June 1st Cuts.

[JimmiJo]

his contract is so small, and hes been a very good player. if he has a very good season this year, rosenhaus will make sure he either gets extended right away, or that he somehow weasels his way out of the skins for a bigger payday.

A contract is a contract. How did TO attempting to pressure Philly into restructuring work out?

It would be imprudent to extend him now.

[D-Day]

Martin is right, I think I have the numbers.

From scout.com: http://redskins.scout.com/3/salary_cap_chart.html

The link is for 2006, but it has the info for later years cap charge.

Springs is charged 23.326 against the cap for the next 3 years. 6.675 is the bonus, 16.651 is his salary.

For 2007, he costs 7.358 against the cap (2.225 in guaranteed, 5.133 in salary). If he's cut, the extra cap hit is 4.45 million, but the salary gets wiped off, for a net savings of 683K.

If the 4.45 is pushed to 2008 (which would be why he would be cut June first), its a 2007 net savings of 5.1 million.

The link you are using has not been updated since 2006

Here is the new location of the updated charts.

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

[revallenjr]

Cut Portis and trade him for Calvin Johnson..........J/K:laugh:

Can only do one or the other. We have to either Cut Portis, or trade him for Calvin Johnson. I like the cut scenerio, just because the trade Portis issue has been beaten to death.:laugh:

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

A contract is a contract. How did TO attempting to pressure Philly into restructuring work out?

It would be imprudent to extend him now.

im just saying, look who his agent is, and look how much other safties have been paid. i doubt he finishes his rookie contract.

[D-Day]

so lets say we pay shawn his 7 mil in 07, if we cut him after this season, what would his cap hit be for 08?

If he is a regular cut next offseason

08 cap charge of 7.484 mil - Dead cap charge of 4.968 = cap savings of 2.5 mil.

If he is a june 1st cut next year

08 savings = 5 mil

09 dead cap of 2.484 and a 09 savings of 6 mil

I think one of these is the most likely scenarios

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

If Springs is a June 1st cut his contract is this.

2007 contract = 4.875 mil salary + 2.483 mil bonus money = cap hit of 7.358

2008 contract = 5 mil salary + 2.484 mil bonus money = cap hit of 7.484

2009 contract = 6 mil salary + 2.484 mil bonus money = cap hit of 8.484

If we release him June 1st you

-add his remaining bonus money = 7.451 mil

-Divide by 3 (remaining years on his contract)

-That number is the cap charge this year (7.451 divided by 3 = 2.483 mil cap charge this year)

-Subtract the cap charge this year from the total cap hit this year of 7.358.

7.358 - 2.483 = Cap savings this year of 4.875 mil

-Take the total bonus money paid - the current cap charge for the cap charge next year

7.451 - 2.483 = 4.968 dead cap charge next year.

Just throwing it out there, but the cost to outright cut springs next year and keep him this year is 4.968 mil. The exact same dead cap charge next year to keep him this year over making him a June 1st cut. Why do we need to cut him with over 7 mil in cap space available this year with only Landry and cooley to sign? Who is out there to warrant us having over 12 mil in available cap space on June 1st? Kind of interested to here some theories as too why this move is beneficial to the skins.

very good numbers. so i guess keeping springs and cutting him would cost the skins the same amount, so they might as well keep him. i still dont think he'll be here, just a hunch from everything that has happened around him, maybe were gonna try and trade him for that pass rushing DE were looking for. who knows. good analysis though. :applause:

[D-Day]

Thats what I am here for and the reason I stopped lurking and started posting, to try to bring some cap considerations into the discussions. I am not always correct but I try to learn from the mistakes I make.

Also BLC I have been posting info like that in the cut springs threads, mostly the info is either lost in the flurry of posts or just ignored. Just kind of curious as too why you payed attention to it this time. I have not been around much lately so I probably missed a few threads (lord knows) on cutting springs.

Anyways Go skins

[Tom [Giants fan]]

June 1st isn't as significant as it once was. With teams managing the cap better, there are fewer players being cut. There probably won't be much of anything available. Including coming from the Redskins.

[Mr. S]

im just saying, look who his agent is, and look how much other safties have been paid. i doubt he finishes his rookie contract.

he does have some escalators and incentives built in, so I doubt he's only made what his contract on paper says. However, yes, 4 more years or no, he does need an extension now, if anything, have the extension take place in 4 more years so that it will not cost much still, but he still gets some sort of bonus up front, I think.

With Springs, since we do have money under the cap, it probably is not worth cutting him for now. If he plays well this coming season, he may be worth mroe in a trade at that point cause I think 2007 is his final season in DC no matter what.

[D-Day]

I think they will start to redo Taylor after this year when they see how he plays next to Landry. Also Taylor likely will not sign a contract till Landry signs his.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Thats what I am here for and the reason I stopped lurking and started posting, to try to bring some cap considerations into the discussions. I am not always correct but I try to learn from the mistakes I make.

Also BLC I have been posting info like that in the cut springs threads, mostly the info is either lost in the flurry of posts or just ignored. Just kind of curious as too why you payed attention to it this time. I have not been around much lately so I probably missed a few threads (lord knows) on cutting springs.

Anyways Go skins

i saw some of your numbers in my poll about springs, they werent as in depth as the ones you just gave. i havent seen an outright "cut springs" thread in awhile.

[Riggins77]

Can only do one or the other. We have to either Cut Portis, or trade him for Calvin Johnson. I like the cut scenerio, just because the trade Portis issue has been beaten to death.:laugh:

Man, I gotta make sure I get my coffee before posting. I didn't even realize I posted an impossible situation.

[artmonkforHOF]

Aside from maybe grabbing a DT or a large WR I think we should save our cash for extending Cooley and Taylor.

Now that would be the smart thing to do. But what would Danny do?

[Skin Patrol]

This isn't accurate:

1) AA was only $5M (granted, a waste)

Let's keep in mind that AA was "only" 5M for a reason -- we convinced the Bears to eat 4.5M of his guaranteed money. Had they not done that, we might've received more compensation than a 6th round pick. That cost was eaten by us, just not in salary cap space (thankfully), we lost it in negotiations with Chicago.

[Heidenreich]

The link you are using has not been updated since 2006

Here is the new location of the updated charts.

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

Sweet. Thanks

[D-Day]

Sweet. Thanks

No prob,

Pc keeps it very up to date and accurate. He has inside sources in the FO that give him the details of the contracts. He actually has them (most of the time) before they are reported in the papers.

[Smoot Point Really]

Let's keep in mind that AA was "only" 5M for a reason -- we convinced the Bears to eat 4.5M of his guaranteed money. Had they not done that, we might've received more compensation than a 6th round pick. That cost was eaten by us, just not in salary cap space (thankfully), we lost it in negotiations with Chicago.

What is your point? People have been basing the $25M number based on their belief that the Redskins guaranteed $10M to AA, which isn't the case. BTW, we didn't negotiate with the Bears to "eat 4.5M of his salary"... AA agreed to delay his $5M roster bonus that we owed him, we worked a trade that sent AA to Chicago for a 6th round pick, and the Bears negotiated a $4.5M signing bonus with AA... That's how it worked. AA wanted to go to Chicago, Chicago wanted AA, but there is nothing that would've prevented us from cutting AA prior to his bonus date and us getting nothing in the deal. It was always simply a $5M guarantee... Not a $10M as people have been reporting.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

im so glad arch is gone. hopefully he plays LB in chitown because he cannot play saftey whatsoever.

[Skin Patrol]

What is your point? People have been basing the $25M number based on their belief that the Redskins guaranteed $10M to AA, which isn't the case. BTW, we didn't negotiate with the Bears to "eat 4.5M of his salary"... AA agreed to delay his $5M roster bonus that we owed him, we worked a trade that sent AA to Chicago for a 6th round pick, and the Bears negotiated a $4.5M signing bonus with AA... That's how it worked. AA wanted to go to Chicago, Chicago wanted AA, but there is nothing that would've prevented us from cutting AA prior to his bonus date and us getting nothing in the deal. It was always simply a $5M guarantee... Not a $10M as people have been reporting.

The Redskins did guarantee 10M to Adam Archuleta, we got out of ~ half of it thanks to the Bears and Archuleta doing everything possible to make the deal work, including renegotiating. Which they did because Archuleta knew we wouldn't make the trade if his guaranteed money escalated, as it would without a new contract.

Cutting him outright would have cost us 5M more. Had that 5M in guaranteed money not remained, we could've traded him to the Bears without their financial assistance, which would've increased our asking price for him (perhaps a 5th rounder?).

The point being, guaranteed money doesn't just disappear. It ended up costing the Bears and, thus, us as well. I won't speculate further on what that "cost" is, as we don't know how much more the Bears would've offered to get Archuleta sans the 5M they ended up having to guarantee him.

[Smoot Point Really]

Actually with the expanded salary cap and teams getting much better at balancing their books and writing contracts which are cap friendly the days of good players having to be cut on or after June 1 to keep teams under the cap are long gone. I'd be surprised if there were many guys cut on 1 June who have much left in the tank.

I believe that teams aren't getting better at balancing their books, but that the cap has grown to give teams more room to sign. This offseason we have witnessed some pretty blatant overspending at positions like OG and CB. If Nate Clements is worth $25M guaranteed, then what is Champ Bailey worth? Derrick Dockery is worth $18M? I don't know the details of these deals, but they may be more cap friendly than they appear.

[Smoot Point Really]

The Redskins did guarantee 10M to Adam Archuleta, we got out of ~ half of it thanks to the Bears and Archuleta doing everything possible to make the deal work, including renegotiating. Which they did because Archuleta knew we wouldn't make the trade if his guaranteed money escalated, as it would without a new contract.

Cutting him outright would have cost us 5M more. Had that 5M in guaranteed money not remained, we could've traded him to the Bears without their financial assistance, which would've increased our asking price for him (perhaps a 5th rounder?).

The point being, guaranteed money doesn't just disappear. It ended up costing the Bears and, thus, us as well. I won't speculate further on what that "cost" is, as we don't know how much more the Bears would've offered to get Archuleta sans the 5M they ended up having to guarantee him.

I don't have a link that I can point to right now, but as I remember it (please some others who agree back me up here):

1) Archuleta had a $5M signing bonus and received another half million in annual salary ($5.5Million)...

2) Archuleta had another $5M in roster bonus due this offseason... We could've cut him prior to the roster bonus being due and we wouldn't have owed him a penny of that. Of course, we wouldn't have gotten a 6th round pick.

3) The Bears wanted Archuleta and his rights, which we controlled... If Archuleta went on the market, he would've been a free agent. It was in the Bears best interest (if they wanted Archuleta) to swing a deal.

4) Archuleta signed an agreement to extend the deadline of his roster bonus.

5) The Bears made the trade with the Redskins and paid him the roster bonus because of the trade.

6) As I understand it, unless Archuleta took a pay cut in his annual salary somewhere down the line... Archuleta didn't take a paycut in any guaranteed money. He got $5M in signing bonus from the Bears as a part of his agreement.

In essence, the $5M was owed only because the Bears wanted Adam Archuleta... Not because we couldn't have cut him and not owed a dime over the original $5.5 (signing bonus and salary).

[Smoot Point Really]

Did some more research:

Apparently, there was a clause in his contract that stipulated if the Redskins did not exercise the option, then they would have had to guarantee his salary for the next 3 seasons. However, that also may not have come into play based on if another team signed him to a contract...

It's clear that the $5M roster bonus was not guaranteed, and that we ended up only paying $5.5M instead of the $10M that people have been reporting.

[D-Day]

I don't have a link that I can point to right now, but as I remember it (please some others who agree back me up here):

1) Archuleta had a $5M signing bonus and received another half million in annual salary ($5.5Million)...

2) Archuleta had another $5M in roster bonus due this offseason... We could've cut him prior to the roster bonus being due and we wouldn't have owed him a penny of that. Of course, we wouldn't have gotten a 6th round pick.

3) The Bears wanted Archuleta and his rights, which we controlled... If Archuleta went on the market, he would've been a free agent. It was in the Bears best interest (if they wanted Archuleta) to swing a deal.

4) Archuleta signed an agreement to extend the deadline of his roster bonus.

5) The Bears made the trade with the Redskins and paid him the roster bonus because of the trade.

6) As I understand it, unless Archuleta took a pay cut in his annual salary somewhere down the line... Archuleta didn't take a paycut in any guaranteed money. He got $5M in signing bonus from the Bears as a part of his agreement.

In essence, the $5M was owed only because the Bears wanted Adam Archuleta... Not because we couldn't have cut him and not owed a dime over the original $5.5 (signing bonus and salary).

Actually....Both BL and AA had a poison pill in their contracts that was totally assanine by the skins. The 5 mil signing bonus and the 5 mil roster bonus this year was guaranteed. If we did not pay the 5 mil roster bonus due this year then we would have had to accelerate his next three years salaries into guaranteed money (which equaled just below 5 mil if I remember correctly). AA delayed the due date of the signing bonus, once a trade was worked out he redid his contract and eliminated the 5 mil bonus that was guaranteed this year.

The skins then traded AA for a sixth round pick.

After the trade the bears signed him to a deal (that was no doubt agreed upon before AA redid his deal with us) with a SB that equaled the 5 mil roster bonus (more then likely that was done so AA would not lose any money). The trade or cutting of AA would not have happened if AA did not forgo that bonus money. We could not afford a 9 mil cap hit this year.

So in essence the bears did pick up the 5 mil roster bonus for us on their cap, it is just not as simple as saying they did.

BTW AA took huge paycuts down the line in salary.

I think from what I read both of you are right.

[Skin Patrol]

I don't have a link that I can point to right now, but as I remember it (please some others who agree back me up here):

1) Archuleta had a $5M signing bonus and received another half million in annual salary ($5.5Million)...

2) Archuleta had another $5M in roster bonus due this offseason... We could've cut him prior to the roster bonus being due and we wouldn't have owed him a penny of that. Of course, we wouldn't have gotten a 6th round pick.

3) The Bears wanted Archuleta and his rights, which we controlled... If Archuleta went on the market, he would've been a free agent. It was in the Bears best interest (if they wanted Archuleta) to swing a deal.

4) Archuleta signed an agreement to extend the deadline of his roster bonus.

5) The Bears made the trade with the Redskins and paid him the roster bonus because of the trade.

6) As I understand it, unless Archuleta took a pay cut in his annual salary somewhere down the line... Archuleta didn't take a paycut in any guaranteed money. He got $5M in signing bonus from the Bears as a part of his agreement.

In essence, the $5M was owed only because the Bears wanted Adam Archuleta... Not because we couldn't have cut him and not owed a dime over the original $5.5 (signing bonus and salary).

He is the source on the 10M guaranteed:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2366421

2) While he had the 5M roster bonus, it was guaranteed through some contract word smithery. If I recall correctly, if we didn't excercise the roster bonus than his 2007, 2008, and 2009 base salary became guaranteed (about 5.6M). So while the Roster Bonus itself wasn't guaranteed, one way or another Archuleta had 5M (or else 5.6M) of that guaranteed on top of his 5M signing bonus. Hence why there was no way for us to cut him without accelerating the remainder of the original 10M we guaranteed him.

3) But the redskins have no interest in how the Bears pay Archuleta after the deal went down, thus making your suggestion absurd. What you are trying to say is that the Bears guaranteed Archuleta 4.5M to make the deal go down... but why would that encourage the Redskins one way or the other? Because we wanted to see Archuleta fairly compensated? Why would we give a poop one way or the other how much guaranteed money he got out of them unless they were picking up our tab?

5) is wrong. The Bears paid the 5M because the guaranteed money cannot just disappear. That was the entire reason the Redskins convinced Archuleta to postpone his RB anyways, so that he could get a trade. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/20/AR2007032001919.html?nav=rss_sports/redskins EDIT: Clarification. The 5M cannot just disappear because it was guaranteed to Adam Archuleta, and I doubt he (or anyone else besides Lavar Arrington) willfully robs themselves of 5M. We had to get him to rip up his old contract, and the only way we could do that is if he still had 5M guaranteed to compensate for the 5M he'd lose by ripping up his Redskins contract. That's where the Bears came in. The Redskins wouldn't cut him with the 8-9M accelerated hit, Archuleta wouldn't rip up his contract without receiving the remaining 5M (one way or another) and the Bears were willing to fix that situation for both of us. My original assertion was that we "paid" that in compensation for the trade, as the Bears had to offer Archuleta 5M in guaranteed because we needed them to do so for the trade to work. Hence we probably got less value (~5M less) for Archuleta than we could have otherwise. Maybe that's the difference between a 6th and 5th rounder.. I don't know.

6) Archuleta didn't take a paycut in guaranteed money. We guaranteed him 10M. We paid ~5M of that. The Bears picked up the rest.

[AceSkinsFan]

I think there's a better chance of seeing Springs traded rather than released on June 1st. It would probably be one of those sign (restructure) and trade deals so his new team wouldn't have to inherit his huge cap number. We may see a few minor cuts this weekend after evaluating young players at OTA's but that's about it.