ohall said:I can't believe so many Dolphin fans think Ty Law is not worth 4 million a year. Shoot, that seems like a bargain to me.
BringBackShula said:I think he's worth that money. But I don't think the Dolphins should get him. We just unloaded a bunch of Surtain money. Getting Law would put us right back to square one. Salary cap hell. ANd you know he's gonna get paid for the next FEW years at at least $4 mil. We're straight without him.
chuckcole said:The argument, as I read it, is that (1) we're trying to get younger on defense; (2) we're trying to shift some of the salary cap investment from the defense to the offense; and (3) we're rebuilding, so why would we need to get a pro-bowl corner anyway. Signing Ty Law does not support any of these points, unless under certain circumstances.
Poole is likely lost for the season. He's got a minimum of 4-6 months rehab (based on medical recommendations on this type of injury), and there would definitely be questions on how effective he could be afterwards. This would open the door for a one-year "stop-gap" solution and may force us to stray somewhat from the "get younger" argument.
The only way that I think we would sign Ty Law is if it's a short term, low money contract -- like a one year, at or near minimum contract. I don't ever see Law signing this kind of deal, and thus, I doubt very seriously that Law will be coming to Miami. But, if for some strange reason, Law would sign such a deal, then the salary cap impact would be minimal and thus could still allow for money to shift to the offensive side of the ball.
I also don't believe too much in that we're rebuilding. I still believe that we have a lot of talent, we just need someone to focus that talent in a positive way. I think Saban and the coaching staff are definitely capable of doing that as opposed to our previous staff. I honestly believe that if this can be done, we could at least double our wins from last season.
So, all in all, I only support a Ty Law signing if it's a short term, low dollar contract. Because if this isn't the case, then yes, it violates the very valid points in the argument. I also think that there's no way that Law would go for this kind of deal. So, it's a mute point.