sableholic Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Figured this warranted a new thread as its a new story. However, if mods feel like merging can you do it with the cap-tastrophe thread. Anyways link: http://redskins.scout.com/2/501659.html "Compliance Scenario The Redskins are currently sitting at a 2006 salary cap figure of $115.5m - $20.5m over the estimated $95m NFL cap and these leaves the Skins at real risk being in breach of the cap come March 3. Cutting of high cost players will net only minimal savings. So that brings us to the first option the Skins have to get under the cap--to cut as many non-necessity players that save money as possible, redo some contracts. First, the players that could be released. Here’s a list of 11 players with their 2006 cap savings if released in brackets: Walt Harris ($2m) Matt Bowen ($2m) Brandon Noble ($1.7m) Patrick Ramsey ($1.7m) Cory Raymer ($1.0m) John Hall ($1.0m) James Thrash ([body].9m) Tom Tupa ([body].6m) Antonio Brown ([body].5m) Jimmy Farris ($.5m) Karon Riley ([body].5m) That’s $9.3m saved against the cap (when also figuring in the 12 players who would replace these guys under the Rule of 51) Lastly a table of details: http://media.scout.com/media/doc/29/295113.pdf Highlighted players = those that need to restructure. Another possibility concerning Brunell and Arrington is if each are prepared to take a decent, but what would be fair pay cut, including terminating the years on their contracts post 2009 and then reducing their base salaries and/or roster bonuses down to levels commensurate with their performance and/or age, it would give the Skins more breathing space and the ability to keep some of the players we listed to be released earlier. Also a note from Rich Tandler from that site on the message boards: "They're not giving up any guaranteed money and, in some cases, they're picking some up so it's hard to see why they wouldn't. But they would have to agree to it, so there's always the chance of a monkey wrench being thrown in there." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins4Life28 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 All of this is making me sick. I dont like any of it one bit. Yet I check every couple of hours for updates and the latest news regarding this topic. March 3rd couldn't come fast enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterwagen Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Interesting. Definitely a much more positive outlook than many of the others I've seen on these boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseGoForTheWin Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 We'll be fine. We always are. The list of cuts is nothing surprising, and guys like Thrash, Farris and maybe even Harris we'd resign again later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 sable I don't know what those guys are smoking but you need to stop smoking it long enough yourself to see that they don't make sense. Look a C. Griffin on their sheet. Right now in 2006 he stands to make $1.0 mil in base and $2.5 in roster bonus for a total of $3.5 in his pocket. The linked sheet only puts $2.5 in his pocket in 2006. Anybody can see that won't fly. His 2007 base pay currently is $4.2 million. The linked sheet gives him a total base and bonus of $3.25 million. Certainly you can see that is just silly. Griffin stands to pocket $7.7 mil in the next two years. Exactly why would he voluntarily reduce this to $5.75??? Just because someone knows how to work a spreadsheet doesn't mean that they have any common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the burgundy and gold Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 i wouldn't mind cutting all those guys except ramsey, i hope we trade or keep him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Thats a fantastic proposal for the Redskins. The players or agents would be fools to agree to it but, I guess we'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 No one is that big of fool, except whoever did that spreadsheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsfan1311 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 sable I don't know what those guys are smoking but you need to stop smoking it long enough yourself to see that they don't make sense.Just because someone knows how to work a spreadsheet doesn't mean that they have any common sense. ...no reason to be so harsh....sable didn't say he agreed with the story, but stated he figured it warranted a new thread as it's a new story..no need to state that the guy is "smoking" anything.......lighten up.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocono Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 sable I don't know what those guys are smoking but you need to stop smoking it long enough yourself to see that they don't make sense.Look a C. Griffin on their sheet. Right now in 2006 he stands to make $1.0 mil in base and $2.5 in roster bonus for a total of $3.5 in his pocket. The linked sheet only puts $2.5 in his pocket in 2006. Anybody can see that won't fly. His 2007 base pay currently is $4.2 million. The linked sheet gives him a total base and bonus of $3.25 million. Certainly you can see that is just silly. Griffin stands to pocket $7.7 mil in the next two years. Exactly why would he voluntarily reduce this to $5.75??? Just because someone knows how to work a spreadsheet doesn't mean that they have any common sense. 44....That figure you see under option bonuses is I believe the proration of the option bonus that counts against the cap that year. Griffen would receive a 4M option bonus in 06 and it would count against the cap 1M per year for 4 years. For some reason the CBA does count option bonus proration for purposes of meeting the 30% rule whereas it doesn't count prorated signing bonuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I'll not only lighten up, I'll admit to a mistake. I went to the website and read an explanation of spreadsheet. Although the spreadsheet lists a 2006 "Option Bonus" of $1.0 mil it does not explain that $1.0 represents the allocated portion of a $4.0 mil Option Bonus. In other words instead of paying Griffin $3.5 mil in 2006 they would be paying him a total of $5.5 mil in 2006. They are doing what I started suggesting yesterday, buying down future base salary at a discount with a new pro-rated signing bonus in 2006. Cash still buys cap, even in 2006. I should have gone to the sight and read the explanation instead of just looking at the mis-labled spreadsheet. I guess I was too busy drinking. :40oz: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 44....That figure you see under option bonuses is I believe the proration of the option bonus that counts against the cap that year. Griffen would receive a 4M option bonus in 06 and it would count against the cap 1M per year for 4 years. For some reason the CBA does count option bonus proration for purposes of meeting the 30% rule whereas it doesn't count prorated signing bonuses. Yup. The explanation on the website clarifies it. So you agree that the Skins have a plan B that will work if no CBA extension occurs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsfan1311 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I'll not only lighten up, I'll admit to a mistake. I should have gone to the sight and read the explanation instead of just looking at the mis-labled spreadsheet. I guess I was too busy drinking. :40oz: LOL!! Happens to the best of us! Are you going to the Beach Blitz? My folks live off of Indian River Rd, so I'll be coming down, (from MD), and checking out the festivities. I'll buy you a beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocono Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Yup. The explanation on the website clarifies it. So you agree that the Skins have a plan B that will work if no CBA extension occurs? Any plan that involves cooperation from players and agents is not a foolproof plan 44. If they realize the Skins are dead in the water without their cooperation they may ask a bigger pound of flesh than the one provided in the plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Any plan that involves cooperation from players and agents is not a foolproof plan 44. If they realize the Skins are dead in the water without their cooperation they may ask a bigger pound of flesh than the one provided in the plan. The players are in the drivers seat for sure, but if you were offered $7 today in your pocket for every non-guaranteed $10 of future compensation years down the road wouldn't you take it? You could invest the $7 and get much of your $3 back. In a game as violent as pro football you may never see a penny of those future dollars. It's too big a risk not to take the up front cash even with the discount. There are still some conflicts between the numbers and logic. By the third year Griffin's cumulative cash payout would be $3.1 mil less than his current contract gives him. The other years look good though and it really is just a matter of tweaking the numbers. The basic concept works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 LOL!! Happens to the best of us! Are you going to the Beach Blitz? My folks live off of Indian River Rd, so I'll be coming down, (from MD), and checking out the festivities. I'll buy you a beer. I may come to some of the activities. I won't know until closer to time if I will be in town. But I'll take that beer sometime either way. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiefPowhatan17 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 We will be fine. I trust our accounting department to get the contracts where they need to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sableholic Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 Thats a fantastic proposal for the Redskins. The players or agents would be fools to agree to it but, I guess we'll see. Not sure they would be fools as it appears they would recieve more guaranteed money in some cases and in others not lose any at all. Plus some players will realize that they won't get that kind of money elsewhere. If there is no cap, why wouldn't you want to be on the skins team when thats going on? sable I don't know what those guys are smoking but you need to stop smoking it long enough yourself to see that they don't make sense. Glad you corrected yourself. I figured most people would go to the link first as opposed to the spreadsheet, but either way before posting take a couple seconds to relax and think about what your saying. Try to keep such comments to a minimum as they def. have a way of coming back around. I'll credit the beers to most of it, but just saying. Anyways ...no reason to be so harsh....sable didn't say he agreed with the story, but stated he figured it warranted a new thread as it's a new story..no need to state that the guy is "smoking" anything.......lighten up.. Thank you, much appreciated. Any plan that involves cooperation from players and agents is not a foolproof plan 44. If they realize the Skins are dead in the water without their cooperation they may ask a bigger pound of flesh than the one provided in the plan. Very true, but then again they might not. A lot of those players seriously have to consider that they probably can't get that type of contract elsewhere, arrington & brunell come to mind among others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDFan5 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Figured this warranted a new thread as its a new story. However, if mods feel like merging can you do it with the cap-tastrophe thread.Anyways link: http://redskins.scout.com/2/501659.html "Compliance Scenario The Redskins are currently sitting at a 2006 salary cap figure of $115.5m - $20.5m over the estimated $95m NFL cap and these leaves the Skins at real risk being in breach of the cap come March 3. Cutting of high cost players will net only minimal savings. So that brings us to the first option the Skins have to get under the cap--to cut as many non-necessity players that save money as possible, redo some contracts. First, the players that could be released. Here’s a list of 11 players with their 2006 cap savings if released in brackets: Walt Harris ($2m) Matt Bowen ($2m) Brandon Noble ($1.7m) Patrick Ramsey ($1.7m) Cory Raymer ($1.0m) John Hall ($1.0m) James Thrash ([body].9m) Tom Tupa ([body].6m) Antonio Brown ([body].5m) Jimmy Farris ($.5m) Karon Riley ([body].5m) That’s $9.3m saved against the cap (when also figuring in the 12 players who would replace these guys under the Rule of 51)" Then there is some lengthy 30 percent rule contract renogotiation stuff that I won't post all here. If you interested follow the link. But the important part is... "That’s a further $12.1m in savings against the cap. There’s $21.4m of savings, which would result in the Skins being nearly $1m under a $95m." Lastly a table of details: http://media.scout.com/media/doc/29/295113.pdf Highlighted players = those that need to restructure. "Another possibility concerning Brunell and Arrington is if each are prepared to take a decent, but what would be fair pay cut, including terminating the years on their contracts post 2009 and then reducing their base salaries and/or roster bonuses down to levels commensurate with their performance and/or age, it would give the Skins more breathing space and the ability to keep some of the players we listed to be released earlier." Also a note from Rich Tandler from that site on the message boards: "They're not giving up any guaranteed money and, in some cases, they're picking some up so it's hard to see why they wouldn't. But they would have to agree to it, so there's always the chance of a monkey wrench being thrown in there." What about the Redskins current UFA and RFA like Dockerry? Is he letting them walk to in this scenario Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamJT13 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 The players are in the drivers seat for sure, but if you were offered $7 today in your pocket for every non-guaranteed $10 of future compensation years down the road wouldn't you take it? You could invest the $7 and get much of your $3 back. In a game as violent as pro football you may never see a penny of those future dollars. It's too big a risk not to take the up front cash even with the discount.There are still some conflicts between the numbers and logic. By the third year Griffin's cumulative cash payout would be $3.1 mil less than his current contract gives him. The other years look good though and it really is just a matter of tweaking the numbers. The basic concept works. Of the 11 players listed, all but Rabach would be taking a pay cut over the length of their current contract in exchange for a little more this season. Some guys might go for that (such as Brunell, who's unlikely to play out his contract), but I don't see why some of them would want to accept as much as $1 million PER SEASON less over the length of their current contract. And not all of them would get more money up front, either -- Chris Samuels would get $500,000 less this season (and would have to reach his incentive just to get what he would have gotten anyway, before taking a pay cut). The thing is, each of them (and Santana Moss) could get the SAME amount of money that they'd get this season and the SAME amount of money over the length of their current contract and still get the Skins under the cap. But the numbers in that PDF assume that they'll all accept pay cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sableholic Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 What about the Redskins current UFA and RFA like Dockerry? Is he letting them walk to in this scenario Only mention of RFA in that article is this: "Skins Impact – Free Agency Restrictions in 2007 Only two prominent Redskin players will qualify to be RFA’s in 2007 under the final league year rules after having more than 3 years NFL experience – QB Patrick Ramsey and RB Ladell Betts. This would allow the Skins to keep both through 2006 and not risk losing them to unrestricted free agency (which would happen if the CBA is extended). Given the restrictions on player movements in the final league year of a CBA, both of these players could become quite valuable trade commodities in 2007 as teams search for talent in a restricted market." I would go to scouts.com as I believe you have a account there and ask PC, but I cannot say for sure what his thoughts on RFA and UFA were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDFan5 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Only mention of RFA in that article is this:"Skins Impact – Free Agency Restrictions in 2007 Only two prominent Redskin players will qualify to be RFA’s in 2007 under the final league year rules after having more than 3 years NFL experience – QB Patrick Ramsey and RB Ladell Betts. This would allow the Skins to keep both through 2006 and not risk losing them to unrestricted free agency (which would happen if the CBA is extended). Given the restrictions on player movements in the final league year of a CBA, both of these players could become quite valuable trade commodities in 2007 as teams search for talent in a restricted market." I would go to scouts.com as I believe you have a account there and ask PC, but I cannot say for sure what his thoughts on RFA and UFA were. Yeah I will post a message to him in a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sableholic Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 Of the 11 players listed, all but Rabach would be taking a pay cut over the length of their current contract in exchange for a little more this season. Some guys might go for that (such as Brunell, who's unlikely to play out his contract), but I don't see why some of them would want to accept as much as $1 million PER SEASON less over the length of their current contract. And not all of them would get more money up front, either -- Chris Samuels would get $500,000 less this season (and would have to reach his incentive just to get what he would have gotten anyway, before taking a pay cut). The thing is, each of them (and Santana Moss) could get the SAME amount of money that they'd get this season and the SAME amount of money over the length of their current contract and still get the Skins under the cap. But the numbers in that PDF assume that they'll all accept pay cuts. Ah so the chart is slightly different from the information in the article itself then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I've only broken down Griffin since yesterday, but he wouldn't be taking a pay cut in his first two years. The PFD has him saving us $1 mil in 2006 but I think that he won't want to renegotiate a contract that leaves him negative $3 mil after three years. Once the numbers are smoothed out he will probably save us about $800,000 in '06. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fdarugar Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 God, I hope it works out like this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.