tr1 Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Among other things, how to spend their cap. I'll quote one paragraph that demonstrates from an excellent article as to why the Redskins will be the place where players want to be: "The Redskins could restructure the contracts of several players with hefty base salaries -- Brunell ($4 million), tackle Jon Jansen ($4 million) and guard Randy Thomas ($3.5 million) -- and their 2006 cap numbers could be significantly decreased if the players agree to convert that salary to guaranteed bonuses. The team also has a host of players due hefty roster bonuses, such as Arrington, cornerback Shawn Springs ($3.1 million) and tailback Clinton Portis ($3 million), but those bonuses can also be converted, allowing the team to spread a cap savings over four years as well." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011601350.html You see, Eagles fans, when a team spends money (guaranteed bonuses), players like that. The Eagles could have been competitive this year had they spent a little money and kept Simon, Burgess, etc. And as for all you your dire predictions about Redskin cap hell, let me just say that CASH CREATES CAP... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted January 17, 2006 Author Share Posted January 17, 2006 And for those Eagle fans in the slow group let me further explain the benefit of signing players to large back ended contracts. 1) If the player performs, you convert the cap to cash and he stays while your cap numbers improve; 2) If the player doesn't perform, you can convert the cap to cash and give him a large severance in exchange for building cap room...sometimes, you have to spend money badly in one place to make things better in another. If Laurie would spend some money, he could have a team three deep in key starters...but he's too cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerpsEagles Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 What is the Skins record since Snyder took ownership ? Just curious. Aren't the Skins currently about 18 Mill over the cap for next year ? Again, just curious. As for the Simon/Burgess comment. tr1, do you know how many games Burgess actually played for the Eagles in the "02, '03, and '04 seasons combined ? 13 games in 3 years he played in. But hey, you keep on bringing him up in your attemp to bash the Eagles. Hindsight is fun, huh ? Simon ? You are aware that the Colts are out of the playoffs, right ? Exactly how did Simon help them this year ? And for all that $$$$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 Simon had 0 sacks this year. Sorry, tr1, but the Skins spending ways have finally caught up with them. Every other year, the HUGE ROSTER turnoever was explained away as you obviously needed new players to replace the players who sucked on your team, right? What about this year? You are 18 million over the cap and have several RFAs that your team would love to keep. Bowen and Cartwright off the top of my head. I wonder what the spin will be when the Skins can't give them a competitive offer or give them a real tender? Shoot, both were undrafted so any team can sign them without any compensation. What about Brunnell? Everyone told us last year that his play was so bad that he would be cut along with his 6 million dollar salary or whatever he is making. What about now? I'd love to see you go into next year with Campbell and Ramsey as your top 2 QBs. Heck, I'll love to see you go into next year with Brunnell still on the team. Your QB situation is not going ot just work itself out....I foresee many problems. I wonder if Gibbs will name Campbell the starter this year and then pull him quickly when things don't go well. :laugh: About converting the salaries to bonus's. The WP is forgetting about the 30 percent rule stating that no salary can decrease by 30 percent from one year to the next. If Danny had it his way, every player on the team would be making the minimum, with cash bonus's each year. Unfortunately, there are rules in place to make sure that owners can't circumvent the cap in this manner. Tough break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlsbadd Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 I dount we are in any position to give the Eagles advise on how to manage thier cap. While they have been going to the playoffs and the superbowl the last 4 years we have had nothing but turnover from the top down. Let them do what they do. We have the cash and owner that will do what it takes to keep our squad together and that's all that should matter to us Redskins fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted January 17, 2006 Author Share Posted January 17, 2006 Obviously, no one took time to read the article. The difference between the Eagles and Redskins when it comes to salary negotiations is that our players will stay in exchange for, in essense, a cash out of their existing years through re-structuring. Sorry, but with a ton of cash to spend, the Redskins aren't going to get into a bad cap situation...it ain't gonna happen. Oh, and tell me you guys wouldn't have wanted Burgess or Simon on the team this year...please, tell me that. Had Laurie decided to spend any of that cap, you could have had a decent QB backup...but to save cash, they gambled that McNabb would stay indestructable...something that gets tougher and tougher for older QBs to do.. I like our chances with the cap considering that there's a new TV contract and bargaining agreement just around the corner... Laurie is cheap...and it hurt him this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y100Rocks Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 The new tv contract? Oh so that means a higher cap. So somethings bails the redskins out once again just enough to not completely impload. Thats a great theory to live by. You do know a higher cap means higher for everyon else right? That gives no advantage to the redskins. Everyone sees those results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 tr1, you have NEVER explained how the Laurie can be cheap when he spent THE MOST MONEY IN THE NFL over a five year period: http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112106&highlight=eagles+cheap Honestly, stop with the spin. How is he cheap and yet spent the most money? Also, it's obvious you are really worried with the Eagles....that's why you always talk about them. Once TO exploded this year, and McNabb called it a year, you didn't talk about them. No longer a threat, I suppose. Now you are right back talking about them. I guess you know that the Skins having 2 games handed to them by our JV squad isn't going to happen next year so you'll be closer to 8-8 rather than 10-6. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y100Rocks Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 btw most of the artical that we have all neglected to read.... has little to do with actually talking about the salary cap, this is all you need to see, not some irrelevant quotes While trading or releasing Arrington would provide cap relief beginning in 2007, retaining him and converting his $6.5 million roster bonus (due by July 15) to a signing bonus would actually benefit Washington's 2006 cap situation (he would count roughly $7 million rather than $12 million), and Arrington said he would be open to discussions about other ways to trim his cap number as well. Arrington asked for permission to seek a trade once before the season and again when benched for two games in September, league sources said, but since then has been adamant about remaining here. The Redskins could restructure the contracts of several players with hefty base salaries -- Brunell ($4 million), tackle Jon Jansen ($4 million) and guard Randy Thomas ($3.5 million) -- and their 2006 cap numbers could be significantly decreased if the players agree to convert that salary to guaranteed bonuses. The team also has a host of players due hefty roster bonuses, such as Arrington, cornerback Shawn Springs ($3.1 million) and tailback Clinton Portis ($3 million), but those bonuses can also be converted, allowing the team to spread a cap savings over four years as well. These all of two paragraphs aren't even in order in which they appeared. There was too much banter in between, that we ALL neglected to read. p.s. The figure, 6.5 million, does not remind of Lavar Arringtons roster bonus that the redskins will have to concern themeselves with instead of doing something like evaluating this years draft class. It reminds me of the fact that this is exactly how much Jack Brewer is helping the eagles get in extra salary cap next season because of unreached incentives in his contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted January 17, 2006 Author Share Posted January 17, 2006 The new tv contract? Oh so that means a higher cap. So somethings bails the redskins out once again just enough to not completely impload. Thats a great theory to live by. You do know a higher cap means higher for everyon else right? That gives no advantage to the redskins. Everyone sees those results. Yes, but to enjoy the benefits of a higher cap, one needs to spend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted January 17, 2006 Author Share Posted January 17, 2006 tr1, you have NEVER explained how the Laurie can be cheap when he spent THE MOST MONEY IN THE NFL over a five year period:http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112106&highlight=eagles+cheap Honestly, stop with the spin. How is he cheap and yet spent the most money? Also, it's obvious you are really worried with the Eagles....that's why you always talk about them. Once TO exploded this year, and McNabb called it a year, you didn't talk about them. No longer a threat, I suppose. Now you are right back talking about them. I guess you know that the Skins having 2 games handed to them by our JV squad isn't going to happen next year so you'll be closer to 8-8 rather than 10-6. :laugh: Where's the bonus money? Where does Laurie rank there? We both know that answer. :laugh: If I remember, the first game included McNabb and Westbrook and TO...is that what you're referring to when you say JV squad? :laugh: And if anyone is afraid, it's Eagles fans...no longer will they dominate this division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle091 Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 made me laugh, have to admit. I don't understand your point once it was crushed tr1. even a felow redskin fan was telling to shut up, because it made no sense. for the most part, it was a waste of 30 seconds of my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted January 17, 2006 Share Posted January 17, 2006 I looked at the cap numbers for the eagles... They were out there. Lurie is just pocketing the Savings because he knows eagles fans will go to the games win or lose. Yall had like 12-16 million left over - The highest in the League. Congrats on your niggardly run team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Congrats on your niggardly run team. Wow. This guy should get a few weeks off. Is this an acceptable thing to say around here? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImmortalDragon Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Oddly, I'm siding with the Eagles on this one. Simon is over the hill and Burgess was injury prone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Come on, Immortal. It's much easier to play revisionist history and call teams out for mistakes because we all know personnel management is a 100 percent sure thing. It's much easier to ignore countless good decisions by the Eagle's FO and focus on one or two situations that were maybe successful, now that time has afforded us the opportunity to look them over and judge. Sort of how I can't take out a broad brush and say the Skins are horrible at manageing hte cap because of the decisions to sign Brunnell and Barrow for how much they received while ignoring all the other successful decisions. Pretty stupid right? But this is tr1's game. EVERY decision that the Eagles make is characterized as bad and he believes if he just throws it all against the wall, some of it might stick. Do we here any apologies when he is 100 percent wrong like the Westbrook/Akers signing or his contention that Akers would be injured into next year? Of course not. He just looks the other way as Akers kicks a 49 yarder AGAINST the SKINS in the last game of the season. Most smart posters are used to his game, by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sableholic Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Wow. This guy should get a few weeks off. Is this an acceptable thing to say around here? :doh: ... For what?? Niggardly grudging: petty or reluctant in giving or spending; "a niggardly tip" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Edit: Maybe this will make it easier to udnerstand Niggardly is a word synonymous with stingy and miserly, and a niggard (noun) is a miser. The word may incorrectly be associated with "******", a racial slur against Blacks. Although the words sound similar, there is no etymological connection between the two: "niggard" and "niggle" came from the Old Norse verb nigla, meaning "to fuss about small matters", while "******" derives from niger, the Latin for "black". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niggardly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocono Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Obviously, no one took time to read the article. The difference between the Eagles and Redskins when it comes to salary negotiations is that our players will stay in exchange for, in essense, a cash out of their existing years through re-structuring. Sorry, but with a ton of cash to spend, the Redskins aren't going to get into a bad cap situation...it ain't gonna happen. Oh, and tell me you guys wouldn't have wanted Burgess or Simon on the team this year...please, tell me that. Had Laurie decided to spend any of that cap, you could have had a decent QB backup...but to save cash, they gambled that McNabb would stay indestructable...something that gets tougher and tougher for older QBs to do.. I like our chances with the cap considering that there's a new TV contract and bargaining agreement just around the corner... Laurie is cheap...and it hurt him this year. You do understand that without a CBA extension before 3/1 the Skins will not be allowed to guarantee those roster bonuses and prorate them or to turn players 06 salary into signing bonuses and prorate them because the contracts will then be in violation of the 30% rule that covers the final capped year of the CBA. About 20M over the projected cap and the only avenue left to get under the limit is to start releasing players. In 2000 the Eagles carried over 2M of cap space from 2000 to 2001. They carried over 1.3M of space from 04 to 05 so that means during the years in between the Eagles spent about 700K more than the collective limits. This past season when the Eagles heard about Simon's weight they dropped the tag on 8/28 and recouped 5.1M of space and they picked up some more due to the TO suspension. By 8/28 all the good FA's are gone so why spend the space just to spend it? Instead because they will carry over space they will be about 20M under while the Skins are 20M over and will be in good position to pick up some good players that capped strapped teams like the Skins will have to release because most of their favored get under the cap tricks won't work in the final capped year. BTW....Every player will offer to restructure and turn salary paid over 17 weeks into an instant bonus check. They get their money up front and don't have to work their butts off because their spot on the roster is assured. Snyder isn't the only owner that ever did this he's one of the few owners that STILL do this because it's been proven to be a stupid way of handling the cap and has nothing to do with how much cash an owner takes in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Pocono, please don't bring facts into the discussion. Facts are to be ignored when your premise is that the Eagles FO is foolish and cheap. Oh yeah, and that the Skins FO is bulletproof and conventional rules of wisdom don't apply because "CASH CREATES CAP!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 ... For what??Niggardly grudging: petty or reluctant in giving or spending; "a niggardly tip" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Edit: Maybe this will make it easier to udnerstand Niggardly is a word synonymous with stingy and miserly, and a niggard (noun) is a miser. The word may incorrectly be associated with "******", a racial slur against Blacks. Although the words sound similar, there is no etymological connection between the two: "niggard" and "niggle" came from the Old Norse verb nigla, meaning "to fuss about small matters", while "******" derives from niger, the Latin for "black". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niggardly My apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Oh yeah, and that the Skins FO is bulletproof and conventional rules of wisdom don't apply because "CASH CREATES CAP!!" I think you hit the nail on the head with that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y100Rocks Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Look no further then the Westbrook signing to see that your never going to convince Tr1 of anything. It was never going to happen because the Eagles were too cheap. And when it did, it was some how "too late". Sour grapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeaponXDawkins Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Among other things, how to spend their cap. I'll quote one paragraph that demonstrates from an excellent article as to why the Redskins will be the place where players want to be:You see, Eagles fans, when a team spends money (guaranteed bonuses), players like that. The Eagles could have been competitive this year had they spent a little money and kept Simon, Burgess, etc. And as for all you your dire predictions about Redskin cap hell, let me just say that CASH CREATES CAP... How was your weekend TR1!!! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted January 18, 2006 Author Share Posted January 18, 2006 Pocono, please don't bring facts into the discussion. Facts are to be ignored when your premise is that the Eagles FO is foolish and cheap. Oh yeah, and that the Skins FO is bulletproof and conventional rules of wisdom don't apply because "CASH CREATES CAP!!" Ignoring bonus spending when talking about overall spending is like saying TO caused a minor distraction on the Eagles team this year. But go ahead and quote a bogus summary of salary spending which doesn't include bonus money...it's a smart thing to do. :doh: And yes, cash does create cap. That's what continues to gall you...that the Redskins can still spend and bring in players. Also, please please stop the patronization...you're coming from too weak a position to have that stance. Face it, you've bashed DS over and over about his over spending on free-agents...and ignored his good moves (Gibbs, Williams, Griffin, etc.) The problem with Eagles fans is that they can dish it out, but they cry "mama" when they get a little in return...but...after all...they are Eagles fans. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giants102180 Posted January 18, 2006 Share Posted January 18, 2006 Among other things, how to spend their cap. I'll quote one paragraph that demonstrates from an excellent article as to why the Redskins will be the place where players want to be:You see, Eagles fans, when a team spends money (guaranteed bonuses), players like that. The Eagles could have been competitive this year had they spent a little money and kept Simon, Burgess, etc. And as for all you your dire predictions about Redskin cap hell, let me just say that CASH CREATES CAP... They just came off 5 consecutive playoff appearances and you finally got in for just the 2nd time in 13 years You dont need to be giving them advice on how to run their team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.