roadkill Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 TOO MANY NUMBERS :rubeyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Pressure Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Why dont more people read threads like these? Instead we have threads like: Trade for Abraham! Sign Charles Woodson! Sign [insert expensive free agent here]! I am waiting for the person thats going to come on here and punch me in the back of the head before telling me to let them dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCinOz Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Just for the record guys, as well as the information in that article consider this...... The Skins under that scenario have a number of low value players on the roster counting under the Rule of 51......and there 11 of them who are just roster fodder quite frankly, recently signed off the street FA's and practice squad players recently signed on first year contracts counting $235k in 2006. The CBA states that in the pre/off season teams can have 40 players minimum on the roster. We could cut those 11 guys (and any other $235k guys on the roster if there's more than that) and save another $2.585m if we needed to to get under the cap, save some cap room to sign a player, or - looking forward to April - need extra cap room to allow us to have the rookie pool necessary to get to the draft table. Then we could built the roster back up with players when we need to or are able to (eg. at the draft). In tinkering with the contract restructures a little more and including this trim down to 40 players, I have us down as low as $89.1m. This means we would have options about who we released (ie. keep Ramsey and trade him now after March 3), how we would tender Dockery (ie. maybe 1st round comp RFA tender now which will be around the $1.6m mark) etc....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[[ghost]] Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 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. this may be off topic, but thats a pretty cool link in your sig. it tells alot. if anyone, like me, doesn't know a thing about cap management, you should really check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Your math sucks. Those players amount to 12.4 million. Consider reworking Brunell, Janson, Samuels, maybe Portis, youve got anywhere between 7-8 to 10 million there. Consider Hall as well, who has been injured, and thats a cut saving anothe .6 million. Out of that entire list you mentioned, theres on starter, Thrash, who could easily be left in if you rework someone elses contract. Dont be so paranoid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocono Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 I think there's a problem with this option bonus gambit. The option can't be executed at the time of the renegotiation because there would be no option involved and the up front money would be considered signing bonus and not used in meeting the 30% rule. So the option would have to be soon after the redo but no player or agent would do this without an assurance the option will be picked up and the bonus money will be paid and any kind of unwritten assurance that the option will be picked up would violate the CBA's ban on unwritten agreements or understandings. This will be seen as what it is....a rather imaginative attempt to circumvent the salary cap and push 06 salary into future years.....Maybe I'm missing something....Adam or PC have a comment on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Your math sucks. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I've already had to take back my jabs at these guys in this very thread. I'm not saying that they know everything or have it all figured out, but they know more than I do. They really are just Redskin fans like you and I and are just trying to figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I've already had to take back my jabs at these guys in this very thread. I'm not saying that they know everything or have it all figured out, but they know more than I do. They really are just Redskin fans like you and I and are just trying to figure it out. I'm going to be sad when this all gets worked out. I've had fun these last few weeks talking about all the possibilities. No matter the result...cap hell or CBA extension, a little part of me is going to die when March 3rd rolls around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butz65 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 He doesn't agree to what the Skins have in mind and then they have no choice but to cut him? Actually no - the Skins could take a page from the Eagles book and tell him sit and not get paid - that's what the contract is for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sableholic Posted February 23, 2006 Author Share Posted February 23, 2006 I'm going to be sad when this all gets worked out. I've had fun these last few weeks talking about all the possibilities. No matter the result...cap hell or CBA extension, a little part of me is going to die when March 3rd rolls around. Has definately been the most exciting conversations I've seen since being here. And its a nice break from Lavar/Ramsey/Anybody else trade threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Actually no - the Skins could take a page from the Eagles book and tell him sit and not get paid - that's what the contract is for. So if a player has a binding contract and won't agree to a restructure, you think the Skins could sit him without pay? Get real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101Stredskinfan Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 the only two players on that list that they really should't cut is James Thrash & Matt Bowen to get rid of those players I think would be a bad mistake. I also thought we were trading Arrington For Abrams of the jets is this not true plz reply thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.