PDA

View Full Version : HOU draws the line at $24 million?


Dr. Toro
04-25-2006, 12:39 AM
From the blog of John Czarnecki:

Texans unwilling to go above $24 million in guaranteed money for Bush.

http://blogs.foxsports.com/NFL_Czar/2006/04/24/Sending_a_message

thetexanator
04-25-2006, 12:53 AM
hehe, must be some really good bush:redtowel:

LongBignasty1
04-25-2006, 05:53 AM
Dittto:yahoo:

O.G.
04-25-2006, 06:33 AM
From the blog of John Czarnecki:

Texans unwilling to go above $24 million in guaranteed money for Bush.

http://blogs.foxsports.com/NFL_Czar/2006/04/24/Sending_a_message

They simply can't becuse of the NFL's new CBA prohibiting the number of years you can pro-rate a signing bonus. It decreased from 7 years to 5 with an optional year thus limiting how much they can give. Also add in there, they won't know how much they will have for the rookie pool until after the draft.

thunderkyss
04-25-2006, 06:57 AM
Personally, I would have found it hard to believe that they would go over $24 mil gauranteed....... I mean he's a runningback....... same goes for Mario. I could see Matt.......... or another QB expecting more.... but not any other position.... maybe a little more for a corner.............. maybe, if he's good enough to be the #1 overall.

Sportsfan
04-25-2006, 08:37 AM
hehe, must be some really good bush:redtowel:


LMAO! :redtowel:

texan279
04-25-2006, 08:39 AM
If I'm not mistaken, Alex Smith got $24 million in guaranteed money in his contract last year.

kbourda
04-25-2006, 08:51 AM
Here's my point. Had the Texan brass spent the money in the first place to acquire top notch talent they would not have the #1 pick. Now they want to set a limit on what a player is signed to. Someone help me understand.

Mr. White
04-25-2006, 09:03 AM
Makes me think that the report of the $30 million signing bonus really was true.

cuppacoffee
04-25-2006, 09:04 AM
Here's my point. Had the Texan brass spent the money in the first place to acquire top notch talent they would not have the #1 pick. Now they want to set a limit on what a player is signed to. Someone help me understand.

Not too sure what you mean?

We have the #1 pick because our previous coaches ? didn't have a clue.

Texansfan30
04-25-2006, 09:07 AM
It's not about 'spending the money' to acquire top notch talent. The Texans have the reputation of overpaying, not underpaying. They certainly gave Carr a lot of money. Plus, when you are an expansion team (or a generally bad teama - think Cardinals, Saints), it takes even more money to get players. Who wants to come to a bad team? You have to overpay to entice them to come here, and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

The problem here has been bad coaching and bad draft picks. The first round picks are either home runs or 'ungraded'. D. Robinson and A. Johnson were home runs. Travis Johnson is ungraded, and I think it's fair to say Carr is ungraded since we haven't really given him enough around him to succeed.

The 2nd and 3rd round picks have been disasters. Peek and Pitts are about the best we've done with them. Charles Hill? Does anyone remember that name? A 3rd round NT that didn't even get out of training camp. Bennie Joppru? Gaffney? Fred Weary? Babin may turn out to be a better DE than he was LB, but we traded our 2, 3, and 4 for him. These were all disastrous moves. And don't even get me started on Philip Buchanon.

This isn't about them not paying for talent. It's about their talent evaluation. After the first round, it's atrocious.

kbourda
04-25-2006, 09:15 AM
The problem here has been bad coaching and bad draft picks. The first round picks are either home runs or 'ungraded'. D. Robinson and A. Johnson were home runs. Travis Johnson is ungraded, and I think it's fair to say Carr is ungraded since we haven't really given him enough around him to succeed.

Ok, if we all are aware that late pick talent judgement is poor would it be possible to get better talent via FA? That's my point. And not the Cass way (offering a player that tore his ACL, MCL, and PCL in both knees and offer them a 4yr/35 mil contract based on potential) either.

kbourda
04-25-2006, 09:16 AM
Not too sure what you mean?

We have the #1 pick because our previous coaches ? didn't have a clue.

True enough they had something to do with it as well but so did talent.

Mike Kerns
04-25-2006, 09:43 AM
If this were true, I would expect that it would be on more news outlets than some dudes blog. We all know and have said to expect tons of crazy rumors & BS this week. If the FO wants Bush, they will get it done.

Caphorn
04-25-2006, 10:21 AM
The Chronicle reported this morning that the number will need to be below $24MM because of the pro-rating issue identified correctly by OG (note that there has been talk that the assumptions by McLain about Smith's contract and the prorating of his bonus are wrong)

I honestly think other than a couple of boneheaded draft moves (trading up for Jason Babin and picking up the Hollings experiment) we've done OK in the draft. Just look at the players around the ones you ***** about sometime and you'll find that Houston's done fairly average and maybe above average. Some of the deals we talk about (Gaffney over Josh Reed for example) are ones that look bad in hinsight, but on a pre-draft basis, most prognosticators had Gaffney over Josh Reed. Joppru - who knows? I'm sure Casserly didn't know going in that Joppru would blow out his knee. I'm also not convinced that poor coaching hasn't been the bigger contributor to our poor line play. I'd like to see where some of these guys like Pitts develop under good coaching. I think where we did the worst was in trying to draft into the 3-4 in general. We really took some stabs at this with selecting Travis Johnson (when an obviously better Johnson was on the board) and the afore-mentioned Babin deal. But that's kind of the name of the game when you select an unusual defensive alignment and you make the mistake of focusing too much on need over best player available.

infantrycak
04-25-2006, 11:03 AM
The Chronicle reported this morning that the number will need to be below $24MM because of the pro-rating issue identified correctly by OG (note that there has been talk that the assumptions by McLain about Smith's contract and the prorating of his bonus are wrong)

Alex Smith signed a 6 year contract last year because of the time period for the expiration of the old CBA. Prior 1st rounders like Carr and AJ had been signing 7 year contracts. The CBA extension dictates the maximum length for picks #1-16 is 6 years so the proration time period is the same for Smith and this year's top pick.

Kaiser Toro
04-25-2006, 11:12 AM
Some of the deals we talk about (Gaffney over Josh Reed for example) are ones that look bad in hinsight, but on a pre-draft basis, most prognosticators had Gaffney over Josh Reed.

Not sure how this looks bad.

Reed
http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/302219

Gaffney
http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/306271

MikeMc
04-25-2006, 11:25 AM
Good point ^^^^...300 more yards and one more TD......that's like an extra yr of production for Reed.

Reed was in a 3 WR set, Gaffney was in a 1 WR set (AJ or bust).

mj.
04-25-2006, 11:43 AM
[QUOTE=Caphorn]The Chronicle reported this morning that the number will need to be below $24MM because of the pro-rating issue identified correctly by OG (note that there has been talk that the assumptions by McLain about Smith's contract and the prorating of his bonus are wrong)
QUOTE]

http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/9393943

Adam Schefter is reporting the same thing. Check out the second item in the above article. He writes :

"But here's something else to remember. One prominent agent said the deal for the No. 1 pick cannot include any more than $21 million of guaranteed money -- $3 million less than the San Francisco 49ers gave last year to No. 1 overall pick Alex Smith.

The reason for this is that Smith's contract was over six years with an option for a seventh, while the contract for this year's No. 1 pick will be over five years with an option for a sixth. The numbers make it so that an agent will have to be highly creative, brilliant even, and that might not be enough to concoct a scenario under which this year's No. 1 overall pick will be guaranteed as much money as in Smith's six-year, $49.5 million deal. "


btw... If you re-read McClain's article he says the top bonus number will be $22M not $24M.

"...it will be impossible for the top pick to get as much as $22 million guaranteed, compared with the guaranteed $24 million that San Francisco quarterback Alex Smith received last year."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/3816986.html

1-3
04-25-2006, 04:19 PM
22 million and a nice house for his folks should do it.

Frank_The_Tank
04-25-2006, 04:27 PM
24 million for a 2nd string running back/4th string reciever. Sounds like a waste.

Dr. Toro
04-25-2006, 04:28 PM
If this were true, I would expect that it would be on more news outlets than some dudes blog. We all know and have said to expect tons of crazy rumors & BS this week. If the FO wants Bush, they will get it done.

This "dude" is a longtime NFL insider and the link was foxsports front page headline.

Mike Kerns
04-25-2006, 04:43 PM
24 million for a 2nd string running back/4th string reciever. Sounds like a waste.
Nice.