barefoot Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Wasn't that supposed to happen in '06?Or was it last year? No, I think it was '99. Yeah, that's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neongel Posted January 24, 2006 Author Share Posted January 24, 2006 So has Snyder been accused of sabotaging a new CBA in order to un-cap the NFL? If there is no new CBA, and as a result no salary cap in 2007, that would work in favor of teams in salary cap trouble, right? Isn't Daniel Snyder one of the owners holding up a new CBA because of profit-sharing issues (on which, by the way, I agree with the "more-rich" teams' position)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
authentic Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 next thing you know PlayBoy will be doing the Redskin's offseason team evaluations.. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 If the CBA doesn't get extended, there will be serious problems in Washington. Don't buy those playoff tickets just yet.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neongel Posted January 24, 2006 Author Share Posted January 24, 2006 If the CBA doesn't get extended, there will be serious problems in Washington. Don't buy those playoff tickets just yet.... What exactly would the problem be? Wouldn't no agreement/cap solve all cap problems instantaneously? I ask because I don't know (I've seen this disclaimer elsewhere). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donita35 Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Whats a salary Cap? Is that a cop out used by small market teams like the Steelers, Packers, Seahawks and um Jaguars in an attempt to level the financial playing field????? It seems to me that if you cant run with the big dogs stay home fits pretty well here. I grow tired of the boo hooing that goes on because some people lack the business sense or foresight to own their team, stadium and likeness flat out. Make no mistake about it.....when Snyder bought the team for what was then the largest dollar figure ever, he knew what he was doing. I say, the rest of the teams can follow suit or not. Abolish the CAP. It is nothing more than a crutch for the weak and poor. HTTR I guess it is safe to assume you are not a Democrat???? Seriously though, I understand what you are saying especially since two smaller markets are in the Superbowl. :doh: But you have to still have some system in place to look out for the little to middle man. Perhaps the system should be modified or wipped out for a few years to see if there is any truth to the notion that smaller markets do not have a leveled playing field without the salary cap. Just my :2cents: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LAXfunguy Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Is it me or does it seem like people are talking about our cap problems a little bit more this year than years past. I for one am a LITTLE bit worried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom [Giants fan] Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 I can't believe I clicked on that.[/Quote]You actually made me choke! Thanks! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 If there is no new CBA, and as a result no salary cap in 2007, that would work in favor of teams in salary cap trouble, right? Isn't Daniel Snyder one of the owners holding up a new CBA because of profit-sharing issues (on which, by the way, I agree with the "more-rich" teams' position)? yep, the person who wrote this doesn't know even the basics in cap management. hope he isn't handling the jags salary cap :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 What exactly would the problem be? Wouldn't no agreement/cap solve all cap problems instantaneously? I ask because I don't know (I've seen this disclaimer elsewhere). Read this ENTIRE thread if you want a lot of differing opinions on what will happen to the Skins if the CBA isn't extended. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141179&highlight=salary+cap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Crap! I've been reading "Home & Garden" for NOTHING!!!!!!!! they cover game analysis well, but useless about cap, and FA availability Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 yep, the person who wrote this doesn't know even the basics in cap management.hope he isn't handling the jags salary cap :laugh: Bubba, those guys over at the Jaguars board are cap experts. I've read quite a few threads over there and always walk away impressed. The problem, for the Skins, would be that if the CBA isn't extended by 3/1, it can STILL GET EXTENDED before next March and there wouldn't be an uncapped year in 07 and the Skins would be in absolute peril for 06. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neongel Posted January 24, 2006 Author Share Posted January 24, 2006 So if there is no CBA, there is still a cap of sorts because of the 30% rule, meaning that the Redskins can't simply pay everyone off then. That right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themurf Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Wait? There's a salary cap in football? But we just paid our coaches all that money ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Bubba, those guys over at the Jaguars board are cap experts. I've read quite a few threads over there and always walk away impressed.The problem, for the Skins, would be that if the CBA isn't extended by 3/1, it can STILL GET EXTENDED before next March and there wouldn't be an uncapped year in 07 and the Skins would be in absolute peril for 06. :doh: wrong again see like then nimrods at jags.com you are assuming the "numbers" currently are set in stone, yet when analogizing the contracts, and players, and available moves... in reality the Skins will probably be under 10 million below the cap before FA begins. And not having to give up many players who contribute, no starters. Even our nemesis the Post reported as much a couple days ago. As have a couple other creditable sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fdarugar Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 :doh: wrong againsee like then nimrods at jags.com you are assuming the "numbers" currently are set in stone, yet when analogizing the contracts, and players, and available moves... in reality the Skins will probably be under 10 million below the cap before FA begins. And not having to give up many players who contribute, no starters. Even our nemesis the Post reported as much a couple days ago. As have a couple other creditable sources. when can we start restructuring contracts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocono Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Page 3 on the thread and no one quotes this Q+A later on in the piece. "Vincent from Jacksonville: Because of the Redskins' recent landing of KC's offensive coordinator and keeping their defensive coordinator, Gregg Williams, a lot of people are regarding the Redskins as the sexy Super Bowl pick next year. Do you think the Redskins have what it takes to win it before they serve their salary cap sentence? Vic: What you're really predicting is whether or not the league will agree to a CBA extension. Without a CBA extension, anyone who picks the Redskins for next season's Super Bowl should have the cow meat they're eating inspected." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 :doh: wrong againsee like then nimrods at jags.com you are assuming the "numbers" currently are set in stone, yet when analogizing the contracts, and players, and available moves... in reality the Skins will probably be under 10 million below the cap before FA begins. And not having to give up many players who contribute, no starters. Even our nemesis the Post reported as much a couple days ago. As have a couple other creditable sources. Without a CBA extension, tell me exactly which contracts you will restructure and I will break it down and tell you why you are wrong....ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz13 Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 It would be a big help to get a new CBA, or even an extension of the current one covering an extra year or two, until they can agree on a new one. We aren't the only team in this situation and I'm sure the NFL and NFLPA know this. Teams cutting several players to get under the cap is no good for anyone. The 30% rule is concerning, since we would have to drastically reduce future salaries to comply. But most contracts in the last couple of years have money that the player won't see anyway. So I think by giving more money up front as a bonus in return for lowering base salaries is a viable option. It would be in everyone's best interest to get this new CBA in place sooner rather than later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 It would be in everyone's best interest to get this new CBA in place sooner rather than later. Actually, it's in big market team's best interest because they will not be able to compete in 06 without it but why would a team like Jacksonville want to play ball? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinMac Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 The problem, for the Skins, would be that if the CBA isn't extended by 3/1, it can STILL GET EXTENDED before next March and there wouldn't be an uncapped year in 07 and the Skins would be in absolute peril for 06. Given that the NFLPA has repeatedly said that they will NEVER agree to a salary cap again if this one expires, I think it is fair to believe that if the CBA isn't extended by 3/1, when it is extended there very well may not be a salary cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz13 Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Teams like Jacksonville aren't the ones who have all the extra revenue that the NFLPA wants included in the pot. So it really doesn't affect the smaller markets as much. The larger market teams are the ones that have to give up more revenue, and for the most part they are the ones in cap trouble. The skins' are in cap trouble but are also the team that has the most revenue in the NFL. They stand the most to lose either way you look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegionOfDoom Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Seriously though, I understand what you are saying especially since two smaller markets are in the Superbowl. :doh: But you have to still have some system in place to look out for the little to middle man. Perhaps the system should be modified or wipped out for a few years to see if there is any truth to the notion that smaller markets do not have a leveled playing field without the salary cap. Just my :2cents: . I wish my wife liked football....:notworthy you my dear are a diamond in the rough....If you have a husband God bless him...if you are single.... hot damn some guy is in for a treat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Without a CBA extension, tell me exactly which contracts you will restructure and I will break it down and tell you why you are wrong....ok? where did I say restructure????? The Redskins, like many teams, are over the projected 2006 salary cap of $95 million. Washington has about $113 million committed in players' salaries and bonuses, league sources said, and must be in compliance with the payroll ceiling by March 1.The two sources said Washington could meet its obligation with or without restructuring Arrington's contract by trading or releasing other players, or reworking other contracts. By cutting safety Matt Bowen and offensive lineman Cory Raymer, who played sparingly last season; cornerback Walt Harris, who lost his starting job to rookie Carlos Rogers; and place kicker John Hall, who was injured for large parts of the past two seasons, sources said the Redskins could save $6.5 million in 2006 cap space. Defensive tackle Brandon Noble, coming off career-threatening injuries, could retire or, if not, it is unlikely the team would keep him at his $1.7 million base salary. Trading backup quarterback Patrick Ramsey, as expected, would trim another $1.7 million. Getting quarterback Mark Brunell and tackle Jon Jansen to agree to restructure their $4 million base salaries by converting the money to bonuses that can be spread out over several years against the cap would trim another $5 million. Brunell adjusted his salary last year and Jansen has said he would be open to exploring the idea. Cornerback Shawn Springs, running back Clinton Portis, linebacker Marcus Washington and defensive tackle Cornelius Griffin are among the players who, like Arrington, have large bonuses due in 2006. By restructuring the bonuses, and prorating them, Washington could save about $8 million more under the cap. All of those moves in total would get the team under $90 million, which would allow them to re-sign key free agent safety Ryan Clark, tight end Robert Royal, running back Rock Cartwright and long snapper Ethan Albright, and leave some room for signing other players. While it might not be enough to land a top-tier free agent such as Indianapolis wide receiver Reggie Wayne, the Redskins would still have other options to create more salary cap space, and, should they keep Arrington at a $7 million cap figure, the opportunity to chase a big-name free agent would increase. Arrington has a base salary of $545,000. Should the Redskins elect to keep Arrington, there are provisions in his contract that would allow them to alter the deal and prorate the $6.5 million bonus over four years. This would lower his 2006 salary cap amount to $7 million. Either trading or cutting Arrington would result in him counting $12 million on the team's 2006 cap under the current collective bargaining agreement, although if an extension to the CBA is reached before Arrington's bonus comes due, the Redskins could cut him after June 1 and take a $5 million salary cap hit in 2006 and a $7 million hit in 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011802276.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz13 Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Given that the NFLPA has repeatedly said that they will NEVER agree to a salary cap again if this one expires, I think it is fair to believe that if the CBA isn't extended by 3/1, when it is extended there very well may not be a salary cap. I think that is more posturing than anything. The salary cap in the NFL is what gives it parity, and what has made this league great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.