Collins' restructured deal cap-friendly for Raiders
HIS '05 BASE SALARY IS LESS, REPORT SAYS
By Steve Corkran
Knight Ridder
Quarterback Kerry Collins was the consummate team player in 2004 when he said and did everything on and off the field that the Raiders asked of him. This week, he put his money where his mouth is.
Wednesday, Collins agreed to restructure his contract in such a way that lowered his base salary from $4.7 million to $1.2 million for 2005 and helped the Raiders get under the salary-cap limit, according to a person familiar with the negotiations.
The Raiders now are about $2 million under the projected salary-cap figure of $85 million. The cap was $80,582,000 in 2004. All teams must be under the limit March 1 and remain there the rest of the season. Free agency starts March 2.
Still, the Raiders have plenty of work to do before the cap takes effect. They would have to clear close to $6 million more of cap space should they elect to designate cornerback Charles Woodson or wide receiver Jerry Porter a franchise player by Tuesday's deadline. Both will be unrestricted free agents if they aren't re-signed by March 2.
The franchise tag is a one-year tender from a team to a player on the verge of free agency. The tender guarantees the player the average of the top five salaries at his position from the previous season. In exchange, the team gets the right to match an offer from any other team or receive two first-round draft picks if another team signs that player.
The franchise tender stands at $8,816,000 for Woodson and $7,768,000 for Porter. The Raiders used the exclusive franchise tag on Woodson last season and wound up paying him $8,781,000.
It is team policy not to discuss contract negotiations, Raiders senior personnel executive Mike Lombardi said.
But it is no secret that the Raiders aren't inclined to pay quarterback Rich Gannon the $8 million he is scheduled to receive in 2005. He restructured his contract from $7 million to $4.5 million before last season.
Now, Gannon is recovering from a broken vertebra in his neck sustained Sept. 26 and unsure whether he wants to attempt a comeback. The Raiders could save $7 million or so by getting Gannon to accept a restructured contract that would pay him the veteran minimum. They would save less by releasing Gannon before June 1 because the unaccounted portion of Gannon's signing bonus would be accelerated and count toward the 2005 cap.
Raiders Coach Norv Turner has said he won't comment on Gannon's future until Gannon's doctors provide enough information on his long-term outlook. That makes Collins the No. 1 quarterback until further notice. Collins earned $660,000 last season. He is scheduled to make $6 million in 2006.
The Raiders also have several prime candidates for restructuring or release: left offensive tackle Barry Sims ($3.1 million in 2005), backup defensive tackle John Parrella ($3 million), right guard Ron Stone ($2.2 million), left guard Frank Middleton ($2 million), backup running back Zack Crockett ($2 million) and defensive tackles Ted Washington ($2 million) and Warren Sapp ($2 million).
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercuryn ... 932411.htm
Collins' restructured deal cap-friendly for Raiders
-
1niksder
- **********
- Posts: 16741
- youtube meble na wymiar Warszawa
- Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 2:45 pm
- Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all
- Contact:
Collins' restructured deal cap-friendly for Raiders
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....
If the world didn't suck we'd all fall off
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....
If the world didn't suck we'd all fall off
This article has some factual errors that make it hard for me to take anything out of.
The Raiders can't get away with paying Woodson 'only' $8.816M to franchise him... even if that IS the franchise number for cornerbacks.
The collective bargaining agreement clearly states that you must pay a player an average of the top 5 salaries OR 120% of last year's contract --> WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
$8,781,000 - 2004 SALARY
+1,756,000 - 20% INCREASE
--------------------------
$10,537,000 = TENDER
Big difference. Just pointing out the incongruency... don't know if that makes the rest of the article bunk.
The '120%' clause is obviously because if you were already the #1 or #2 paid guy... how would an average of the top 5 be fair for you? You'd be losing money.
The Raiders can't get away with paying Woodson 'only' $8.816M to franchise him... even if that IS the franchise number for cornerbacks.
The collective bargaining agreement clearly states that you must pay a player an average of the top 5 salaries OR 120% of last year's contract --> WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
$8,781,000 - 2004 SALARY
+1,756,000 - 20% INCREASE
--------------------------
$10,537,000 = TENDER
Big difference. Just pointing out the incongruency... don't know if that makes the rest of the article bunk.
The '120%' clause is obviously because if you were already the #1 or #2 paid guy... how would an average of the top 5 be fair for you? You'd be losing money.
Sean Taylor was one of a kind, may he rest in peace.
-
1niksder
- **********
- Posts: 16741
- Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 2:45 pm
- Location: If I knew ... it would explain a lot but I've seen Homerville on a map, that wasn't helpful at all
- Contact:
$10,537,000 = TENDER
Was the reason given for why Woodson wouldn't be tagged this year.
Maybe this guy just didn't do the research or had a deadline to meet.
posted article wrote:Still, the Raiders have plenty of work to do before the cap takes effect. They would have to clear close to $6 million more of cap space should they elect to designate cornerback Charles Woodson or wide receiver Jerry Porter a franchise player by Tuesday's deadline. Both will be unrestricted free agents if they aren't re-signed by March 2.
This and almost everything else in the story is based on the tendered offer being at $8,816,000 so most of it is flawed.
Had I noticed that earlier I wouldn't have posted it
..__..
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....
If the world didn't suck we'd all fall off
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
When you reach the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on....
If the world didn't suck we'd all fall off
-
Primetime42
- Hog
- Posts: 1727
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2003 12:09 am
- Location: Romo-sexual
-
Primetime42
- Hog
- Posts: 1727
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2003 12:09 am
- Location: Romo-sexual
There's too much to read as it is.BossHog wrote:Primetime42 wrote:Well, at the very least it shows that you are on the ball.
.. or to take EVERYTHING you read with a grain of salt.
"He's a playmaker, that's his label. They used to have strong safeties, but now they got another position: They're called playmakers." -Terence Newman on Roy Williams
BossHog wrote:The Raiders can't get away with paying Woodson 'only' $8.816M to franchise him... even if that IS the franchise number for cornerbacks.
The collective bargaining agreement clearly states that you must pay a player an average of the top 5 salaries OR 120% of last year's contract --> WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
$8,781,000 - 2004 SALARY
+1,756,000 - 20% INCREASE
--------------------------
$10,537,000 = TENDER
Woodson signed his one-year, $10.5 million franchise tender, which creates major cap problems for the Raiders.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/stor ... 9705204233
Toot, toot.
Sean Taylor was one of a kind, may he rest in peace.
-
Primetime42
- Hog
- Posts: 1727
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2003 12:09 am
- Location: Romo-sexual
BossHog wrote:BossHog wrote:The Raiders can't get away with paying Woodson 'only' $8.816M to franchise him... even if that IS the franchise number for cornerbacks.
The collective bargaining agreement clearly states that you must pay a player an average of the top 5 salaries OR 120% of last year's contract --> WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
$8,781,000 - 2004 SALARY
+1,756,000 - 20% INCREASE
--------------------------
$10,537,000 = TENDER
Woodson signed his one-year, $10.5 million franchise tender, which creates major cap problems for the Raiders.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/stor ... 9705204233
Toot, toot.
OK, who saw THAT coming?
"He's a playmaker, that's his label. They used to have strong safeties, but now they got another position: They're called playmakers." -Terence Newman on Roy Williams
