Saints release Moore, trying to trade Sproles

[buckeye]

Dexter McCluster.

Next question.

That would make zero sense. Cut a guy to save 3 mill then turn around and spend 3 on a guy with one decent year.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

That would make zero sense. Cut a guy to save 3 mill then turn around and spend 3 on a guy with one decent year.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[Guest]

I think they should eliminate the funny money written into the deals and eliminate the "cap number" tied to contracts. Every dollar of every deal should count against the cap for the entire length of the contract, even if the contracts are not guaranteed. Force these GM's to make good decisions, instead of tossing out contracts that they never intend to honor which they know they can be let off the hook at any time by cutting the player. Let them get out of the money if they want, but do not let them off the hook when it comes to the cap.

Either that, or scrap the cap altogether. MLB is doing just fine with no cap, with tons of relative parity. It would work even better in the NFL, where compared to baseball the franchises are splitting a much bigger pot of cash, and it's all evenly distributed since the TV money is centralized and teams don't make individual local deals.

This is all tied to quality of play. I think one of the reasons we've seen a decline in the quality of play is the mid level veteran backup has disappeared. It makes no sense under the modern CBA to keep those guys around.

This. For years, Snyder avoided cap hell by signing players to five year, $30 million deals with $10-12 million guaranteed. The guaranteed money would be front-loaded into the deal for the first two years, with the salary being the minimum. In the third year, their salary would jump to $10 million, and the player could renegotiate for a similar contract, or be cut without a loss.

I really like having a cap, so I would be behind having all of the money guaranteed. That would be pretty beneficial to the players as well, something the union should be all over. I'm actually surprised the union never filed a grievance against Snyder and the Redskins personally. It's also not like the strategy ever gave him a winner, just allowed him to constantly retool.

[Warner2BruceTD]

This. For years, Snyder avoided cap hell by signing players to five year, $30 million deals with $10-12 million guaranteed. The guaranteed money would be front-loaded into the deal for the first two years, with the salary being the minimum. In the third year, their salary would jump to $10 million, and the player could renegotiate for a similar contract, or be cut without a loss.

I really like having a cap, so I would be behind having all of the money guaranteed. That would be pretty beneficial to the players as well, something the union should be all over. I'm actually surprised the union never filed a grievance against Snyder and the Redskins personally. It's also not like the strategy ever gave him a winner, just allowed him to constantly retool.

I dont even care if the money is guaranteed and I understand why it isn't. What i'm saying is the teams should be on the hook for the theoretical money against the cap whether they choose to cut the player or not. In other words, if you feel you made a mistake on a guy and want to cut him, fine, cut him. But that contract is still going to count against the cap.

I think under that scenario, teams would hold on to veterans who could still play, and roster turnover would be reduced.

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

1. Veteran players get reduced cap numbers. eg. 5 year players only get 75% of cost to cap...10 year players only get 50% of salary counted against cap. This would be fantastic if same team vets can get larger exemptions.
2. Cap numbers are hard numbers no more backloaded nonsense that benefits noone.

Problem is from what I recall years ago is that owners secretly think it favors them as they dont get stuck with aged players and swollen contracts. They felt then eventually the youth prevails. I dont agree and frankly it hurts the product. Too many guys playing that arent ready too many vets that are going to have premature endings because they are too old to learn some new system. No way to benefit from the old "get raised and groomed by a vet". Vets hate these young guys and dont teach em shit because of the cap cuts. Ive hated this system for years.

[Guest]

I dont even care if the money is guaranteed and I understand why it isn't. What i'm saying is the teams should be on the hook for the theoretical money against the cap whether they choose to cut the player or not. In other words, if you feel you made a mistake on a guy and want to cut him, fine, cut him. But that contract is still going to count against the cap.

I think under that scenario, teams would hold on to veterans who could still play, and roster turnover would be reduced.

Alright, that I can get behind and I actually really like it. While it does benefit players, the question would be how much would it benefit them? Also, it hurts the owners to be stuck with that cap hit, so they are almost certain not to agree to it.

[Guest]

If Darren Sproles' agent is reading this, you might want to give him a call and let him know everything's going to be OK. Or at least let him know that the Saints might trade him. Actually, you don't have to tell him that because he found out on Twitter.


Judging by all of the capital letters and the exclamation point, you can tell Sproles is surprised. Then he added this tweet, just for good measure.


Why was Sproles surprised? Probably because he thought he was going to be released on Tuesday when free agency began. There were multiple reports that the Saints would cut Sproles if they couldn't find a trading partner by Tuesday. Sproles EVEN TWEETED GOOD BYE TO NEW ORLEANS on Friday night.


However, Sproles likely won't be released now. ESPN.com reported on Tuesday that there's a lot of interest in him and instead of cutting Sproles, the Saints are going to trade him. Lets hope that news also breaks on Twitter and lets hope Sproles reacts accordingly.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-...t-to-trade-him

[Warner2BruceTD]

I'm almost always anti union as a rule, but the NFLPA is so weak and gets fucked so routinely that I feel bad for them. The owners have had the players by the balls since the beginning or time in the NFL.

Owners sign these guys to fraudulent long term contracts that in reality are basically one or two year deals with theoretical money that the players almost never see. As soon as a couple of years pass and the signing bonus money can comfortably be accelerated into the current year, you are on borrowed time & the clock is ticking. If you're lucky, they'll ask you to tear up your deal and restructure. Won't play ball? Fine, you're cut. How the owners have gotten away with this for so long is baffling to me. The NFLPA is toothless.

Even though I would prefer no cap, that cap isn't really the issue. It's the soft contracts that allow the owners to sign ridiculous deals, and just rip them up if they don't work out (which is most of the time). They'll pay 3 or 4 guys big money, 40-50% of the cap, then cut everybody else and replace them with low cost street FA's and rookies. This hurts the quality of play. Very few teams ever have decent backup QB's unless they luck into one, because nobody wastes assets on that. Teams have no depth, because good veteran depth costs too much due to tenure. I can go on and on. Rules don't let you cover, so more & more teams use shitbums in the defensive backfield who cost nothing. That's why Seattle has such a big edge, they found young guys who make nothing who can actually play, which is ultra rare for DB's.

Now i'm rambling a bit. Bottom line is the CBA is broken. It worked for a while, but it's outlived its usefulness. Teams need to be accountable for the deals they sign, even if the cash isn't guaranteed.

[Warner2BruceTD]

The salary cap was put in place to break up the dominant teams. It worked for a few years and the league saw unprecedented parity, until GM's figured out how to game things. It's a myth that a lack of a cap would destroy competitive balance. The NBA has a cap and it's got zero parity. The NFL has a hard cap and has less parity than MLB, which has no cap, and also allows teams to cut individual TV deals & such which in theory should widen the gaps even more.

KILL THE CAP

[Aso]

The contracts that are signed are agreed by both sides and both sides know what they are getting into. It's not like players are getting swindled somehow. I like how the current CBA works.