Oldskool Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2333854 • Amid all the talk that the Washington Redskins are poised to contend for a Super Bowl title in 2006, and that owner Dan Snyder is set to pursue wide receiver Terrell Owens and defensive end John Abraham, this sobering note: According to the salary cap expert from one AFC franchise, an analyst of some note and a guy who claims to have crunched the numbers every way imaginable, the Redskins cannot get into compliance with the projected spending ceiling for next season without an extension to the collective bargaining agreement. The expert claims there are only two players on the current Washington roster who will bring the team significant cap relief if they are released. Cutting some of the team's big-name players would actually increase the cap impact in most cases. Even reducing the 2006 base salaries of all the veteran players on the roster to the minimum levels, and guaranteeing the differences in bonuses, would still leave the Redskins about $4 million-$5 million over the cap. According to the cap expert's analysis, the Redskins might have to play with as many as 15-20 rookies, all earning the minimum salary, to squeeze close to the cap. So all those who feel that Snyder actually hopes the league is forced to go to an uncapped season in 2007, so that he can try to buy himself a Super Bowl trophy in a manner befitting George Steinbrenner, might want to rethink that notion. Without an extension, Snyder could have trouble fielding a contending team in 2006 because of the Redskins' cap problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 one AFC franchise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 If Len's cap expert was so good he would be making double what he is now and working here in DC for Snyder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Somebody get this guy a pork chop, he's getting grumpy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDane Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Unfortunately, I think he's right. This is actually a pretty fair assessment of our worst-case situation, which I desperately hope (and expect) will not come to fruition when a new CBA gets signed. :fingersx: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sableholic Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 I still don't get why every single redskins fan on here is choosing to ignore this problem. The numbers aren't wrong, if their is no cba extension reached we have some big big problems. It seems every single person just chooses to ignore that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCRoughrider Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Are Pete Prisco and Fatboy feeding from the same trough? His column was almost identical. http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9244108 And this "reducing all salaries to veteran minimum" is moronic but both of them use that line! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 I still don't get why every single redskins fan on here is choosing to ignore this problem. The numbers aren't wrong, if their is no cba extension reached we have some big big problems. It seems every single person just chooses to ignore that. actually the Skins have several options as posted by the post a few weeks ago. the way Lenny words their option is ridiculious, any team would be in trouble. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twenty-eight Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Pastabelli and Prisco are a couple of MO'RONS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 I thought our resident cap expert agrees with this assessment... IF THERE IS NO CBA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyf316 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 I wish Pastabelly would eat Peter King and then die of heartburn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isifhan Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 one AFC franchise? Yes he was talking about the cap experts with the Jets :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-O-G Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 I wish Pastabelly would eat Peter King and then die of heartburn. lol, I actually laughed pretty hard when I read this. :applause: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Got an idea......Get Art to call up Len and smooth things over...............:laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sableholic Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 actually the Skins have several options as posted by the post a few weeks ago. the way Lenny words their option is ridiculious, any team would be in trouble. :laugh: Right they can cut a good # of people, but those people have to be replaced. Also the 30 % rule is where the trouble comes from. Most of the restructuring mentioned in older WP articles wouldn't work because of the way the 30% rule is for the last capped year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlsbadd Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 I wonder why the Redskins are in serious trouble if the CBA is not extended but other teams like the Bronocs and Jets are not? There will be plenty of teams screwed if the CBA does not get extended. Imagine the problems of having a lot of high price talent cut to make the cap with no CBA, it would drive down the free agent market . I don't think the players want that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 My question is, why is an AFC cap guy "crunching the numbers every way imaginable" for us? My thinking is, he didn't, but taking a glance, he doesn't see how we can reduce salary. Now, that's not saying that there isn't a problem if a CBA isn't signed. I'm just wondering what the motivation is. That being said, a CBA will be done. I can't see everyone killing the golden goose over this, and there is too much incentive to get it done. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLusby Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 That's why this will never happen! There will at least be an one year extension which would allow for June 1st cuts to prorate bonuses. The NFL would kill themselves if they allow historic teams like Washington, Denver, etc to field an uncompetitive team. This will never happen! They will at least extend for one year and keep negotiating. The rookies from the draft will get killed with bonus amoritzations of only four years as well as FA's this year and the six year FA requirement next year. The agents, players, and owners will not let this happen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMac Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 This article is a bunch of bullcrap. Why in the world would an AFC team be # crunching our cap? You teling me he has broken down every players contract? NOT! Lenny is dying for some news, so why not make some stuff up? National Enquirer could use this fat tub! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fdarugar Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 So why is everyone bashing us when their are teams in worse shape? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC4 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 I have come to the conclusion that both Len Pasquarelli and Pete Prisco tend to project their hopes as to how things will turn out for certain teams as opposed to what may actually happen when they write about the Redskins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimster Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 This article is a bunch of bullcrap. Why in the world would an AFC team be # crunching our cap? You teling me he has broken down every players contract? NOT! yeah, that and he starts off by assuming we're going after Ownes and Abraham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamJT13 Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 As has been pointed out before (by myself and others), the Redskins' cap trouble will occur only if there is no CBA extension and 2006 is the "final capped year." The 30 percent rule and other rules in the CBA are designed specifically to make it difficult for teams to save cap room in the final capped year by pushing charges into future years. If this is the final capped year, almost all of the restructuring that normally goes on to save cap room becomes either impossible or extremely difficult, and it saves much less cap room. I wonder why the Redskins are in serious trouble if the CBA is not extended but other teams like the Bronocs and Jets are not? With no CBA extension, it'll be much easier for the Broncos to get under the cap because of the way their players' contracts are structured. The Broncos, for example, have three players who are expected to void their contracts, saving about $11.5 million. They can cut Trevor Pryce to save another $8.53 million. They can cut guys like Courtney Brown and Ebenezer Ekuban to save another $5.26 million. And they have other guys they can cut or restructure to save cap room. The Redskins can't cut Arrington to save a bunch of cap room like the Broncos can cut Pryce because Arrington has more than $7 million of bonus prorations that would accelerate into 2006. Pryce has no prorations that would accelerate. Regarding the Jets, their cap troubles have been reported at great lengths. http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9238415 http://www.nj.com/jets/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1139982419305540.xml&coll=1 http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/football/pro/dolphins/ny-spjets144626698feb14,0,4199059.story?coll=sfla-dolphins-front http://www.nj.com/sports/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1140156367242560.xml&coll=1 But still, the Jets have more options than the Redskins, if there's no CBA extension. Like the Broncos with Pryce, the Jets can cut Ty Law and save $7.66 million because his accelerated bonuses would be only $1.8 million. They can cut Jay Fiedler and save $6.1 million because his accelerated bonuses would be only $300,000. They can cut Pete Kendall and save $4.4 million because his accelerations would total only $550,000. I could give more examples -- restructuring Laveranues Coles' contract, for example, would save $4 million, would give him the same amount of money this season AND would comply with the 30 percent rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidFan Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Casserly needs to book his flight to Indy for the combine and stop looking at our situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlsbadd Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 As has been pointed out before (by myself and others), the Redskins' cap trouble will occur only if there is no CBA extension and 2006 is the "final capped year." The 30 percent rule and other rules in the CBA are designed specifically to make it difficult for teams to save cap room in the final capped year by pushing charges into future years. If this is the final capped year, almost all of the restructuring that normally goes on to save cap room becomes either impossible or extremely difficult, and it saves much less cap room. With no CBA extension, it'll be much easier for the Broncos to get under the cap because of the way their players' contracts are structured. The Broncos, for example, have three players who are expected to void their contracts, saving about $11.5 million. They can cut Trevor Pryce to save another $8.53 million. They can cut guys like Courtney Brown and Ebenezer Ekuban to save another $5.26 million. And they have other guys they can cut or restructure to save cap room. The Redskins can't cut Arrington to save a bunch of cap room like the Broncos can cut Pryce because Arrington has more than $7 million of bonus prorations that would accelerate into 2006. Pryce has no prorations that would accelerate. Regarding the Jets, their cap troubles have been reported at great lengths. http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9238415 http://www.nj.com/jets/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1139982419305540.xml&coll=1 http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/football/pro/dolphins/ny-spjets144626698feb14,0,4199059.story?coll=sfla-dolphins-front http://www.nj.com/sports/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1140156367242560.xml&coll=1 But still, the Jets have more options than the Redskins, if there's no CBA extension. Like the Broncos with Pryce, the Jets can cut Ty Law and save $7.66 million because his accelerated bonuses would be only $1.8 million. They can cut Jay Fiedler and save $6.1 million because his accelerated bonuses would be only $300,000. They can cut Pete Kendall and save $4.4 million because his accelerations would total only $550,000. I could give more examples -- restructuring Laveranues Coles' contract, for example, would save $4 million, would give him the same amount of money this season AND would comply with the 30 percent rule. Thanks for explaining that to me , that's great info to know. Like I said if teams have to cut these players (as mentioned above) doesn't that drive down the price of free agents? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.