Originally Posted by Giant Octopodes:
The bolded line here is patently untrue, you know this is publicly available information right? I can't post links but Spotrac is a free site guys...
Look, I understand contracts just fine. Think about it this way: If it's incredibly easy to free up 46 million, why cut Fisher and Schwartz to free up 18? Wouldn't you rather "break open a piggy bank" and keep Fisher and Schwartz? I mean, maybe it's just me, but they seem like kinda important pieces to me, and cutting them Both only saves 18 million.
Sure, you can maybe potentially upgrade one of them, I get it. But the issue last year wasn't that Fischer and Schwartz weren't good enough. It's that there wasn't adequate skill on the depth players at those positions. So if you want Williams, and can free up 46 million just fine, you could still have Williams and Niang and have Fischer and Schwartz as backups. Talk about a position of strength. Why not do that?
The answer is, because you can't actually free up 46 million at will, it relies on the players being willing to renegotiate.
Chris Meck, like every line you posted had at least one inaccuracy in it my dude. Talk to me on May 2nd. Or the day after they extend Mathieu. Or the day after the TV deal is signed. Or the day after Williams is signed, to whatever team he's signed to. We'll see who is uninformed :-)
Originally Posted by Giant Octopodes:
The bolded line here is patently untrue, you know this is publicly available information right? I can't post links but Spotrac is a free site guys...
Look, I understand contracts just fine. Think about it this way: If it's incredibly easy to free up 46 million, why cut Fisher and Schwartz to free up 18? Wouldn't you rather "break open a piggy bank" and keep Fisher and Schwartz? I mean, maybe it's just me, but they seem like kinda important pieces to me, and cutting them Both only saves 18 million.
Sure, you can maybe potentially upgrade one of them, I get it. But the issue last year wasn't that Fischer and Schwartz weren't good enough. It's that there wasn't adequate skill on the depth players at those positions. So if you want Williams, and can free up 46 million just fine, you could still have Williams and Niang and have Fischer and Schwartz as backups. Talk about a position of strength. Why not do that?
The answer is, because you can't actually free up 46 million at will, it relies on the players being willing to renegotiate.
Chris Meck, like every line you posted had at least one inaccuracy in it my dude. Talk to me on May 2nd. Or the day after they extend Mathieu. Or the day after the TV deal is signed. Or the day after Williams is signed, to whatever team he's signed to. We'll see who is uninformed :-)
HOLY FUCKING SHIT. You're doubling down?
Dude. Convincing a player to restructure a ROSTER BONUS into a signing bonus doesn't take any convincing. It's very simple. That player is due the money this year. If the team converts it to a SIGNING bonus instead of a roster bonus:
1) The player gets the same amount of cash this year
2) The player's contract becomes harder to cut in future years, giving them more security.
You really are uninformed here.
If Patrick Mahomes' 2021 roster bonus is converted to a signing bonus, guess what? He gets that cash as soon as the contract is signed, instead of on the day of the roster bonus. He doesn't get one dime less. He still gets a huge check lump sum in 2021.
Pat made $24.5M over his first four seasons. If his roster bonus is converted to a signing bonus between now and the beginning of the season, he will have made over $45M by the start of the season.
Players literally are paid no differently when agreeing to convert a roster bonus to a signing bonus. They exist primarily to BE converted to a signing bonus.
They cut Fisher and Schwartz because: 1) They're expensive; 2) They're currently injured and unlikely to be able to play at full strength at the start of the season.
You don't keep $27M of salary on the roster hoping they rehab and can make an impact by the end of the year if you can free up most of that money to get players who can actually help you for the whole year (And beyond 2021). [Reply]
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
HOLY ****ING SHIT. You're doubling down?
Dude. Convincing a player to restructure a ROSTER BONUS into a signing bonus doesn't take any convincing. It's very simple. That player is due the money this year. If the team converts it to a SIGNING bonus instead of a roster bonus:
1) The player gets the same amount of cash this year
2) The player's contract becomes harder to cut in future years, giving them more security.
You really are uninformed here.
If Patrick Mahomes' 2021 roster bonus is converted to a signing bonus, guess what? He gets that cash as soon as the contract is signed, instead of on the day of the roster bonus. He doesn't get one dime less. He still gets a huge check lump sum in 2021.
Pat made $24.5M over his first four seasons. If his roster bonus is converted to a signing bonus between now and the beginning of the season, he will have made over $45M by the start of the season.
Players literally are paid no differently when agreeing to convert a roster bonus to a signing bonus. They exist primarily to BE converted to a signing bonus.
They cut Fisher and Schwartz because: 1) They're expensive; 2) They're currently injured and unlikely to be able to play at full strength at the start of the season.
You don't keep $27M of salary on the roster hoping they rehab and can make an impact by the end of the year if you can free up most of that money to get players who can actually help you for the whole year (And beyond 2021).
Originally Posted by Giant Octopodes:
The bolded line here is patently untrue, you know this is publicly available information right? I can't post links but Spotrac is a free site guys...
Look, I understand contracts just fine. Think about it this way: If it's incredibly easy to free up 46 million, why cut Fisher and Schwartz to free up 18? Wouldn't you rather "break open a piggy bank" and keep Fisher and Schwartz? I mean, maybe it's just me, but they seem like kinda important pieces to me, and cutting them Both only saves 18 million.
Sure, you can maybe potentially upgrade one of them, I get it. But the issue last year wasn't that Fischer and Schwartz weren't good enough. It's that there wasn't adequate skill on the depth players at those positions. So if you want Williams, and can free up 46 million just fine, you could still have Williams and Niang and have Fischer and Schwartz as backups. Talk about a position of strength. Why not do that?
The answer is, because you can't actually free up 46 million at will, it relies on the players being willing to renegotiate.
Chris Meck, like every line you posted had at least one inaccuracy in it my dude. Talk to me on May 2nd. Or the day after they extend Mathieu. Or the day after the TV deal is signed. Or the day after Williams is signed, to whatever team he's signed to. We'll see who is uninformed :-)
You're NAME is correct at least - you are OFFICIALLY now known as Giant Octo "PUSS". C'MON man think before you speak - you are up against a tough crowd here. Give it a rest already. [Reply]
This is absurd. Look at Pat’s deal compared to any other QB, he set it up to take way less money the first few years than all the rest. We kept everyone we wanted and made the Super Bowl. The pandemic dropped the cap by $25-30 million from the projected amount, blame that not Pat https://t.co/GIH5zqJoiP
I’m not sure the player even has to agree to a restructure if it’s a base salary or roster bonus convert. I’m pretty sure the team can do those when it wants. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BossChief:
I’m not sure the player even has to agree to a restructure if it’s a base salary or roster bonus convert. I’m pretty sure the team can do those when it wants.
I don't think so either.
This dude has no idea what he's talking about, but he's sure confident about it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Stryker:
You're NAME is correct at least - you are OFFICIALLY now known as Giant Octo "PUSS". C'MON man think before you speak - you are up against a tough crowd here. Give it a rest already.
Hey not my fault if folks can't handle dissenting opinions. Doesn't change my opinion at all, though. I think it's far more likely Reiter leaves than it is that Williams is signed, just saying. Could free up 11-12 million per year to retain him by "breaking open a piggy bank" but I think he walks, and if you can't afford to retain him I don't think you can afford to get Williams. Perhaps I'll be proven wrong, but that's the way I see it regardless of how much whining folks do over my refusal to agree with them. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Giant Octopodes:
Hey not my fault if folks can't handle dissenting opinions. Doesn't change my opinion at all, though. I think it's far more likely Reiter leaves than it is that Williams is signed, just saying. Could free up 11-12 million per year to retain him by "breaking open a piggy bank" but I think he walks, and if you can't afford to retain him I don't think you can afford to get Williams. Perhaps I'll be proven wrong, but that's the way I see it regardless of how much whining folks do over my refusal to agree with them.
They arent re signing Reiter, thats already out there. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Giant Octopodes:
Hey not my fault if folks can't handle dissenting opinions. Doesn't change my opinion at all, though. I think it's far more likely Reiter leaves than it is that Williams is signed, just saying. Could free up 11-12 million per year to retain him by "breaking open a piggy bank" but I think he walks, and if you can't afford to retain him I don't think you can afford to get Williams. Perhaps I'll be proven wrong, but that's the way I see it regardless of how much whining folks do over my refusal to agree with them.
You're ignorant of so many things, yet so sure of your opinion.
Originally Posted by Giant Octopodes:
The bolded line here is patently untrue, you know this is publicly available information right? I can't post links but Spotrac is a free site guys...
Look, I understand contracts just fine. Think about it this way: If it's incredibly easy to free up 46 million, why cut Fisher and Schwartz to free up 18? Wouldn't you rather "break open a piggy bank" and keep Fisher and Schwartz? I mean, maybe it's just me, but they seem like kinda important pieces to me, and cutting them Both only saves 18 million.
Sure, you can maybe potentially upgrade one of them, I get it. But the issue last year wasn't that Fischer and Schwartz weren't good enough. It's that there wasn't adequate skill on the depth players at those positions. So if you want Williams, and can free up 46 million just fine, you could still have Williams and Niang and have Fischer and Schwartz as backups. Talk about a position of strength. Why not do that?
The answer is, because you can't actually free up 46 million at will, it relies on the players being willing to renegotiate.
Chris Meck, like every line you posted had at least one inaccuracy in it my dude. Talk to me on May 2nd. Or the day after they extend Mathieu. Or the day after the TV deal is signed. Or the day after Williams is signed, to whatever team he's signed to. We'll see who is uninformed :-)
Boss: "so you will make 50k over the course of the year. What if we paid you all 50k up front? Would you want that?"
You: " um why would I want to do that?"
Everyone: [Reply]
Originally Posted by Giant Octopodes:
The bolded line here is patently untrue, you know this is publicly available information right? I can't post links but Spotrac is a free site guys...
Look, I understand contracts just fine. Think about it this way: If it's incredibly easy to free up 46 million, why cut Fisher and Schwartz to free up 18? Wouldn't you rather "break open a piggy bank" and keep Fisher and Schwartz? I mean, maybe it's just me, but they seem like kinda important pieces to me, and cutting them Both only saves 18 million.
Sure, you can maybe potentially upgrade one of them, I get it. But the issue last year wasn't that Fischer and Schwartz weren't good enough. It's that there wasn't adequate skill on the depth players at those positions. So if you want Williams, and can free up 46 million just fine, you could still have Williams and Niang and have Fischer and Schwartz as backups. Talk about a position of strength. Why not do that?
The answer is, because you can't actually free up 46 million at will, it relies on the players being willing to renegotiate.
Chris Meck, like every line you posted had at least one inaccuracy in it my dude. Talk to me on May 2nd. Or the day after they extend Mathieu. Or the day after the TV deal is signed. Or the day after Williams is signed, to whatever team he's signed to. We'll see who is uninformed :-)
You obviously don’t understand contracts. I can’t believe I’m wasting time spelling this out for you, but it’s the off-season and have to do something for entertainment.
Using SportTrac, At the start of the 2021 season, Mahomes will have received the following:
2020 / Initial signing bonus - $10,000,000
2020 base salary - $825,000
[for your tracking, this is how SportTrac gets its 2020 cash payout figure]
2021 Roster bonus triggering June 1 - $21,716,905
2021 Workout bonus triggers after training camp - $100,000
So... doing the math for you since you apparently DONT understand contracts or how to read the “publicly available” information on SportTrac, Mahomes will have received $32,641,905 of his new contract before game 1 of the 2021 season. I said “almost $33 million” and you called it “patently untrue.” If $32,641,905 isn’t almost $33 million than we can’t have a conversation because you are speaking a different language.
Now, to connect the dots for you, the 2021 roster bonus of $21,716,905 presently counts 100% against the 2021 cap. That is the biggest chunk of his cap hit this year. If the team converts that roster bonus into a new signing bonus, that enables them to spread the cap hit over multiple years reducing his effective cap hit in 2021 without short changing him any money. [Reply]
