Goliath Posted March 10, 2006 Author Share Posted March 10, 2006 Are we trying to save money or win games? Cutting Luke saves $920,000. I suppose that can be described as a "boatload" of money ... if you are driving a dingy. I don't see any logic in expecting to improve from 2005 to 2006 while downgrading the LT position... Then what the hell is with that article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Money Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Then what the hell is with that article? The article only mentions his salary ($4.5 million in 2006). It doesn't mention that he still has quite a bit of remaining in bonus money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Mr. Money !! What about restructuring Lukes contract !! Guys like peyton manning and marvin harrison are restructuring what about Luke?? Have you heard anything? As mentioned weeks ago we have to keep Luke for the time being but with his back problem the giants FO should be able to work a better deal for the team and free up some cash!! I hope we can buy a DT CB and LB! wishfull thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Money Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Mr. Money !! What about restructuring Lukes contract !! Guys like peyton manning and marvin harrison are restructuring what about Luke?? Have you heard anything? As mentioned weeks ago we have to keep Luke for the time being but with his back problem the giants FO should be able to work a better deal for the team and free up some cash!! I hope we can buy a DT CB and LB! wishfull thinking. Restructuring his contract makes it more difficult to cut him in future seasons. While it saves money short-term, it costs the team money in the long-term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Restructuring his contract makes it more difficult to cut him in future seasons. While it saves money short-term, it costs the team money in the long-term. thats very true ! and we absolutely dont want him in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goliath Posted March 10, 2006 Author Share Posted March 10, 2006 The article only mentions his salary ($4.5 million in 2006). It doesn't mention that he still has quite a bit of remaining in bonus money. Damn, the second paragraph is deceiving! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigPete Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 rather than draft McNeil at #25, I would rather trade down for an extra day 1 possible (something like our #25 to Detroit for #40 and #74) Draft: Daryn Colledge at #40 and Greg Eslinger at #74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmenroc Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Keep Petitgout, just restructure the deal to save money. Extend contract, decrease base salaries, increase bonus, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Money Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Keep Petitgout, just restructure the deal to save money. Extend contract, decrease base salaries, increase bonus, etc. Then it will be more difficult to cut him in future years ... save less money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmenroc Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Then it will be more difficult to cut him in future years ... save less money... I realize that it will be more difficult to cut him in later years, but until a suitable replacement is available, there's really no reason to get rid of him. His penalties suck, his back sucks, but again, I don't know of any LTs out there that can come in and do better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njsmalls Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 McNeil won't be there at #25. But if he is, we take him. I won't feel right not addressing the offense during the offseason. Although...there is not much to do other than a #3 WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now