Green Name Cleaning Day [Ahman and Morlon Waived, Weaver Survived Cut]

[TexicanMexican]

Texans placed Morlon Greenwood and Ahman Green on waivers.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6256500.html

[TrickyTexan]

i'm crushed :)

[NBT]

Well, well.......what's next, I wonder?

[Keith]

I read that link from the chron twice and still can't find Anthony Weaver's name on it... someone please help.

;)

[dalemurphy]

I read that link from the chron twice and still can't find Anthony Weaver's name on it... someone please help.

;)


He's going to be given an opportunity to make the team. The cap savings for him this year isn't that huge and perhaps Bush and Kollar think they can get something out of him.

[nunusguy]

I thought Green was history long ago, released by now ? But the Greenwood move is constructive.
I dunno, maybe they want to retain Weaver if he agrees to the right restructured deal ?

[texan]

I was expecting Weaver to be cut as well. Anyone think moving him to DT might be an option?

Will Demps has to be cut, right?

[mussop]

Not cutting Weaver has me worried. With Adibi and Diles hurt much of last season and Weaver staying, could this mean that OLB has become their top priority? I hope not because this is a weak crop of OLB's in the upcoming draft. I prey they dont reach for someone like Cushing at 15. :(

[dadmg]

There goes our 3rd and 4th highest cap figures for '09. Green wasn't much in savings (only about 800,000 due to remaining bonus) but cutting Greenwood saved us $1.5 million, assuming there weren't any upcoming roster bonuses for either. I think the reason we didn't see Weaver cut (at least not yet) is that, in spite of the high cap figure he holds, it looks like (at least from a glance at Keith's page) that cutting him would result in a net loss of $1.9 million. While Weaver's not worth his contract, he's not so bad that we feel that we need to take that loss. It's still considerably cheaper to keep him and have him compete for a spot on the bench than it is to cut him and Weaver's still decent enough depth. As long as the Texans don't consider him a starter, I have no problem with keeping him around when the alternatives are more expensive.

[Arky]

Thank you, Jesus.

[ramp1028]

Thank you, Jesus.

I just got through talking to Him, and he said to tell you, your welcome..

oh, and he said you need quit doing that thing you do, and maybe just maybe he would take care of Weaver too.

:D

[cadams]

There goes our 3rd and 4th highest cap figures for '09. Green wasn't much in savings (only about 800,000 due to remaining bonus) but cutting Greenwood saved us $1.5 million, assuming there weren't any upcoming roster bonuses for either. I think the reason we didn't see Weaver cut (at least not yet) is that, in spite of the high cap figure he holds, it looks like (at least from a glance at Keith's page) that cutting him would result in a net loss of $1.9 million. While Weaver's not worth his contract, he's not so bad that we feel that we need to take that loss. It's still considerably cheaper to keep him and have him compete for a spot on the bench than it is to cut him and Weaver's still decent enough depth. As long as the Texans don't consider him a starter, I have no problem with keeping him around when the alternatives are more expensive.

my information may be wrong, but i heard that cutting green and greenwood will save them close to 7 million in cap space.

[painekiller]

my information may be wrong, but i heard that cutting green and greenwood will save them close to 7 million in cap space.

The way I figure it, dadmg is correct on Green. With two years left on his contract, the accelerated bonus allocation is close to $4M, we save the $4.8 in salary, leaving us a savings of $800K.

Greenwood is easier. This would be his last year of his contract, We save $4.7M in salary and have $1.5M in dead money. For a cap gain of $3.2M

The two players together save us around $4M.

I hope you guys can follow my explanation.

[Bigtinylittle]

The way I figure it, dadmg is correct on Green. With two years left on his contract, the accelerated bonus allocation is close to $4M, we save the $4.8 in salary, leaving us a savings of $800K.

Greenwood is easier. This would be his last year of his contract, We save $4.7M in salary and have $1.5M in dead money. For a cap gain of $3.2M

The two players together save us around $4M.

I hope you guys can follow my explanation.

This is a complicated issue which is why we are seeing different figures. The way I se it, the seven mil is the more correct one to use. That's because the Texans' approximately 30 mil available cap space number that is being floated around already has the bonuses for Green and Greenwood this year figured in. So the salary portion doesn't get anything subtracted from it. Green and Greenwood's cuts save us about 9.5 mil in salary. THEN you subtract Green's last year of bonus money (somewhat over 2 mil.) and you get the extra 7 mil available to spend this year. Hope I'm right because 7 mil buys a fair bit more talent than 4 mil.

[Keith]

Frankly, I am a little confused on the reports of Green's cap savings, but the key here is to understand how each report is calculating the "savings". Adam Schefter noted (http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/02/10/texans-saves-some-green-by-releasing-some/) in his blog that the team saved $3.93 million in waiving Green.

Green had salary and bonus figures totalling $5.5 million on the '09 cap. His unamortized bonus money was $2.5 million. Net the two, and it's just $3 million, but that's not how Schefter is calculating the "savings" based on his Greenwood savings calculation.

Greenwood is much more straightforward. He had $1.4 million remaining and the team saved $4.768 million in base salary and $100k in a workout bonus by cutting him. Schefter says the team saved $4.87 million, meaning he is not accounting for the dead money left behind.

To get to Green's savings, I think maybe you take the $5.5 million and subtract the $1.6 million earned for active games in 2008 (@ $200k apiece) and add back in the first game's bonus of $31,250. It comes out to Schefter's $3.93 million reported... I'm just trying to figure out how that $1.6 million should be reflected on the '09 cap, if at all.

ETA - The math in getting to Schefter's $3.93 million seems to make some sense (and the chron reported a similar $4 million figure), but I'm bothered still by netting the savings against the $1.6 million from last year's incentives. At the time of the renegotiation, 6 games and $1.2 million should have been deemed as LTBE while the other 10 and $2 million should have been deemed as NLTBE. Green played in 8 games last year, and I'm unclear still as to how much of that should reflect on the '08 cap.

There is some verbiage in the CBA (Art 24, sec 7, part c - Incentives) that says:
Any incentive bonus that is stated in terms of a per play or per game occurrence automatically will be deemed “likely to be earned” to the extent the specified performance was achieved by the player ... in the previous year. ... If not initially counted as “likely to be earned,” such incentives shall be counted immediately towards the Salary Cap and Entering Player Pool when they are earned.

ugh... I expect to get some clarification on this by the end of the month when I get the final cap adjustment numbers.

[coloradodude]

Canned the Vince Lombardi way...

Boys, everyday there are planes coming in to Houston and planes leaving Houston. Here's your tickets.

Buh-bye.

[teufelhunden]

Surely there was room on that bus for Petey.

[Keith]

Surely there was room on that bus for Petey.
As someone with an expiring contract, there is no need to cut Faggins.

That said, I'm not opposed to bringing him back to fight for a spot on the roster. I don't think he's a standout special teams player, which will hurt him, but as long as he has safety help on the deep routes, he can be serviceable at corner.

...I know, I'm in the minority here on this one. :p

[papabear]

As someone with an expiring contract, there is no need to cut Faggins.

That said, I'm not opposed to bringing him back to fight for a spot on the roster. I don't think he's a standout special teams player, which will hurt him, but as long as he has safety help on the deep routes, he can be serviceable at corner.

...I know, I'm in the minority here on this one. :p

There's no reason to not let him compete. There's no big cap savings by cutting him. I would hope if he makes the team that Reeves, Bennet, Molden, and Robinson keep him down the depth chart, but you can do a lot worse than Petey for your fith CB....you can also do a lot better than Petey as your #2 or #3 CB though.

I seem to remember him covering kicks...I know he was on the kickoff coverage team, not sure about covering punts.

[NBT]

It would be fine if Petey could compete. There's just not much chance for a 4.6 CB!
As for Weaver, I look for him to be a June 1st cut.

[Keith]

As for Weaver, I look for him to be a June 1st cut.
No need for June 1 cuts in the last capped year.

The purpose of the June 1 date was to allow teams to forward future years' dead money into the next year's cap. Since 2010 is currently set to be uncapped, the CBA will not allow for this in 2009.

I've got a little something on my thoughts with Weaver that maybe I'll upload to the front page tonight.

ETA - http://www.inthebullseye.com/archive/2009/20090213.html

[Arky]

Might be a good chance Weaver sticks around. The way I see it, he could be put in a rotation with "the new guy" with the new guy getting the majority of the snaps. Or perhaps Weaver remains the starter while the new guy learns the NFL via OJT as the backup. However, if this new DE is a 1st rounder, I bet he gets thrown into the fire... Weaver would be an awful expensive backup, then. And what do you do about effort guys like Bulman and Cochran? Less snaps for them? Wouldn't hurt to have them on hand in case of injury to one of the front line guys....

I think it's a given that the Texans are going to pick up a new DE in the draft but what round, who knows?...

[nunusguy]

Weaver would be an awful expensive backup, then. And what do you do about effort guys like Bulman and Cochran? Less snaps for them? Wouldn't hurt to have them on hand in case of injury to one of the front line guys....

I think it's a given that the Texans are going to pick up a new DE in the draft but what round, who knows?...
How can we justify keeping Weaver around when we've got other DLineman like Bulman & Cochran (and don't forget DelJuan Robinson) who are comparable talents IMO and yet come much cheaper and are younger ? Re drafting a DE, it's a slam-dunk we get one in one of our first 2 picks.
BTW my wife and I are talking about getting a dog and I like DelJuan for its name. Now how many dogs are named DelJuan ? I like it !

[Arky]

How can we justify keeping Weaver around when we've got other DLineman like Bulman & Cochran (and don't forget DelJuan Robinson) who are comparable talents IMO and yet come much cheaper and are younger ? Re drafting a DE, it's a slam-dunk we get one in one of our first 2 picks.
BTW my wife and I are talking about getting a dog and I like DelJuan for its name. Now how many dogs are named DelJuan ? I like it !

I don't know. What I do know is that the coaches don't think like a lot of us and that is probably good most of the time. To me, Weaver is unspectacular - seems like his name is never called. To the coaches, they may think he is "solid". :confused:

If you haven't read Keith's article, check it out. He gives Weaver the benefit of the doubt regarding his possibly playing a couple of years while nursing injury....it is a plausible scenario...

[nunusguy]

I don't know. What I do know is that the coaches don't think like a lot of us and that is probably good most of the time. To me, Weaver is unspectacular - seems like his name is never called. To the coaches, they may think he is "solid". :confused:

If you haven't read Keith's article, check it out. He gives Weaver the benefit of the doubt regarding his possibly playing a couple of years while nursing injury....it is a plausible scenario...

I can't see how they keep Weaver unless they materially restructure his contract ?

[Bigtinylittle]

Nice writeup Keith.

I swear I heard Weaver in a radio interview a few months ago say he will never be 100% again. He didn't go into details.

[Keith]

I can't see how they keep Weaver unless they materially restructure his contract ?

The damage is already done. He costs $3.5 in payroll to keep on the roster this season. Either the Texans feel comfortable in whoever replaces him, or they pay him for one more season and hope for the best.

With $30mm or so in cap room, there is no cap need to restructure. Weaver isn't a game-to-game injury risk like Ahman Green, so restructuring his base to bonus won't really save much, if anything. Weaver would simply have to want to accept less with little-to-no money guaranteed and assume he couldn't do better as a free agent if he refused.

Perhaps the biggest risk to the team in keeping him thru the offseason and camps would be for Weaver to get injured in "non-contact" OTAs (haha, it hurts to laugh at this) or mini- and training camp, which would send him and his salary to the injured reserve. Even still, the Texans would likely try to settle with him should that happen.

Nice writeup Keith.

I swear I heard Weaver in a radio interview a few months ago say he will never be 100% again. He didn't go into details.

Thanks.

I hadn't heard that myself, but it's tough to know what to make of it. There probably aren't many who are "100%" at 29 years, just goes with the sport... but if there's more to it than that, then I'd be even more surprised that Weaver is still with the team.

[painekiller]

I hadn't heard that myself, but it's tough to know what to make of it. There probably aren't many who are "100%" at 29 years, just goes with the sport... but if there's more to it than that, then I'd be even more surprised that Weaver is still with the team.

I remember some chatter around the time he said this, and I think your correct, no NFL player who is 29 is ever 100% again. The game is just to brutal.