Let's begin this experiment by stating very clearly that putting any blame on Roy Shivers no longer works, as with this years crop of option players there are NO players left on the team with contracts that have Roy's signiture on them.
So any "financial train wreck" scare tactics you hear from ET are now all of his own doing.
That applies obviously to a guy like Fantuz, who, while obviously someone found proof that he had signed a new contract, anyone with a lick of sense would have been able to do this math---Roy Signed him him to a 1+1 contract.
If he had not signed a new deal, he would be a free agent right now, wouldn't he?
But moving on to the crux of the matter.
I already asked and answered this on the open forum, but I'll repeat it here.
Cut Crandell, Tate and Jones.
Easily 150,000 saved. Done.
Okay, some/many of you won't like that solution, and Artie thinks those two kids were on the 9 game, so then their salaries were cap exempted last year anyway.
In which case, a new plan is needed.
So let's back up a little.
How come to come up with a plan to keep KJ, we need to also be keeping Perry, Jones and Hunt?
All players which in fact we did not keep?
For the record, ET did give Perry a new contract, then traded him, he insulted Hunt with the offer of a significant pay cut, not a raise, and to my knowledge, no offer what so ever was made to Jermese Jones. He is on record saying the Riders never talked to him.
And I doubt Szarka got a raise, and I believe Matt took a pay-cut.
Theoretically, by trading Perry and letting Hunt and Jones walk, we already have opened up cap room.
Now ET tells us we needed more.
So back to Crandell.
By releasing him, we most certainly would have freed up some significant room.
Next, you ask how do we pay Eddie Davis AND KJ?
Well, first, I love Eddie Davis.
But here is the thing.
If KJ is too old, then what does that make Eddie? They are in fact the same age.
And in football terms, more QBs play into their late 30s than do defensive backs. So if you would expect a drop off in performance due to age, look for it in Davis before you do in KJ.
To put a fine point on it, KJ could concievably play 5 more years. Eddie Davis, two, tops.
Yet we found the cash to give Eddie the raise he deserved, but not KJ.
Part two of this is, a question.
Which position is more important on a team, QB, or DB?
And further, which position is easier to replace?
So as a GM, making those tough calls, that supposedly ET is making, do you pay an aging Crandell and an aging Davis, or do you free up nearly the entire 100,000 needed to sign KJ by releasing not 4 more players as ET suggested, but just those two.
And as Crandell is also an aging QB, you certainly impact the team far less by his release than by trading KJ.
So again, question asked, and answered.
I am not finding this all that tough so far.
ET is on record saying 30 players still under contract will in fact all recieve raises this year, but that is covered by the 150,000 increase in the cap, so that is not an issue.
Everyone gets a raise.
At the end of the day, when ET tells us this deal was about the cap, I say balderdash!!
In his list of reasons why we traded KJ, I am sure that cap space was considered, but on his top ten list, it was likely number 9.
I think ET was perfectly willing to move KJ, and all he needed was an excuse.
If there was any truth to ET's contention that he wanted to sign KJ, if only he could find the cash, then it would have been done.
The simple reality is, that was never ET's intention.
Nothing else makes sense.
Of course, being that I am a Rider fan, perhaps as ET said, I am just too myopic to grasp the subtle genius of his plan....
So much for the "S" standing for "S"askatchewan.....