Charlie68 Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 Raiders | Burgess Landed With Five-year Pact - from www.KFFL.com Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:16:57 -0800 ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli reports the Oakland Raiders have reached a contract agreement with free agent DE Derrick Burgess (Eagles) on a five-year, $17.5 million deal. The contract includes a $6 million signing bonus. I thought they were already over the top w/ moss/woodson, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarthur31 Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 Any sightings of Carmen Policy in the Bay Area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
its only real shh Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 Their under because a bunch of player restructured their contracts, namely Gannon who reduced it from 8 million to 750,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie68 Posted March 13, 2005 Author Share Posted March 13, 2005 These restrusturings will come back and bite them in a couple years - and I dont see the raiders as a team on the verge of a championship before then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 Signing bonuses can be deferred, so they don't count against the immediate cap. They only count against the year they are paid to the player. Burgess got 6 mil signing bonus. That may not count against the cap until 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 These restrusturings will come back and bite them in a couple years - and I dont see the raiders as a team on the verge of a championship before then 272945[/snapback] And why is that? They are really improved.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 They only count against the year they are paid to the player. Burgess got 6 mil signing bonus. That may not count against the cap until 2009. so, sooner or later, these cap hits will affect the raiders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 My wish is for some team, say the Raddahs, the DC Indians, or the Cowgirls to offer so much bonus money to players over time that they have to cut their entire squad one year and forfeit every game. Oh yeah, you can throw the SanFranSicko 69ers in that group too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Chief Navy Pride Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 How do the Raiders--Cowgirls--and Foreskins do it? This math is beyond me. Whers Clumpy when you need him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 for one, if the raiders move back to LA before 2009, doesn't the move negate all salary cap penalties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 for one, if the raiders move back to LA before 2009, doesn't the move negate all salary cap penalties? 273008[/snapback] Only if they sign Flutie to a guaranteed 10 year $80 million contract with a $30 million signing bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 What some teams )I've read that Washington is one of them)are counting on is in players agreement with the NFL, the last year of the agreement is uncapped. I believe it's 2007. So these teams are way over spending with the hope that there is no new agreement signed before then, therefore in 2007, it's uncapped, so they can then write off all their wild and crazy spending. Even if a guy had a big cap hit in 2008 I suppose they could cut him in 07 and take the hit that year since it doesn't hurt them. Problem is, that same issue has been in past contracts too and the league has never allowed it to get even close to the last year. When they start to have talks with the league and proposals come up for vote, will teams like Washington and the Raiders vote no, know matter how good deal really is just to get to uncapped year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 Apparently Burgess failed a physical with the Seahags. He has an Achilles problem, but the Raiders didn't care. Hmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 i don't see anyone hating on the "tagging woodson" idea now.........it was a smart move on their part to retain this asset and it certainly hasn't effected their ability to be active in free agency, despite what many on this board said......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canbuffan34 Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 My wish is for some team, say the Raddahs, the DC Indians, or the Cowgirls to offer so much bonus money to players over time that they have to cut their entire squad one year and forfeit every game. Oh yeah, you can throw the SanFranSicko 69ers in that group too. 273004[/snapback] Didn't the colts already do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 i don't see anyone hating on the "tagging woodson" idea now.........it was a smart move on their part to retain this asset and it certainly hasn't effected their ability to be active in free agency, despite what many on this board said......... They probably screwed their cap down the line somewhere restructuring contracts of older players. It's also possible they don't even get any takers for Woodson and have to pay him $10.8M this year, or release him outright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 They probably screwed their cap down the line somewhere restructuring contracts of older players. It's also possible they don't even get any takers for Woodson and have to pay him $10.8M this year, or release him outright. 273642[/snapback] once they clear woodson off the books they can take the cap dollars and redo a lot of those contracts that they have currently backloaded........or they can take those dollars and move them into to future years using LTBE bonuses, thus reducing the impact those backloaded deals have on their cap....... they can't release him outright because the minute he signed that tender his salary was guaranteed........but they will find a taker for him because their asking price doesn't have to be much.......as long as they get something for him the move looks good.......if they get a lot for him, the move looks brilliant........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Raiders | Burgess Landed With Five-year Pact - from www.KFFL.comSat, 12 Mar 2005 15:16:57 -0800 ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli reports the Oakland Raiders have reached a contract agreement with free agent DE Derrick Burgess (Eagles) on a five-year, $17.5 million deal. The contract includes a $6 million signing bonus. I thought they were already over the top w/ moss/woodson, etc 272851[/snapback] Well, only the top 52 or 53 players count against the cap at this point. You can have 70 players signed, but only the top 52 or 53 count. It certainly makes it easier when you have a ton of people signed that have low 2005 cap numbers. Of course they'll be screwed in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts