Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

'Skins Salary Cap according to Jaguars.com


neongel

Recommended Posts

Westy,

If Brunell agent does that - he's a moron. Why?

Look at Brunell's base salary left on his contract:

2006 4000000.00

2007 5200000.00

2008 6400000.00

2009 7600000.00

2010 8800000.00

Think he will see any of that $22.8 million in the last 3 years?

Brunell might be one guy willing to play ball but it will definitely not be for the minimum for 06-10 just so he can receive 06's normal salary. He is the STARTING QB. It will probably wind up somewhere in the middle. I think he is ONE guy who the Skins have enough leverege to force to make some sort of move. Is anyone under 30 going to agree to just receive their 06 salary and then play for the minimum for 3-4 years? No way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok - I will call you on it - which starters do you think will get cut Westy?

How can one predict such a thing. Only suggestion I could give is look at what teams in cap hell have done previously to get under the cap......normally, they cut the players who might still be good but have an inflated cap number, for whatever reason. I think the Skins will keep their "corps" as best they can but anyone else will be free game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diesel, I too have heard the calls of cap hell every year and thought it was ingenious the way Danny was able to backpedal out of it each time. What you need to understand is this year is different if the CBA isn't extended because of the 30 percent rule. If the CBA doesn't get extended, starters will be cut, there will be NO additions of any value except undrafted FAs named Benotz and Smuckatelly to fill out the 53 man roster.

The only problem that I find with back peddling is that we cannot keep the talent long enough to make a run. For example, say what you want about Bailey, if we were able to keep him and Springs, our secondary would have been a lot better with them two versus Springs and Harris. :doh:

This is my other issue, we are we going to be out of cap hell??? I see teams like Minnesota who are about 23 million under the cap NOW.

I understand what you are saying about the CBA. May the football Gods be with the 'Skins this offseason and get the CBA extended. :halo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brunell might be one guy willing to play ball but it will definitely not be for the minimum for 06-10 just so he can receive 06's normal salary. He is the STARTING QB.

He's only a starter on THIS team and this is likely one of his final seasons and perhaps his last chance at winning a championship.

He's had 13 years to make money and he still hasn't won a championship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll believe it when I see it.

Part of me does think that Dan Snyder can't be THAT much smarter than everyone else and we're going to have to pay the piper some time. But then the next year comes and goes and we're still not in Cap Heck, let alone Hell.

Time will tell.

I personally think the CBA will be extended. Dan Snyder was betting on it the way he has done business the last few years. If it doesn't, it will be terrible for several teams.....not just the Skins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an example of how the restructuring can work.

Player A is set to earn: 2006:4m 2007:5m 2008:6m 2009:7m in base salaries.

The cap hit is set to be 4m in 06'

Player A restructures his base salaries to be: 06' 700k 07' 910k 08' 1.183m 09'1.538m. This complies w/ the 30% rule for base salaries.

Player A is paid a bonus in 06' of 3m(100% of 06' lost salary) + 3.68m(90% of 07' salary lost. The reduction is due to getting money 2 years in advance) A total of 6.68m. That is prorated over 4 years. 6.68/4=1.67.

the cap hit for 06' would drop from 4m to 2.37m. The cap hit in 07' would drop from 5m to 2.58m.

Player A would then get a roster bonus added to his contract in 08' to cover lost money in 08' and 09'. At that point the team could cut player A and take the two years left on the prorated bonus from 06' as an immediate cap hit, or pay the player the bonus, or extend the deal. This would be based on the expectation that there will be a new CBA by 08'.

The only problem with this scenario is that the team would have to outlay alot of bonus money in 06'. This would not be a problem for the skins' as they have shown in the past. Tell me why this cannot work.

Your roster bonus in 08 is also salary so the jump from 07 to 08 would be 273K+ the roster bonus so there would have to be enough salary in 06 to justify that increase. You also better check the Deion rule and make sure the salary in the first few years equals the proration. Also don't you think an agent would look at this and know the player is getting cut when the roster bonus is due and want a lot more up front to get involved in such a scheme?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brunell might be one guy willing to play ball but it will definitely not be for the minimum for 06-10 just so he can receive 06's normal salary. He is the STARTING QB. It will probably wind up somewhere in the middle. I think he is ONE guy who the Skins have enough leverege to force to make some sort of move. Is anyone under 30 going to agree to just receive their 06 salary and then play for the minimum for 3-4 years? No way.

He is a starting QB with limited years left. If he retires he doesnt get a lot of that money. If we cut him same deal. Why wouldn't he want guaranteed money. For Lavar same deal. Teams would kill to have him true, but not for what we are paying him for. He already stated he might retire if he gets cut by the skins and that he would like to stay. Players want to play for Gibbs. Its that damned simple. Shawn Springs is getting older and would love to have that guaranteed money. See as you should know by now with the TO situation, players do want guaranteed money.

Edit: Also what about Samuels? Do you think he could make 10 million someplace else? Just asking. Maybe he could. Maybe he couldn't. Would he like to risk the bet and try? Hes one name I dont see on any lists as potential cap savers, but I bet he will be one of the resturctures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is a starting QB with limited years left. If he retires he doesnt get a lot of that money. If we cut him same deal. Why wouldn't he want guaranteed money. For Lavar same deal. Teams would kill to have him true, but not for what we are paying him for. He already stated he might retire if he gets cut by the skins and that he would like to stay. Players want to play for Gibbs. Its that damned simple. Shawn Springs is getting older and would love to have that guaranteed money. See as you should know by now with the TO situation, players do want guaranteed money.

Edit: Also what about Samuels? Do you think he could make 10 million someplace else? Just asking. Maybe he could. Maybe he couldn't. Would he like to risk the bet and try? Hes one name I dont see on any lists as potential cap savers, but I bet he will be one of the resturctures.

The problem is with most of your players, the Skins won't even save anything by cutting them because their base salary is so low based off of previous years restructuring. Danny has played this game so many times, now that all the chips are in the center, anything short of players saying "Yes, I will do anything it takes to help the Skins, even if it costs me security and salary over the next 2-3 years" is going to be some hard swallowing for the bean counters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would a player agree to cut 5m and 6m salaries in 07 and 08 just to make what they should be making anyway in 06? With all the teams with tons of cap room, no agent would allow a player to go from 5m to 800k just to help out the Skins.

Seriously, you should just say "All players play for free because that will help out the Skins" as that is just as plausable a reply.

Is it because the player would trust Danny to make it right a year from now? I think they'd ask LA what he thought of Danny's promises first.

This reply makes zero sense. First of all I said the money for 08' and 09' would be put in a roster bonus in 08'. So why wouldn't the player want the money up front. Secondly the player and agent know damn well that they will never see those numbers in the last years of the contract. The reasons players are given seven year contracts is so the team can prorate the bonus over seven years. The agent looks good because the size of the contract looks bigger. If you noticed most of the contracts written over the last two years have been reduced to the number of years the bonus can be prorated. The player wouldn't lose any money by reducing the salaries in 08 and 09, because it would be put in a roster bonus in 08. Or the team can give the player the right to opt out of the contract after the 07 season making him a free agent. There is no reason a player would say no to getting two years money upfront now, in return for being able to opt out of the contract in 08. It has been shown before that cash solves cap, and I believe that this will ring true again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The problem, for those wondering, is thus:

Currently, we are way over the salary cap b/c a lot of our players are going to get high salaries. However, you can convert a certain % of salary (possibly 100%, I'm not sure) into a guaranteed bonus. Why do that? Well because the cap hit from a guaranteed bonus can then be pro-rated over the next 4 years (I believe its 4 -- someone correct me if I'm wrong).

The problem that arises with an uncapped year is that these bonuses cannot be pro-rated past 07 (if it is uncapped), which makes getting under the 06 cap a little trickier. However, this March deadline that WB speaks of (the deadline is "by March," which I guess could either mean 3/1 or 3/30) is when the players union walks away from the bargaining table, and the 07 capless year is here. Some have said once the cap is gone, it'll never be back.

However, with an uncapped year looming, I think it would be easy to get around. My solution? Re-work everyone's contract to include minimum base salaries for 06, and then huge guaranteed bonuses in 07. I'm not sure why this would not work...the only sticking point would be convincing the players to take the paycuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem, for those wondering, is thus:

Currently, we are way over the salary cap b/c a lot of our players are going to get high salaries. However, you can convert a certain % of salary (possibly 100%, I'm not sure) into a guaranteed bonus. Why do that? Well because the cap hit from a guaranteed bonus can then be pro-rated over the next 4 years (I believe its 4 -- someone correct me if I'm wrong).

The problem that arises with an uncapped year is that these bonuses cannot be pro-rated past 07 (if it is uncapped), which makes getting under the 06 cap a little trickier. However, this March deadline that WB speaks of (the deadline is "by March," which I guess could either mean 3/1 or 3/30) is when the players union walks away from the bargaining table, and the 07 capless year is here. Some have said once the cap is gone, it'll never be back.

However, with an uncapped year looming, I think it would be easy to get around. My solution? Re-work everyone's contract to include minimum base salaries for 06, and then huge guaranteed bonuses in 07. I'm not sure why this would not work...the only sticking point would be convincing the players to take the paycuts.

I assume thats where the 30% rule comes in. Westy will chime in momentarily im sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reply makes zero sense. First of all I said the money for 08' and 09' would be put in a roster bonus in 08'.

You REALLY think an agent would agree to a roster bonus? :laugh: Come on, a large roster bonus on a player is the kiss of death unless they are outplaying their contract. Get serious. Plus, roster bonus's count as salary so the 30 percent rule STILL comes into play.

So why wouldn't the player want the money up front. Secondly the player and agent know damn well that they will never see those numbers in the last years of the contract. The reasons players are given seven year contracts is so the team can prorate the bonus over seven years. The agent looks good because the size of the contract looks bigger. If you noticed most of the contracts written over the last two years have been reduced to the number of years the bonus can be prorated. The player wouldn't lose any money by reducing the salaries in 08 and 09, because it would be put in a roster bonus in 08. Or the team can give the player the right to opt out of the contract after the 07 season making him a free agent. There is no reason a player would say no to getting two years money upfront now, in return for being able to opt out of the contract in 08. It has been shown before that cash solves cap, and I believe that this will ring true again.

Ok, I guess we'll wait and see how many agents are willing to trade their current deals for upfront 06 money (which they would get anyway just by finishing the year on the roster) for a 08 roster bonus which would almost certainly ensure them being cut before any bonus is ever paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem, for those wondering, is thus:

Currently, we are way over the salary cap b/c a lot of our players are going to get high salaries. However, you can convert a certain % of salary (possibly 100%, I'm not sure) into a guaranteed bonus. Why do that? Well because the cap hit from a guaranteed bonus can then be pro-rated over the next 4 years (I believe its 4 -- someone correct me if I'm wrong).

The problem that arises with an uncapped year is that these bonuses cannot be pro-rated past 07 (if it is uncapped), which makes getting under the 06 cap a little trickier. However, this March deadline that WB speaks of (the deadline is "by March," which I guess could either mean 3/1 or 3/30) is when the players union walks away from the bargaining table, and the 07 capless year is here. Some have said once the cap is gone, it'll never be back.

However, with an uncapped year looming, I think it would be easy to get around. My solution? Re-work everyone's contract to include minimum base salaries for 06, and then huge guaranteed bonuses in 07. I'm not sure why this would not work...the only sticking point would be convincing the players to take the paycuts.

Roster bonus's are salary and fall within the 30 percent rule. Also, I think there would be a lockout before there was an uncapped year. You can hope all you want to absorb one tough year then win 11 SBs in a row because noone would be able to spend with Snyder but it just won't happen. The rest of the owners would lock the players out before they went down that road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Westbrook I want to preface this with I am not attacking you personally I think your oppinions are valuable but there are just a few things i want to get off my chest .

Westbrook . You keep putting the same arguments over and over again and fail to listen to anyone else . The 30% rule applies to salaries and only salaries. The Cap numbers are not salaries they are made up of so many different component parts signing bonus, workout bonus, roster bonus etc etc . It is only the bonus segement that players are sure to get which is why players agree to reduce thier base salaries to miniumums to recieve a bonus insted.

Also Westbrook it must be pointed out all teams try ways and meens to get around the cap some more underhand than others . The Eagles for example load up fringe players up with incentive bonuses which count against the cap in the year they are given but never paid to the players because they do not reach the incentives in their contracts . Because they never reach the incentives they then get a cap credit in the following year ... a good way to bend the rules and carry cap credit from one year to another no ?

The other thing that gets me about Westbrooks facination with the potential errors of our front office didn't the Eagles season just go down the toilet because of the miss handling of thier front office of key players or a key player in particular ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bedlam, I appreciate your post. I really do. I hope I'm not coming across like I'm trying to tell you guys off or anything like that. I enjoy talking football with you and I want to spread correct information, as I know it. Again, I personally think the CBA will be extended, making much of this discussion mute.

Finally, roster bonus's count as salarys so that's why I keep bringing up the 30 percent rule in regard to people's suggestion that CASH CREATES CAP and why that won't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/Features/Free+Agency/2005/cba2019.htm

"Limited salary increases. Unable to divide a signing bonus into as many portions, teams could — see Redskins, Washington — choose to “backload” player contracts. Naturally, a club could propose a contract with little signing bonus but write in a $20 million base salary in 2007, the uncapped year. In anticipation of just that, the NFL closed that loophole. With no CBA in place, a salary cannot increase by more than 30 percent over what it was in 2006. Were the contract signed next March, Bills WR Eric Moulds’ deal wouldn’t fly. Moulds makes $1.5 million in base salary this year. He’s due $6.089 million in 2006, an annual salary increase of 306 percent. Under the parameters outlined by the CBA for March, Moulds could earn a maximum of $1.95 million."

So again I ask what happens with a contract thats already in violation of that rule?

Edit: Oh and Westy its moot not mute :) Again I have no idea how any of this works, but it appears some people do so :cheers: to those people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/Features/Free+Agency/2005/cba2019.htm

"Limited salary increases. Unable to divide a signing bonus into as many portions, teams could — see Redskins, Washington — choose to “backload” player contracts. Naturally, a club could propose a contract with little signing bonus but write in a $20 million base salary in 2007, the uncapped year. In anticipation of just that, the NFL closed that loophole. With no CBA in place, a salary cannot increase by more than 30 percent over what it was in 2006. Were the contract signed next March, Bills WR Eric Moulds’ deal wouldn’t fly. Moulds makes $1.5 million in base salary this year. He’s due $6.089 million in 2006, an annual salary increase of 306 percent. Under the parameters outlined by the CBA for March, Moulds could earn a maximum of $1.95 million."

So again I ask what happens with a contract thats already in violation of that rule?

Good question. I think the Eagles wound up having to pay out an additional 10m for 06 for several players whose contracts weren't in line with the 30 percent rule (later years were too expensive).

I would think if the team couldn't get the contract to vibe with the 30 percent rule, the player would become a FA.

Maybe that's why everyone is saying Moulds is going to be a FA this offseason.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...