SALARY CAP : we're $2.7 mill. over 2007 salary cap ~ ~ ~

[Rufus T Firefly]

Ok, I see. But still, If a guy is due to make 7 million in '07, and we approach him to restructure and spread that 7 million out over the next 4 years, given this teams record, who's to say that its an automatic?

Im telling you, some of these guys are going to get sick of it and refuse the restructure to get their $$$$, then haul ass after their contract is up. And when it happens, I for one, wouldnt blame them.

No, you still don't get it.

[JoeSkinsfaninNJ]

Ok, I see. But still, If a guy is due to make 7 million in '07, and we approach him to restructure and spread that 7 million out over the next 4 years, given this teams record, who's to say that its an automatic?

Im telling you, some of these guys are going to get sick of it and refuse the restructure to get their $$$$, then haul ass after their contract is up. And when it happens, I for one, wouldnt blame them.

No. That 7 million you're talking about is turned into a bonus, which means the player gets 7 million right now in his pocket, but for cap purposes it's spread over what's left of the contract, in your example 4 years.

If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.

[pjfootballer]

Beat the cap? Are you serious? Danny is trapped in the cap. He blew all his cap room on a small handful of players that can't be cut (including Lloyd and AA), and the team has no depth because of it.

This is what cap hell looks like. Other teams -- smarter teams -- take their medicine when they screw up like this. The Skins keep putting it off, but there's a price. A big price. This team is paper-thin and can't be fixed. Only two ways out: blind dumb luck (like finding some UDFAs that turn into superstars) or hard work. And hard work means disciplined business practices, not the nonsensical "cash beats cap" voodoo economics that have gutted this team.

The cap goes up to $116 million when the FA period starts. Since it's technically our offseason, we can go over the $109 million cap. I don't know why everyone worries so much, we always manage to get under the cap AND we always manage to sign big FA's in the offseason.

[Gallntfox]

I think that I read somewhere that the Eagles are $30 million UNDER the cap.

How does a team that far under the cap almost advance to the NFC Championship game?

[No_Pressure]

]']The cap is like Swiper' date=' and Dan Snyder is like Dora the Explorer. Every time the cap tries to sneak up on us like it did to the TItans a few years back, we just yell at it, and it runs away. Not even a scratch.[/quote']

Uhh.......

What?

[stwasm]

]']Not that I'm proud of it' date=' but the cap will never be a problem for us.

The cap is like Swiper, and Dan Snyder is like Dora the Explorer. Every time the cap tries to sneak up on us like it did to the TItans a few years back, we just yell at it, and it runs away. Not even a scratch.[/quote']

And we have LOTS of Super Bowl trophies under Snyder to support this, right?

[redskin56]

They do, but not all at once. They are divided up on a yearly basis. I believe he most they can go is over seven years. The only time they count during one season is when a player is either traded or cut. Then the remainder of the bonus is due (cap-wise) that season, but it can be spread out over two seasons if the player is cut/traded after 6/1.

That's exactly it.

When the Redskins make these types of FA deals, they always back load the deal with salaries that will never be realized. In essence, when we sign a player to a 6 or 7 year deal, it really is only a three or four year deal with the signing bonus prorated over 6 or 7 years and the player will never see the last few years base salary of the deal. They are made that way so we can convert the large salaries into signing bonuses that can be prorated over the remaining years of the deal.

It is really smart IMHO. What you do is sign a player to a deal that you know you're only going to stick with for 3 or 4 years. If you cut him after that time, no big deal because the signing bonus is prorated over 7 years (although the remaining proration is accelerated after the cut). If you want to keep that player in excess of that original 3 or 4 years, you basically have an exclusive rights free agent with 3 or 4 years left on the original deal. The cap goes up every year, so at the end of the original 3 or 4 years, the remaining signing bonus proration is relatively small. Then you get the player to renegotiate the remaining 3 or 4 years and convert those high base salaries into signing bonuses. You have just "resigned" your player for a signing bonus that is smaller than you originally paid him and you convert those unwieldy base salaries into a cap hit that takes place over several years instead of a prorated signing bonus and a high base annual salary. In essence, you're paying the player the vet minimum on the annual salary with a prorated bonus, which leads to smaller annual cap numbers.

Only down side is you have to keep those players around for the first three or four years (see David Patten), so you have to be sure that these FAs will be on the team for several years. If you cut them early, that original signing bonus accelerates and comes due much earlier than if you "renegotiate" the deal after 3 or 4 years. They have been doing this with Samuels and Brunell the last couple of years.

[JoeSkinsfaninNJ]

Here's my question about this report, it's from the Charlotte Observer. If this were the case, wouldn't it be a bigger story in the Post and the Times? I might be asking a bit much of the local papers, but they can't be that bad.

[Uno Mas]

No, you still don't get it.

Gee, thanks for the wonderful insight. Because of you, I completely understand now. :doh:

[Vi]

*yawn* Yes, and the Earth will make it around the Sun one more time.

[Uno Mas]

That's exactly it.

When the Redskins make these types of FA deals, they always back load the deal with salaries that will never be realized. In essence, when we sign a player to a 6 or 7 year deal, it really is only a three or four year deal with the signing bonus prorated over 6 or 7 years and the player will never see the last few years base salary of the deal. They are made that way so we can convert the large salaries into signing bonuses that can be prorated over the remaining years of the deal.

It is really smart IMHO. What you do is sign a player to a deal that you know you're only going to stick with for 3 or 4 years. If you cut him after that time, no big deal because the signing bonus is prorated over 7 years (although the remaining proration is accelerated after the cut). If you want to keep that player in excess of that original 3 or 4 years, you basically have an exclusive rights free agent with 3 or 4 years left on the original deal. The cap goes up every year, so at the end of the original 3 or 4 years, the remaining signing bonus proration is relatively small. Then you get the player to renegotiate the remaining 3 or 4 years and convert those high base salaries into signing bonuses. You have just "resigned" your player for a signing bonus that is smaller than you originally paid him and you convert those unwieldy base salaries into a cap hit that takes place over several years instead of a prorated signing bonus and a high base annual salary. In essence, you're paying the player the vet minimum on the annual salary with a prorated bonus, which leads to smaller annual cap numbers.

Only down side is you have to keep those players around for the first three or four years (see David Patten), so you have to be sure that these FAs will be on the team for several years. If you cut them early, that original signing bonus accelerates and comes due much earlier than if you "renegotiate" the deal after 3 or 4 years. They have been doing this with Samuels and Brunell the last couple of years.

I gotcha. Thanks for the breakdown.

Anyone know where we can find examples of this? It'd be cool if someone posted an example of us restructuring someones contract.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Gee, thanks for the wonderful insight. Because of you, I completely understand now. :doh:

You're welcome.

It was clearly explained to you and you still completely missed it. How many times did it need to be spelled out before your lack of understanding was your own fault, and not the rest of ours?

[Pocono]

I think that I read somewhere that the Eagles are $30 million UNDER the cap.

How does a team that far under the cap almost advance to the NFC Championship game?

The Eagles aren't 30M under the cap because they included big 07 roster bonuses in the extensions they wrote for Brown Patterson Cole and Herremans. Those bonuses eat up about 18M of space and can be prorated if the team wishes. The Eagles also didn't advance to the NFCCG but among the teams that did advance to the CG only the Colts weren't over 20M under the as of 12/7 acording to this report.

http://blogs.charlotte.com/panthers/2006/12/panthers_low_on.html

If only these teams could handle the cap as well as Snyder......

[ntotoro]

Ok, I see. But still, If a guy is due to make 7 million in '07, and we approach him to restructure and spread that 7 million out over the next 4 years, given this teams record, who's to say that its an automatic?

It would be 7m guaranteed dollars versus 7m maybe dollars. Regardless what happens, they'll get that money. The only thing absolutely guaranteed is a signing bonus.

[ntotoro]

Only down side is you have to keep those players around for the first three or four years (see David Patten), so you have to be sure that these FAs will be on the team for several years. If you cut them early, that original signing bonus accelerates and comes due much earlier than if you "renegotiate" the deal after 3 or 4 years. They have been doing this with Samuels and Brunell the last couple of years.

That's the potential downside. Any player not doing so well (see: Archuleta, Adam) will probably be kept around to make cutting him more manageable. The exception was when we traded Coles. The team redid a bunch of contracts to absorb the remaining signing bonus and give Moss an extension.

[Uno Mas]

It would be 7m guaranteed dollars versus 7m maybe dollars. Regardless what happens, they'll get that money. The only thing absolutely guaranteed is a signing bonus.

Yea, I understand that.

I think what Im getting at though is this- lets use Samuels as an example. Maybe he's tired of this teams losing ways. So when approached to restructure he says no. So we still owe him the signing bonus from his current contract. So if we cut him, he gets that money and someone else will sign him to another big contract. So he wins either way.

Someone like Brunell is a totally different story. If he refuses he knows he wont play football again. So it'd be foolish for him to decline.

[MRMADD]

The cap goes up to $116 million when the FA period starts. Since it's technically our offseason, we can go over the $109 million cap. I don't know why everyone worries so much, we always manage to get under the cap AND we always manage to sign big FA's in the offseason.

I'm not worried that we won't be able to sign big-name free agents. I'm worried because we will be able to sign big-name free agents. That's what got us into this mess.

[ntotoro]

I gotcha. Thanks for the breakdown.

Anyone know where we can find examples of this? It'd be cool if someone posted an example of us restructuring someones contract.

Chris Samuels has done it a couple times, the most recent being last year.

I think Mark Brunell has done it every year he has been here, including within the last month or so. You usually see 6-7 guys doing it, but it's never given great fanfare. Keep your eyes peeled a month or two before and after the draft and you'll see more of it.

Whenever you see someone getting "guaranteed money" reported, be skeptical of it. They're usually combining signing and roster bonuses when the only real guaranteed money is the signing bonus.

[Chump Bailey]

I agree skinsfan, the salary cap really doesn't mean squat to Danny and the Redskins but it still bothers me that we are SO damn close to the cap every year and have nothing to show for it at all.

I think Dan and Joe breathed a huge sigh of relief though when the new CBA agreement was announced ; I don't think they could have signed anyone without the new agreement and subsequent cap increase. I do wish we will eventually become more fiscal regarding the cap. Look at the Jets and especially the 49'ers. They're in great shape.

Mike Nolan could sign Jared Allen, Adalius Thomas and Nate Clements or Asante without a second thought...

Not to mention all the draft picks they have the first day - thanks in large part to the Redskins...

[lovetoaster]

]']Not that I'm proud of it' date=' but the cap will never be a problem for us.

The cap is like Swiper, and Dan Snyder is like Dora the Explorer. Every time the cap tries to sneak up on us like it did to the TItans a few years back, we just yell at it, and it runs away. Not even a scratch.[/quote']

You are not proud of how our team handles the salary cap, or of how you just used a Dora the Explorer reference?

[cmorina69]

The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Quick, everyone off the bandwagon!

HAHAHAHA, i love " the sky is falling threads"

[SnyderMustGo]

It is really smart IMHO.

Yeah, so smart that no one else does it. Is that because it is so brilliant that no one else except Snyder (and his sychophants on this board) understand its brilliance?

Nah.

The reason why no one else manages a team this way is because it is incredibly stupid. Basically you borrow against the future for 'one more year' every year. And every year it gets worse.

The only reason to ever to ever do these kinds of moves is that you are really, really close to a Super Bowl and you are willing to risk the future for the next season. We aren't there. Nor have we been since Snyder started playing this game.

And really, it's the perfect theory for a dot-com businessman to run. Those business are all illusory and ultimately led to a bubble-bursting. Borrow against the future to pay the beast of now doesn't work in the long run.

The net effect is that your team gets incredibly razor thin with no quality depth. Moreover, you get hamstrung with aging players that you can't afford to cut or replace.

And the whole system only works if you assume two constants: (1) the rest of the team's salaries won't change, and (2) the cap will increase at a predictable rate.

The Snyder system is a game, and worse, it is a bet. But every year our team will get older and thinner as we can't afford to cut age and can't afford to pay for quality depth.

If it was smart, other people would do it.

Don't you realize that the really successful teams don't play this game? (Philly, NE, etc.) Don't you think there is a lesson to be learned here?

(And don't give me this stuff about how other teams can't do because they can't afford to do it.... if the owner of the Seahawks wanted to, he could wipe his ass with Danny Boy's bank account and barely feel a thing.)

[SnyderMustGo]

One more thing that I remember reading a while back on this that tried to show what happens when you convert salary to bonus (and thus pro-rating the bonus across the life of the contract):

Here is a simple thought experiment:

Season 1: $5 million

Season 2: $6 million

Season 3: $7 million

Season 4: $8 million

Season 5: $9 million.

So you play the game the first year and convert it all to pro-rated bonus to lower your Season 1 cap number. The rest of the contract's cap effect now looks this:

Season 2: $7 million

Season 3: $8 million

Season 4: $9 million

Season 5: $10 million.

So you play the game again next year because the hit is too big and you convert it to lower it down to a ~$1.75 hit. The rest now looks like this:

Season 3: $9.5 million

Season 4: $10.5 million

Season 5: $11.5 million

So you do it again, now you got:

Season 4: $13.5 million

Season 5: $16.5 million.

How are you going to cut a player like this?

[ntotoro]

I think what Im getting at though is this- lets use Samuels as an example. Maybe he's tired of this teams losing ways. So when approached to restructure he says no. So we still owe him the signing bonus from his current contract. So if we cut him, he gets that money and someone else will sign him to another big contract. So he wins either way.

That's a chance you take. You take a chance both low-balling and losing a guy or making it so that he actually costs more to cut/trade than keep. Most of these guys choose dollars and cents over anything else. It wouldn't be the first time a player refused to restructure.

[Uno Mas]

You're welcome.

It was clearly explained to you and you still completely missed it. How many times did it need to be spelled out before your lack of understanding was your own fault, and not the rest of ours?

I think you misread my post. I understood that money from a current contract would be turned into garunteed money (signing bonus) if the player chooses to restructure. What I didnt realize was how exactly it affected the cap, which has since been made clear, no thanks to you. When did I say it was anyones fault, anyway? Get a life, dude.