The "Suuuuuuuuuuh" Thread
- Thread starter Nexus
- Start date
Mavric
Yoda
NUance
New member
Signing Suh would take most of the Lions' cap space. Maybe they want to sign the guys they drafted instead, and then possibly pick up a cheaper veteran d-lineman in free agency.
zoogs
New member
The Lions screwed up with their contract for Suh and are now in a position where it is impossible cap-wise to tag him. This has been noted to be in the offing for months now, as was Suh's looming free agency departure (they won't have the cap to re-sign him, either) so it isn't a deadline surprise.
Mavric
Yoda
Yeah, I can't remember the details now but his previous contract sounds like a disaster from the team's side. Something about he is still counting against their cap even if he isn't there so if he did resign at something like $26M per it would actually be counting $30M+ per because of how the old contract worked. Basically impossible to keep him when they already have huge money tied up in Stafford and Johnson.
Paul in WI
New member
I think about any team would want to get him just in self-defense. Packer fans whine about him enough now. If he went to the Bears, it'd be insufferable around here.
zoogs
New member
Why are they graphing guaranteed money of the total deal as a % of a single year's salary cap?
$60M demonstrates a significant long term commitment to Suh, but that is spread out over multiple years. The guys who have much less guaranteed money - that is to say, everybody - probably do not have something like, "The first three years of this contract's salaries are fully guaranteed." So that doesn't mean they are that much less onerous against the cap; it simply means their teams have an easier path to cut them -- or say, decline an option if they decide after a couple years that the guy isn't a $10M player anymore. And I am not sure, but perhaps these fully guaranteed years are more of a recent trend in NFL contracts?
As a percentage of the cap, Suh's year 1 cap hit is probably still unprecedented. I don't expect (hope!) the Dolphins will become great as a result of this deal, but then again, I don't think they were going to get there without it, either.
$60M demonstrates a significant long term commitment to Suh, but that is spread out over multiple years. The guys who have much less guaranteed money - that is to say, everybody - probably do not have something like, "The first three years of this contract's salaries are fully guaranteed." So that doesn't mean they are that much less onerous against the cap; it simply means their teams have an easier path to cut them -- or say, decline an option if they decide after a couple years that the guy isn't a $10M player anymore. And I am not sure, but perhaps these fully guaranteed years are more of a recent trend in NFL contracts?
As a percentage of the cap, Suh's year 1 cap hit is probably still unprecedented. I don't expect (hope!) the Dolphins will become great as a result of this deal, but then again, I don't think they were going to get there without it, either.
Last edited by a moderator:
NUance
New member
Yeah, I thought this was a good quote from the article:
Bill Belichick agrees with this.
zoogs
New member
I agree, with the caveat that he'll pay players when he has to. I think it's a mix of being astute about value, and taking risks that sometimes result in guys being overpaid (Adalius Thomas comes to mind).
Updating because there are now details of Suh's contract. Pretty incredible.
Suh is going to count $6.1M against the Dolphins' salary cap this year. For comparison, Darrelle Revis counted $12M against the Patriots' salary cap last year. But Suh will count $28.6M against the cap in 2016, and all of that is fully guaranteed. Except for a $15,000 workout bonus...ha!
Given the salary cap increases since 2012, though, it does not really seem like a bigger deal than Calvin Johnson's 2012 contract. Then again, how well have the Lions done since then?