Are the Hawks completely disinterested in FA this year?
by Nick Andron on Feb 26, 2009 2:59 PM PST
Email
PrintAll sorts of teams are making roster moves (not many haven't, in fact). One reason would be to free up as much cap space as possible in preparation for the fast-approaching free agency.
To date, the Hawks haven't made any major roster moves, to speak of.
Is this an early sign that the Hawks are disinterested in Free Agency this year?
I just don't see any reason why we'd keep some of our underperforming (grossly or not) players on the roster, such as BRuss. No. Brian Russell. He's too crappy to deserve a cool sounding truncated name.
I am purposefully ignoring what the FO may or may not have said regarding free agency. In my mind, actions speak louder than words. And in my mind, not freeing cap space when you've got dead weight players speaks quite loudly.
What are your guys' (and gals') thoughts?
16 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The problem is, we don't have a lot of deadweight players to get rid of.
Perhaps Russell but the coaching staff thinks highly off him so he’ll likely remain in a reserve role. Maybe Mike Wahle but he only saves a couple million on the cap at most. The rest of our team either doesn’t cost much or are deemed too important (Kerney, Peterson, Jones, Hasselbeck). Grant may be worth cutting because of his huge payday but then we have zero starting caliber safeties on the roster. However, perhaps some of these guys will restructure so we can have a bit more to spend.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
Russell only counts 900K against the cap.
Kerney’s value against the cap increases by 2 million if released this year.
I know.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 27, 2009 11:10 AM PST up reply actions
Actually, I believe you used the word disinterested wrong.
And this is a common mistake. One more example.
Back in the 1700’s, it was popular for gentlemen to be disinterested, and actually, according to Gordon Wood, was a major goal of George Washington. I would gladly welcome an unbiased view on free agency.
Back to your point, I don’t think we’re uninterested in this years free agent crop, we just don’t have the cap space. Unless Leroy Hill gets a long term deal to defer some of his salary, or we somehow manage to trade down from the number 4 pick, it seems we’ll only have about $7 million to spend on a lot of open spaces. We won’t undergo a cost cutting spree that Tampa showed, but I’ll be interested to see if we cut someone of importance to this team.
Word is, they were going to dump Ronde as well, if it weren't for the fact that he agreed to become a FS in desperation.
…Wow.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 26, 2009 3:56 PM PST up reply actions
Franchising Leroy and signing our draft picks
should take most of our cap room, right? None of the other players we are likely to cut would save us a ton of money, and if I recall correctly Kerney would lose us money if we cut him. Barring an unexpected cut (Hasselbeck or Big Walt) I don’t see the team making a big splash in FA this year.
Yes,
but teams like the Jets have restructured guys such as Calvin Pace and Kerry Rhodes to free up cap-room and those guys are good players in relation to others on the same team. Why are we not doing these things? Surely there are players on our roster that would fit under the re-negotiation umbrella. Maybe we are and it hasn’t made news (yet).
Are there any players that it makes sense to cut?
From what I understand the players that stand to give the most cap relief are guys like Hasselbeck, Walt, and Kerney. Cutting any of them doesn’t make a lot of sense at this point and with the rest of the guys the cap relief would be minimal.
I think Kerney would be more expensive to cut than to keep
"It's just one big guy against another big guy, both teams know what's at stake. The one of them comes out on top and it feels good."
-Chris Collinsworth, Madden 09
by Wayward Llama on Feb 26, 2009 5:54 PM PST up reply actions
I wish I understood the cap better
By my amateur calculations Kerney would cost $6.66 million to cut and he’d cost $7 million against the cap if he was kept on ($4 million salary plus his $3 million roster bonus). So cutting him would at best save very little money, and theres a very good chance I messed that up and you’re right that he’d cost more to cut at this point. Either way I was wrong, he shouldn’t be considered someone the Hawks could save any significant amount by cutting.
would getting rid of some back ups make any sense?
like craig terrill, babineaux, and one of the kickers? i remember they had bigger contracts than i expected but that may only net like 2 million in cap space
We're thin at DT already, so Terrill is out
he’s also likely save very little. Babineaux’s salary is $1.35mil and I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t all come off the cap, not a huge savings but maybe not a bad idea if they need some flexibility.
Again, I really wish I understood the cap better….
Babs isn't the best, but he's pretty good for that price.
"It's just one big guy against another big guy, both teams know what's at stake. The one of them comes out on top and it feels good."
-Chris Collinsworth, Madden 09
by Wayward Llama on Feb 26, 2009 8:57 PM PST up reply actions
I'm hoping that Ruskell is just biding his time
So as not to tip his draft hand
"It's just one big guy against another big guy, both teams know what's at stake. The one of them comes out on top and it feels good."
-Chris Collinsworth, Madden 09
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
