will have more flexibility in 06 because of it. Your contention is they should have gave more money upfront to a player already signed. Come on, don't come in here with that weak sauce.

[dockeryfan]

Dockery, its foolish for you to be on a messageboard and say it was foolish for the Eagles FO not to move X money to Y person in 05, etc. You don't know the Eagles longterm plan or who they have earmarked with that money.

Again, it's been pushed to 06. What if Heckert has his eye on Will Witherspoon and needed extra capital pushed into 06 so they could make a run at him? Or Rocky Benard. Or Reggie Wayne. Whoever. It doesn't matter, your point is still wrong.

They didn't lose the right to spend that money and will have more flexibility in 06 because of it. Your contention is they should have gave more money upfront to a player already signed. Come on, don't come in here with that weak sauce.
You are assuming the money I'm talking about was able to be transferred to the 2006 cap.
There were two reports that said they were under the cap for 2005. Not that they would be getting money transferred to the 2006 cap, simply that they were actually UNDER the cap in dollars spent.

The Eagles do this every year. They spend money just before the deadline that has to be earmarked for that year. 2005 was no different. The reports are that they DID spend just before the deadline, but they didn't spend it all.

That money would not be able to be transferred to the 2006 cap. It was lost money.
(or saved money if you are Lurie)
That money can't be moved to 2006 for anything.
So they WOULD lose the right to spend that money.

[dockeryfan]

Westbrook36, go ahead and look at this salary cap page. I believe that guy ADAMJT13 (that has made some posts here at Extremeskins) has some input into the site.
http://www.geocities.com/eaglescap/
Go ahead and link the 2005 page.

If I'm reading that right, they were 6,323,780 under the cap in 2005. Not any of this money will be able to be transferred to 2006. It's just that they didn't spend all they could.

This number agrees with the number I saw BTW. At least close enough.

My point is they had the opportunity to spend that money on the Akers and Westbrook deals. For instance, Westbrook is due a 3Mil bonus in 2006.
Why not just make that bonus applicable to 2005 and reduce his cap number in 2006 by 3 Mil? It just didn't make sense. You were writing a contract anyway. And it wasn't like they were under a time constraint. They agreed to the deal before the deadline, but it didn't need to be signed until 12/31.
They could have done the same thing by increasing Akers number. There was a new contract anyway.
This was a mistake IMO, but I'm no cap exert by a longshot.

[Westbrook36]

All of Westbrooks arguments in this thread are baseless. If the CBA is not extended, 2007 is an UNCAPPED year. You simply renegoiate and pay out a huge 2007 salary. The best scenaio in the world for the Skins is if the CBA is not extended.

Dock, I hate to be so blunt but you are 100 percent wrong. This money was attached to a LBTE incentive for roughly 6.5 million dollars. The Skins transferred about 1.2 million for Rock Cartwright. I posted a link confirming this information but I somehow can't find it now because I can't remember correct search terms.

When the season is almost over and Joe Banner can see that they do not need any more cap room, he writes incentives into players contract. Since these incentives are added during the course of a season, they are considered "Likely To Be Earned"(LTBE). LTBE incentives are always counted against the cap.

This means that Joe Banner can write an incentive in Billy McMullen's contract where he will get 1 million for scoring 25 touchdowns. Even though there is no chance of this happenning, it is considered likely to be earned, so it is counted against the cap. Well, at the end of the season when Billy McMullen did not score 25 touchdowns and did not get paid the 1 million, what happens to the 1 million in cap room that the eagles used for this? It gets added to the eagles cap the next year as a cap credit.

In this way the eagles can actually increase their salary cap above the league's base salary cap. So even though the "salary cap" is 85.5 million, the eagles cap is actually 86,897,961. This can also work the other way, where a team's salary cap can actually be lowered. For example, the Steelers salary cap is only 80,111,975. So the eagles can have 5 million in cap room and the Steelers can spend to their limit but the Eagles would actually be spending more.

The resident Eagles cap expert has his own page.....check it out sometime for some easy reading if you ever have a question on the Eagles relating to the cap:

http://www.geocities.com/eaglescap/

Edit- Why would you link me to a page showing the Eagles transferred 6.5 million and then argue the exact opposite?

[TerpsEagles]

It's right on the link you posted:

+ LTBE Credits 6,500,00

So going back to my post that made you stupider after reading it..... Had the Eagles done those things on your list... there is no way to say whether it would have helped or hurt them on the field...... they would have had less cap room in 2006 however, no ?

and Dockery... for the record... chill man, I wasn't trying to be a smartarse to you in my first response... sorry if came across that way... to me the whole issue of spending cap $$ can always be looked at from any angle you want ..... doing those things you mentioned could have benefited the Eagles.... we'll never know..... but also, doing those things may have had no impact... and it may have used some $$ that they have marked for something else this season...

'eh, who knows.

later

[tr1]

This means that Joe Banner can write an incentive in Billy McMullen's contract where he will get 1 million for scoring 25 touchdowns. Even though there is no chance of this happenning, it is considered likely to be earned, so it is counted against the cap. Well, at the end of the season when Billy McMullen did not score 25 touchdowns and did not get paid the 1 million, what happens to the 1 million in cap room that the eagles used for this? It gets added to the eagles cap the next year as a cap credit.


Take a look at your logic. Incentivize contracts to unreasonable goals and save money for what? For next year....forget about this year. :doh:

If the Eagles had spent money this year, they wouldn't have been so lousy looking when they plugged in second stringers...

It means you don't invest in your players because they're, in the teams' opinion, not worth it.

And you wonder why every year there are about a half dozen Eagles clamoring to get out. :doh:

Go ahead, save your cap space...it's like pissing on your players.

[dockeryfan]

I'm not sure the table is set up the way you think it is.
The one column is labeled RB +Inc. I'm assuming that is where the LTBE credits are coming from.
If you total it up, it comes to 6,657,070. I think this is where the 6.5 Mil figure comes from.
If you total all the cap numbers, you get a figure. Add the IR, PUP, dead money, etc and you still come up 6.3 mil short, even with the LTBE incentives included. At least that's what it looks like to me. LTBE has to be paid in THAT YEAR, for you to get a credit in the next year. This 6.3 mil short figure doesn't seem to be the number being carried over. Look at it again. If I'm looking at this wrong, show me where.

[tr1]

So going back to my post that made you stupider after reading it..... Had the Eagles done those things on your list... there is no way to say whether it would have helped or hurt them on the field...... they would have had less cap room in 2006 however, no ?


Wow! This post topped your last one. Think about it, you're conceding trying to field the best team you can each year, for what? To have cap room for next year.

The reason there is a cap is to incentivize owners to spend the limit...any owner who doesn't is rightfully deemed as being cheap...

[dockeryfan]

Dock, I hate to be so blunt but you are 100 percent wrong. This money was attached to a LBTE incentive for roughly 6.5 million dollars. The Skins transferred about 1.2 million for Rock Cartwright. I posted a link confirming this information but I somehow can't find it now because I can't remember correct search terms.

When the season is almost over and Joe Banner can see that they do not need any more cap room, he writes incentives into players contract. Since these incentives are added during the course of a season, they are considered "Likely To Be Earned"(LTBE). LTBE incentives are always counted against the cap.

This means that Joe Banner can write an incentive in Billy McMullen's contract where he will get 1 million for scoring 25 touchdowns. Even though there is no chance of this happenning, it is considered likely to be earned, so it is counted against the cap. Well, at the end of the season when Billy McMullen did not score 25 touchdowns and did not get paid the 1 million, what happens to the 1 million in cap room that the eagles used for this? It gets added to the eagles cap the next year as a cap credit.

In this way the eagles can actually increase their salary cap above the league's base salary cap. So even though the "salary cap" is 85.5 million, the eagles cap is actually 86,897,961. This can also work the other way, where a team's salary cap can actually be lowered. For example, the Steelers salary cap is only 80,111,975. So the eagles can have 5 million in cap room and the Steelers can spend to their limit but the Eagles would actually be spending more.

The resident Eagles cap expert has his own page.....check it out sometime for some easy reading if you ever have a question on the Eagles relating to the cap:

http://www.geocities.com/eaglescap/

Edit- Why would you link me to a page showing the Eagles transferred 6.5 million and then argue the exact opposite?
BTW, why did you quote someone else and then respond to me? :D

[Westbrook36]

Take a look at your logic. Incentivize contracts to unreasonable goals and save money for what? For next year....forget about this year. :doh:

If the Eagles had spent money this year, they wouldn't have been so lousy looking when they plugged in second stringers...

It means you don't invest in your players because they're, in the teams' opinion, not worth it.

And you wonder why every year there are about a half dozen Eagles clamoring to get out. :doh:

Go ahead, save your cap space...it's like pissing on your players.

Are you aware that the Redskins did the same exact thing this year? Man, I wonder if another player would have been the difference against Seattle. How are you going to spin this!?!? Man, looks like you just put your foot in your mouth again. Joe Gibbs cheated the fans! :laugh:

[Westbrook36]

Dock, I don't care to break down how this guy has his website setup. The simple fact is the Eagles carried over 6.5 million. I seen a link and posted the numbers for all the teams in the NFL in the stadium about two weeks ago.

BTW, LTBE incentives don't have to be paid to be transferred.....its actually the exact opposite. They have to NOT BE paid in order to be transferred.

[Westbrook36]

BTW, why did you quote someone else and then respond to me? :D

Whoops! :cool:

[tr1]

Are you aware that the Redskins did the same exact thing this year? Man, I wonder if another player would have been the difference against Seattle. How are you going to spin this!?!? Man, looks like you just put your foot in your mouth again. Joe Gibbs cheated the fans! :laugh:

What in the world are you talking about?

[Westbrook36]

Wow! This post topped your last one. Think about it, you're conceding trying to field the best team you can each year, for what? To have cap room for next year.

The reason there is a cap is to incentivize owners to spend the limit...any owner who doesn't is rightfully deemed as being cheap...

Dock, what you are forgetting is that the Eagles got this 6.5 million on August 28th. Now, who was available that they could have gotten better in 2005 if they used this money? Don't tell me about players already on our roster. You just made a statement....back it up!

[tr1]

Dock, I don't care to break down how this guy has his website setup. The simple fact is the Eagles carried over 6.5 million. I seen a link and posted the numbers for all the teams in the NFL in the stadium about two weeks ago.

BTW, LTBE incentives don't have to be paid to be transferred.....its actually the exact opposite. They have to NOT BE paid in order to be transferred.

Nice way not to answer his question... :doh:

[tr1]

Dock, what you are forgetting is that the Eagles got this 6.5 million on August 28th. Now, who was available that they could have gotten better in 2005 if they used this money? Don't tell me about players already on our roster. You just made a statement....back it up!

Have you been drinking? :laugh:

Well, you could have gotten better ST players at least. And you could have paid TO to shut him up in the first place...before he became corrosive. But no, the Eagles stood firm with TO...no re-negotiation...even after coming back with a bad leg for the SB.

[dockeryfan]

Dock, I don't care to break down how this guy has his website setup. The simple fact is the Eagles carried over 6.5 million. I seen a link and posted the numbers for all the teams in the NFL in the stadium about two weeks ago.

BTW, LTBE incentives don't have to be paid to be transferred.....its actually the exact opposite. They have to NOT BE paid in order to be transferred.
Whatever. I'm trying to figure out how they did this. They carried over 6.5 mil, but it doesn't look like it came from the 6.3 mil shortfall.
And LTBE incentives have to be counted toward the cap that year. (They don't get "paid" until the incentives are earned, but they do get counted.
That's my point. The cap number for each individual has a LTBE already included if it's there.
The total of the cap numbers still comes up 6.3mil short.

[tr1]

doc, you've brought out the crickets...

[dockeryfan]

Dock, what you are forgetting is that the Eagles got this 6.5 million on August 28th. Now, who was available that they could have gotten better in 2005 if they used this money? Don't tell me about players already on our roster. You just made a statement....back it up!
Now you quote TR1 and respond to me?!? :silly:
They were 9.4 mil under the cap in august after they lifted the franchise tag on Simon. I didn't ever say they should have picked up new players. Just that they could have spent the shortfall on existing players.
It's going to get hard to respond to you when you are responding to other people's posts and putting them on me :silly:

[hercules]

It's going to get hard to respond to you when you are responding to other people's posts and putting them on me :silly:
This has been an entertaining thread! :munchout:

[Westbrook36]

It's going to get hard to respond to you when you are responding to other people's posts and putting them on me :silly:

I don't know how I'm doing that. Anyway, onto the thread.....

tr1, I didn't answer his question because I know the Eagles carried over the 6.5 million and didn't want to try to rationalize the numbers on another Eagle fan's website. They carried over 6.5 million. I don't care how they did it....they did it!

Just like the Skins carried over 1 million and some change. Are they now cheap like the Eagles because they could have used that million for 05 but foolishly carried it over to 06!?!? I don't understand. Please help me out.

FOUND IT! HERE IS THE INFO FROM THE THREAD TWO WEEKS AGO THAT I MADE:


Any of you who frequent the KFFL.com message boards will be familiar with AdamJT13. He works in some front office capacity in the NFL. This is not a rumor, or his own boastings, this is a fact. He sent out an email showing LTBE incentives for 2005 carried over to 2006.

It appears that 18 teams used the LTBE loophole to push unused cap room from 2005 into 2006 by adding an unreachable incentive to a player's contract in December.

Here are the teams, the player(s) and the amount --

Arizona -- Jeremy Bridges $800,000
Atlanta -- Dwayne Blakley $500,000 (also got a $1,000 raise)
Baltimore -- Aaron Elling $750,000
Chicago -- Gabe Reid $600,000
Cleveland -- Ray Mickens $1,570,431 and John Owens $635,000
Detroit -- Jared DeVries $240,000
Green Bay -- Craig Nall $1,600,000
Houston -- Corey Bradford $2,000,000
Jacksonville -- Quinn Gray $2,800,000
Kansas City -- Tony Richardson $3,682,000
Minnesota -- Joseph Echema $1,909,000
New Orleans -- Terrence Melton $1,668,845
NY Giants -- Frank Walker $1,175,000
Oakland -- James Adkisson $571,804
Philadelphia -- Jack Brewer $6,500,000
San Diego -- Reche Caldwell $500,000
St. Louis -- Dwaine Carpenter $2,820,000
Washington -- Rock Cartwright $1,151,425

[Westbrook36]

Whatever. I'm trying to figure out how they did this. They carried over 6.5 mil, but it doesn't look like it came from the 6.3 mil shortfall.
And LTBE incentives have to be counted toward the cap that year. (They don't get "paid" until the incentives are earned, but they do get counted.
That's my point. The cap number for each individual has a LTBE already included if it's there.
The total of the cap numbers still comes up 6.3mil short.

They added a 6.5 million dollar LTBE incentive on Jack Brewer's contract in December which wasn't reflected on that salary cap blog.

[Westbrook36]

doc, you've brought out the crickets...

I'm in Hawaii and five hours behind. Some of us have to work. :cool:

[dockeryfan]

They added a 6.5 million dollar LTBE incentive on Jack Brewer's contract in December which wasn't reflected on that salary cap blog.
Well then it makes sense.
It just didn't seem like they would leave money on the table like that.
11/16/2005 Jack Brewer signs a one year deal. OK. Mystery solved. Good move by the FO then.

[Westbrook36]

Well then it makes sense.
It just didn't seem like they would leave money on the table like that.
11/16/2005 Jack Brewer signs a one year deal. OK. Mystery solved. Good move by the FO then.

See, this is why I like you. I can have some sort of closure in a football discussion with you because you will concede and admit certain things.

I'll still wait patiently for tr1 to explain why the Skins aren't cheap and not commited to winning if they used a 1.1 million dollar LTBE incentive to transfer that money over to 06 when they could have signed another player with that money in 05.

tr1???

[Y100Rocks]

Have you been drinking? :laugh:

Well, you could have gotten better ST players at least. And you could have paid TO to shut him up in the first place...before he became corrosive. But no, the Eagles stood firm with TO...no re-negotiation...even after coming back with a bad leg for the SB.

So you are saying that TO should have gotten a new contract then? Even after lashing out against Donovan? What did that have to do with getting a new contract? Things would have been just fine if he got more money?

[tr1]

So you are saying that TO should have gotten a new contract then? Even after lashing out against Donovan? What did that have to do with getting a new contract? Things would have been just fine if he got more money?

With the exception to a game during the '04 season, and a pithy remark he made about DM during the SB (which was quickly diffused by both parties), TO didn't start acting up until the Eagles refused to discuss renegotiating his contract.

As much as I dislike the guy, he did come back to play in the SB from an injury that would have stopped a lot of people. They should have paid him more money right there, but, you know the rest of the story.

It's not like they couldn't afford to pay him more.

[tr1]

See, this is why I like you. I can have some sort of closure in a football discussion with you because you will concede and admit certain things.

I'll still wait patiently for tr1 to explain why the Skins aren't cheap and not commited to winning if they used a 1.1 million dollar LTBE incentive to transfer that money over to 06 when they could have signed another player with that money in 05.

tr1???

The answer is LTBE vs NLTBE...when LTBEs are written into a contract, the expectation, based on previous year's performance, is that they will be earned...not left on the table...unless you're the Eagles.

NLTBEs are not counted against the cap.

So why didn't the Eagles incentivize TO's contract before he blew up?

Answer: "The key to the whole thing is on page 124 of the CBA, which states that "Any new or altered incentive bonuses renegotiated in a pre-existing contract after the start of the regular season in which they may be earned automatically will be deamed "likely to be earned" during that season". This means that a team could write any incentive into a contract, and it will still be considered LTBE and counted against the cap. So if a team has 3 million in cap room at the end of the season and knows they won't use it, they can write bogus incentives into player's contracts to create LTBE incentives that won't be achieved. This makes the LTBE incentives not achieved greather (sic) than the NLTBE incentives achieved, so the team's salary cap is raised the following year." http://www.geocities.com/eaglescap/FAQ.html (I'll go out on a limb here and rely on an Eagles fan's explanation.)

In other words, to renegotiate during the season guarantees a cap hit. The Eagles were more interested in saving cap room, than spending money during the current year in order to win...or they figured TO was bluffing and could win without paying him more....anything not to spend that extra cash!

When signing TO was out of the question because of his behavior, and before WB got hurt, the Eagles renegotiated with WB (I wonder what they would have done, if he had been injured earlier.)

But, let's look at the Jack Brewer signing....why use LTBE incentives vs a regular contract with him? Answer...to carry over cap and not look like they left money behind (I'm not sure that unspent cap moves to the next year. I think not because the LTBE charade wouldn't be needed)...when in fact, they did. He was signed in November. Did he make that $6.5 million for 1.5 months work? Was that a realistic expectation? No.

Any way you slice it or dice it, the Eagles didn't want to spend what they could...be it for current players or players to plug-in in backup roles.

They just don't like spending money...and it flies in the face of the spirit of the CBA.

I'll bet the Eagles NLTBE numbers are always higher than the Redskins...

And I still haven't seen that link to the USAToday article.

[TerpsEagles]

As much as I dislike the guy, he did come back to play in the SB from an injury that would have stopped a lot of people. They should have paid him more money right there, but, you know the rest of the story.

It's not like they couldn't afford to pay him more.

No, they shouldn't have. He was entering the 2nd year of a contract that he signed that essentially made him one of the top 3 paid WR in the league. Had they done what you suggested, and this was discussed ad nauseum back then, it would have opened up a pandora's box and players would start lining up around the league, suddenly disgruntled and trying to force the teams hand. I'm sure Snyder and Gibbs and the Skins front office was behind the Eagles on that stance.

It has nothing to do w/ being able to afford it. Nothing. Not in the T.O. case.

[Westbrook36]

The answer is LTBE vs NLTBE...when LTBEs are written into a contract, the expectation, based on previous year's performance, is that they will be earned...not left on the table...unless you're the Eagles.

NLTBEs are not counted against the cap.

So why didn't the Eagles incentivize TO's contract before he blew up?

Answer: "The key to the whole thing is on page 124 of the CBA, which states that "Any new or altered incentive bonuses renegotiated in a pre-existing contract after the start of the regular season in which they may be earned automatically will be deamed "likely to be earned" during that season". This means that a team could write any incentive into a contract, and it will still be considered LTBE and counted against the cap. So if a team has 3 million in cap room at the end of the season and knows they won't use it, they can write bogus incentives into player's contracts to create LTBE incentives that won't be achieved. This makes the LTBE incentives not achieved greather (sic) than the NLTBE incentives achieved, so the team's salary cap is raised the following year." http://www.geocities.com/eaglescap/FAQ.html (I'll go out on a limb here and rely on an Eagles fan's explanation.)

In other words, to renegotiate during the season guarantees a cap hit. The Eagles were more interested in saving cap room, than spending money during the current year in order to win...or they figured TO was bluffing and could win without paying him more....anything not to spend that extra cash!

When signing TO was out of the question because of his behavior, and before WB got hurt, the Eagles renegotiated with WB (I wonder what they would have done, if he had been injured earlier.)

But, let's look at the Jack Brewer signing....why use LTBE incentives vs a regular contract with him? Answer...to carry over cap and not look like they left money behind (I'm not sure that unspent cap moves to the next year. I think not because the LTBE charade wouldn't be needed)...when in fact, they did. He was signed in November. Did he make that $6.5 million for 1.5 months work? Was that a realistic expectation? No.

Any way you slice it or dice it, the Eagles didn't want to spend what they could...be it for current players or players to plug-in in backup roles.

They just don't like spending money...and it flies in the face of the spirit of the CBA.

I'll bet the Eagles NLTBE numbers are always higher than the Redskins...

And I still haven't seen that link to the USAToday article.

God, you are a moron. The SKINS DID THE SAME EXACT THING ON CARTWRIGHTS CONTRACT TO CARRY MONEY OVER TO 06.

No amount of meaningless garbage that you post because you don't want to deal with that fact is going to change it.

Why did the Skins add a LTBE incentive on Cartwright's contract instead of signing more players for 05 to help them win?

Why are you avoiding this and trying to sidetrack the discussion?

[tr1]

Is this what you're referring to? http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140123&highlight=LTBE+cartwright
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I'm not seeing any LTBE here:
http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=71&p=8&c=1&yr=2005&nid=1843866

2004 - Washington:
<Contract And Cap Info:
Contract Year: 2002
Contract Term : 3 years
Free Agency Year: 2005 (RFA)
Base Salary: $0.905M
Signing Bonus: $0.030M
Other Bonus:
Performance Incentives:
Total Contract Value: $0.935M
Contract Notes :

Year: 2002 2003 2004
Cap Hit: $0.235M $0.310M $0.390M
Base: $0.225M $0.300M $0.380M
SB Alloc: $0.010M $0.010M $0.010M


WB, man, I thought you were smarter than this. Let's see, the Redskins use LTBE for Cartwright in 2005 to save a bit over a million next year when they are many million over the cap right now.

Whereas the Eagles save $6.5 million towards next year's cap when they are way under the cap.

I'm stunned. No, I'm totally amused. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

When did the Redskins sign Cartwright? In November? :laugh: :laugh:

Signing Rock with LTBE to save money for next year....BWa...bwaaa...BWAAhahahahahhhaahahaaaaahha aaa....

[natsfan3]

tr1, why do you insist on continually repeating incorrect information? The numbers posted were total salary numbers, INCLUDING ALL BONUS'S for a period of 5 years where the Eagles led the NFL. Why on earth do you think they'd tabulate total money paid out by team but leave out bonuses? Deep down, you probably don't but you now realize an argument you've hung your hat on for so many threads makes you now look like a complete moron so you have to attempt to lie or spin obvious facts.

Good luck with that.


Um your wrong. Those number DO NOT indicate players that were released. They are for contracts given. Not all were actually payed. In fact if you take a deeper look the Eagles rarely ever pay on the life of a contract. They are know for cutting tioes with players before they have to pay the big bucks. Hence why they are below the salary cap annually. Get your facts right before you come on here and try to act like a know it all.

[Westbrook36]

Is this what you're referring to? http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140123&highlight=LTBE+cartwright
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I'm not seeing any LTBE here:
http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=71&p=8&c=1&yr=2005&nid=1843866

2004 - Washington:
<Contract And Cap Info:
Contract Year: 2002
Contract Term : 3 years
Free Agency Year: 2005 (RFA)
Base Salary: $0.905M
Signing Bonus: $0.030M
Other Bonus:
Performance Incentives:
Total Contract Value: $0.935M
Contract Notes :

Year: 2002 2003 2004
Cap Hit: $0.235M $0.310M $0.390M
Base: $0.225M $0.300M $0.380M
SB Alloc: $0.010M $0.010M $0.010M


WB, man, I thought you were smarter than this. Let's see, the Redskins use LTBE for Cartwright in 2005 to save a bit over a million next year when they are many million over the cap right now.

Whereas the Eagles save $6.5 million towards next year's cap when they are way under the cap.

I'm stunned. No, I'm totally amused. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

When did the Redskins sign Cartwright? In November? :laugh: :laugh:

Signing Rock with LTBE to save money for next year....BWa...bwaaa...BWAAhahahahahhhaahahaaaaahha aaa....

You can add a LBTE incentive on any player at any time. They added one to Cartwright in December. It doesn't have to be added when you first sign a player like the Eagles did. See, you have such a small grasp on things that if you can't google it right away, you are left dumbfounded.

So it's ok to not use that million to help 2005? Your earlier argument was how cheap the Eagles were for not using all of 2005's cap to help the team and now you find out the Skins did THE SAME EXACT THING and the story changes.

Interesting.

[Westbrook36]

Um your wrong. Those number DO NOT indicate players that were released. They are for contracts given. Not all were actually payed. In fact if you take a deeper look the Eagles rarely ever pay on the life of a contract. They are know for cutting tioes with players before they have to pay the big bucks. Hence why they are below the salary cap annually. Get your facts right before you come on here and try to act like a know it all.

The numbers were for money paid. What the hell are you talking about? Prove your claims instead of just saying "this is the way it is" without anything to back up your claim.

[dockeryfan]

No, they shouldn't have. He was entering the 2nd year of a contract that he signed that essentially made him one of the top 3 paid WR in the league. Had they done what you suggested, and this was discussed ad nauseum back then, it would have opened up a pandora's box and players would start lining up around the league, suddenly disgruntled and trying to force the teams hand. I'm sure Snyder and Gibbs and the Skins front office was behind the Eagles on that stance.

It has nothing to do w/ being able to afford it. Nothing. Not in the T.O. case.
I disagreed then, and I disagree now.
After the Super Bowl, it would have been a wise PR move to give TO a bonus for getting to and playing in the Super Bowl. Without him, it probably would have been more lopsided. They had inklings he was unhappy, it would have been good PR at the least. Just tie it into good behavior like the rest of his contract. This was before he was asking for a renegotiation.
There is no way for people to convince me that the Eagles FO handled the TO situation well. I followed what was done, and saw the negative effect it had on the team. It wasn't just TO at fault.
I said it before. Good managers know that you cannot handle each situation exactly the same. By taking the hard line the whole time, I firmly believe they made a mistake.
And I think Banners demotion of sorts, making him a cap guy only and removing him from dealings with players and agents, is a reflection of what the Eagles organization thinks as well.

[Westbrook36]

Of course the Eagles didn't handle the TO situation perfectly. I don't think anyone is suggesting that....

I'm not even suggesting that the Skins were cheap in 2005 by carrying over a million of that year's cap to 2006. I just dislike the intellectually dishonest arguments posed in this thread about how the Eagles are cheap for doing that but the Skins are not because "It was less than the Eagles" or "They are over the cap in 2006".

Excusing the same behavior because of conditions you bring to the table throws away all the credibility that a poster might have had before. Unfortunately, we are talking about tr1 and we all know he has no credibility.

[Y100Rocks]

If Owens was capable of making such a stink over his contract why not over something else? And you suggesting the solution was was to gaurantee more money?

I've always thought that if Owens played ball all along, he would still be on the team and make the money he was going to see after the second year. What would be the only other reason to cut a player after this season if he WASN't a problem in the locker room? If he was no longer physically capable of being a #1. Which from the last we saw him play, he still is. Being wide recievers have longer careers, I think its safe to assume he can still play for a few more seasons at a high levle. They wouldn't just cut ties with him after this season since if both of those things were in order. TO is still wrong for going crazy. If I'm gonna bother pointing the finger at anyone, it isn't the Eagles organization or Joe Banner as you seem to.

[tr1]

Excusing the same behavior because of conditions you bring to the table throws away all the credibility that a poster might have had before. Unfortunately, we are talking about tr1 and we all know he has no credibility.

In your ear, WB. How much of that LTBE did Cartwrigt get paid? You have no idea. It was done because at one point he was the #2 back...not to save cap.

The Redskins did not do a LTBE with Cartwright to save cap...just doesn't make sense.

But think what you want. And keep thinking the Eagles FO is perfect...it amuses. :laugh:

[TerpsEagles]

So Dockery... the Skins must have some inklings that Sean Taylor wants more money, right ? He pretty much said so before last season..... he seems to deliver pretty well on the field.

Are you advocating the Skins giving him more $$.... ? Yes, it's a different player and somewhat different situation..... but by your account, wouldn't it be good PR for Danny to pony up a big fat bonus check for Mr. Taylor last offseason ?

Or should they do it now ? Well before he asks to renegotiate ?

[tr1]

So Dockery... the Skins must have some inklings that Sean Taylor wants more money, right ? He pretty much said so before last season..... he seems to deliver pretty well on the field.

Are you advocating the Skins giving him more $$.... ? Yes, it's a different player and somewhat different situation..... but by your account, wouldn't it be good PR for Danny to pony up a big fat bonus check for Mr. Taylor last offseason ?

Or should they do it now ? Well before he asks to renegotiate ?

What you Eagles fans seem to miss is that the Eagles have money they choose not to spend...while the Redskins spend money to retain players.

As for Taylor, let's see what the court holds before throwing any cash that way. I'm sure that's what he's thinking.

[dockeryfan]

So Dockery... the Skins must have some inklings that Sean Taylor wants more money, right ? He pretty much said so before last season..... he seems to deliver pretty well on the field.

Are you advocating the Skins giving him more $$.... ? Yes, it's a different player and somewhat different situation..... but by your account, wouldn't it be good PR for Danny to pony up a big fat bonus check for Mr. Taylor last offseason ?

Or should they do it now ? Well before he asks to renegotiate ?
I think most would argue that TO's situation was vastly different. He rehabbed way ahead of schedule, and played very well in the Super Bowl, a game most thought he would never be able to even suit up for.
TO and Taylor are not good comparisons. I'm not advocating they do anything of the sort with Taylor.
I stand by my assessment that if they had somehow compensated TO for going above and beyond, that things would have taken a much different route.
I understand I'm in the minority here, but there you go.

[dockeryfan]

What you Eagles fans seem to miss is that the Eagles have money they choose not to spend...while the Redskins spend money to retain players.

That certainly seems to be the case so far. It's hard to argue that what the Eagles are doing is wrong, because they have been able to field a competitive team for a number of years now, but I still will.
I think players eventually start to think of the FO as an adversary, which is not a good thing.
But...
Adams signed a one year deal last year for less money to stay.
Trotter signed a less lucrative deal to stay.
So they're doing something right. It would be pretty cool if they keep JR Reed on PUP this year and pay him, even though he'll never play again. He won't affect the cap at all, really, and players would take notice, I think.

But again, the FO for all intents and purposes demoted Banner, so I think they realize they have to fix a few things.

[TerpsEagles]

I think most would argue that TO's situation was vastly different. He rehabbed way ahead of schedule, and played very well in the Super Bowl, a game most thought he would never be able to even suit up for.
TO and Taylor are not good comparisons. I'm not advocating they do anything of the sort with Taylor.
I stand by my assessment that if they had somehow compensated TO for going above and beyond, that things would have taken a much different route.
I understand I'm in the minority here, but there you go.

fair enough... and I'll stand by my assessment, that had T.O. acted like a professional and a grown up, and taken his case to the Eagles brass behind closed doors... hey, who knows what would have happened.

He didn't. He fired his agent, hired Rosenpenis, and went straight to the first reporter and camera he could find and then just about every other reporter after that. He tried to get a raise through the media and used a smear campaign.

Now I realize that your contention is that the Eagles should have been pro-active and given him a reward or bonus prior to that.....

but who knows what they (Eagles)were thinking...maybe it had been suggested by somebody and they were going to talk about it but T.O. acted first... who knows.
I think T.O. (I know this sounds funny... tr1 will have a ball with this one) but I think T.O. caught them off guard ... he had been the model player the whole year and then BOOM...

For what it's worth, I don't think the Eagles F.O. handled this the right way either and yes, Banner is a stubborn mule.

Oh well.... hindsight is 20/20.

[dockeryfan]

Oh well.... hindsight is 20/20.
absolutely. :silly:

[Westbrook36]

The Redskins did not do a LTBE with Cartwright to save cap...just doesn't make sense.

But think what you want. And keep thinking the Eagles FO is perfect...it amuses. :laugh:


Because it doesn't make sense they must not have done it even though they DID carry over 1.1 million of Cartwright's 05 cap number over to 06?

You have my argument all wrong, tr1. I don't think this was a stupid or greedy move.....I think it was a smart move. The Skins had a million that they didn't want to just throw away so they transferred it to 06 so they'd have an extra million to play with. Good business.

The only difference is when the Eagles do the same thing, you attach a completely different set of standards then when the Skins do it. This is why no one takes your football arguments very seriously.

See, while we are all biased to some degree...you are seemingly the only person in Around the NFL who can't have rationale discussion because your hate clouds everything that comes out of your mouth.

Oh, btw, you keep saying you haven't seen the USA Today link a few times but you have seen it several times but chose to ignore it or dismiss it immediately. I'm not going to post it for the 5th time for you because you finally want to actually read it.

[tr1]

That certainly seems to be the case so far. It's hard to argue that what the Eagles are doing is wrong, because they have been able to field a competitive team for a number of years now, but I still will.
I think players eventually start to think of the FO as an adversary, which is not a good thing.
But...
Adams signed a one year deal last year for less money to stay.
Trotter signed a less lucrative deal to stay.
So they're doing something right. It would be pretty cool if they keep JR Reed on PUP this year and pay him, even though he'll never play again. He won't affect the cap at all, really, and players would take notice, I think.

But again, the FO for all intents and purposes demoted Banner, so I think they realize they have to fix a few things.

The Eagles look like they've been doing it right, until this year. The unwillingness to spend the cap showed when they plugged in backup players.

As the Eagles mature in key positions, backups become essential.

[tr1]

Because it doesn't make sense they must not have done it even though they DID carry over 1.1 million of Cartwright's 05 cap number over to 06?

You have my argument all wrong, tr1. I don't think this was a stupid or greedy move.....I think it was a smart move. The Skins had a million that they didn't want to just throw away so they transferred it to 06 so they'd have an extra million to play with. Good business.

The only difference is when the Eagles do the same thing, you attach a completely different set of standards then when the Skins do it. This is why no one takes your football arguments very seriously.

See, while we are all biased to some degree...you are seemingly the only person in Around the NFL who can't have rationale discussion because your hate clouds everything that comes out of your mouth.

Oh, btw, you keep saying you haven't seen the USA Today link a few times but you have seen it several times but chose to ignore it or dismiss it immediately. I'm not going to post it for the 5th time for you because you finally want to actually read it.


:laugh: :laugh:

WB...too...funny... :laugh: :laugh:

I don't hate the Eagles, but I don't think they are perfect.

You won't post the link to the USAToday story because you know it has holes in it, but you love to continue believing what it said...

And I completely disagree with you on the supposed LTBE for Cartwright. If the Redskins did it, it was not to save money for next year, but to compensate Rock for the extra duty he did this year...

But go ahead and ignore the facts and continue with your personal attacks...it's your style.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: WB...you're too funny. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[dockeryfan]

The Eagles look like they've been doing it right, until this year. The unwillingness to spend the cap showed when they plugged in backup players.

As the Eagles mature in key positions, backups become essential.
I think that was most glaring on the Defensive line after they decided to let Simon go. They thought they had all this depth at DT with Patterson cominmg on. But the O-line also suffered with the loss of Mayberry, switching Hicks' position, and starting a "rookie" in Andrews.
That O-line is a big question for next year. Will Runyan stay or go?

[TerpsEagles]

I think that was most glaring on the Defensive line after they decided to let Simon go. They thought they had all this depth at DT with Patterson cominmg on. But the O-line also suffered with the loss of Mayberry, switching Hicks' position, and starting a "rookie" in Andrews.
That O-line is a big question for next year. Will Runyan stay or go?

every team has questions Dock....

I have some hope from an article I saw the other day....

Andy Reid & Eagles article (http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/football/13714456.htm)

couple things.... first off, that Andy "says" he knows he needs to be more balanced.... I'll take a "believe it when I see it" approach here, but it sure is nice to at least read that these words came out of Andy's mouth:

We've got to get back to what we did a few years ago, where we were running it close to 50 percent of the time," Reid said yesterday as he prepared to leave Mobile, after watching 3 days of Senior Bowl practice. "The more you can keep it close to 50-50, the more you keep people honest defensively."

As for the holes on the lines.... Apparently Andy took a good sized scouting contingent to the Sr. Bowl practices... first time in awhile for him.... and they are looking at the lines:

Asked if this meant he would be looking hard at his offensive and defensive lines high in the draft and in free agency, Reid said: "I'll always start there." He also acknowledged that when your first pick is 14th instead of 29th or 30th, it's a little easier to trade up into the top 10, should you want to do that.

Andy isn't afraid to pull the trigger on a move up in the draft... .interesting to hear him say that ... Mario Williams would look good in Midnight Green :D ...

.. in any event... I would be willing to bet that the Eagles first pick will address one of the lines.... they have a ton of picks to work with and from the sounds of it... they realize that change is needed.... so we'll see.

[Y100Rocks]

I think that was most glaring on the Defensive line after they decided to let Simon go. They thought they had all this depth at DT with Patterson cominmg on. But the O-line also suffered with the loss of Mayberry, switching Hicks' position, and starting a "rookie" in Andrews.
That O-line is a big question for next year. Will Runyan stay or go?

Rayburn and Walker playing injured almost all of the year had more to do with lackluster d-line play then Simon ever did. Hicks position wasn't switched. They prefer to have him at gaurd. Moving to tackle which he can do, is switchign him. Andrews is fine.

[dockeryfan]

Rayburn and Walker playing injured almost all of the year had more to do with lackluster d-line play then Simon ever did. Hicks position wasn't switched. They prefer to have him at gaurd. Moving to tackle which he can do, is switchign him. Andrews is fine.
I think you are more sold on Rayburn than I am.

[Westbrook36]

I think you are more sold on Rayburn than I am.

Depends on what Rayburn you get. In 04, he was an undrafted second year player, and hungry, so he goes out and gets 6 sacks. In 05, the Eagles had just extended his deal so he gets fat and comes in camp out of shape and has a bad year.

This is another reason why the Skins are in trouble by guaranteeing everyone's money up front so they can get under the cap. Instead of having 2-3 guys who have nothing to play for, you have an entire team.

[Westbrook36]

And I completely disagree with you on the supposed LTBE for Cartwright. If the Redskins did it, it was not to save money for next year, but to compensate Rock for the extra duty he did this year...

But go ahead and ignore the facts and continue with your personal attacks...it's your style.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: WB...you're too funny. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Of course. The Skins, for no reason, gave Cartwright a 1.1 million dollar LTBE incentive when his base salary was less than that. They also did this in December, when it was obvious he wouldn't achieve this bonus.

You live your life and cater your arguments on plausible deniability. If there is ANY out for you to argue, you will look logic in the face and ignore it while contending something that everyone else knows is foolish.

If the Skins wanted to, why not just reward Rock by adding 1.1 million to his 05 salary instead of adding it as a LBTE incentive? I guess the Skins are pissed that he didn't achieve the incentive and now can carry the unused incentive on to their 06 cap. They had no intention of that happening!!!

God, you are clueless.

[tr1]

Of course. The Skins, for no reason, gave Cartwright a 1.1 million dollar LTBE incentive when his base salary was less than that. They also did this in December, when it was obvious he wouldn't achieve this bonus.

Logic escapes you, doesn't it? Let...me....type...this...a...bit...slower...it... may...help...you....with...comprehension...

The Redskins incentivized Rock's contract when it became evident mid-season that he was going to carry more of a load due to injuries to both Portis and Betts. So they went the LTBE route, to reward him for the additional (and at the time, likely additional) work. Well, Betts got healthier more quickly, and Portis toughed it out, hence, Rock got less work and perhaps (because we have no factual evidence other than a post by a 'fan') there was LTBE left unspent, which, by rule, carries to the next year.

Did the Redskins save money by using LTBE? Yes, but only because Rock's anticipated role diminished. Did the Redskins use LTBE to intentionally carry over cap for next year? I don't see this as a motive...I think the used LTBE to pay Rock according to his workload.

And finally, if you're already 'over the cap limit', what difference does it make to finesse a little over a million when you're many millions 'over?'

The logic escapes you...but I'm not surprised.

Not seeing that your team sets up an LTBE close to the end of the season that has only one purpose (because of the size of it and the role the player was likely to have)...namely to affect cap for the next year...well, I'm not surprised when you ignore logic.

And you choose to, once again, use pejoratives and slights as part of your argument. Truly sad...you should try to avoid them...it makes your agruments look better.

But I love you, man.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Number5]

Has the off season come to this?


Yo dockeryfan......whats crackin?

[Y100Rocks]

I'd don't feel like reading the past few pages. Can someone explain why tr1 is argueing against the idea that the redskins did something smart? I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation.

[Westbrook36]

-Cliff Notes: tr1 needs something more in his life so he starts thread calling out the Eagles FO. I prove the Skins did the same exact thing that the Eagles did, but on a lesser scale. tr1 looks at obvious evidence and just denies it like he always does.

[Westbrook36]

Logic escapes you, doesn't it? Let...me....type...this...a...bit...slower...it... may...help...you....with...comprehension...

The Redskins incentivized Rock's contract when it became evident mid-season that he was going to carry more of a load due to injuries to both Portis and Betts. So they went the LTBE route, to reward him for the additional (and at the time, likely additional) work. Well, Betts got healthier more quickly, and Portis toughed it out, hence, Rock got less work and perhaps (because we have no factual evidence other than a post by a 'fan') there was LTBE left unspent, which, by rule, carries to the next year.

Did the Redskins save money by using LTBE? Yes, but only because Rock's anticipated role diminished. Did the Redskins use LTBE to intentionally carry over cap for next year? I don't see this as a motive...I think the used LTBE to pay Rock according to his workload.

And finally, if you're already 'over the cap limit', what difference does it make to finesse a little over a million when you're many millions 'over?'

The logic escapes you...but I'm not surprised.

Not seeing that your team sets up an LTBE close to the end of the season that has only one purpose (because of the size of it and the role the player was likely to have)...namely to affect cap for the next year...well, I'm not surprised when you ignore logic.

And you choose to, once again, use pejoratives and slights as part of your argument. Truly sad...you should try to avoid them...it makes your agruments look better.

But I love you, man.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Not one person, including your fellow Skins fans, believe this. But, we all know when you get proven completely wrong, you'll still argue to the death so good luck with that.

[tr1]

Not one person, including your fellow Skins fans, believe this. But, we all know when you get proven completely wrong, you'll still argue to the death so good luck with that.

Such grandiosity.

WB, your ego is only surpassed by your naivety.

Once again, you're confronted with another pausible explanation to your assertions, and you begin to believe that you channel my fellow Redskin fans' thinking... :doh:

You continue to rely on unsubstantiated 'facts' to make your case, and when called on it, you resort to obfuscation and personal attacks.

And still no link to the USAToday article... :doh:

[Westbrook36]

Such grandiosity.

WB, your ego is only surpassed by your naivety.

Once again, you're confronted with another pausible explanation to your assertions, and you begin to believe that you channel my fellow Redskin fans' thinking... :doh:

Teams that add LBTE incentives in the middle of the year do so to carry to money to the next year. DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE that Snyder, out of the kindness of his heart, decided to just give Cartwright more money when he was already under contract for the year? Especially when the LBTE was more than his base salary! If he was so kind, why didn't he just give him the money instead of putting it in a unreachable LBTE incentive? Your contention is so inplausable, I can't believe you are seriously contending it.


And still no link to the USAToday article... :doh:

I posted it in 4 threads which you commented AFTER it was posted. Again, because you chose to ignore it 4 times, doesn't mean I'm going to find it again for you so you can try to apply the same convoluted logic as you have in this thread towards Cartwrights dummy LBTE incentive.

[tr1]

Teams that add LBTE incentives in the middle of the year do so to carry to money to the next year. DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE that Snyder, out of the kindness of his heart, decided to just give Cartwright more money when he was already under contract for the year? Especially when the LBTE was more than his base salary! If he was so kind, why didn't he just give him the money instead of putting it in a unreachable LBTE incentive? Your contention is so inplausable, I can't believe you are seriously contending it.


Two quick points: First, I don't necessarily believe that Cartwright got an LTBE (your source is questionable);

And two, LTBE ensures that a player gets paid appropriately (especially in the view of his teammates.) Had Rock taken over for Betts and Portis down the stretch - which is a reason for addressing his contract in the first place - then he probably would have earned the LTBE...but it didn't work out that way.

Unlike the Eagles, the Redskins care about players being justly compensated...I know this is a difficult concept for Eagles fans to grasp.

Doing a 1.1 LTBE to do a carry over, considering the Skins' over-the-limit situation, doesn't make sense...it would have been more plausible to NOT give Rock any additional compensation (see, Occam, William.)




I posted it in 4 threads which you commented AFTER it was posted. Again, because you chose to ignore it 4 times, doesn't mean I'm going to find it again for you so you can try to apply the same convoluted logic as you have in this thread towards Cartwrights dummy LBTE incentive.

Four times? Should be easy to find if you wanted me to see it... :doh:



.

[Westbrook36]

Doing a 1.1 LTBE to do a carry over, considering the Skins' over-the-limit situation, doesn't make sense...it would have been more plausible to NOT give Rock any additional compensation (see, Occam, William.)



tr1, it makes perfect sense. Since you are well over the cap, extending 05 room to 06 actually raises your 06 cap number by 1 million. So if the league salary cap is 95 million, the Skins will now be 96 million. Simple stuff.....I just don't think anyone took the time to sit down and explain this kind of stuff to you before. Again, I think it was a great move by the Skins.....let's just call it what it was instead of arguing points that just don't make sense.

Honestly, let's look at the last 2-3 years and think about all the mid-year LBTE incentives that Snyder has put into player contracts to reward them for filling in for an injured player. Surely Marcus Washington got one to reward him for stepping in for an injured Barrow in 04 right? I mean, it is your contention that the Skins use LTBE incentives to reward players for stepping up for injured players and taking increased roles so the locker room stays positive, right?

[dockeryfan]

tr1, it makes perfect sense. Since you are well over the cap, extending 05 room to 06 actually raises your 06 cap number by 1 million. So if the league salary cap is 95 million, the Skins will now be 96 million. Simple stuff.....I just don't think anyone took the time to sit down and explain this kind of stuff to you before. Again, I think it was a great move by the Skins.....let's just call it what it was instead of arguing points that just don't make sense.

Honestly, let's look at the last 2-3 years and think about all the mid-year LBTE incentives that Snyder has put into player contracts to reward them for filling in for an injured player. Surely Marcus Washington got one to reward him for stepping in for an injured Barrow in 04 right? I mean, it is your contention that the Skins use LTBE incentives to reward players for stepping up for injured players and taking increased roles so the locker room stays positive, right?
I've purposely stayed out of this LTBE incentive on Cartwright' 2005 contract, because I simply don't know about it. It is certainly plausible that what tr1 is saying is correct.
WHere did you get this info on the 1.1 mil?
WHen was the contract changed? Because I don't see it on any transaction list.
And what exactly was the incentive? Was it something remotely attainable or simply unrealistic?
I think you have to know the nature of the incentive to make a judgement in this case. Just because there is no track record of the Redskins for using LTBE in that manner.
Otherwise, it's all just speculation.

[Y100Rocks]

-Cliff Notes: tr1 needs something more in his life so he starts thread calling out the Eagles FO. I prove the Skins did the same exact thing that the Eagles did, but on a lesser scale. tr1 looks at obvious evidence and just denies it like he always does.

that still doesn't explain it if I understand correctly

he is citing they did indeed do this, but argueing its for another reason other then an intelligent reason for doing it

[Shotgunner]

With the salary cap for players in place, everyone can still overpay for Coaches.

[Westbrook36]

that still doesn't explain it if I understand correctly

he is citing they did indeed do this, but argueing its for another reason other then an intelligent reason for doing it

Yeah, he contends they really wanted to give Cartwright more money for taking on an increased role, but goddamnit, it just didn't work out so, DAMN, they get to carry over the money to 06.

Only the cheap Eagles purposely try to transfer money from one year to the next so when the Skins do it, it was, of course, by mere coincidence.