Brunell and Redskins Reportedly Close to Restructured Deal

[irish]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I think you are overrating Gibbs' current opinion of Brunell. The team needs salary cap space and went to Brunell to get it. They could have cut him and gained $2.1 million in space, or they could ask him to take a paycut and gain even more space.

Gibbs is the team president. He went to Brunell knowing that at the very least, he was going to get that $2.1 million in space. That's what is motivating Brunell to accept the paycut. Brunell knows that he's not worth much on the open market these days, and that whatever he could get from the Skins in this restructured deal would be the most $ he could get in 2007. What was the catalyst to make Brunell realize that? The team, and it's team president, had to make it real clear: "Mark, accept a pay reduction so we can save more than $2.1 million. Or we're going to cut you and save the $2.1 million. Those are your options."

In the words of AC/DC, "listen to the money talk." It says it all. When Brunell was signed to a $42 million deal, we all knew what that meant for Patrick Ramsey, and look what happened to him. Now, Gibbs is cutting Brunell's salary. Campbell is the guy.

I understand MB's motivation for taking the deal but I dont understand the Redskins' motivation for the offer. It seems that the $ saved by restructure or cut is about the same so why was option 1 needed? IMO, because Gibbs loves MB and still thinks he can play.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by irish

I understand MB's motivation for taking the deal but I dont understand the Redskins' motivation for the offer. It seems that the $ saved by restructure or cut is about the same so why was option 1 needed? IMO, because Gibbs loves MB and still thinks he can play.

Are you mathematically challenged? The difference between $2.1 million (savings if cut) and $3.5 million (savings under my restructure scenario) is big. $1.4 million to be exact.

$3.5 million is 67% more than $2.1 million. About the same? Wha??

You can do a lot with $1.4 million. You can fit the first year of a 2nd round pick's contract in that amount of space.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Are you mathematically challenged? The difference between $2.1 million (savings if cut) and $3.5 million (savings under my restructure scenario) is big. $1.4 million to be exact.

$3.5 million is 67% more than $2.1 million. About the same? Wha??

You can do a lot with $1.4 million. You can fit the first year of a 2nd round pick's contract in that amount of space.

Seriously, that's a huge difference.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Are you mathematically challenged? The difference between $2.1 million (savings if cut) and $3.5 million (savings under my restructure scenario) is big. $1.4 million to be exact.

$3.5 million is 67% more than $2.1 million. About the same? Wha??

You can do a lot with $1.4 million. You can fit the first year of a 2nd round pick's contract in that amount of space.

I was only looking at post 39 where you say it costs 2.1 to cut or 2.1 to sign. There is a difference and that savings is nice and maybe if the redskins ever hold onto a 2nd round pick that $ will come in handy.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by irish

I was only looking at post 39 where you say it costs 2.1 to cut or 2.1 to sign. There is a difference and that savings is nice and maybe if the redskins ever hold onto a 2nd round pick that $ will come in handy.

You misread post 39. I said:

"Mark, accept a pay reduction so we can save more than $2.1 million. Or we're going to cut you and save the $2.1 million. Those are your options."

Doesn't have to be a 2nd round pick. It can be two guys playing for the vet minimum. It can go towards finding enough space for Nate Clements and London Fletcher. Etcetera.

This is how the 'Skins always do it. Trim $1.4 million here, trim $1 million there. Cut bums like John Hall and Troy Vincent, trim a few million there. It's how they always avoid the "cap hell."

[MTK]

Originally Posted by irish

I understand MB's motivation for taking the deal but I dont understand the Redskins' motivation for the offer. It seems that the $ saved by restructure or cut is about the same so why was option 1 needed? IMO, because Gibbs loves MB and still thinks he can play.

He saves us more by restructuring vs. cutting him.