Saints release Moore, trying to trade Sproles

[Hasselbeck]

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

CBA needs a major overhaul. I'm going to keep beating this drum. It worked out nicely for a while, but things change & evolve.

Any CBA that encourages more financial driven moves than performance driven moves is failing its sport.

 

[Maynard]

im confused by that warner. that lockout, didnt it just create a new CBA? and with the new salary cap i would think it would allow more room to keep guys on the payroll...i dont know shit about it though, thats why i ask.

isnt just that sproles is pretty much on the downside. plus he is undersized and probably lost a step or 2

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

im confused by that warner. that lockout, didnt it just create a new CBA? and with the new salary cap i would think it would allow more room to keep guys on the payroll...i dont know shit about it though, thats why i ask.

isnt just that sproles is pretty much on the downside. plus he is undersized and probably lost a step or 2

Let me put it to you this way.

In a world with no cap, do you think these players would be purged? Not just talking Saints here, but around the league, on a yearly basis.

NFL turnover on average is something like 37% per team on a yearly basis. To me that's crazy and cap driven. Wipe out a third of the roster when they get tenure, pay 8-10 rookies league minimum, pay 3 or 4 players 50% of your cap.

Often times you're purging veterans knowing full well you are replacing them with players who aren't as good, which is what I mean when I say a large percentage of moves are cap driven and not field driven. You hope to get lucky with some kids and get reasonably close production out of them at a fraction of the cost.

The solid veteran backup is a dinosaur. Shit, the solid veteran starter is a guy looking over his shoulder now.

EDIT - forgot to mention that the cap went up $10M this year I believe. The problem is you know where that money is going. QB's, LT's, & pass rushers. I think this basic economic structure in the NFL has outlived its usefulness. I'm not an economist, I don't have the answer. But this is broken and has been for some time.

 

[buckeye]

Come on Cleveland.... Sproles!!!!

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

[KNUBB]

None of these moves surprise me. I called all of these cuts before the playoffs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PP]

What happens is the cap goes up... but so do player salaries when they sign new free agent deals.. so these moves will also have to be made.

 

[Maynard]

Let me put it to you this way.

In a world with no cap, do you think these players would be purged? Not just talking Saints here, but around the league, on a yearly basis.

NFL turnover on average is something like 37% per team on a yearly basis. To me that's crazy and cap driven. Wipe out a third of the roster when they get tenure, pay 8-10 rookies league minimum, pay 3 or 4 players 50% of your cap.

Often times you're purging veterans knowing full well you are replacing them with players who aren't as good, which is what I mean when I say a large percentage of moves are cap driven and not field driven. You hope to get lucky with some kids and get reasonably close production out of them at a fraction of the cost.

The solid veteran backup is a dinosaur. Shit, the solid veteran starter is a guy looking over his shoulder now.

EDIT - forgot to mention that the cap went up $10M this year I believe. The problem is you know where that money is going. QB's, LT's, & pass rushers. I think this basic economic structure in the NFL has outlived its usefulness. I'm not an economist, I don't have the answer. But this is broken and has been for some time.

yeah, but without a cap and managed salaries, you end up with the yankees. thats not the kind of league anyone wants.

but regarding sproles. The guys going on his 9th year. he is undersized and has had some big injuries. that 3.5 mil seems high to me and can probably be used elsewhere and be a better value

 

[Buzzman]

Yea, a lot of these cuts are because the guys arent worth the money anymore. I know as a Lions fan Im more than happy with the cuts they were directly financial choices. Fuck'em is all I have to say to them.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

He is a running back...dime a dozen.

 

[MrBill]

I've always been a Sproles fan, he probably didn't do himself any favors with all of the injuries this year. Moore just seemed to be too inconsistent to pay a big salary but he has had some huge moments in Saints history.

Is all of this an attempt to have enough cap room to keep Graham?

 

[buckeye]

He is a running back...dime a dozen.

Normally I would agree. But let me know when you see one with his skill set available on the open market. One who is a home run threat out of the backfield that saints can replace him with this year.... and be a dangerous returner.

They didn't use him last year so maybe he has lost a step. That 3.5 mill in savings will be nice though. Appears they pissed Jimmy Graham off by cutting him.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

yeah, but without a cap and managed salaries, you end up with the yankees. thats not the kind of league anyone wants.

but regarding sproles. The guys going on his 9th year. he is undersized and has had some big injuries. that 3.5 mil seems high to me and can probably be used elsewhere and be a better value

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.

 

[KNUBB]

Pierre Thomas is next. ALL ABOARD THE MARK INGRAM TRAIN!!

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Normally I would agree. But let me know when you see one with his skill set available on the open market. One who is a home run threat out of the backfield that saints can replace him with this year.... and be a dangerous returner.

They didn't use him last year so maybe he has lost a step. That 3.5 mill in savings will be nice though. Appears they pissed Jimmy Graham off by cutting him.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

Dexter McCluster.

Next question.

 

[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

:no:

 

[ThomasTomasz]

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.