Think Tank: Salary Cap?

[Arsenic]

Time to put our heads together and see what we collectively know and understand about the salary cap and how its affected each year given the actions of its teams. Speak up brains, help us understand.

----

I was a strong advocate for Taylors drafting aswell as Landry's. I think these types of safeties are an upcoming trend in the NFL, a position thats currently under-rated but on the uprise in a similar way to the CB position years ago.

My question is, if more NFL teams start spending more on these positions, and more money in general, doesn't that adjust the salary cap for next year? So in theory, doesn't the cap rise every year? This means that every year players get richer & draftees get more than last years prospect. Im not familiar with how this system works and am very anxious to see your replies since this is likely the most knowledgable forum of all NFL team sites.

If that statement were true then the answer is simple, isn't it? We can afford both. We could predict extensions for both Taylor and Cooley, right?

It seems almost as if, lately, other teams "raise" players just to sell them off once they've raised another. They just have to do it to keep contracts low. The Skins, on the other hand, almost forsee the future of the games market and where they'll be then, given the changed factors and increased values.

Does this make sense? Your thoughts:

[Kurd Cudins]

Are you looking for hard #'s? I'm a little confused as to what exactly you are looking for. Here's a look at Landry's liekly contract:

To gauge, you have to use similar picks from previous drafts. For instance, a good rule of thumb, is to assign the money given to the player picked one pick ahead, in the previous year. In this case, it was AJ Hawk. He got 6 yrs, $37.5M with $16M guaranteed. Michael Huff, picked at 7 got $15M guaranteed, but $43M over 6yrs(incentive-laden). By that estimate, Landry will get $16M guaranteed and ~$36-40M plus incentives over 6 years. It is a given that he will be signed for 6 years, because that is the max.

As this relates to Taylor, it doesn't. He will be given a new contract after the 2009-2010 season. I think what you are getting at, is that Landry's new contract raises the bar for safeties, and you're right. But i don't think it will have that big of an impact. In recent years, safety has become valued more than previously, so I think this is more of a trend than the result of a sinlge event.

As for Cooley, I think we will wait until the season for that.

Edit: After rereading your post, I think you are referring more to our "anticipation" of future value, meaning, by looking ahead at available players and/or rookies guessing how much it will cost to get a player at a certain position in the future. I.E. how much will it cost to get a starting LG next offseason by looking at the list of seniors coming out and available FA's. This is VERY dangerous, as juniors coming out early, contract extensions, etc can easily change the face of the market.

[Audible_Red40]

Not sure exactly the answer but what I have read is:

We're standing right now at $124,500,000 tied up for 2008.

With a projected cap of about $116,000,000 for each team. (Estimated)

Obviously we have a lot of cutting/restructuring to do before then.

[Kurd Cudins]

Not sure exactly the answer but what I have read is:

We're standing right now at $124,500,000 tied up for 2008.

With a projected cap of about $116,000,000 for each team. (Estimated)

Obviously we have a lot of cutting/restructuring to do before then.

$6.5M of that will be off the books, Brunell. It's also likely that Springs won't be here whcih is another $2.5M saved. As usual, with a couple restructurings and a couple converted bases into SB's, we'll be fine. Prime canidates for that are Moss, Thomas, Washington, Portis, Samuels*, Jansen(I think they will guarantee part of his base and spread it out over the remainder of the contract).

[skinsfanno9]

Not sure exactly the answer but what I have read is:

We're standing right now at $124,500,000 tied up for 2008.

With a projected cap of about $116,000,000 for each team. (Estimated)

Obviously we have a lot of cutting/restructuring to do before then.

This probably explains why the Briggs deal got nixed...

[ttr77]

$6.5M of that will be off the books' date=' Brunell. It's also likely that Springs won't be here whcih is another $2.5M saved. As usual, with a couple restructurings and a couple converted bases into SB's, we'll be fine. Prime canidates for that are Moss, Thomas, Washington, Portis, Samuels*, Jansen(I think they will guarantee part of his base and spread it out over the remainder of the contract).[/quote']

I think that one of these years all these restructurings will catch up with this team. I mean, eventually everyone that can will have done it. And - correct me if I'm wrong - but doesn't restructuring make that player that much harder to release if necessary?

[Koolblue13]

I think that one of these years all these restructurings will catch up with this team. I mean, eventually everyone that can will have done it. And - correct me if I'm wrong - but doesn't restructuring make that player that much harder to release if necessary?

Maybe it will be next year. We have all of our draft choices and a lot of old guys we could have gotten rid of this year. Seems like a good time to do it.

[Kurd Cudins]

I think that one of these years all these restructurings will catch up with this team. I mean, eventually everyone that can will have done it. And - correct me if I'm wrong - but doesn't restructuring make that player that much harder to release if necessary?

Yes, restructuring does make it harder to cut that player, but you'll notice that all the players that are candidates for restructuring are core players. That's not by accident. We only restructure with players we know will be here or we restructure with the sole purpose of making it easier to cut the player(Brunell). The only reason this will never catch up to us is that we operate on a three year plan. Our style might make it harder for us to maneuver and will keep us perpetually flirting with the cap, but we are MASTER manipulators.

[Veretax]

Renaldo Wynn reportedly restructured recently too so that current number might not be correct.

[Koolblue13]

Damn it Beef, will you get that girl outta here. It keeps making me lose my line of thought. Nice though.

[ttr77]

Yes' date=' restructuring does make it harder to cut that player, but you'll notice that all the players that are candidates for restructuring are core players. That's not by accident. We only restructure with players we know will be here or we restructure with the sole purpose of making it easier to cut the player(Brunell). The only reason this will never catch up to us is that we operate on a three year plan. Our style might make it harder for us to maneuver and will keep us perpetually flirting with the cap, but we are MASTER manipulators.[/quote']

True, they are 'core' players...but how many 'core' players are there? Hasn't Samuels restructured 3-4 times already? Arrington was considered a core player for a long time and restructured several times. But we all know how that ended.

And I don't think anyone truly knows how this stragedy will play out. The Skins are the first team to try it to this degree. Are they master capologists, or are they just delaying the inevitable? No one knows...

[Kurd Cudins]

Renaldo Wynn reportedly restructured recently too so that current number might not be correct.

Reportedly, it will save us ~$1.15M this year, but it hasn't been released about future years. I'm hoping he just reduced his base salary, rather than extending his deal. Anybody have anything specific on that?

[Kurd Cudins]

True, they are 'core' players...but how many 'core' players are there? Hasn't Samuels restructured 3-4 times already? Arrington was considered a core player for a long time and restructured several times. But we all know how that ended.

And I don't think anyone truly knows how this stragedy will play out. The Skins are the first team to try it to this degree. Are they master capologists, or are they just delaying the inevitable? No one knows...

That's why I put an * next to Samuels name. He can't restructure anymore, although I would never be suprised to hear that Danny boy found some new restructuring tool that had been previously overlooked. As for Arrington, that falls into the category of, restructured to be released, like Brunell. Plus, his knees went bad VERY quickly. We've been doing it for almost a decade now. It works. Just not on the field.

[PeterMP]

It will long term be impossible to keep Landry and ST assuming they are both good w/o sacraficing talent on the rest of the D. Somebody in the league will pay one of them more than we could realistically pay and keep the other (i.e. there is only so much money you can sink into safety as a position and have enough money to get respectable players at other defensive positions). That and that alone makes this a bad draft pick, unless they are preparing to trade one of them.

In terms of the Redskins being ahead of the curve on anything, you'd think they would have a better team if that were the case. The league has learned the impact of safties and has nothing to do w/ the Redskins, Bob Sanders, Troy Palamolu (for the Steelers, I'm sure I spelled that wrong), and Ed Reed have shown that.

[ttr77]

That's why I put an * next to Samuels name. He can't restructure anymore' date=' although I would never be suprised to hear that Danny boy found some new restructuring tool that had been previously overlooked. As for Arrington, that falls into the category of, restructured to be released, like Brunell. Plus, his knees went bad VERY quickly. We've been doing it for almost a decade now. It works. Just not on the field. [/quote']

Ah, but I think the fact that it doesn't work on the field shows that this strategy does NOT work. When a high-salary starter goes down they don't seem to have any quality depth.

[Kurd Cudins]

Ah, but I think the fact that it doesn't work on the field shows that this strategy does NOT work. When a high-salary starter goes down they don't seem to have any quality depth.

I'm just referring to their cap manipulation, which is completely unrrelated to their other strategies, such as using draft picks for vets. Their OTHER philosophies haven't worked, but their cap strategy has.

[ttr77]

I'm just referring to their cap manipulation' date=' which is completely unrrelated to their other strategies, such as using draft picks for vets. Their OTHER philosophies haven't worked, but their cap strategy has.[/quote']

I would think that they are closely related. The fact that they keep using draft picks for vets makes this cap manipulation necessary.

[Mr. S]

Restructures will not catch up with us. The cap will still increase. Plus, there are some contracts that will die soon, mainly Brunell, Daniels, Wynn, and Springs. Brunell's cap number next year is pretty high, but if he wants to stay on the team, he will most likely take a big pay cut like he did this year.

We are in better shape than most people think, and Archuleta off the books helped a lot. Hopefully we do the smart thign and extend Cooley and possibly Taylor by the next offseason.

[Kurd Cudins]

I would think that they are closely related. The fact that they keep using draft picks for vets makes this cap manipulation necessary.

Not really. It is up to the cap specialist to do what he can with what he is given. He has no affect on trades/FA pickups/etc. He is only consulted when we are about to make a move(trade for Briggs) to make sure it is possible and won't be negated by the league. In turn, Gibbs doesn't think twice about the cap. He goes and gets who he wants, and then turns to the cap specialist and says make it work. Perhaps this separation is the cause of our dysfunction, but it is still quite separate.

[Mania]

but we are MASTER manipulators.

Yes we definitly are master manupulators, and something tells me the girl in your sig is as well.

[ttr77]

Not really. It is up to the cap specialist to do what he can with what he is given. He has no affect on trades/FA pickups/etc. He is only consulted when we are about to make a move(trade for Briggs) to make sure it is possible and won't be negated by the league. In turn' date=' Gibbs doesn't think twice about the cap. He goes and gets who he wants, and then turns to the cap specialist and says make it work. Perhaps this separation is the cause of our dysfunction, but it is still quite separate.[/quote']

I don't know how it can be said that these trades and FA pickups are completely unrelated to the cap manipulation stragedy used by this team.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Kurd Cudins]

Yes we definitly are master manupulators, and something tells me the girl in your sig is as well.

No, she's a Massive Tittilator.

[Arsenic]

In terms of the Redskins being ahead of the curve on anything, you'd think they would have a better team if that were the case. The league has learned the impact of safties and has nothing to do w/ the Redskins, Bob Sanders, Troy Palamolu (for the Steelers, I'm sure I spelled that wrong), and Ed Reed have shown that.

Well wait a minute now.. Our problem has been a lack of coaching consistency, IMO. Every team, up until the current Gibbs tenure, has been a first year team. Maybe with consistency we'll have better results.

I realize that by asking people to be patient I'm, in return, opening the door for pessimists (or realists, rather) to answer that they've been patient for over 10 years. As said previously though, we've constantly restarted our plan. Finally we have something going that is laying foundation and building ontop of it, IMO.