Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi
It seems like we need to be clear as to WHY we're having this waiver claim. There are two primary advantages that I can think of: 1. Other teams can have "first crack" at a released player, while keeping their current salary/contract years. 2. The releasing team can save a bit on the cap hit.
At first, I was inclined to say that a team that makes a successful waiver claim then inherits the entire contract (and future cap hits). The team which released the player takes the hit only for the current year...
BUT THEN I GOT TO THINKING ABOUT THE NFL... and there are players that are released & they still have cap ramifications for the releasing team in future years. Do NFL teams get any advantage when other teams pick up their waived players? I don't think so, right? So then, we should probably have the full cap hit (for the entire length of the contract) for the releasing team. This will insure that this waiver claim is an advantage only to the claiming team, and not the releasing team.
Or am I missing something?
|
NFL Teams are always responsible for the Signing Bonus hit, but not the contract itself. Thus a claiming team picks up the contract (which isn't guarenteed) and no cap ramifications.
All that being said, OUR contracts ARE GUARENTEED. I personally have no problem giving the cutting team a portion of the cap relief...
In the past, a team had 2 options when they no longer want a player... cut a player (with a cap hit, but available immediatly to be resigned as a UFA) or trade a player (with no cap hit).
Now those options are slightly different as we've added a new variable to the mix. Now if a player is cut, he cannot be immediatly resigned/bid upon by his team, as the other 11 teams in the league will have 1st crack to claim said player off waivers. Cutting a player with the hopes of resigning them now has an element of risk.
Also, the original vote was all about providing cap relief if a guy was claimed off waivers. The conflict that Brian is brining up is that we thought it would provide a full 20% relief of the base contract when we voted, when in reality, according to the rules we updated last year it'd only be 10% (which is fine IMO... as I stated earlier).
Does this make more sense to you now Jim?