11/17/24
March 12, 2012
SportsFilter: The Monday Huddle:
A place to discuss the sports stories that aren't making news, share links that aren't quite front-page material, and diagram plays on your hand. Remember to count to five Mississippi before commenting in anger.
What makes Mario Williams' franchise number $22 million when the tag level for defensive ends is half that? What else is factored in?
posted by yerfatma at 12:54 PM on March 12, 2012
What makes Mario Williams' franchise number $22 million when the tag level for defensive ends is half that? What else is factored in?
He is an outside LB not a DE in the new 3-4 they play.
posted by Debo270 at 01:38 PM on March 12, 2012
That number is even lower. So why $22 million?
posted by yerfatma at 01:45 PM on March 12, 2012
A secondary provision of the franchise tag is that if it's not more than 120 percent of a player's previous salary, he gets that number instead. Williams has a $13.8 million salary in 2011. So his franchise 2012 tag number would be $16.56 million. That's prohibitive. A long-term deal would come with a much lower 2012 number.
posted by Debo270 at 01:49 PM on March 12, 2012
It's the average of the five highest players OR 120% of the player's previous salary, whichever is higher.
posted by apoch at 01:52 PM on March 12, 2012
Or debo could just beat me to it, with a link even.
posted by apoch at 01:53 PM on March 12, 2012
Boooyaaa
posted by Debo270 at 01:54 PM on March 12, 2012
Thanks guys. Any idea where the $22 million number is coming from if it's more like $17 million?
posted by yerfatma at 02:04 PM on March 12, 2012
They are calling his salary last year $18 million, which works. I don't know which is the right one unless they are including some bonuses.
posted by bperk at 02:21 PM on March 12, 2012
The NFL is going to take cap space away from the 'Skins and Cowboys for front-loaded deals in the uncapped 2010 season.
posted by yerfatma at 03:38 PM on March 12, 2012
So uncapped doesn't really mean uncapped then.
posted by bperk at 04:11 PM on March 12, 2012
Sketchy stuff on the NFL's part, at least at first glance. I know the Redskins did not behave well here, and presumably the Cowboys didn't either, but I still wonder how the League can make this stick.
The Redskins gave Haynesworth $32 million during the first two years of his contract. Some of that was up front and for the first year (2009) and then $21 million due as a roster bonus during the 2010 offseason. It's apparently that $21 million that the league has issues with.
DeAngelo Hall's contract is also, per the NFL, problematic. He signed in 2009 and made $9.2 million that year and again in 2010 (the uncapped year). In 2011, his number dropped in half ($4.5). It rises from that point steadily back up to the $9 million mark over the next three years.
He will now, almost certainly, be cut.
posted by 86 at 04:28 PM on March 12, 2012
Messi: When you can fly it just doesn't matter how tall you are
posted by billsaysthis at 05:14 PM on March 12, 2012
Sketchy stuff on the NFL's part, at least at first glance.
Seems pretty ridiculous and it's quite a kick in the pants for Redskins fans since they probably had visions of spending that $31 million of cap space on support for RG3.
posted by yerfatma at 06:12 PM on March 12, 2012
I keep going back and forth. It's ridiculous until you look at what the Redskins and Cowboys paid out in that uncapped year ($176 million for the Skins, as opposed to $99 million the year before). And it's not like they just decided to sign a few players that year because the cap wouldn't matter. No, they planned it out, well in advance and took advantage of it when signing high profile players, Haynesworth in particular. Other teams, without the finances of the Redskins couldn't match that. So the Redskins gamed the system in a pretty sleazy way.
The sketchy thing on the part of the NFL is that they approved the contracts in question at some point. Unlike, say, the NHL that (finally) ruled a contract invalid because it attempted to get around the cap, the NFL approved these and waited (and then waited two more years) to enforce the rules. That makes no sense.
posted by 86 at 06:40 PM on March 12, 2012
An interesting point from Albert Breer: why aren't they also punishing teams that violated the cap floor?
posted by yerfatma at 09:24 AM on March 13, 2012
Fill out your brackets. Details in the locker room. Be as homerific as you want!