4th for McNair???

Discussion in 'Tennessee Titans and NFL Talk' started by aloving77, May 2, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GLinks

    GLinks Second Gear

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,289
    This is the way to go, IMO, except for cutting Brown. Except for the injury to Waddel, I would dump Gardner, too. Might still anyway since Fuller can fill in at CB depth as well as S, and I'd expect Finnegan to as well. Cutting Nickey Wade and Gardner would save, what, close to $2M? Add $2.4M for Sirmon and $3M for a Bulluck restructure and now you're around $7.4M with the amount we still have currently. That's enough money to sign the rookies, and then you can keep McNair at his current contract. The only thing you can't do realistically is sign Law. Do the rookies take $6M to sign? Leaving $1.4M. Law wants $10M guananteed? You would have to restructure Kinney and Hentrich to get that extra mil. $2.4M. Oh, and you'd have to cut Nash and Peyton probably, which is likely to happen anyway. Law would have to been signed to a 4-year deal to prorate anything close to $10M bonus and sign for the minimum. Even after doing all of that at $2.9-$3M, another cut or restructure would have to take place. But I'd do everything up until that point to keep McNair. We could always play the Ravens game and wait for them to cut Chris McAllister or get Ahmad Plummer for less.

    I hope the FO is thinking along these lines. Making the cuts to sign the rookies. Keep McNair. Screw the Ravens. Law would be a bonus if possible.
    #61
  2. GoT

    GoT Strength and Honor Tip Jar Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    26,909
  3. Starkiller

    Starkiller 9

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    Messages:
    14,957
    The problem there is that cutting a player means you also have to add a smaller contract to the current salary cap, since only the top 51 current contracts are counted. So if you cut Gardner or Nash or Peyton, you don't really save the full cost of their case salary. You only save the difference between his base and the 52nd highest contract.

    It's not as significant when you cut a guy like Sirmon, or even Wade or Nickey, but it makes cutting a guy like Gardner fairly meaningless in terms of cap savings.

    Basically, they can keep Mac if they want to and can still sign their rookies. But they wouldn't be adding anyone else...
    #63
  4. GLinks

    GLinks Second Gear

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,289
    My thinking was that by losing Gardner, Wade and Nickey, you're basically replacing them with Finnegan, Orr and Lowry, all of whom will be covered in the rookie pool.
    #64
  5. GLinks

    GLinks Second Gear

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,289
    And you are correct, we wouldn't be able to do much if anything else, unless McNair or others restructured, but I would go for that if it meant retaining McNair anway. I'd venture to say he'd be more valuable than Law to us. Plus it puts the Ravens in a bind. If that were the way it went down, so be it. Those cuts are likely to happen anyway, so I don't look at it in terms of making them to keep McNair.
    #65
  6. Starkiller

    Starkiller 9

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    Messages:
    14,957
    The rookie pool isn't separate from the overall salary cap. It's really just there as a limit to how much a team pays its rookies.
    #66
  7. Soxcat

    Soxcat Starter

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    8,485
    I think it is a safe bet that we have a dilema. If we want to be competitive this year we need Mac at QB AND we still need to add some vets to upgrade a few postions and depth (like MLB). Obviously we can't do both.
    IMO we would be better off letting Mac go, putting the best team we can around Volek or whoever and hoping for the best this year. Mac is on the down hill of his career, can't stay healthy and I see no way we are competitive enought to go to the playoffs even if he is here. I'd rather sing Law than keep Mac.
    #67
  8. Puck

    Puck Pro Bowler

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Messages:
    13,051
    i don't think it's too much of a stretch to conider that Billy wouldn't be too much of a downgrade from McNair, if its a downgrade at all
    #68
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.