WOW the Postons are awful
http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm
NO SIGNING BONUS FOR WOODSON
A league source tells us that cornerback Charles Woodson's contract with the Packers includes a signing bonus of . . . zero dollars, zero cents.
The reason for the team's decision not to pay Woodson has less to do with his skill and more to do with the fact that the Packers have plenty of cap room for 2006. By funding Woodson's first-year pay through a roster bonus and base salary, $10.5 million can be handed to him with no proration in future years.
As a practical matter, this makes it easier for the Packers to cut ties with Woodson in any future season, since there would be no acceleration due to the portion of the signing bonus that applies to future years.
We're also told that, although the deal is being characterized as a seven-year, $52 million arrangement, it is as a practical matter a three-year, $18 million package. Depending on Woodson's performance, he could be gone by 2007 or 2008.
Not a huge deal, but not bad for an aging, injury-prone cover man as to whom only one other team expressed serious interest.
http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm
NO SIGNING BONUS FOR WOODSON
A league source tells us that cornerback Charles Woodson's contract with the Packers includes a signing bonus of . . . zero dollars, zero cents.
The reason for the team's decision not to pay Woodson has less to do with his skill and more to do with the fact that the Packers have plenty of cap room for 2006. By funding Woodson's first-year pay through a roster bonus and base salary, $10.5 million can be handed to him with no proration in future years.
As a practical matter, this makes it easier for the Packers to cut ties with Woodson in any future season, since there would be no acceleration due to the portion of the signing bonus that applies to future years.
We're also told that, although the deal is being characterized as a seven-year, $52 million arrangement, it is as a practical matter a three-year, $18 million package. Depending on Woodson's performance, he could be gone by 2007 or 2008.
Not a huge deal, but not bad for an aging, injury-prone cover man as to whom only one other team expressed serious interest.
