SoCalSkins Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 All of Westbrooks arguments in this thread are baseless. If the CBA is not extended, 2007 is an UNCAPPED year. You simply renegoiate and pay out a huge 2007 salary. The best scenaio in the world for the Skins is if the CBA is not extended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 No no it isn't a capless NFL is an uncompetitve NFL which is a boring NFL which benifits no one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 All of Westbrooks arguments in this thread are baseless. If the CBA is not extended, 2007 is an UNCAPPED year. You simply renegoiate and pay out a huge 2007 salary. The best scenaio in the world for the Skins is if the CBA is not extended. Can't do that. You don't really have a grasp on the discussion so I won't list all the reasons why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Heres what they said in 2000. "Redskins owner Daniel Snyder has the league abuzz by his $100-plus million spending spree this season. Capwise, they are in great shape for now. They have a $1 million cushion in this year's cap and are roughly only $700,000 over next season. While most consider the cap window for a top team to be five years, the Redskins' window may only be three or four years because Snyder eventually faces tough cap consequences. Quarterback Brad Johnson, wide receiver Albert Connell and linebacker Greg Jones are free agents next year. Guard Tre Johnson, defensive end Kenard Lang and wide receiver Michael Westbrook are up after next year. Where the Redskins will run into cap trouble if Deion Sanders, Bruce Smith and Mark Carrier can't go longer than two seasons. The cap hits coupled with the high-priced re-signings could cause major cap problems for Snyder in 2002." http://espn.go.com/nfl/preview00/s/000826clayton.html 2 years later, John Clayton still didn't get it even though that article above was already wrong. http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/clayton_john/1536401.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 A roster bonus counts as salary. Signing bonus's do not. Okay, then what are the restrictions on signing bonuses??? There has to be some, because otherwise Dan would be handing out 20mill signing bonuses like they were candy!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamJT13 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I said the bonus would be for two years money upfront, covering 06' and 07', with the player being able to opt out after the 07' season. So it would be a two year commitment. If the player can opt out after 2007, then years 2008 and beyond are not considered contract years and any prorations in those years would immediately accelerate into the 2006 cap. Also, LTBE incentives are part of the 30 percent rule, so your idea of giving a player easy-to-reach incentives in exchange for renegotiating his contract wouldn't get around the 30 percent rule, either. I know Redskins fans keep thinking, "we do this every year, why would it be a problem this year?" The answer is because if the CBA isn't extended before March, THIS YEAR IS UNLIKE ANY OTHER YEAR. The key year in the 30 percent rule is the "final capped year." In previous years, teams could renegotiate contracts to lower the cap hit in the current year, then just make sure the total salary in 2006 was high enough to comply with the 30 percent rule. Well, this is 2006, you can't easily lower the cap hit this year and still comply with the 30 percent rule without getting the players to make major concessions in salary and/or guarantees and without taking a risk for the good of the team. Can the Skins get below the cap if the CBA isn't extended? Of course. But it will take much more work and maneuvering than what has been proposed at Scout.com and elsewhere. Personally, I think some sort of extension will occur before March, and all of this debate will be moot. But you never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[[ghost]] Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 this is supposed to happen every year. i love how they want us to go into cap hell, but they dont even mention tenessee's cap purge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Keep it up guys, this is good. . . . . . . . so many possibilities to say here . . . . on second thought I'll just leave this alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 ....and the Redskins will be 4-12, 5-11 at best in 2005!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 It could But, that being said, we are just a few guys on a messageboard.....I'm sure Dan S. has ideas that none of us have thought of. I'll be interested to see what he does if the CBA isn't extended. Bingo. Danny's number crunchers have been preparing for '06 for years and they are just too smart to have assumed that the CBA would be extended. I'm confident that they have a gameplan for both an extension and for no extension. The reality is that if there is an extension the Skins will be able to make one or two significant moves in FA. If there is no extension we will still be able to retain most of our players and make some moderate FA moves. I do not have the numbers to support this, but the Redskins have been focused on long term planning for several years now, and I am confident they know exactly what they have to do this offseason regarding the cap. We may even lose some players that we prefer not to lose, (what team doesn't?), but the Skins are obviously focused on being a consistently successful team over the next 5 to 10 years. Players come and players go, but the team's success will be driven by the organization rather than by individual players. I'm looking forward to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 If the player can opt out after 2007, then years 2008 and beyond are not considered contract years and any prorations in those years would immediately accelerate into the 2006 cap. Also, LTBE incentives are part of the 30 percent rule, so your idea of giving a player easy-to-reach incentives in exchange for renegotiating his contract wouldn't get around the 30 percent rule, either. I know Redskins fans keep thinking, "we do this every year, why would it be a problem this year?" The answer is because if the CBA isn't extended before March, THIS YEAR IS UNLIKE ANY OTHER YEAR. The key year in the 30 percent rule is the "final capped year." In previous years, teams could renegotiate contracts to lower the cap hit in the current year, then just make sure the total salary in 2006 was high enough to comply with the 30 percent rule. Well, this is 2006, you can't easily lower the cap hit this year and still comply with the 30 percent rule without getting the players to make major concessions in salary and/or guarantees and without taking a risk for the good of the team. Can the Skins get below the cap if the CBA isn't extended? Of course. But it will take much more work and maneuvering than what has been proposed at Scout.com and elsewhere. Personally, I think some sort of extension will occur before March, and all of this debate will be moot. But you never know. I was waiting for an expert to show up. And I agree, the owners will get the CBA signed in February. It will kill the NFL if it isn't signed (and why ruin a good thing for both parties right now?). As for the March deadline, have you heard if its a March 2 (when FA begins) or by end of March (March 26-30 is the NFL Annual Meeting)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donita35 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 . . . . . . . so many possibilities to say here . . . .on second thought I'll just leave this alone. The strange thing is, I actually like the way you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedzoneHunter Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 In the NFL, they call it "cap management." But we skins fans watch our front office do "cap magic!" When it first looks like a problem...... now you see... now you don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butz65 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Vic: That's not it. There's no advantage to that kind of strategy because between now and '09 the Redskins are screwed and nobody can push money out beyond '09 anyhow. I think they got careless with their cap because they believed a CBA extension would get done and they could re-structure contracts and push money out and keep out-running the cap because large-market teams such as themselves would just keep driving the cap figure higher and higher. I think their philosophy was similar to those people who believe the national debt is an insignificant concern; just keep pushing money into the future, right? Well, unless there's a CBA extension, the future ends in '09 and the Redskins are out of years from which to borrow. This response makes no sense. If the CBA is not renewed then there will be no salary cap. Thus no need to push salary out to future years . The only reason teams renegotiate now to push money into future years is because of the current CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 This response makes no sense. If the CBA is not renewed then there will be no salary cap. Thus no need to push salary out to future years . The only reason teams renegotiate now to push money into future years is because of the current CBA. This is partially correct and partially incorrect. The 30 percent rule still applies, no matter if there is a cap or not. You can't give Arrington the minimum in 06 and then eleventy billion dollars in 07 because there isn't a cap. The 07 salary cannot be more than 30 percent than the 06, cap or no cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 This is partially correct and partially incorrect. The 30 percent rule still applies, no matter if there is a cap or not. You can't give Arrington the minimum in 06 and then eleventy billion dollars in 07 because there isn't a cap. The 07 salary cannot be more than 30 percent than the 06, cap or no cap. But the 08 salary can be unlimited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butz65 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 This article may have been addressed already but I like it's concise nature: Trimming the Cap--How to Get It Done I don't think it addresses the CBA issue. Provides some good insight into the current cap situation. Bottom line is that the Redskins have proven in the past that they've been able to deal with (manipulate) the cap situation successfully. We only need to add a player or two in key positions this offseason. The only real player it seems is at risk is LA who only played in certain situations last season anyway. I guess we'll all know in about a month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 But the 08 salary can be unlimited. How? If you eliminate it, the salary bonus gets accelerated to 06 causing more cap hell then you are already in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butz65 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 This is partially correct and partially incorrect. The 30 percent rule still applies, no matter if there is a cap or not. You can't give Arrington the minimum in 06 and then eleventy billion dollars in 07 because there isn't a cap. The 07 salary cannot be more than 30 percent than the 06, cap or no cap. Where is the 30% rule codified? Is it a part of the current CBA? Does it still apply if the current CBA is not extended? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Where is the 30% rule codified? Is it a part of the current CBA? Does it still apply if the current CBA is not extended? Just curious. Yes, the current CBA runs through 06. It calls for certain provisions in the last year which includes what we have discussed with the 30 percent rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butz65 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 This article may have been addressed already but I like it's concise nature:Trimming the Cap--How to Get It Done Looks like this link won't work. Here's the article (from Warpath.com): " Trimming the Cap--How to Get It Done Is Hall a potential cap victim? By Robert Large Redsident Capologist Date: Jan 17, 2006 Given that the Redskins will now be looking for some salary cap room in 2006 to improve the player personnel on the team, our resident capologist looks at the major moves Washington can make to create some cap room. At present the Redskins 2006 cap number is $113.8m (representing 48 players including one ERFA and one RFA), a figure that is $18.8m over the predicted 2006 NFL salary cap of $95m. 1. Guaranteeing Roster Bonuses Lavar Arrington LB – save $4.9m Marcus Washington LB – save $1.9m Cornelius Griffin DT – save $1.9m Shawn Springs CB – save $2.3m Clinton Portis RB – save $2.3m Other smaller amounts from various players – save $1.7m 2. Releasing Players Outright Matt Bowen SS – save $2.0m John Hall K – save [body].8m Walt Harris CB – save $2.0m Cory Raymer C – save $1.0m 3. Trades Patrick Ramsey QB – save $1.7m (and receive draft pick compensation) 4. Retirements Brandon Noble DT – save $1.7m 5. Release and resign deals with veterans James Thrash WR – cut and resign to vet minimum deal plus the $25k signing bonus – save [body].4m 6. Restructuring contracts Randy Thomas G – basic restructure – save $2.2m Jon Jansen OT – basic restructure – save $2.3m Mark Brunell QB – basic restructure – save $2.4m TOTAL SAVINGS (this list only) - $31.5m This is by no mean an exhaustive list, but just the major savers." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 How? If you eliminate it, the salary bonus gets accelerated to 06 causing more cap hell then you are already in. Not the bonus. Teh actually salary. The 30% rule would not have any impact on 08 you could pay a player base salary of 1 mil in 06 1.3 mil in 07 150 mil in 08. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Not the bonus. Teh actually salary. The 30% rule would not have any impact on 08 you could pay a player base salary of 1 mil in 06 1.3 mil in 07 150 mil in 08. Go back and reread the whole thread. You guys are bringing up things that have discussed ad nauseum already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neongel Posted January 25, 2006 Author Share Posted January 25, 2006 So is this basically correct? If no CBA, salaries for 2006 can't increase more than 30%. Current contracts would have to be re-done to accomodate this. All bonuses except for signing bonuses count as salary. If no CBA, signing bonuses can't be pro-rated beyond 2006. Players that get released will have what's left of their signing bonuses count against the 2006 cap. If no CBA, from 2007 on becomes un-capped, but owners will likely lock players out before this happens. If there is a new CBA, it's simply a matter of fitting under the $95 cap without worrying about the 30% rule. In order for there to be a new CBA, Snyder will have to agree to share more money with "poorer" teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamJT13 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 As for the March deadline, have you heard if its a March 2 (when FA begins) or by end of March (March 26-30 is the NFL Annual Meeting)? As far as this year is concerned, it's the start of free agency. I doubt they'd start the FA period under one set of rules, then change all of the rules midstream. But even if they did, teams would have to get under the cap while complying with the 30 percent rule before the start of free agency. For 2007 and beyond, the March "deadline" could just be posturing by the NFLPA. They're saying that if the CBA isn't extended by then, they'll let 2007 be an uncapped year, but they could always accept an agreement anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.