Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5583882)

In ANY CAPPED YEAR. 2010 is not a capped year, genious.

And, as Shefter reports, I am correct, and full of win, as always.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5582864)

<table class="wikitable"> <tbody><tr> <th>Tender amount</th> <th>Compensation required</th> </tr> <tr> <td>$2.562 million</td> <td>First- and third-round</td> </tr> <tr> <td>$2.017 million</td> <td>First-round</td> </tr> <tr> <td>$1.417 million</td> <td>Second-round</td> </tr> <tr> <td>$927,000</td> <td>Determined by RFA's original draft status (see below)</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5583808)

Bills select Andy Levitre, OG, Oregon State

Pretty easy pick honestly.

Originally Posted by orange (Post 5583898)

any player with five or more Accrued Seasons, or with four or more Accrued Seasons in any Capped Year


You want to try reading that again, genius? "five" OR "four" "in any Capped Year." (Though that is supplanted by the special "Final League Year after a capped year rule" I posted above.)

And while you're at it, try reading Schefter again and see that Cassel will make $17 million (110% of his 2009 salary, whatever that is) and you are wrong as usual; you're definitely full of something, though.




So very, very irrelevant.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, here are the actual numbers. This was sitting in a tab I should have read an hour ago.

Now, an interesting item to follow is Cassel’s contract status. He can play out this year at $14.65M and either be a restricted free agent next year (if it is uncapped) with a tender number of $16.12M (110 percent of this year’s number) or, if 2010 does have a Cap, an unrestricted free agent or tagged again at a $17.58M number (120 percent of this year’s number). Or, of course, he can work out a deal. With $32.23M in likely guaranteed income without a new deal, Cassel is, shall we say, in a highly favorable economic position.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...ey-matters-26/

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5582274)

Or, if Cassel plays OK to good, and it looks like Stafford/Sanchez are PB material, since we own Cassel's rights for two years, as a RFA (due to CBA expiration), we can put a 1st and third round claim on him and get more in return for him if we don't match anyone else who signs him to an offer sheet.

So, if you give me the option of flipping Matt Cassel to some other team who will only have to pay him 2.5 million next year for a 1st and third when we paid a second for him, and I get a year to season Stafford/Sanchez, I do that 1 billion times out of 10.

But, since the Hooties of the world only think in terms of today, they'll bash the pick.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5582859)

If you don't know how NFL personnel moves work, don't post in this thread.

Cassel will be a RFA after next year. Since we own his rights, if we tender him to an offer sheet of 2.65 mil, if another team wants him, they sign him for dirt cheap (2.65), and have to pay a compensation of a 1st and 3rd round pick.

He qualified as a UFA this year because of the CBA, but with its expiration next year, it will revert to a player needing 6 years of experience. He'll have five. Thus, we own his rights, even if he's not signed to a contract.

We won't be desperate to unload him like NE, so we can hold onto him until a team in desperate need of a QB is willing to pay that price (say Minnesota). We get a late first and a late third for Matt Cassel when we paid a second for him, and we have a quarterback with elite upside to replace him who we didn't have to throw to the wolves.

I've said this from day one. I'm sorry if I actually know how personnel moves and FA work in the NFL, I know it must be terribly offensive to run into someone who knows WTF he's talking about.

Originally Posted by orange (Post 5584162)

You justified your entire idiotic scheme on having Cassel for peanuts. Yes, you're full of something.

Originally Posted by orange (Post 5584162)

You justified your entire idiotic scheme on having Cassel for peanuts. Yes, you're full of something.



Maybe you should take your own advice:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5584173)

The only thing that was wrong was his compensation. Everything else, trade compensation, the FA structure, RFA qualifications, was right.

I'm not the one who posted a bunch of wildly contradictory information from my sources that I disagreed with, then agreed with, then disagreed with.

Originally Posted by orange (Post 5584180)

The ONLY THING THAT MATTERS is the compensation. That's the same reason Cassel was so "cheap" to acquire this year. No one will trade much for him with that salary.

As for my posts of different information - I actually tried and found the truth.

You just kept clinging to your own half-baked nonsense as if it were meaningful.

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 5584188)

Cassel's money only means something in relation to the cap. If you think teams, that dole out 10's of millions of dollars in bonuses every year, are worried about paying a guy 17 million when it has no implication on the cap, you're insane.

If a team trades their first for Cassel next year, they aren't going to be spending any more money on him in that first year than they would the draft pick with a signing bonus if it was a top 20ish pick, so it's not going to be fiscally crushing either.

Originally Posted by orange (Post 5584196)

You're laughable - bouncing from one completely ridiculous claim to the next. The new contract - 2011 on - will certainly have a cap. And if the actual money is not an issue, why are the Chiefs not signing free agents?

Even disregarding cap concerns, teams won't pay Cassel BECAUSE HE'S NOT WORTH IT.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 5584666)

Is this next pick the one that the Pack received from the Jets for Favre, or are the Jets up?

I am not sure, because the team listed here is the Pack, but Archie Bunker is listed as the selector?

Originally Posted by Marco Polo (Post 5585738)

***In other news, time constraint can only allow me to manage the Texans. Anyone want to manage the Steelers from here on out?***