Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

McKinnie restructures contract
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Baltimore Ravens
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ceejay


Joined: 27 Oct 2005
Posts: 3133
Location: Toronto, Ontario Canada
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

INbengalfan wrote:
Flaccomania wrote:
INbengalfan wrote:
Great ploy by the front office. Had they approached him earlier, he would have said no, got cut and moved on. By waiting this long, he had no other real options. Ownership beats the player.....again.

Just hope that he isn't disgruntled on the field.


Maybe I don't understand an aspect of it, but I don't see how it's any sort of "ploy". If they approached him earlier, I'm not sure there would have been any different of a result, granted probably took longer because the deadline wasn't looming. Either way, if we approach him about a paycut and he wants nothing of it, he'd be cut. Whether we would have cut him sooner rather than later, I don't think it'd have really impacted his chances of finding a team necessarily.



Mostly the time involved. if that happened, say, six weeks ago, he could have taken his chances and signed elsewhere. Now he can't. Teams are settled, the lines are somewhat cohesive. Another team taking him now would wreak havoc on the opening day offenseive line. Since noone would pay big $ now, he faces a paycut vs. no job at all.


Would have been the same result earlier and I don't see this as any kind of "ploy". Had we came to him weeks earlier and said take a pay cut and he left. Well he would probably get signed to a vet minimum contract which is less than we are willing to offer. Given his history of being a donut lover and an out of shape pansi, he would be low rik high reward at a cheap contract. Baltimore was the best place for him to stay.

And you could have wishful thinking about him being "disgruntled" on the field. Even that out of shape blow frog could stop your weak pass rush. You are going down Monday my friend and when you do, I want you to come on back in here and say "Man! That fat bastard Mckinnie had a great game"
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
diamondbull424


Moderator
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 12982
Location: Baltimore, MD
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

INbengalfan wrote:
Flaccomania wrote:
INbengalfan wrote:
Great ploy by the front office. Had they approached him earlier, he would have said no, got cut and moved on. By waiting this long, he had no other real options. Ownership beats the player.....again.

Just hope that he isn't disgruntled on the field.


Maybe I don't understand an aspect of it, but I don't see how it's any sort of "ploy". If they approached him earlier, I'm not sure there would have been any different of a result, granted probably took longer because the deadline wasn't looming. Either way, if we approach him about a paycut and he wants nothing of it, he'd be cut. Whether we would have cut him sooner rather than later, I don't think it'd have really impacted his chances of finding a team necessarily.


Mostly the time involved. if that happened, say, six weeks ago, he could have taken his chances and signed elsewhere. Now he can't. Teams are settled, the lines are somewhat cohesive. Another team taking him now would wreak havoc on the opening day offenseive line. Since noone would pay big $ now, he faces a paycut vs. no job at all.

This is what I was referring to in my post above. Like I said, the Ravens front office isn't stupid. So they definitely knew where they stood financially in relation to the "Rule of 51" expiring as the season starts, so either they REALLY wanted to keep McKinnie (for a stronger depth chart and a veteran starter) and they felt THIS was the best way (ploy) to get him back- for the reasons you've outlined above- OR this move was otherwise financially motivated and that we needed to create additional cap space for some other move... such as a Flacco extension or signing a veteran OLB.

Either way, I'm not buying that the Ravens front office was just clueless enough to get to the deadline and think, "gee we are tighter in cash then what we thought bruddas.. we oughtta do somethin about this methinks... hmm, any ideas??"... "Well McKinnie is fat and his making a boatload of cash... can't have that right?" ... "RIGHT!! Bring him in hear IMMEDIATELY! We won't stand for such a transgression!!!"... "Hey! Fatty take a paycut or we won't pay your loans nor treat you to the Outback anylonger!!"....

Oh and I doubt he'd play disgruntled at all. If he were truly disgruntled he just would've refused to come back. For a player of McKinnie's attributes, a ploy like this would probably motivate him to prove his worth.

We saw last year how so many people calling him fat and "blah blah blah" motivated him early in the season. He played the first say couple games like a man on a mission to prove the world wrong... especially that Pittsburgh game. I remember some Vikings fan talking about how he wouldn't amount to anything and would be a cancer on and off the field... and after that Steelers game we thought our line troubles were behinds us... on the left side anyway... but sadly that fairytale didn't last long... So personally I hope we see similar "motivating threats" by the front office throughout the season, maybe McKinnie will stay motivated enough to be a 'good' starting LT.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flaccomania


Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 22870
Location: Parkville, MD
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

INbengalfan wrote:
Flaccomania wrote:
INbengalfan wrote:
Great ploy by the front office. Had they approached him earlier, he would have said no, got cut and moved on. By waiting this long, he had no other real options. Ownership beats the player.....again.

Just hope that he isn't disgruntled on the field.


Maybe I don't understand an aspect of it, but I don't see how it's any sort of "ploy". If they approached him earlier, I'm not sure there would have been any different of a result, granted probably took longer because the deadline wasn't looming. Either way, if we approach him about a paycut and he wants nothing of it, he'd be cut. Whether we would have cut him sooner rather than later, I don't think it'd have really impacted his chances of finding a team necessarily.


Mostly the time involved. if that happened, say, six weeks ago, he could have taken his chances and signed elsewhere. Now he can't. Teams are settled, the lines are somewhat cohesive. Another team taking him now would wreak havoc on the opening day offenseive line. Since noone would pay big $ now, he faces a paycut vs. no job at all.


I think it's almost the opposite -- some teams are struggling with their OL due to various reasons and would love to sign him (Arizona comes to mind).
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
diamondbull424


Moderator
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 12982
Location: Baltimore, MD
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Flaccomania wrote:
INbengalfan wrote:
Flaccomania wrote:
INbengalfan wrote:
Great ploy by the front office. Had they approached him earlier, he would have said no, got cut and moved on. By waiting this long, he had no other real options. Ownership beats the player.....again.

Just hope that he isn't disgruntled on the field.


Maybe I don't understand an aspect of it, but I don't see how it's any sort of "ploy". If they approached him earlier, I'm not sure there would have been any different of a result, granted probably took longer because the deadline wasn't looming. Either way, if we approach him about a paycut and he wants nothing of it, he'd be cut. Whether we would have cut him sooner rather than later, I don't think it'd have really impacted his chances of finding a team necessarily.


Mostly the time involved. if that happened, say, six weeks ago, he could have taken his chances and signed elsewhere. Now he can't. Teams are settled, the lines are somewhat cohesive. Another team taking him now would wreak havoc on the opening day offenseive line. Since noone would pay big $ now, he faces a paycut vs. no job at all.


I think it's almost the opposite -- some teams are struggling with their OL due to various reasons and would love to sign him (Arizona comes to mind).

But it's not the fact that the would love to sign him, it's just how much they have left in their cap at this point, the fact that they would have VERY little time to clear space (if they're not in a position where they have cap space) AND there's very little time for McKinnie's agent to guage the market to see what exactly other teams might be willing to offer McKinnie if indeed he were cut. It was the perfect squeeze job.

There was too much unknown. His best offer by another team might've been even less than what the Ravens offered. And even if it were say... 200k more... at this point in the offseason McKinnie would have no chance at winning a starting gig, he'd be forced to spend precious weeks of the season getting up to speed and probably would miss out on a quarter of the season. Whereas had we done this move 4-6 weeks ago, he could've took a week to guage his market value- decide the cost/benefit of taking paycut. He could've spent a few more day trying to negotiate... and if need be leave the team and have a month or at least a few weeks to get up to speed with a new team and possibly be starting by opening week like he did for us last year.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Flaccomania


Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 22870
Location: Parkville, MD
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

diamondbull424 wrote:
Flaccomania wrote:
INbengalfan wrote:
Flaccomania wrote:
INbengalfan wrote:
Great ploy by the front office. Had they approached him earlier, he would have said no, got cut and moved on. By waiting this long, he had no other real options. Ownership beats the player.....again.

Just hope that he isn't disgruntled on the field.


Maybe I don't understand an aspect of it, but I don't see how it's any sort of "ploy". If they approached him earlier, I'm not sure there would have been any different of a result, granted probably took longer because the deadline wasn't looming. Either way, if we approach him about a paycut and he wants nothing of it, he'd be cut. Whether we would have cut him sooner rather than later, I don't think it'd have really impacted his chances of finding a team necessarily.


Mostly the time involved. if that happened, say, six weeks ago, he could have taken his chances and signed elsewhere. Now he can't. Teams are settled, the lines are somewhat cohesive. Another team taking him now would wreak havoc on the opening day offenseive line. Since noone would pay big $ now, he faces a paycut vs. no job at all.


I think it's almost the opposite -- some teams are struggling with their OL due to various reasons and would love to sign him (Arizona comes to mind).

But it's not the fact that the would love to sign him, it's just how much they have left in their cap at this point, the fact that they would have VERY little time to clear space (if they're not in a position where they have cap space) AND there's very little time for McKinnie's agent to guage the market to see what exactly other teams might be willing to offer McKinnie if indeed he were cut. It was the perfect squeeze job.

There was too much unknown. His best offer by another team might've been even less than what the Ravens offered. And even if it were say... 200k more... at this point in the offseason McKinnie would have no chance at winning a starting gig, he'd be forced to spend precious weeks of the season getting up to speed and probably would miss out on a quarter of the season. Whereas had we done this move 4-6 weeks ago, he could've took a week to guage his market value- decide the cost/benefit of taking paycut. He could've spent a few more day trying to negotiate... and if need be leave the team and have a month or at least a few weeks to get up to speed with a new team and possibly be starting by opening week like he did for us last year.


Oh no doubt, I understand it from that point of view. My disagreement was with the argument of "job vs. no job" as if no other team would pick him up -- I agree with you that it is more about "this money vs. other money" and that "other money" would be a gigantic unknown and not much time to negotiate.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gooselovechild


Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2598
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Flaccomania wrote:
diamondbull424 wrote:
Flaccomania wrote:
INbengalfan wrote:
Flaccomania wrote:
INbengalfan wrote:
Great ploy by the front office. Had they approached him earlier, he would have said no, got cut and moved on. By waiting this long, he had no other real options. Ownership beats the player.....again.

Just hope that he isn't disgruntled on the field.


Maybe I don't understand an aspect of it, but I don't see how it's any sort of "ploy". If they approached him earlier, I'm not sure there would have been any different of a result, granted probably took longer because the deadline wasn't looming. Either way, if we approach him about a paycut and he wants nothing of it, he'd be cut. Whether we would have cut him sooner rather than later, I don't think it'd have really impacted his chances of finding a team necessarily.


Mostly the time involved. if that happened, say, six weeks ago, he could have taken his chances and signed elsewhere. Now he can't. Teams are settled, the lines are somewhat cohesive. Another team taking him now would wreak havoc on the opening day offenseive line. Since noone would pay big $ now, he faces a paycut vs. no job at all.


I think it's almost the opposite -- some teams are struggling with their OL due to various reasons and would love to sign him (Arizona comes to mind).

But it's not the fact that the would love to sign him, it's just how much they have left in their cap at this point, the fact that they would have VERY little time to clear space (if they're not in a position where they have cap space) AND there's very little time for McKinnie's agent to guage the market to see what exactly other teams might be willing to offer McKinnie if indeed he were cut. It was the perfect squeeze job.

There was too much unknown. His best offer by another team might've been even less than what the Ravens offered. And even if it were say... 200k more... at this point in the offseason McKinnie would have no chance at winning a starting gig, he'd be forced to spend precious weeks of the season getting up to speed and probably would miss out on a quarter of the season. Whereas had we done this move 4-6 weeks ago, he could've took a week to guage his market value- decide the cost/benefit of taking paycut. He could've spent a few more day trying to negotiate... and if need be leave the team and have a month or at least a few weeks to get up to speed with a new team and possibly be starting by opening week like he did for us last year.


Oh no doubt, I understand it from that point of view. My disagreement was with the argument of "job vs. no job" as if no other team would pick him up -- I agree with you that it is more about "this money vs. other money" and that "other money" would be a gigantic unknown and not much time to negotiate.


Keep in mind that his wages are being garnished because he took out a huge loan during the lockout that he can't repay.

He needs to have guaranteed income, and the threat that he could be a street free agent 3-4 days prior to the start of the season, with the potential of not getting signed until after week 1 on a non-guaranteed contract was a huge motivation in my mind. Another team could pick him up and cut him without any real salary cap ramification if that happened, so in essence, it was a job vs. no job scenario for him, since he isn't the most motivated guy in the league.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coordinator0


Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 7535
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://ravens24x7.com/columns/The-Money-Clip-Baltimore-Ravens-Salary-Cap-Analysis/McKinnies-pay-cut-more-than-meets-the-eye

Quote:
I've been trying to track down some more info on this, but if Bryant McKinnie's $1M incentive is truly based on 50% playing time only (i.e. there's not some other qualifier), then that $1M would still count against the Cap this year. So, if the reported information is correct, this move was not done for Salary Cap purposes.

Basically, incentives are either "likely to be earned" or "not likely to be earned". If they are LTBE, they count against the present Cap (and if unearned, are credited against the following year's Cap). If they are NLTBE, they don't count this year, but would count next year, if earned.

The difference between the two types of incentives is that an incentive is considered to be LTBE if it would have been earned in the prior year. For McKinnie, he obviously played more than 50% of the offensive plays last year, so this new incentive (if as reported) would be LTBE and that $1M would still count against this year's Cap.

So, based on that, it doesn't appear that this move was made for Salary Cap purposes, as it created no additional Cap space for this year. Seen in that light, it looks more like the Ravens want to save money if he doesn't play as much as expected. After all, if they expect him to be their starting LT all season, then why go through this exercise, especially when it's saved them nothing this year.


I guess it's as simple as that. Hope that McKinnie might not be the Ravens LT at some point this season is not lost!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
drd23


Moderator
Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Posts: 5128
Location: Melbourne, Australia
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought that the NFL removed the whole LTBE/NLTBE incentives thing in the new CBA because some teams used it as a way to roll over salary cap space Confused
_________________

Stone85 & mike23md on the sig!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Baltimore Ravens All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group