bubba9497 Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Coles Situation Testing Redskins' Salary Cap By Mark Maske Washington Post Staff Writer http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44042-2005Feb22?language=printer The Laveranues Coles situation severely tested the salary-cap acumen even of people around the league who know the intricacies of the system well. At one point Monday evening, an executive from one NFL team well-versed in salary-cap rules said he thought it would be virtually impossible for the Washington Redskins to trade the wide receiver even if Coles agrees to give back a sizable portion of his $13 million signing bonus. The executive said his understanding of the rule was that any give-back by Coles would give the Redskins a salary-cap savings in the 2006 season, not next season, and that would make a trade next to impossible on the Redskins' 2005 salary cap. He was close. But he wasn't exactly right, and there is enough of a difference to mean that trading Coles indeed is feasible for the Redskins from a salary-cap perspective -- at least if Coles agrees to a proposed signing-bonus give-back before March 2, the start of the league's fiscal year. Under the salary-cap rules, a signing-bonus give-back by a player results in a salary-cap savings for his team in the next league year, meaning that the Redskins can make a Coles trade work on their salary cap for the 2005 season only if Coles agrees to his signing-bonus give-back before March 2. That gives Coles, the Redskins and whatever team to which they'd like to trade him until only the middle of next week to work it all out. The clock is ticking. Here's how it all works from a salary-cap perspective: Coles is two seasons into a seven-year, $35 million contract with the Redskins that included a $13 million signing bonus. Since the signing bonus is prorated over the duration of the contract for salary cap accounting purposes, Coles's signing bonus counts $1.86 million against the Redskins' cap for each season that he is with the team. He is on the books to count $3.36 million against the Redskins' salary cap next season (the $1.86 million signing-bonus proration plus his $1.5 million salary for the 2005 season). Under salary-cap rules, if a player is traded or released, the remainder of his signing-bonus money that hasn't yet counted against the cap is "accelerated," and counts against his former team's salary cap the following season. In Coles's case, that would mean that he would count, under normal circumstances, $9.28 million against the Redskins' salary cap next season if they would trade him or release him (his $13 million signing bonus minus the $3.72 million of it that already has counted against the cap in his two seasons with the club). That's $5.92 million more than the $3.36 million that he'd count against the Redskins' cap by staying with the team, and that would be enough of an additional cap hit to keep him from being traded or released. The Redskins couldn't come up with the nearly $6 million in additional salary cap space without tearing apart their roster. (Coles would count only $1.86 million against the Redskins' salary cap next season if the club would release him after June 1, actually saving the team $1.5 million from the $3.36 million charge if he remains on the roster. But waiting until then to cut Coles wouldn't solve the Redskins' immediate problem of having a player who doesn't want to be around. It wouldn't solve Coles's problem of wanting to get to another team while other clubs still have jobs and money available. And it would leave Coles counting a cumbersome $7.42 million against the Redskins' salary cap in the 2006 season.) This is where the signing-bonus give-back comes in. And, in fact, it's not even a matter of Coles giving back money that he already has received; it's a matter of him forfeiting money that he's about to receive. Redskins owner Daniel Snyder makes it a policy not to pay a hefty signing bonus to a player in a single lump sum. He divides it up into a series of payments. That's what happened with Coles, who is due to receive a $5 million deferred payment (from his original $13 million signing bonus) on April 1. To free himself from the Redskins, Coles apparently is willing to forfeit that $5 million. And this, in turn, is where the give-back rule comes in. If Coles agrees by March 2 to forfeit the $5 million, the Redskins would get credit for the $5 million on their 2005 salary cap. So instead of their salary cap having to absorb an extra $5.92 million hit for trading Coles, the additional cap hit would be a far-more-manageable $920,000. Suddenly, trading Coles goes from not do-able against the salary cap to do-able. Coles and his agent, Roosevelt Barnes, apparently would expect any team trading for Coles to pay him the $5 million that he would agree to waive from the Redskins. The Redskins, in a trade, would get a draft pick or a player in return for their disgruntled player. The problem, of course, is finding a team willing to pay $5 million and surrender a draft choice or a player for a disgruntled player with an ailing foot who could end up being released if no trade is completed. What would be in it for that team? It would be getting Coles -- who, even with his disenchantment in D.C. and his bad foot, played at a near Pro Bowl level in 2003 and had 90 catches this past season -- without having to worry about pursuing him on the free-agent market, in which the competition to sign him could drive the financial parameters higher. One source familiar with the situation, speaking on the condition that he not be identified because the deliberations are at a sensitive stage, said Monday that a possible trade was in the works. The Redskins' leading trade partner for Coles could end up being the New York Jets, the team from which they stole Coles in restricted free agency prior to the 2003 season. The Jets wanted to keep Coles but were unwilling to match the Redskins' offer, and took a first-round draft choice as compensation instead. But Coles had a great relationship with Jets quarterback Chad Pennington. And anyone who watched the Jets play this past season knows that their offense remains in dire need of one more receiving threat. The Redskins probably would want defensive end John Abraham in return. The Jets have designated Abraham their franchise player. But with Coles's diminished value, given the league-wide wariness about the soundness of his foot and the fact that other teams believe the Redskins might release Coles if they can't trade him, it probably would take more than Coles to pry Abraham from the Jets. The Baltimore Ravens remain desperate for help at wide receiver a year after trying but failing to land Terrell Owens. But the animosity between the two I-95 neighbors might preclude a Redskins-Ravens trade. Dallas Cowboys Coach Bill Parcells drafted Coles for the Jets in 2000. The Cowboys need help at wideout. But it's highly doubtful that the Redskins and Cowboys, as heated divisional rivals, would be trade partners. Seattle Set to Sign Hasselbeck, Tag Alexander An NFL source said this morning that the Seattle Seahawks reached an agreement late Monday night with Matt Hasselbeck on a contract extension that will keep the quarterback off the unrestricted free agent market next week. The deal will enable the Seahawks to use their franchise-player tag today on tailback Shaun Alexander, another prospective unrestricted free agent. The deadline for teams to use their franchise tags on players is 4 p.m. (Eastern time) today. Seattle had been facing a potentially difficult choice in deciding whether to use the tag on Hasselbeck or Alexander. Now that problem apparently is solved. Signing Hasselbeck means that the Seahawks should be able to retain all three of their key offensive players -- Hasselbeck, Alexander and left tackle Walter Jones -- who entered the offseason eligible for unrestricted free agency on March 2. Seattle signed Jones last week to a seven-year, $52.5 million contract extension that includes $21 million in bonus money (including a $16 million signing bonus). The NFC West champions began the offseason with 16 players eligible for unrestricted free agency. Alexander, if he's given the franchise tag, would have a salary of $6.323 million next season, the average of the salaries of the league's five highest-paid running backs. He would be able to negotiate with other teams when the unrestricted free agent market opens next week, and he could sign an offer sheet with another club if he chooses. But the Seahawks would have the right to retain him by matching the offer sheet, and the right to receive two first-round draft picks from his new team as compensation if they allow him to depart . . . The Oakland Raiders are facing a franchise-player dilemma, deciding whether to use the tag on wide receiver Jerry Porter or cornerback Charles Woodson. It appears that the Raiders will use the tag on Woodson -- perhaps merely buying time to attempt to trade him -- and try to complete a five-year, approximately $20 million contract extension with Porter before the free-agent market opens. Woodson, as the franchise player, would have a hefty salary of $10.539 million next season. That's higher than the franchise-player figure for cornerbacks of $8.816 million because the rules guarantee Woodson a 20 percent raise from last season. He had an $8.7824 million salary last season after the Raiders made him their exclusive franchise player last offseason. Other players who could get the franchise tag today include Indianapolis Colts tailback Edgerrin James, New England Patriots kicker Adam Vinatieri, San Francisco 49ers linebacker Julian Peterson, Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver Plaxico Burress and Jacksonville Jaguars safety Donovin Darius. Six players received their teams' franchise tags last week -- San Diego Chargers quarterback Drew Brees, Cincinnati Bengals tailback Rudi Johnson, St. Louis Rams left tackle Orlando Pace, Philadelphia Eagles defensive tackle Corey Simon, Abraham and fellow defensive end Darren Howard of the New Orleans Saints . . . The Green Bay Packers made tight end Bubba Franks their transition player Monday. That designation would give Franks a salary of $2.095 million next season, the average of the salaries of the 10 highest-paid tight ends in the league. The Packers have the right to retain Franks by matching any offer sheet that he might sign with another club, but not the right to receive any draft-pick compensation from his new team if they opt to left him depart . . . The Colts kept right tackle Ryan Diem off the unrestricted free agent market by signing him to a seven-year, $36 million contract extension that includes more than $10 million in bonus money. Cuts Coming Today The ranks of free-agent players will be bolstered considerably in the coming days as teams release players to get in compliance with next season's $85.5 million-per-club salary cap by the March 2 deadline. The cuts become official today, when the NFL's waiver system goes back into effect. Quarterbacks Kurt Warner of the New York Giants, Brad Johnson of Tampa Bay, Jay Fiedler of Miami and Chris Chandler of St. Louis likely will be on the market soon. They'll join the two veteran quarterbacks, Jeff Garcia of Cleveland Drew Bledsoe of Buffalo, whose teams announced last week that they'd be released. Another prominent quarterback, Brian Griese, also could be on the market if he's unable to agree to a restructured contract to remain with the Buccaneers. Carolina wide receiver Muhsin Muhammad led the NFL in receiving yards (1,405) and touchdown catches (16) this past season. But he is to count $12.5 million against the Panthers' salary cap next season and likely will be released if he can't agree to a restructured contract with Carolina. . . The Colts probably will release tight end Marcus Pollard to clear $2.6 million in salary cap space . . . In addition to Fiedler, the Dolphins seem prepared to release defensive end Jay Williams and safety Arturo Freeman, and perhaps linebacker Junior Seau, defensive tackle Tim Bowens, fullback Rob Konrad and wide receiver David Boston . . . Among the other Buccaneers players apparently in jeopardy of being released are fullback Mike Alstott, linebacker Ian Gold and defensive end Greg Spires. But it seems like a long shot that the club would release the popular Alstott a year after taking a public-relations hit for releasing safety John Lynch . . . The Tennessee Titans announced Monday that they'd release wide receiver Derrick Mason, cornerback Samari Rolle, defensive lineman Kevin Carter, offensive tackle Fred Miller, kicker Joe Nedney and fullback Robert Holcombe. The Titans were about $27 million over the cap. Jets Trying to Re-Sign Ferguson The Jets are making a strong push to try to re-sign defensive tackle Jason Ferguson before he hits the unrestricted free agent market next week . . . Tim Ruskell, the assistant general manager of the Atlanta Falcons, has emerged as the favorite to be hired as the Seahawks' president of football operations . . . It appears increasingly likely that Will Muschamp will be the Dolphins' defensive coordinator. He was Coach Nick Saban's defensive coordinator at LSU and already is on the Dolphins' coaching staff in a not-yet-specified role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Mark Maske is my hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzSkinsFan63 Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 I'm still trying to figure out why a guy with a toe injury in whichhe seems content on keeping would want to risk FA. Especially after the addition of Musgrave. I think a trade is better for him and us for sure. Hope we can get it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLSKINSFAN Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Mark, please come back to the Redskins beat, we need you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted February 22, 2005 Author Share Posted February 22, 2005 The Colts probably will release tight end Marcus Pollard to clear $2.6 million in salary cap space . . . hmmmmmmmmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlobberKnockinFootball Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Did you forget this Bubba? :fortune: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirk Diggler Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Excellent, excellent summary of what's going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Marcus Pollard??? hmmm...how much money is he seeking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzSkinsFan63 Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by bubba9497 Coles Situation Testing Redskins' Salary Cap By Mark Maske Washington Post Staff Writer http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44042-2005Feb22?language=printer The Redskins probably would want defensive end John Abraham in return. The Jets have designated Abraham their franchise player. But with Coles's diminished value, given the league-wide wariness about the soundness of his foot and the fact that other teams believe the Redskins might release Coles if they can't trade him, it probably would take more than Coles to pry Abraham from the Jets. I'm not sure I believe this statement. We could very well play hardball with Coles if something doesn't transpire with the Jets or someone else in a trade. We don't have to do squat if a trade doesn't develop. Just watch IMHO the Jets have been tampering and getting away with it because they don't like what is out there in FA. I don't really like what is out their in FA when it comes to receivers myself. Which is our luck of course. I look for and even trade. The Jets want Coles. The toe in question would be only reason we don't get a draft pick also not vice versa. That's my opinion anyway. In no way do we give up a draft pick also. If we do I'll be P'O'd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manichispanic Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by cphil006 Marcus Pollard??? hmmm...how much money is he seeking? im guess more than $2.6 mil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Just a sidenote... If we trade Coles and Gardner, we actually come out 600k ahead, before factoring in any compensation due to players or draft picks we receive in return, although I guess you have to account for the Rule of 51. Either way, we dont really need to clear up cap space right now if we are getting picks in returns, only players with contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocono Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 What he didn't cover is what would the NFL think about him giving back 5M to the Skins and then getting 5M from the new team. It sure sounds like they're trying to circumvent proration acceleration rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Man.... I don't want Abraham at all. That guy is oft-injured and a "me" player.... not a Gibbs "true Redskin". Give us a 2nd and 4th for Coles and be done with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 I wouldn't want Abraham for Coles. But I guess we are stuck. I don't see him playing for GW. GW demands alot from his players as does Herm Edwards, and Abe wouldn't do squat for Herm. Abe would not work out that well here. He might even hold out if he were traded here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted February 22, 2005 Author Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by Pocono What he didn't cover is what would the NFL think about him giving back 5M to the Skins and then getting 5M from the new team. It sure sounds like they're trying to circumvent proration acceleration rules. ahhhhh, the loophole Snyder has found, it is allowed to release a player... why not to trade a player? no rules says you can't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUSTINMFOX Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Help me out..... If we don't like what were offered for Coles, can't we just force him to play next year? If he sits out, does he get the full 5-6 mil bonus? If this is the case doesn't Coles hold all of the cards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by AzSkinsFan63 I look for and even trade. The Jets want Coles. The toe in question would be only reason we don't get a draft pick also not vice versa. That's my opinion anyway. In no way do we give up a draft pick also. If we do I'll be P'O'd The rumors I am hearing at this end of the country (definitely unsubstantiated) is Coles and our 3rd round pick for Abraham. And we thought this was going to be a relatively quiet offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty P For The Pulitzer Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Maske is the man. I don't think anyone could've explained that more clearly. Let's work out a deal for Coles and get fair value in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by bubba9497 Coles Situation Testing Redskins' Salary Cap By Mark Maske Washington Post Staff Writer http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44042-2005Feb22?language=printer The Redskins probably would want defensive end John Abraham in return. The Jets have designated Abraham their franchise player. But with Coles's diminished value, given the league-wide wariness about the soundness of his foot and the fact that other teams believe the Redskins might release Coles if they can't trade him, it probably would take more than Coles to pry Abraham from the Jets. Abraham was hurt much of the last part of last season. I don't know the specifics but there may be question marks about his health too. I know that some questioned his desire to play in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by Pocono What he didn't cover is what would the NFL think about him giving back 5M to the Skins and then getting 5M from the new team. It sure sounds like they're trying to circumvent proration acceleration rules. I think that depends on what purpose you think proration acceleration serves. If there is no "giveback", and a player is cut or traded, of course the salary cap hit for money already paid needs to be accounted for under the salary cap. Otherwise The Danny would be using it for every player on the team. But I dont think it exists to intentionally restrict the movements of players with large bonuses. I really dont see the problem. The player agrees to adjust his contract in order to make himself more tradeable, under the assumption that the player and agent can recoup that money in a renegotiated deal with a new team. Renegotiated deals with new teams are a highly common occurrence, players expect new, larger, long-erm contracts with upfront money all the time. Its just the SB giveback aspect that is peculiar, and if the player is willing to forgo his SB in order to move to another team, then thats his prerogative, is it not? In any event, I'm sure as an amateur "capologist", you must find this turn of events to be rather interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzSkinsFan63 Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by bubba9497 ahhhhh, the loophole Snyder has found, it is allowed to release a player... why not to trade a player? no rules says you can't Subject for NFL approval? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimster Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by Pocono What he didn't cover is what would the NFL think about him giving back 5M to the Skins and then getting 5M from the new team. It sure sounds like they're trying to circumvent proration acceleration rules. it's in the player's best intrests, so why would they object? I hope we can work out a trade quickly with the Jets for Abraham. ...Man it's so nice to read a decent, factual article from a Washington area sports writer. - It's a rare thing these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Something else I found interesting, which I mentioned last night to Blade, was the division of SB payments. The Redskins generate crazy amounts of free cash flow. They can easily afford the bonus payments. So why did he split them? Is this something Snyder and crew had in mind all along? At the very least, it seems to offer some protection against the "Deion/Ricky" effect where players jump ship with their entire SB and the team has to litigate over a period of years to get the cash back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted February 22, 2005 Author Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by AzSkinsFan63 Subject for NFL approval? the NFL can ony squash it if it violates a CBA rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzSkinsFan63 Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by jimster it's in the player's best intrests, so why would they object? Where have you been the last 12 years? .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.