SouthSoundHawk wrote:To go along with the Flynn cap arguement, I just look at it as if there's X amount of money to be spent at the QB position, and I don't care how it's used up as long as it helps the team win (IMO).
Let's try and paint a mental picture...
Flynn and Wilson are two parts of a whole, it doesn't mater how that cap is sliced. If they want to trade Flynn to have three parts of a whole filled at the QB position, that's all fine and dandy. However, if they bring someone in, they'll only be saving a few million until Wilson gets a contract extension. Then that missing fourth will then again be filled.
I think I spent too much time in math class...does any of thismake sense to anyone else? haha. I'm having a hard time putting my thoughts into words...
that works if you want to spread contracts uniformly
say, as a hypothetical example - sherman could have his contract renewed this year (he can't), we could frontload a contract that pays him what he deserves. And that 8m or whatever it is that we'd have to pay to Flynn could all go to Sherman this year
, with a contract with low(er). future cap implications, but pays the man what he deserves.
So, consider, for example a 5 year 50m contract (which is in the range of what we will have to pay Sherman if he keeps up his performances)
Instead of trying to spread it as 10m a year and taking a 10m cap hit every year, we could dump Flynn this year, augment Sherman's base salary in 2013 with the cap and thus reduce the cap hit in future years. It'd basically be the exact opposite of what teams whose window is "closing" do (huge signing bonus, long contract, cap hit spread over many years instead of up-front).
Then, when it comes time to renew Wilson's contract, you've got a bit more room because you used that cap space wisely a few years previously