Updated Cap Figures

[D-Day]

Well, PC has received word from his insider on the recent contracts given out and with his hard work and infinite knowledge here is our cap as of today.

http://www.skinsfans.com/pcinoz/Salaries%20Pages%20Summary.html

Current cap = 5.29 under

Available cuts/trades and their savings

Pre June 1st

Wynn = 2.5 mil

Collins= 1.25 mil

Daniels = 1.9 mil

Springs = .093 extra cap charge

If cut or traded Post June 1st and their 08 dead cap charge. Remember if you trade someone post june 1st it has to be after the actual date ergo no picks this year. Cough Cough Springs

Wynn = same as above (last year of his contract

Collins = Same as above (last year of his contract

Daniels = ***Remove for contract Confusion****** Should be around 2 mil in savings for a June 1st cut, unsure of the exact figures.

Springs = 4.875 mil savings = 4.968 Dead cap in 08

Still possible restructures if we get desperate for space.

Grif, Rabach, Springs (never declined a restructure, just a pay cut), Washington.

Here is the post that laid out the new contracts for the new signings.

Yoder got a $350,000 signing bonus. His cap number is $741,666.

Wade got a $3.5 million signing bonus and $100,000 workout bonuses each season, with his 2009 season being voidable. His cap number is $1,986,666.

Stoutmire got a $40,000 signing bonus and qualifies for the minimum salary benefit. His cap number is $475,000.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Good stuff there

You have to believe with draft picks, and hopefully a signing of Chris Cooley to an extension, there are going to be some further cuts/restructurings

[D-Day]

Good stuff there

You have to believe with draft picks, and hopefully a signing of Chris Cooley to an extension, there are going to be some further cuts/restructurings

I fully expect to see wynn go after the draft, and I am hoping collins is gone as well.

[TheLongshot]

I fully expect to see wynn go after the draft, and I am hoping collins is gone as well.

Actually, you may not see that until camp. Certainly, there is no hurry there.

5m in cap space may be enough to sign rookies, particularly if we don't get more picks.

Jason

[Kurd Cudins]

The post June 1st #'s for Daniels are:

Dead Cap 2007: $.657M

2007 Savings: $2.61M

Dead Cap 2008: $.747M

Edit: it looks like he restructured/extended his contract. The #'s might change depending on what kind of bonuses his "other bonuses" are. I think they are workout/roster bonuses, in which case they don't have any effect if he is cut.

[D-Day]

The post June 1st #'s for Daniels are:

Dead Cap 2007: $.657M

2007 Savings: $2.61M

Dead Cap 2008: $.747M

Thank you will update, how do you figure that out? Is it the guaranteed $ divided by the years left or by the years already played on the contract? Those are my guesses.

I could see him being a June 1st cut if we need the space.

[Chris Worthy]

Thanks for the info. If we get a DE in the draft, Wynn should be cut.

[mistertim]

Actually, you may not see that until camp. Certainly, there is no hurry there.

5m in cap space may be enough to sign rookies, particularly if we don't get more picks.

Jason

Some of this is leading me to believe that we most likely won't be trading down due to cap issues, like you said. We were relatively restrained in our FA pickups which leaves me wondering if they are trying to make sure they have space to pay a guy at the #6 spot as opposed to landing some huge name FAs and then pretty much being forced to try and trade down a bunch due to cap issues. I'm sure there are other possible readings of it but it seems plausible to me.

[TheLongshot]

Some of this is leading me to believe that we most likely won't be trading down due to cap issues, like you said. We were relatively restrained in our FA pickups which leaves me wondering if they are trying to make sure they have space to pay a guy at the #6 spot as opposed to landing some huge name FAs and then pretty much being forced to try and trade down a bunch due to cap issues. I'm sure there are other possible readings of it but it seems plausible to me.

I wouldn't say that. To steal from Julio Gallo, they won't release a player before it is time.

If they draft more players and need to release another player to sign all of those guys, they will do it. At the same time, tho, the players on the roster could still be useful for next season, so there is no reason to be in a hurry to let guys go who can be useful.

Jason

[mistertim]

I wouldn't say that. To steal from Julio Gallo, they won't release a player before it is time.

If they draft more players and need to release another player to sign all of those guys, they will do it. At the same time, tho, the players on the roster could still be useful for next season, so there is no reason to be in a hurry to let guys go who can be useful.

Jason

Thats a fair assessment. It just strikes me as a bit worrisome if we dropped Daniels or Wynn (for whichever reason) but didn't get a possible impact player at DE in the draft; that would leave us very very thin at LDE.

[skinsngibbs4life]

nice, thanks for the info.

[Lead Blocker]

Thanks for the info.

I was getting Cap Curious

[Walking Deadman]

Wow,

every year we're going to "CAP HELL" per opposing fans and the media big shots.........

and every year we're under the cap despite some bad FA moves (Coles, Arch in particular).

The one thing I can't complain about the FO, they know how to crunch numbers :applause:

[dfbovey]

5m in cap space may be enough to sign rookies, particularly if we don't get more picks.

Jason

It would cost significantly less to sign a mid first rounder and a 3rd round pick than it would be to just sign the #6 pick. So trading down would also save cap space if they decide to go that route.

My concern is that the amount it will take to sign these guys is up in the air at the moment. The crazy contracts we saw in free agency will probably carry over into the draft.

[D-Day]

Not really, The draft is usually pretty much last year + a %. I think it usually around 5 -10%. I don't quite remember. So lets say the #6 cost 30 mil to sign last year, we can budget about 35 mil contract and be safe. I hope so anyway.

[TheLongshot]

My concern is that the amount it will take to sign these guys is up in the air at the moment. The crazy contracts we saw in free agency will probably carry over into the draft.

There is a hard cap, based on where you picked in the draft, on rookie contracts that will severely limit this.

Jason

[cphil006]

We are ok, then... Let Daniels, Wynn play out their last year. We'll be well under cap next year.

[D-Day]

Our cap figure for next year is already at around 124 mil. :-)

Also remember this is Wynn's last year so if we do cut him we will save 2.5 mil with no cap hit next year.

[AmishGangsta]

Wow,

every year we're going to "CAP HELL" per opposing fans and the media big shots.........

and every year we're under the cap despite some bad FA moves (Coles, Arch in particular).

The one thing I can't complain about the FO, they know how to crunch numbers :applause:

Well, if there's anything positive about the Skins releasing and trading guys like Coles, Arrington and Arch, it is that it pretty much annihilates the argument that the Skins players are guaranteed a roster spot because of the salaries they are given.

We see it again this year, where many spectators were so sure that we couldn't afford Arch Delux's cap hit - they're wrong again.

[Skin Patrol]

Wow,

every year we're going to "CAP HELL" per opposing fans and the media big shots.........

and every year we're under the cap despite some bad FA moves (Coles, Arch in particular).

The one thing I can't complain about the FO, they know how to crunch numbers :applause:

I don't think there's anything unique in our means of mitigating cap hits. We cut players and restructure contracts. Both are strategies known and employed (to lesser degree) by the other 31 teams in the league. The two most clever or "brilliant" moves the Redskins have made in recent history are probably tricking Arrington into buying out a large portion of his contract (so that he'd only cost us 8M in dead cap space in '06) or else tricking the Bears into adopting 4.5M of Archuleta's guaranteed money. But if we view both moves in the larger context -- mismanagements of personnel and contractual mistakes by definition since they left us with a cap penalty despite those two playing for other teams -- I'm left only willing to admit that our capologists are "brilliant" to the extent that they're capable of putting out fires they start.

The fact is, we're not any better or worse than the other 31 teams at cutting players. If I were to view any number as the objective measure of how intelligent a team's capologists are, I'd look at the Dead Cap Hit a team takes on any given year. I don't know where the Redskins rank relative to other teams, though I will also acknowledge that there really isn't one objective measure of "Cap Management". Honestly we don't know what the capologists have to work with; are contractual decisions made by Coaches? What limits are placed on the capologists in writing them up? To what extent are the things written verbatim from the Player's Agents (who incidentally see fit to publish nearly all the contracts they trick the Redskins into signing, because it makes them look like good agents)? In the absence of definitive answers to those questions, I'd just as soon judge our capologists by the same metric I task the rest of the team with -- On Field Product.

On a related note, rather than rewarding the franchise for utilizing the most obvious tool for cap space management (the cut), I'd just as soon ask that they learn to sign contracts that die natural deaths, to mitigate the amount of dead space we accrue. I don't mind overpaying players slightly to remain on the team, even in backup roles where they can at least minimally fufill a role as a mentor. But paying them not even to be on the roster? All things equal it doesn't make sense to pay, towards that year's cap, to players who aren't on your team.

[staticmc13]

If we don't cut springs he will be the second highest player on the team...that dosen't sound right. I like springs but he cost too much.

[TheLongshot]

I don't think there's anything unique in our means of mitigating cap hits. We cut players and restructure contracts. Both are strategies known and employed (to lesser degree) by the other 31 teams in the league. The two most clever or "brilliant" moves the Redskins have made in recent history are probably tricking Arrington into buying out a large portion of his contract (so that he'd only cost us 8M in dead cap space in '06) or else tricking the Bears into adopting 4.5M of Archuleta's guaranteed money. But if we view both moves in the larger context -- mismanagements of personnel and contractual mistakes by definition since they left us with a cap penalty despite those two playing for other teams -- I'm left only willing to admit that our capologists are "brilliant" to the extent that they're capable of putting out fires they start.

Well, I'd probably remove Lavar from that list, because you can't predict when a player gets hurt, and apparently it has been pretty serious for Lavar, since he wasn't nearly the player he was before the injury. I'd say the Skins were pretty savvy as to when to cut him loose.

As for Arch, as bad as it was, it wasn't nearly as bad as Lavar's contract and we are pretty much off the hook for him. Considering we didn't need to do anything special to get out of it, and got a pick to boot, it ended up not being bad at all.

Jason

[TheLongshot]

On a related note, rather than rewarding the franchise for utilizing the most obvious tool for cap space management (the cut), I'd just as soon ask that they learn to sign contracts that die natural deaths, to mitigate the amount of dead space we accrue. I don't mind overpaying players slightly to remain on the team, even in backup roles where they can at least minimally fufill a role as a mentor. But paying them not even to be on the roster? All things equal it doesn't make sense to pay, towards that year's cap, to players who aren't on your team.

The money has already been paid, as part of their bonus. It is just that the hit is spread out.

And some contracts may end naturally. If Wynn sticks around, he will end his contract. It is Saleve'a's last year as well. Daniels has a couple years left.

But, you can never predict when a player will come to an end with the team. That's why there are parts of a contract where a player is protected, and when they aren't.

Jason

[HateYanksDukeCowboys]

I fully expect to see wynn go after the draft, and I am hoping collins is gone as well.

i don't understand why you'd want to see Collins go.

1. he knows the system

2. has a relatively low cap figure

3. who else are we gonna get as our 3rd string QB who knows the system AT ALL.

4. in truth, Brunell should be 3rd string with Collins the 2nd, IMO.

[Skin Patrol]

Well, I'd probably remove Lavar from that list, because you can't predict when a player gets hurt, and apparently it has been pretty serious for Lavar, since he wasn't nearly the player he was before the injury. I'd say the Skins were pretty savvy as to when to cut him loose.

This is why I included him on the list of intelligent Redskins moves. They got rid of a player for far less than he should have cost them, if only because they unloaded him partially at his financial expense and also because of what happened later. However, as I won't fault the team for signing a player who gets injured, I won't credit the team for cutting one who gets injured later. Maybe they knew something about the injury the Giants didn't, but Lavar was playing at the beginning of this season. He wasn't by the end. I count that as an injury sustained as a Giant.

As for Arch, as bad as it was, it wasn't nearly as bad as Lavar's contract and we are pretty much off the hook for him. Considering we didn't need to do anything special to get out of it, and got a pick to boot, it ended up not being bad at all.

I think a 4.5M dead hit is substantial but I'm willing to concede that it isn't devastating, if that's what you're trying to say. I do appreciate the extra pick.

That said, I think the team should be recognized for getting 4.5M in cap relief from the Bears for a guy who clearly wasn't going to produce for the 'Skins. But the entire situation, viewed holistically, is still embarrassing. Archuleta cost us 5.6M (or something like that) to start 7 games. We did not get 5.6M production out of him; given the way he played I sometimes felt he should've been paying us to let him play. I call that a "bad" situation, though again I'm willing to applaud ever so softly the front office for stopping the bleeding on a gaping wound.