Why Not Three Years?

[Garthshort]

I apologize if someone has already asked this question. I'm wondering why the team didn't make the deal for three years, and in that way the signing bonus could have been spread over three years. By my calculations, it is now $15M, divided by two years, plus $4M in salary each year which equals a $11.5M Cap hit. If the contract was for three years the hit would have been $9M. Am I missing something?

 

[RugbyMuffin]

What you missed:

Kurt Warner has stated it is two years, and done (retirement).

 

[BACH]

I apologize if someone has already asked this question. I'm wondering why the team didn't make the deal for three years, and in that way the signing bonus could have been spread over three years. By my calculations, it is now $15M, divided by two years, plus $4M in salary each year which equals a $11.5M Cap hit. If the contract was for three years the hit would have been $9M. Am I missing something?

If this is a one year thing, then the team can take the entire cap hit in the uncapped year. If next year turns out not being a capped year after all, then the team can still spread it over three years after the new cap rules.

 

[Garthshort]

Kurt has also said that he wanted to help the team sign Q. Wouldn't a three year deal, have done that?

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I apologize if someone has already asked this question. I'm wondering why the team didn't make the deal for three years, and in that way the signing bonus could have been spread over three years. By my calculations, it is now $15M, divided by two years, plus $4M in salary each year which equals a $11.5M Cap hit. If the contract was for three years the hit would have been $9M. Am I missing something?

Because 2 is too many. You really want a 41 year old Kurt Warner running our team?

 

[Big Deal]

I think his point is that Kurt and the Cardinals would both know that the 3rd year would never be seen. I mean shoot if we were the Redskins we would have give Kurt a 5 year 100 million dollar deal and his cap hit could have been vet minimum this year.

This just goes back to the basic fundamentals of how Rod has always managed our cap. They don't believe in the manipulation of the cap to the point where you are going to pay for it in the end.

 

[moklerman]

I think it points to the fact that cap space and money aren't really the true issue for the Cardinals in all of this. They can afford it, so they got it done.

 

[cgolden]

why not 23 years?

 

[Big Deal]

why not 23 years?

LOL, I think there is a max number of years clause in the CBA.

 

[Garthshort]

Big Deal, thank you. I can't believe some of the other answers. I'm especially disappointed by C. Golden's response, because he knows a lot about the pro game.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Big Deal, thank you. I can't believe some of the other answers. I'm especially disappointed by C. Golden's response, because he knows a lot about the pro game.

 

[cgolden]

Big Deal, thank you. I can't believe some of the other answers. I'm especially disappointed by C. Golden's response, because he knows a lot about the pro game.

Uh, yea I hope that you don't think I was being serious.

 

[perivolaki]

This just goes back to the basic fundamentals of how Rod has always managed our cap. They don't believe in the manipulation of the cap to the point where you are going to pay for it in the end.

They call that cap jail.

 

[Big Deal]

Uh, yea I hope that you don't think I was being serious.

I didn't think you were serious, just playing along.

 

[Goldfield]

23 years is ridicules! 18-20 IMO

 

[moklerman]

23 years is ridicules!

No, if one made fun of your spelling it is what they would have done to you.