Eagles outspent Skins by 14m from 01-04

[TD_washingtonredskins]

umm currently the giants are

Understood. I was speaking more specifically between the Eagles and Redskins.

And, I think I could make an argument that, despite the division standings, the Redskins were the best team in the division last year.

[Pocono]

Give Upshaw some credit for not calling the Eagles and other teams out explicitly...but everyone at the negotiation table knows who he's talking about: the wealthy teams who don't spend their cap = EAGLES.

We've heard you say that before but the numbers show otherwise. From 01 to 04 the Eagles averaged over 80M a year in payroll and were never below Upshaw's 66M but if you look at the Skins during that same time they are under the Upshaw line 2 of the 4 years.

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamresults.aspx?team=24

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamresults.aspx?team=32

So please provide proof other than what you really really really want to believe that he was talking about the Eagles.

[HOF44]

We've heard you say that before but the numbers show otherwise. From 01 to 04 the Eagles averaged over 80M a year in payroll and were never below Upshaw's 66M but if you look at the Skins during that same time they are under the Upshaw line 2 of the 4 years.

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamresults.aspx?team=24

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamresults.aspx?team=32

So please provide proof other than what you really really really want to believe that he was talking about the Eagles.

You just need to give up those USA Today numbers. They are bogus.

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/foot...es/default.aspx

[sableholic]

You just need to give up those USA Today numbers. They are bogus.

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/foot...es/default.aspx

and completely different then the forbes #'s, but hey don't kill the eagles fans hopes.

[dockeryfan]

That's alright, he'll just keep posting the same stuff.

Then when you call him on it, he sends insults.

Didn't seem up to responding to the Colts comment Pocono?

Yeah, every team restructures just as easily as the Redskins. It doesn't have anything to do with the original language or anything.

He defended the FA moves last year. Who did they get? Mike McMahon and a one year deal for Keith Adams.

[Pocono]

and completely different then the forbes #'s, but hey don't kill the eagles fans hopes.

Sable....

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/301623.html

You see that little 6 next to player expenses? If you see what that 6 means it says includes benefits and bonuses. Benefits are not part of the cap formula. They are paid from a separate pool and really have no effect on the team that's put on the field because they are not negotiated by individual players. The Forbes numbers are the USA numbers + benefits.

[HOF44]

Sable....

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/301623.html

You see that little 6 next to player expenses? If you see what that 6 means it says includes benefits and bonuses. Benefits are not part of the cap formula. They are paid from a separate pool and really have no effect on the team that's put on the field because they are not negotiated by individual players. The Forbes numbers are the USA numbers + benefits.

I'll take your word for it, but in that case there is no basis to rely on either article. The USA Today article clearly states that these may not be the actual amounts paid to players. If thats the case it pointless to try to use it as a reference to proove Scrooge isn't cheap.

[Pocono]

That's alright, he'll just keep posting the same stuff.

Then when you call him on it, he sends insults.

Didn't seem up to responding to the Colts comment Pocono?

Yeah, every team restructures just as easily as the Redskins. It doesn't have anything to do with the original language or anything.

He defended the FA moves last year. Who did they get? Mike McMahon and a one year deal for Keith Adams.

The Colts tried to prorate their roster bonuses based on the original language of the contract but weren't allowed to because of the 30% rule. The Skins may have tried the same thing and been denied before they approached their players about redoing their contracts. The Colts option would have been the same as the Skins which is to approach their players about changing their contracts. There was nothing in the Skin's contracts that made redoing the contract any more likely than any other team. The team goes to the player and asks to restructure or extend or shorten[in Portis' case] their contract. Gibb's gets a lot of well deserved credit for getting the cooperation he got. I don't want to insult you but this is really elemental stuff and has been going on as long as there has been a cap.

If there had been an extension this was language in the Colts'contracts and the bonused Skin's player's contracts and even Terrell Owens contract that would have allowed their bonuses to be prorated at the team's discression without asking the player's permission.

As for the Eagle's off season you seem to have omitted the Pro Bowl player they extended during the off season. My feeling was with 11 players coming off IR and 14 draft picks and a core that had just been to the Super Bowl that the key was to re-sign Trotter and get Andrews and Kalu and Buckhalter back healthy and we'd be OK. Alas it did not work out that way.

[Pocono]

I'll take your word for it, but in that case there is no basis to rely on either article. The USA Today article clearly states that these may not be the actual amounts paid to players. If thats the case it pointless to try to use it as a reference to proove Scrooge isn't cheap.

I guess you're talking about this.

"For each player, the database shows his base salary, signing bonus, other bonuses and cap value. The base salary is the value according to his contract; however, he may not have received the entire amount. The column labeled "salary" is the actual amount he received in base salary and bonuses combined."

That just means the column base salary is the amount in his contract but he may not have been on the team 17 weeks and received the full amount so "the column labeled "salary" is the actual amount he received in base salary and bonuses combined." "ACTUAL AMOUNT HE RECEIVED"

[dockeryfan]

the key was to re-sign Trotter and get Andrews and Kalu and Buckhalter back healthy and we'd be OK. Alas it did not work out that way.

Kalu and Buckhalter. That's rich.

[HOF44]

I guess you're talking about this.

"The base salary is the value according to his contract; however, he may not have received the entire amount."

Nope just sentence above. Because if this sentence includes the fact he may not have received the money in the figure, what good does it do to add this figure to his bonus money? The basis of the combined figure can be incorrect therefore the total figure can be incorrect. So its all bogus.

[TerpsEagles]

Kalu and Buckhalter. That's rich.

Hindsight is fun to play with, right Dockery ?

What's so "rich" about it, in light of when Pocono said he was behind those moves ? Hell, Pocono even said it didn't turn out the way he had hoped.

Kalu had something like 8 sacks in '02, and 5.5 in '03... after missing all of '04, why do you act like it was preposterous for an Eagles fan to have had hope for a good '05 out of him prior to the '05 season?

As for Buck, he showed great flashes in his limited duty when healthy... again, why would it have been so bad for an Eagles fan to have a lot of hope for him to come back healthy and play well and be a contributor to a team fresh off a SB appearance ?

[Pocono]

Kalu and Buckhalter. That's rich.

Why did you omit Trotter? Why did you not mention the Eagles re-signing a Pro Bowl player in your little recap? Are you not knowledgeable enough or were you just understating their off season trying to make your argument look better? I mean I don't post here much so I have to know if you simply don't know or if you know but ignore facts because it inhances your point. If I know this maybe I can navigate around your weaknesses so I don't hurt your feelings again.

[Westbrook36]

Kalu and Buckhalter. That's rich.

I see your frustration. You guys are systematically getting owned on every "Eagles are cheap" talking point that you have in your arsenal so now you have to lash out with irrelevant issues like this. They were coming off the SB, had 11 players coming off IR and had 14 draft picks. Was it time to add high priced talent?

If you want to play that game, let's talk about the Skins FA additions last year. Lets see, subtract Pierce and Smoot, add Patten and Rabach. Yeah, sounds like an even trade. Doesn't Danny want to win.

The truth is that Snyder gets all the pub for being a big spender but year after year, he isn't able to spend as much actual cash as teams like the Eagles because he has so much dead money accumulated (which is never paid out of his pocket). Yet, he continues to do things like raise parking 40 percent, squeezing every dime he can out of the loyal fanbase. It's funny, Skins fans like to brag about how the Skins are the most valuable franchise in the NFL.....until the prices get raised again and then you have a 10 page thread where reality strikes. I just like to sit back and watch.

[dockeryfan]

Why did you omit Trotter? Why did you not mention the Eagles re-signing a Pro Bowl player in your little recap? Are you not knowledgeable enough or were you just understating their off season trying to make your argument look better? I mean I don't post here much so I have to know if you simply don't know or if you know but ignore facts because it inhances your point. If I know this maybe I can navigate around your weaknesses so I don't hurt your feelings again.

You are tiresome.

I think you are the only eaglefan I have seen defend the 2004 offseason free agent moves.

Think Burkhalter was going to contribute in the least is rediculous.

ND Kalu being the every down DE is almost as funny.

Think those two would be the solution to the 2004 offseason. Priceless.

Let me guess. You think Pinkston will return to his speedster form.

It's more plausible than Burkhalter having any kind of role.

You have become a cartoon eaglefan, because you are ultra homer.

[Westbrook36]

You are tiresome.

I think you are the only eaglefan I have seen defend the 2004 offseason free agent moves.

Think Burkhalter was going to contribute in the least is rediculous.

ND Kalu being the every down DE is almost as funny.

Think those two would be the solution to the 2004 offseason. Priceless.

Let me guess. You think Pinkston will return to his speedster form.

It's more plausible than Burkhalter having any kind of role.

You have become a cartoon eaglefan, because you are ultra homer.

You just don't get it. Why make a huge splash and totally change a team that was 3 points away from winning the SB? Teams that are terrible each year mess with chemistry and add high priced pieces. Ask the Ravens how much they enjoyed changing their starting QB with a "better" one after the 2000 SB.

Finally, why are you so angry?

[dockeryfan]

I see your frustration. You guys are systematically getting owned on every "Eagles are cheap" talking point that you have in your arsenal so now you have to lash out with irrelevant issues like this.

The spending thing has been played out. Pocono keeps bringing up the same nembers, someone says the numbers are bogus, lather rinse repeat. Hard to call that systematically pwn3d but whatever.

[Westbrook36]

The spending thing has been played out. Pocono keeps bringing up the same nembers, someone says the numbers are bogus, lather rinse repeat. Hard to call that systematically pwn3d but whatever.

Well, then he goes on to explain the difference between the Forbes numbers and USA Today numbers and everyone gets quiet. I mean, I guess it's a safe bet to just bury your head in the sand and think that USA Today is in business because they make a habit of printing wrong information and this is all just a huge fallacy concocted by Eagles fans to make us feel better....right?

Then Pocono breaks down each years LBTE and shows that it is another argument that holds no water. No comment from anyone.

Yet, wait a week and these same issues will be brought up by you and tr1 completely disregarding this thread and the lessons taught.

[dockeryfan]

You just don't get it. Why make a huge splash and totally change a team that was 3 points away from winning the SB? Teams that are terrible each year mess with chemistry and add high priced pieces. Ask the Ravens how much they enjoyed changing their starting QB with a "better" one after the 2000 SB.

They let Burgess, Mayberry, and Simon go and didn't have a plan.

I'm not saying there were no arguments for letting them go, but there was no plan for the Burgess and Simon departures. Counting on McDougal and Kalu was a mistake from the start, and a lot of Eagle fans agree. Just saying.

Finally, why are you so angry?

I like the jabs.

[jrockster21]

Congrats on your 2 playoff games last year. Though, I thought the goal was to win the SB... that's what you all keep telling us lowly Eagles fans...... and to think, the Skins still had some $$ to spend..... amazing that they didn't spend it, huh?

Its not just spending money blindly, its smart spending. Snyder is starting to do just that, and the Skins are improving. There are many factors as to why the Skins have not suceeded in recent years, spending is not one of them. With Gibbs in place, the Skins are turning it around, but it can't happen overnight.

In stark contrast to this, the Eagles have been on top of the NFC for most of the 21st century, and have squat to show for it. They've been one or two marquee players away from winning the SB...but did not sign them. When they did, they dominated (TO -- Kearse has been a disappointment though). So this argument is not valid...when the Skins have been on top of the NFC for 4 seasons without winning another SB, then you can use this argument. But until then, sorry...that dog don't hunt.

[Westbrook36]

They let Burgess, Mayberry, and Simon go and didn't have a plan.

I'm not saying there were no arguments for letting them go, but there was no plan for the Burgess and Simon departures. Counting on McDougal and Kalu was a mistake from the start, and a lot of Eagle fans agree. Just saying.

I like the jabs.

Do you think they let them go because of cheapness or because they thought they had a plan to replace them?

[Westbrook36]

So this argument is not valid...when the Skins have been on top of the NFC for 4 seasons without winning another SB, then you can use this argument.

Well, I guess we'll never settle this debate then. I don't see the Skins being on top of the NFC for any seasons, let alone 4.

[dockeryfan]

Yet, wait a week and these same issues will be brought up by you and tr1 completely disregarding this thread and the lessons taught.

If there is any lesson, it's that there is very poor information out there with regard to spending and contracts.

And there's a difference in philosophy.

One group thinks it was fine to wait until mid season to give Westbrook a new contract, one group thinks it was an insult, not only diminished his contribution to the team but had the danger of creating locker room problems.

There doesn't seem to be a meeting in the middle here.

[sableholic]

If you want to play that game, let's talk about the Skins FA additions last year. Lets see, subtract Pierce and Smoot, add Patten and Rabach. Yeah, sounds like an even trade. Doesn't Danny want to win.

Aren't we forgetting someone? Let me correct that for you if I may, subtract Pierce & Smoot for Patten, Moss, and Rabach

[thespaniard]

Aren't we forgetting someone? Let me correct that for you if I may, subtract Pierce & Smoot for Patten, Moss, and Rabach

Moss was not a FA addition