Trent Brown (Fuck You)

Nobodyinparticular said:
It's less than 12 months since the Raiders gave Littleton a contract that was widely praised by NFL insiders (particularly in relation to Blake Martinez's contract).

That was not an overpay in the minds of NFL and instead it was praised as an exceptional move. It's started looking bad about 6 or 7 months later but the Raiders did not have to overpay for him. Nor did they have to move to the 2nd tier of LBs.

I would say the same goes for Kwit at MLB.
Click to expand...

Neither of those were first tier FAs. Littleton wasn't even signed in that first wave iirc.

And he's still the 9th highest paid traditional LB in the league. It wasn't the contract that was praised so much as the perception that we addressed an area of need.

Byron Jones was the tier 1 FA we went after and struck out. We don't get those guys.
 
Sleet said:
I hope you’re wrong. But that’s the book on Jon. He’ll never be viewed differently if he folds. He already held on long enough to get Brown to blink. And having banked his $14M, it will be easier for him to hold and wait out Mariota.
Click to expand...
It really depends how active we're going to be in free agency. We're not allowed to go over the cap. If it's going to limit us and we have a guy we want to sign, we're going to have to let him go. If we hold on to him until the end of preseason it's 11 million dollars that we are not spending on Talent
 
  • Like
Reactions: 007
Winston Smith said:
It really depends how active we're going to be in free agency. We're not allowed to go over the cap. If it's going to limit us and we have a guy we want to sign, we're going to have to let him go. If we hold on to him until the end of preseason it's 11 million dollars that we are not spending on Talent
Click to expand...
Teams can always avoid going over the cap by pushing money to future years. Happens all the time.
 
Sleet said:
Teams can always avoid going over the cap by pushing money to future years. Happens all the time.
Click to expand...
They can. Or they can cut players. If we mortgage the future to take a stand on a battle we cant win anyway, Grudock should immediately be shown tbe door.
 
Winston Smith said:
They can. Or they can cut players. If we mortgage the future to take a stand on a battle we cant win anyway, Grudock should immediately be shown tbe door.
Click to expand...
Isn't cutting talented players another form of mortgaging the future?

And isn't failing to retain your existing talented FAs another form of mortgaging the future for that matter?
 
Winston Smith said:
They can. Or they can [1] cut players. If we [2] mortgage the future to [3] take a stand on a [4] battle we cant win anyway, Grudock should immediately be shown tbe door.
Click to expand...
Lol. What planet are you on?

In one sentence you wrote 4 fallacies: First, there are many options to sign FAs under the cap. You can cut, extend or restructure existing contracts, or structure one or more new contracts in a cap friendly way. It is not binary.

Second, you have not supported that we need Mariota’s $10M prior to draft, let alone prior to training camp or even the start of the season, to sign any FA. Although you admit to two of the many ways to sign a player under the cap, you reach for an obvious straw-man and claim we now need to mortgage the future? Lol.

Third, since when is doing the smart and right thing “taking a stand”? It’s just doing the smart and right thing. People should be “fired” for doing dumb things. “You’re fired”!

Fourth, we win the “battle” either way under my plan. We get a draft prick now or in the future as the next time the player won’t be as dumb as Mariota if he turns down a starting job prior to the draft but will take the bird in the hand like Brown took. In contrast, we absolutely lose doing it your way — both now and in the future.

The more you argue the dumber your posts get. Amazing how you can’t see it or like to argue bad takes.
 
Last edited:
Sleet said:
Lol. What planet are you on?

In one sentence you wrote 4 fallacies: First, there are many options to sign FAs under the cap. You can cut, extend or restructure existing contracts, or structure one or more new contracts in a cap friendly way. It is not binary.

Second, you have not supported that we need Mariota’s $10M prior to draft, let alone prior to training camp or even the start of the season, to sign any FA. Although you admit to two of the many ways to sign a player under the cap, you reach for an obvious straw-man and claim we now need to mortgage the future? Lol.

Third, since when is doing the smart and right thing “taking a stand”? It’s just doing the smart and right thing. People should be “fired” for doing dumb things. “You’re fired”!

Fourth, we win the “battle” either way under my plan. We get a draft prick now or in the future as the next time the player won’t be as dumb as Mariota if he turns down a starting job prior to the draft but will take the bird in the hand like Brown took. In contrast, we absolutely lose doing it your way — both now and in the future.

The more you argue the dumber your posts get. Amazing how you can’t see it or like to argue bad takes.
Click to expand...
Nobodyinparticular said:
Isn't cutting talented players another form of mortgaging the future?

And isn't failing to retain your existing talented FAs another form of mortgaging the future for that matter?
Click to expand...

If you retain a player whom you have no plans on keeping, it limits the ability to sign other players. We have to remain under the salary cap the entire league year. Since we have Mariota, we onlhy have 172 million in salary cap to invest in other players...which is fine for now because we are under the cap for now. However, as we sign free agents, those $$$ start to go away. If we hold onto Mariota until final cuts, that is 11 million that we could have invested in players to make this team better that we were unable to invest so that we can make some stupid point. It also makes us look bad. We have an image problem around the league and holding onto a player in an attempt to cost him money will not help us. Agents see what is happening. I am pretty sure Mariota's agent has other clients. this shit doesn't play well. If you have multiple job offers that are relatively equal, are you going to work with an employer with a good reputation or one who intentionally tries to fuck with people and will attempt to hurt you financially when things don't work out? I know which I would choose.
 
Sleet said:
Lol. What planet are you on?

In one sentence you wrote 4 fallacies: First, there are many options to sign FAs under the cap. You can cut, extend or restructure existing contracts, or structure one or more new contracts in a cap friendly way. It is not binary.

Second, you have not supported that we need Mariota’s $10M prior to draft, let alone prior to training camp or even the start of the season, to sign any FA. Although you admit to two of the many ways to sign a player under the cap, you reach for an obvious straw-man and claim we now need to mortgage the future? Lol.

Third, since when is doing the smart and right thing “taking a stand”? It’s just doing the smart and right thing. People should be “fired” for doing dumb things. “You’re fired”!

Fourth, we win the “battle” either way under my plan. We get a draft prick now or in the future as the next time the player won’t be as dumb as Mariota if he turns down a starting job prior to the draft but will take the bird in the hand like Brown took. In contrast, we absolutely lose doing it your way — both now and in the future.

The more you argue the dumber your posts get. Amazing how you can’t see it or like to argue bad takes.
Click to expand...
Do you know what a fallacy is lol?

1) I know that. I think I even stated that.
2) We won't need the $$$ on Mariota's contract until we get close to the cap. Players drafted do not even count against the cap until they are drafted. Even then, the count for league minimum until they sign a contract. This is something that is known to everyone, including agents. As we spend our FA $$$, our bluff becomes more and more transparent. It seems that you didn't understand how the NFL has a hard cap until I explained it to you and for that, you are welcome. I like teaching people new things!
3) I am not sure what you mean by "the right thing." IMO, the right thing is sticking to the contract...which is what Mariota is doing. Right now, the Raiders are doing the same. The Raiders can release nullify the contract under the terms and Mariota could just retire under the terms of the contract as well.
4) I don't really see us "winning" in this situation. We may win the battle but it seems like something that will make it more difficult to win the war. Sure we maybe can squeeze a 4th out of this but we also have an image. Players can choose to play, or not play, here.

Anyway, it really is just a difference of opinions. I appreciate that you provided your stance and it makes for good discussion but why do you seem to take things so personally. We have no power here. We are just discussing different scenarios. We can have different opinions on things and there is nothing wrong with that.
 
With a full slate of picks (Nos. 17, 48, 81, 122, 163, 203, 248) plus UDFA and whatever Mariota might bring, how much cap space could the Raiders possibly need to fill holes and get good players? Is Top 10 ($25M+) in terms of cap space enough? Is Top 5 ($42M+) enough?

Per OverTheCap, as a result of cutting Williams, Joyner, Jackson and Incognito, and trading Brown, the Raiders are already among the Top 10 in terms of cap space at $31.9M. If/when they trade Mariota and assuming no significant moves by other teams, the Raiders would jump four spots (from #9 to #5) with $43.3M in cap space. By cutting, restructuring or extending a few position players, Raiders could easily get over $50M, which would rank them #4 in cap space, w/o even extending Carr, which could put them over $60M in cap space.

So, do Gruden and Mayock have enough cap space and draft capital to improve the team? Below are the players who started at 9 positions in need of resigning or replacing:
  • LG (Incognito/Good)
  • RG (Jackson)
  • RT (Brown/Young)
  • WR (Agholor)
  • NT (Hankins)
  • DT (Collins)
  • LB (Morrow)
  • CB (Joyner)
  • FS (Harris)
If you assume 2 in-house promotions from these four (Simpson, Edwards, Irving and/or Robertson) and 2 starters being drafted from our first 4 picks (#17, #48, #81. #122), then we should budget signing 5 FA starters.

Below is the depth (essentially 12 players) in need of resigning or replacing:
  • QB (Mariota?)
  • RB (Booker/Reddick)
  • WR (Williams/Jones)
  • OL (Good/Young)
  • DL (C. Smith)
  • Edge (Beasley/Takk)
  • LB (McMillan)
  • DB (Lawson/Worley)
  • TE (Witten/Carrier)
  • ST (Wilber)
If you assume 5 promotions or larger roles from these practice squad like players (Peterman, Ateman, Doss, O’Leary, Bowers, Magnuson, Jones-Smith, Seymour, Cotton, Vickers, White, Muse, Leavitt), plus drafting at least 2 contributing back-ups (and stashing or cutting the other draft picks and UDFA), then the Raiders should budget signing 5 good role players.

Historically, a team makes about 20 roster additions w/o counting UDFA before the season, including 10+ players who never make the roster/get vet minimum deals. So, budgeting for 10 notable FA sounds about right.

Here is a (generous?) budget in an expected buyer’s market:
  • 2 front line starters: $25M
  • 3 2nd/3rd tier starters: $15M
  • 5 role players: $14M
  • Draft class: $6M
Total: $60M

How to make budget:
  1. Don’t overpay
  2. Sign cap friendly deals
  3. Cut, restructure, extend other players
  4. Trade Mariota if/when needed
 
Last edited:
Winston Smith said:
If you retain a player whom you have no plans on keeping, it limits the ability to sign other players. We have to remain under the salary cap the entire league year. Since we have Mariota, we onlhy have 172 million in salary cap to invest in other players...which is fine for now because we are under the cap for now. However, as we sign free agents, those $$$ start to go away. If we hold onto Mariota until final cuts, that is 11 million that we could have invested in players to make this team better that we were unable to invest so that we can make some stupid point. It also makes us look bad. We have an image problem around the league and holding onto a player in an attempt to cost him money will not help us. Agents see what is happening. I am pretty sure Mariota's agent has other clients. this shit doesn't play well. If you have multiple job offers that are relatively equal, are you going to work with an employer with a good reputation or one who intentionally tries to fuck with people and will attempt to hurt you financially when things don't work out? I know which I would choose.
Click to expand...
What a bunch of malarkey.
  1. Our reputation will be worse if we let Mariota and a competitor screw us out of compensation for our $11M investment in Mariota last year.

  2. We are already in the Top 10 in terms of cap space right now, which is plenty of money to get us to draft day.
We lose nothing by waiting until after the draft to decide what, if anything, to do with Mariota. In contrast, Mariota risks losing $10M. Only a fool would release Mariota now and not wait through the draft and as long as possible, including to final cuts, to trade him.
 
Last edited:
Winston Smith said:
Do you know what a fallacy is lol?

1) I know that. I think I even stated that.
2) We won't need the $$$ on Mariota's contract until we get close to the cap. Players drafted do not even count against the cap until they are drafted. Even then, the count for league minimum until they sign a contract. This is something that is known to everyone, including agents. As we spend our FA $$$, our bluff becomes more and more transparent. It seems that you didn't understand how the NFL has a hard cap until I explained it to you and for that, you are welcome. I like teaching people new things!
3) I am not sure what you mean by "the right thing." IMO, the right thing is sticking to the contract...which is what Mariota is doing. Right now, the Raiders are doing the same. The Raiders can release nullify the contract under the terms and Mariota could just retire under the terms of the contract as well.
4) I don't really see us "winning" in this situation. We may win the battle but it seems like something that will make it more difficult to win the war. Sure we maybe can squeeze a 4th out of this but we also have an image. Players can choose to play, or not play, here.

Anyway, it really is just a difference of opinions. I appreciate that you provided your stance and it makes for good discussion but why do you seem to take things so personally. We have no power here. We are just discussing different scenarios. We can have different opinions on things and there is nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...
More dribble. It is not a “difference is opinion.” It is you having a bad take.
 
Last edited:
Sleet said:
What a bunch of malarkey.
  1. Our reputation will be worse if we let Mariota and a competitor screw us out of compensation for our $11M investment in Mariota last year.

  2. We are already in the Top 10 in terms of cap space right now, which is plenty of money to get us to draft day.
We lose nothing by waiting until after the draft to decide what, if anything, to do with Mariota. In contrast, Mariota risks losing $10M. Only a fool would release Mariota now and not wait through the draft and as long as possible, including to final cuts, to trade him.
Click to expand...
Sure we can wait until after the draft. However, the top FAs and 2nd tier FAs will be gone. Some people were saying that we could hold onto him until the beginning of the Season which would be moronic. That's leaving 10 million on the floor that you can't use to sign players. If you want to build a team, you get as many good players as you can. Now if we're willing to hold on to Mariota next season, then it makes no sense to release him. We'll just keep him on the roster the entire year. And the goal is not to become one of the top teams with free-agent cap dollars. The goal is to sign players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 007
Sleet said:
More dribble. It is not a “difference is opinion.” It is you having a bad take.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are the one with the bad take and spewing a bunch of gibberish. It's just your opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 007
Winston Smith said:
Sure we can wait until after the draft. However, the top FAs and 2nd tier FAs will be gone. Some people were saying that we could hold onto him until the beginning of the Season which would be moronic. That's leaving 10 million on the floor that you can't use to sign players. If you want to build a team, you get as many good players as you can. Now if we're willing to hold on to Mariota next season, then it makes no sense to release him. We'll just keep him on the roster the entire year. And the goal is not to become one of the top teams with free-agent cap dollars. The goal is to sign players.
Click to expand...
More nonsense. We rolled $8M from last year into this year’s salary cap. Teams roll more than $10M into the next year’s cap all the time. In fact, the Raiders are among the most active teams in FA, don’t put profits first, and spend most of their cap every year to improve the roster. Your take remains unsupported.

Mariota is an asset, like money in a bank. We paid $11M for the right to control him this year. You don’t give that right or asset away. That’s dumb. You trade or spend it, when necessary or appropriate.

There is no real debate. There is just a good or poor decision in terms of asset management.
 
Last edited:
Winston Smith said:
Perhaps you are the one with the bad take and spewing a bunch of gibberish. It's just your opinion.
Click to expand...
If so, you would actually respond to the points I’ve made, directly, rather than just engage in overly general rhetoric. Your take remains unsupported and anti-Gruock. It’s as if you want them to fail and make poor decisions.

BTW, Raiders now reportedly have over $40M in cap space after restructuring Littleton and Kwiatkoski. That appears to rank the Raiders #6 in terms of cap space w/o trading Mariota or extending Carr and with Heath, Richard, Parker and Key still on the books. That’s another $30M in the bank if we don’t want to back-load any FA deals. Looks like Mariota’s going no where unless/until traded.
 
Last edited:
Sleet said:
With a full slate of picks (Nos. 17, 48, 81, 122, 163, 203, 248) plus UDFA and whatever Mariota might bring, how much cap space could the Raiders possibly need to fill holes and get good players? Is Top 10 ($25M+) in terms of cap space enough? Is Top 5 ($42M+) enough?

Per OverTheCap, as a result of cutting Williams, Joyner, Jackson and Incognito, and trading Brown, the Raiders are already among the Top 10 in terms of cap space at $31.9M. If/when they trade Mariota and assuming no significant moves by other teams, the Raiders would jump four spots (from #9 to #5) with $43.3M in cap space. By cutting, restructuring or extending a few position players, Raiders could easily get over $50M, which would rank them #4 in cap space, w/o even extending Carr, which could put them over $60M in cap space.

So, do Gruden and Mayock have enough cap space and draft capital to improve the team? Below are the players who started at 9 positions in need of resigning or replacing:
  • LG (Incognito/Good)
  • RG (Jackson)
  • RT (Brown/Young)
  • WR (Agholor)
  • NT (Hankins)
  • DT (Collins)
  • LB (Morrow)
  • CB (Joyner)
  • FS (Harris)
If you assume 2 in-house promotions from these four (Simpson, Edwards, Irving and/or Robertson) and 2 starters being drafted from our first 4 picks (#17, #48, #81. #122), then we should budget signing 5 FA starters.

Below is the depth (essentially 12 players) in need of resigning or replacing:
  • QB (Mariota?)
  • RB (Booker/Reddick)
  • WR (Williams/Jones)
  • OL (Good/Young)
  • DL (C. Smith)
  • Edge (Beasley/Takk)
  • LB (McMillan)
  • DB (Lawson/Worley)
  • TE (Witten/Carrier)
  • ST (Wilber)
If you assume 5 promotions or larger roles from these practice squad like players (Peterman, Ateman, Doss, O’Leary, Bowers, Magnuson, Jones-Smith, Seymour, Cotton, Vickers, White, Muse, Leavitt), plus drafting at least 2 contributing back-ups (and stashing or cutting the other draft picks and UDFA), then the Raiders should budget signing 5 good role players.

Historically, a team makes about 20 roster additions w/o counting UDFA before the season, including 10+ players who never make the roster/get vet minimum deals. So, budgeting for 10 notable FA sounds about right.

Here is a (generous?) budget in an expected buyer’s market:
  • 2 front line starters: $25M
  • 3 2nd/3rd tier starters: $15M
  • 5 role players: $14M
  • Draft class: $6M
Total: $60M

How to make budget:
  1. Don’t overpay
  2. Sign cap friendly deals
  3. Cut, restructure, extend other players
  4. Trade Mariota if/when needed
Click to expand...
Somebody has too much time on their hands. :coffee:
 
Winston Smith said:
Maybe things have changed but I don't think this is true. Not every player counts against the cap. Only the top paid 50 or so but we do need to be under the cap at all times. If not, the league will not approve contracts or they start cutting releasing players. I could be wrong but I am 95-99% sure this is true.

I just googled it and this is what I found "National Football League. ... The NFL's cap is a hard cap that the teams have to stay under at all times, and the salary floor is also a hard floor. Penalties for violating or circumventing the cap regulations include fines of up to $5 million for each violation, cancellation of contracts and/or loss of draft picks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_cap#National_Football_League

I know it is wikipedia but it how I have understood how the cap works.
Click to expand...

I think you're right on this one. Only the top 51 salaries count but we still have to have the space within that top 51 to add players so I think Mariota's salary does impact our ability to sign FAs. With him sitting at the 3rd highest cap hit he's not getting pushed past the 51.
 
gst8 said:
The agents may remember that but the players are going to see an organization holding a well liked player’s career hostage. Maybe. Hard to say without knowing what’s really going on. Just food for thought given I don’t think our reputation is that great right now.
Click to expand...

I doubt that really matters to players when the best contract offer is on the table.

"You know I was going to sign with the Raiders since they offered me the best deal but they kind of screwed Mariota once and he is a nice guy so I will take less money by signing with the Lions."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top