There are 138 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Brown's contract laughable

  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 10,646
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Originally posted by theduke85:
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
I'm asking if we have additional cap due to us not paying 2M. That's about us not him.

It's a good question...I have no idea but somone may know...AB?
Yes we have additional cap from it.

Source?

I have 3,000,000 dollars (I wish).

I do not spend 2,000,000 on a cornerback.

I still have 3,000,000. I do not get extra money for not spending that 2,000,000.

Sounds simple to me, but I do get confused easily.
[ Edited by buck on Mar 24, 2014 at 7:54 AM ]
Buck I don't see your reasoning.

The total cap doesn't change, but don't I have 2M to spend on someone else because I haven't spent it on Brown?
  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 10,646
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Buck I don't see your reasoning.

The total cap doesn't change, but don't I have 2M to spend on someone else because I haven't spent it on Brown?

Well. I am not good a math.

If you do not spend the money on x, you can spend the money on y.
If you spend money on x, you have less money to spend on y.

If I 10 dollars and I spend 5 dollars. I have 5 dollars to spend.

If I have 10 dollars and I do not spend 5 dollars. I still have 10 dollars to spend.

If I have 10 dollars and I do not spend 5 dollars on x, I have more money to spend on y than I would have if I had spent 5 dollars on x.

But the total amount of money that I have to spend does not increase. We do not gain additional cap space.

Like I said, I do not understand math all that well.
[ Edited by buck on Mar 24, 2014 at 4:05 PM ]
Originally posted by buck:
Well. I am not good a math.

If you do not spend the money on x, you can spend the money on y.
If you spend money on x, you have less money to spend on y.

If I 10 dollars and I spend 5 dollars. I have 5 dollars to spend.

If I have 10 dollars and I do not spend 5 dollars. I still have 10 dollars to spend.

If I have 10 dollars and I do not spend 5 dollars on x, I have more money to spend on y than I would have if I had spent 5 dollars on x.

But the total amount of money that I have to spend does not increase. We do not gain additional cap space.

Like I said, I do not understand math all that well.

You mean we don't get a bigger cap.

I agree.

But do we have 2M to spend on someone else?

I think of "cap space" as the difference between what we have spent on salary and what we are allowed to spend (the "cap" -- our limit).

Do we have $2M to spend on someone else because we didn't spend it on Brown?
Originally posted by Quest4six:
Originally posted by kray28:
What the Niners did with that workout bonus was nothing short of a dick move. Classless would another adjective that comes to mind. Stuff like that would never have happened under Eddie D's watch. If you want to consider why free agents didn't come flocking to SF, you might want to consider that little episode with Tarell Brown did not go unnoticed.

You need to revisit that situation. The niners are a football franchise, not a baby sitting service.
TB's agent is the one at fault here, also that's 2/3 of his salary. He should have known that, it is COMPLETELY on him.
FAs don't want to come to SF? Do you understand how free agency works?
Sorry if I'm being a jerk, but I suggest you look up some of those claims you are throwing around.

No claims....all facts. Please refute anything I said.Do you think other players/potential FAs failed to notice what happened?

The point wasn't about who's fault it was, the point was that the Niners were in perfect position to remedy it if they so desired. They didn't and they chose to take advantage of it instead. And after all that they lowballed him on a new deal. I guess he was just tired of being taken advantage of. He took a paycut to go play for the Raiders....

Like I said, stuff like that would have never happened under Eddie D's watch...with Eddie, the players always came first and he always tried to do right by them. The 49ers did well under that regime for a long time.

These new Niners under the Yorks....they're not the same.
Originally posted by buck:
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Originally posted by theduke85:
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
I'm asking if we have additional cap due to us not paying 2M. That's about us not him.

It's a good question...I have no idea but somone may know...AB?
Yes we have additional cap from it.

Source?

I have 3,000,000 dollars (I wish).

I do not spend 2,000,000 on a cornerback.

I still have 3,000,000. I do not get extra money for not spending that 2,000,000.

Sounds simple to me, but I do get confused easily.

When did you count the money spent? Did you still have it in the bank or did you move it to the spent money account? If you have a debit and then have that debit forgiven does it become a credit? Or does it count as a non event? Was the expenditure projected and now is being unprojected? Or did it become income when it was unexpended? It's a lot more complicated than you might think!
Originally posted by kray28:
No claims....all facts. Please refute anything I said.Do you think other players/potential FAs failed to notice what happened?

The point wasn't about who's fault it was, the point was that the Niners were in perfect position to remedy it if they so desired. They didn't and they chose to take advantage of it instead. And after all that they lowballed him on a new deal. I guess he was just tired of being taken advantage of. He took a paycut to go play for the Raiders....

Like I said, stuff like that would have never happened under Eddie D's watch...with Eddie, the players always came first and he always tried to do right by them. The 49ers did well under that regime for a long time.

These new Niners under the Yorks....they're not the same.

Of course this wouldn't have happened under Eddie D in the pre salary cap era, but I think he would have handled it the same as Jed. You are completely leaving out the FACT that the team gave him $300,000 for absolutely no reason towards the end of the year. I'm sure they would have loved to give him the whole $2 million, but the man signed a contract and didn't fulfill his end.

Also, didn't we continue to do the Eddie D way of taking care of players after the salary cap? How did that end? I wouldn't trade Eddie, however this is a completely different game today.
  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 10,646
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
When did you count the money spent? Did you still have it in the bank or did you move it to the spent money account? If you have a debit and then have that debit forgiven does it become a credit? Or does it count as a non event? Was the expenditure projected and now is being unprojected? Or did it become income when it was unexpended? It's a lot more complicated than you might think!

At this point, I have no clue.

I am just dense.
[ Edited by buck on Mar 24, 2014 at 6:14 PM ]
Originally posted by kray28:
No claims....all facts. Please refute anything I said.Do you think other players/potential FAs failed to notice what happened?

The point wasn't about who's fault it was, the point was that the Niners were in perfect position to remedy it if they so desired. They didn't and they chose to take advantage of it instead. And after all that they lowballed him on a new deal. I guess he was just tired of being taken advantage of. He took a paycut to go play for the Raiders....

Like I said, stuff like that would have never happened under Eddie D's watch...with Eddie, the players always came first and he always tried to do right by them. The 49ers did well under that regime for a long time.

These new Niners under the Yorks....they're not the same.

I can't refute things that are all opinions.
No I don't think they failed to notice, more importantly I don't think their agents failed to notice.
Also, we didn't need to "remedy" the situation, as we didn't mess it up in the first place!

If your contract is paying you 3mil over a year, and more than half of it comes from attending workouts during the offseason.... You better know that or your agent better know that.

We are not a babysitting service, we are an NFL franchise. Brown's agent is the one to blame here, we shouldn't sacrifice 3mil of our cap space because of two boneheads who fail to read.
That 300k we gave him should stand out to more potential FA players than what happened.

1. He did not take a pay cut to go to the raiders
2. The niners are not responsible for him failing to attend
3. We didn't lowball him

I know you have been posting on here longer than I have, and you may be considered a "vet"
But from a fellow fan, like i said before you need to revisit that situation, sounds like you live in Seattle
Originally posted by buck:
Originally posted by dtg_9er:
When did you count the money spent? Did you still have it in the bank or did you move it to the spent money account? If you have a debit and then have that debit forgiven does it become a credit? Or does it count as a non event? Was the expenditure projected and now is being unprojected? Or did it become income when it was unexpended? It's a lot more complicated than you might think!

At this point, I have no clue.

I am just dense.

That's OK...it's not our money!
I guess the answer is no.
My understanding is that whatever money we don't pay out to players and that isn't tied up as dead money rolls over to the next year. We should have rolled $1.7million of the money intended for Brown to earn to 2014. Im pretty sure this is what happened and why we didn't put the full $2 million in Brown's pocket. Makes sense to me
  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 10,646
Originally posted by kray28:
Originally posted by Quest4six:
Originally posted by kray28:
What the Niners did with that workout bonus was nothing short of a dick move. Classless would another adjective that comes to mind. Stuff like that would never have happened under Eddie D's watch. If you want to consider why free agents didn't come flocking to SF, you might want to consider that little episode with Tarell Brown did not go unnoticed.

You need to revisit that situation. The niners are a football franchise, not a baby sitting service.
TB's agent is the one at fault here, also that's 2/3 of his salary. He should have known that, it is COMPLETELY on him.
FAs don't want to come to SF? Do you understand how free agency works?
Sorry if I'm being a jerk, but I suggest you look up some of those claims you are throwing around.

No claims....all facts. Please refute anything I said.Do you think other players/potential FAs failed to notice what happened?

The point wasn't about who's fault it was, the point was that the Niners were in perfect position to remedy it if they so desired. They didn't and they chose to take advantage of it instead. And after all that they lowballed him on a new deal. I guess he was just tired of being taken advantage of. He took a paycut to go play for the Raiders....

Like I said, stuff like that would have never happened under Eddie D's watch...with Eddie, the players always came first and he always tried to do right by them. The 49ers did well under that regime for a long time.

These new Niners under the Yorks....they're not the same.

You stated that What the Niners did with that workout bonus was nothing short of a dick move. Classless would another adjective that comes to mind.

That is not a fact; it is clearly a claim.

Here are some facts.

I did not participate in the discussions between Brown and the front office. I do not know the actual details of the contract and in particular the clause that pertained to the lost bonus workout. I do not know what happened between Brown and his agent. I do not have sufficient information or enough facts to render a judgment--much less a judgment as harsh as the one you are offering.

I think, I opine, that you do not have much more information or many more facts than I do.

You said that Stuff like that would never have happened under Eddie D's watch.

Again, that does not seem to be a fact, at least it can not be accepted at face value as a fact.
I consider this nothing more than your opinion.
Originally posted by Pillbusta:
My understanding is that whatever money we don't pay out to players and that isn't tied up as dead money rolls over to the next year. We should have rolled $1.7million of the money intended for Brown to earn to 2014. Im pretty sure this is what happened and why we didn't put the full $2 million in Brown's pocket. Makes sense to me


OK thanks.
  • buck
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 10,646
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
You mean we don't get a bigger cap.

I agree.

But do we have 2M to spend on someone else?

I think of "cap space" as the difference between what we have spent on salary and what we are allowed to spend (the "cap" -- our limit).

Do we have $2M to spend on someone else because we didn't spend it on Brown?

Yes. If we do not spend 2 million on Brown, we will have 2 million more to spend on someone else than if we had spent the money on Brown.

We do not get extra or additional cap space by not spending 2 million on Brown.

The recent contract with Miller reduced his salary for this year. With that reduction, we gained additional cap space.


If we spend money on a salary our cap space is reduced. If we do not spend money on a salary, our cap space stays the same; it does not increase.


I think we agree.
[ Edited by buck on Mar 25, 2014 at 5:28 AM ]