Matt in KC

Hey, I was just reading this thread and did a little research to find out if the June 1st rule still applied after the new CBA went into affect. I read on a 49ers board (in a Jonas Jennings thread!) that the team can cut two players before June 1st and choose to have their un-amortized bonus split over the current year and next (normal yearly amount current year, remainder next). This post sounded well informed, but I don't have time to research and confirm it. Here's the link. It's the last post (by TheWiz): http://forums.49ers.com/messageboard/showt...9588&page=4 Also, this article looks pretty comprehensive and easy-to-read Salary Cap FAQ page by Ask The Commish. Though I only had a minute to skim over it, I thought several of you here might like to read it: http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp

Given that they have 12 other free agents they could lose and only have about 6-7 draft picks (we'll see how the compensitory picks shake out), I think your scenario leaves us short. 2006 Bills who are free agents: UFA LB London Fletcher DE Chris Kelsay FB Daimon Shelton CB Kiwaukee Thomas G Mike Gandy RB Anthony Thomas WR Andre Davis RFA DL Anthony Hargrove DT Tim Anderson CB Jabari Greer RB Shaud Williams Also, I think Villlareal is "shot" and Holcolm could be gone if I read into the press conference right 8-9 of the above are positions we need to fill (others are mainly ST/depth). I'll be very uncomfortable if we head into the draft still needing a OG, MLB, DE, DT, nickle/depth CB, RB2, FB.... The impact of picking up "scraps" after the draft or needing to find players at each of these position who can play in 2007 is frightning. I think it's more likely we sign a couple players before FA (K Thomas, Hargrove, Gandy? Greer?) , match 1 during FA? (Kelsay?) and pick up 3-4 veterans who could play, or who may be bonus-friendly enough to cut if someone better is found. Then we pick up a couple UDFA's and a couple more vets who likely will be cut after training camp.

Marv's forte is not FA or college player evaluations, contracts, the salary cap or Marketing. Marv is the GM PR-savvy face to the public. he is the cure to the sick feeling TD left in his wake. The fact that I love the job he's doing dispite the above shortcomings shows that he is a good choice for this role. He lets his GM team members stay focused on the "heavy lifting" while he makes us fans feel good. ...and it seems to be working.

Also interesting he said he didn't think much of the free agent RB options. I wonder if this includes A Thomas or if he was only thinking of a RB that could replace Willis next year if he leaves. I thought he was tipping his hand that they had RB as a high draft priority. Given the statuses of McGahee (last year), Shaud (remember him), Thomas (not under contract) this makes sense to me.

Booo! I thought of this myself, but it's poor taste to post a topic that looks like it really happened. You should delete this and post in the "guesses about the press conference" topic: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=59729

Maybe a whopping 4 days before the deadline he'll announce they're franchising Fletcher....

next Thursday (February 22nd)

We also have a urgent need for a RB and/or FB with McGahee in the last year of his contract, Thomas not under contract any more, Shaud still too small and not playing last year, and Shelton a dud for the second year in a row. My top concerns are: MLB - This is the biggest hole on our roster if Fletcher leaves, if you ask me. OG - I'd like to keep Gandy and sign another interior lineman. This is urgent until we find someone. RB - hello? is anyone out there? echo... echo... CB - hopeful K. Thomas re-sign (Kiwaukee, not Kevin); let Nate walk and spend elsewhere DT - Maybe we can re-sign Anderson (kidding) DE - Freeney and Schoebel swapping who lines up on the L/R would sure make the loss of Nate less painful, wouldn't it? Denney makes this a lower priority than DT. FB - I'll scream if we sign Shelton to a multi-year deal

Hey, it's unfair to assume that won't be a running play! Edit: the key it to always call what they're not expecting!

But again, I think they can prioritze, at least that much. I tink if they are going after the RFA first, this means they think the RFA has significantly more value: either more talent, or cheaper, even considering the "cost" of losing a draft pick. Looking at Denney last year though, it's hard to imagine the RFA would have been a better chioce.... I do understand your point though. To be tempted into pursuing the RFA first, you might miss the window of opportunity to sign your second choice (UFA) if they don't wait around. But, besides the top FA's signing in the first week or so of free agency, I'm not sure a week is incredibly long to wait. Free agency is long period, and the remaining players may well wait if it means more (team) competition driving up their offer(s), or simply having a team make them an offer. Denney was still there after the RFA offer was matched. But, I guess I'm assuming Denney was their second choice and that they weren't looking at someone else who signed elsewhere....

I'd like to think they have the resources to prioritize and only pursue RFA's as a lower priority than these better options you're worried they're missing. Do you really think they might not call an UFA because they were too busy thinking/talking/waiting on a RFA?

I personally think that his "wheels" aren't good enough for the Tampa 2 MLB position after his recent injuries (not positive they were before the injuries). Also, I don't know if TKO can handle "quarterbacking" the defense, though I'm more comfortable with him than Crowell or a rookie in that regard. If it's not obvious from my last sentence, I think we should keep Flether, even if it means franchising him.

Not only that, if we keep him for his last year, we're likely to get a 5th (?) round compensatory pick next year for losing a 1st round Free Agent, right?

Remember this as another reason Fletcher is worth re-signing (you know, once he's gone): the guy has been amazingly durable. What did he miss, one and a half or two games games with the Bills?

Play Nice A Guide to Making and Keeping Friends by Rodney Harrison

Manning. I'm not sure Young is still in game shape.... In his prime, he would have been the better choice though. Edit / Addition: Why are you calling them monkies?

Despite my joking around, I'm not opposed to this signing. All that is at risk for the Bills is whatever signing bonus we gave him, which I hope wasn't much. We can always decide to cut Coy later if he doesn't earn a roster spot. He seems like a great guy, and last year was his best as a Bill. My joking is somewhat fueled by Coy being one of the talent barometers I've chosen for the Bills. Coy is consistent, though usually a step behind when I've seen him play. I'll see it as a good sign if he can't make the squad. I was serious however that Coy is not a long term solution to our thinning LB corps. Maybe this signing helps mask our draft/FA needs, which still include a solid starting LB.

He's exactly the type of ...linebacker ...we...need.......long-term. ...

Not the professionals, just the volunteers. There's one in every volunteer fire department.... actually most of them are sick and just want to be heroes putting out the fires they start.

It seemed to me that McGee was as good as ever, but the new wedge (including Pennington and Ellison) was missing a real smasher. The new guys were no replacement for having Peters or Fletcher blocking for McGee. If someone could consistently blow open a hole, I have no doubt Terrene would dart through.... As it was he did quite well with what he had.

Do you need to wait 3 years to judge a draft? Not necessarily. I think this common wisdom is based on the fact that somewhere around 30-40% of a team's draftees become starter-level within the first three years. (That's the percent I'd guess; what do you think?) As soon as a player starts, they can be judged a good pick, though of course there will plenty of debate if some think they are not starter-level but simply on a talent-void team. Judging whether a player is a good pick at their spot (say, #8 overall, or instead of two other picks) is a bit trickier, though this seems like hair-splitting that primarily affects the first round when trying to judge a whole draft class. You need to wait 3 years to give a final grade on a draft, I think, but not to declare it a success. We've already done better than your average draft having so many rookies start in their first year. I think we're very likely to land 6 starters out of 9 draft picks, 66% (Whitner, McCargo, Simpson, Williams, Ellison, Pennington). And yes Bill, I know it's clear our second day went well, and unclear about the first day of our '06 draft. If Whitner and McCargo both start next year, however, I'll be happy getting two starters out of our first three draft spots, though I do suspect we overpaid for McCargo, the price for not landing someone in free agency and having no one else left besides McCargo who could play in their first year. This sounds like poor planning, but not a bad call once we found ourselves there.

No, I think it's too soon to re-sign Schobel. This is when the team gets it's payoff for reducing the player's risk of injury when re-upping with a signing bonus. I think everyone understands salaries are going up and he was not slighted. That said, I DO think we should offer to renegotiate before the last year of his contract. Perhaps this equity issue can work both ways. Maybe if Kelsay really does want to stay, he will accept "Schobel-level" pay. I think he'd get as much or more on the open maket, but matching Schobel may be enough to get him to sign here.

I'm surprised Caldwell hasn't shown up as someone's avatar yet....

They seem to be called Record Inserts or Record Adaptors.

I agree with your observation, but think that's where Fletcher differs from most: he goes all out every play, regardless of the score, team record, or his contract status. Whether this means he's more focused, passionate about his work, or whatever you want to call it, most players ppear to play at different levels depending on the circumstance, not to say they're consciously deciding to "dog it."