June 1st Cuts.

[Smoot Point Really]

What I am saying is that if another team signed Archuleta after we cut him, then even the escalation of his following three years would have been affected. We wouldn't have been in a situation of paying him the entire guaranteed money as you suggest. It would've all depended on what he signed his contract for.

[Smoot Point Really]

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.

I'll be surprised and sad if Sean Springs isn't on the roster no matter what the roster burden is... We need him.

[Skin Patrol]

What I am saying is that if another team signed Archuleta after we cut him, then even the escalation of his following three years would have been affected. We wouldn't have been in a situation of paying him the entire guaranteed money as you suggest. It would've all depended on what he signed his contract for.

That's simply wrong. As Archuleta was on our team, another team could only "sign" him if we cut him. Cutting him would make it impossible for us to excercise his RB, thus activating the clause that guarantees 5.6M of his salary, which would immediately accelerate to this year's cap -- on top of his remaining SB would be around 8-9M. What contract he signs with another team after the fact has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on how much we'd end up paying towards him.

The contract doesn't say "your 2007, 2008, and 2009 salary of whatever team you are on" but rather "your 2007, 2008, and 2009 base salary as indicated in this contract is guaranteed".

Why would any player sign a contract that "guarantees" what could potentially be zero dollars? Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of "guaranteed" money? I doubt the CBA would even allow players to sign such contracts.

[Smoot Point Really]

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.

It was guaranteed if nobody signed him to a contract... Depending on the terms of the contract he signed to play elsewhere, the amount of money owed to Archuleta would've been less.

[Skin Patrol]

It was guaranteed if nobody signed him to a contract... Depending on the terms of the contract he signed to play elsewhere, the amount of money owed to Archuleta would've been less.

This is factually incorrect. See above.

[Smoot Point Really]

That's simply wrong. As Archuleta was on our team, another team could only "sign" him if we cut him. Cutting him would make it impossible for us to excercise his RB, thus activating the clause that guarantees 5.6M of his salary, which would immediately accelerate to this year's cap -- on top of his remaining SB would be around 8-9M. What contract he signs with another team after the fact has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on how much we'd end up paying towards him.

The contract doesn't say "your 2007, 2008, and 2009 salary of whatever team you are on" but rather "your 2007, 2008, and 2009 base salary as indicated in this contract is guaranteed".

Why would any player sign a contract that "guarantees" what could potentially be zero dollars? Doesn't that defeat the entire purpose of "guaranteed" money? I doubt the CBA would even allow players to sign such contracts.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/2006/11/post_3.html

There are "offset" clauses built into his contract...

[Koolblue13]

How about this, we all agree that the Danny knows a whole lot more about the salery cap then we do and will do anything he can to make it all work out. That said, I am 50/50 on the SS thing. I think Big Joe and Daniels are both on the block. Wouldn't suprise me to see Omar cut either. I would love to see us go after Kampman or Schobel in a trade, but I don't know whos on other teams cut blocks.

[Smoot Point Really]

This is factually incorrect. See above.

Your links didn't have as much detail as the JLC blog... *shrugs* I don't know when the "offset" clauses kick in, but it appears the word "guaranteed" doesn't always mean "guaranteed" (as the Redskins already proved). Had the Redskins exercised the option and then cut him, would the offset clauses have saved them as much money as the Bears did? Probably not, but the Bears wouldn't have been guaranteed landing him if someone else was interested in his services.

[Skin Patrol]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/2006/11/post_3.html

There are "offset" clauses built into his contract...

What I'm reading from the offset clause is that if Archuleta signs a contract with X SB on another team, it offsets the amount the Redskins owe. That's a nifty little contractual deal I wasn't familiar with, but it's still consistent with everything we've discussed. Adam Archuleta doesn't lose any guaranteed money, as that cannot happen without him ripping up a contract. Presumably that wording is added in to give the Redskins some incentive to cut Archuleta should he not work out in Washington. My understanding is this never came to pass, since Archuleta voided the contract in question anyways.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

How about this, we all agree that the Danny knows a whole lot more about the salery cap then we do and will do anything he can to make it all work out. That said, I am 50/50 on the SS thing. I think Big Joe and Daniels are both on the block. Wouldn't suprise me to see Omar cut either. I would love to see us go after Kampman or Schobel in a trade, but I don't know whos on other teams cut blocks.

we just signed stoutmire, hes great depth. we wouldnt put him on the block.

[Skin Patrol]

Your links didn't have as much detail as the JLC blog... *shrugs* I don't know when the "offset" clauses kick in, but it appears the word "guaranteed" doesn't always mean "guaranteed" (as the Redskins already proved). Had the Redskins exercised the option and then cut him, would the offset clauses have saved them as much money as the Bears did? Probably not, but the Bears wouldn't have been guaranteed landing him if someone else was interested in his services.

Of course it means guaranteed, as even with the offsetting clause Adam Archuleta would get that money no matter what. The only time "guaranteed" money isn't actually paid is when the player voluntarily agrees to give up that money, a la Arrington.

[Smoot Point Really]

Of course it means guaranteed, as even with the offsetting clause Adam Archuleta would get that money no matter what. The only time "guaranteed" money isn't actually paid is when the player voluntarily agrees to give up that money, a la Arrington.

Yes, but we're talking about the Redskins' salary cap... Not Adam Archuleta's wallet... It was never guaranteed that the Redskins would be the one paying AA the $10M. Who cares who pays him the guaranteed money? He isn't going to go somewhere and play for free, is he? We'd only have to worry about the difference if someone offered him guaranteed salaries less than his escalated salaries the next 3 years (as I understand the deal, and I admit it's complex).

We also can't forget that Archuleta was willing to negotiate to get out of Washington. The guy still is young and believes he has some good football left. It ended up good for everyone: Archuleta wanted to go to Chicago, Chicago wanted Archuleta, and we wanted out of the Archuleta deal... Granted, this was the best scenario out of any that could have happened, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the Redskins invested $20-25M in safeties to replace Ryan Clark. It also assumes that Ryan Clark would've signed for 0 guaranteed money to play here and that we wouldn't have signed Laron Landry even if Clark were still a Redskin.

I'm trying to tie this Archuleta contract discussion back to the original argument.

[D-Day]

I'm trying to tie this Archuleta contract discussion back to the original argument.

Thank you

I think the one thing being forgotten here is that GW obviously thought Clark was not the best option so he went out and got someone else. Due to circumstances beyond the skins control that someone else did not work out. So we got the best deal feasible to get rid of him and drafted a stud who can potentially give us the most lethal safety combo in the league.

So what, what we spent is what we spent to replace a player the coaches obviously were not satisfied with. I seem to remember a lot of people being happy that clark was gone last year, now the skins are "stupid" because what they tried didn't work. Last time I checked 31 teams fail every year to win the superbowl. Point is we could a should a woulda. We can't change the past so get over it.

[Skin Patrol]

Yes, but we're talking about the Redskins' salary cap... Not Adam Archuleta's wallet... It was never guaranteed that the Redskins would be the one paying AA the $10M. Who cares who pays him the guaranteed money? He isn't going to go somewhere and play for free, is he? We'd only have to worry about the difference if someone offered him guaranteed salaries less than his escalated salaries the next 3 years (as I understand the deal, and I admit it's complex).

We also can't forget that Archuleta was willing to negotiate to get out of Washington. The guy still is young and believes he has some good football left. It ended up good for everyone: Archuleta wanted to go to Chicago, Chicago wanted Archuleta, and we wanted out of the Archuleta deal... Granted, this was the best scenario out of any that could have happened, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the Redskins invested $20-25M in safeties to replace Ryan Clark. It also assumes that Ryan Clark would've signed for 0 guaranteed money to play here and that we wouldn't have signed Laron Landry even if Clark were still a Redskin.

I'm trying to tie this Archuleta contract discussion back to the original argument.

I think we would both agree that the numbers (20-25M) were exaggerated. The criticism we're getting is that we did guarantee Archuleta more than he was worth, which is still fairly uncontroversial. We got out with our skins (pun!) thanks to Chicago and a unique situation. Although I was never satisfied with the Archuleta transaction in its entirety, concluding with Chicago picking up the tab was as friendly a close as I saw possible.

I just wanted to remind that, in some way or another, we did pay that 5M. I posit that chicago would've offered us more than a 6th round pick for Archuleta had they not needed to guaranteed him 5M.

[Smoot Point Really]

I think we would both agree that the numbers (20-25M) were exaggerated. The criticism we're getting is that we did guarantee Archuleta more than he was worth, which is still fairly uncontroversial. We got out with our skins (pun!) thanks to Chicago and a unique situation. Although I was never satisfied with the Archuleta transaction in its entirety, concluding with Chicago picking up the tab was as friendly a close as I saw possible.

I just wanted to remind that, in some way or another, we did pay that 5M. I posit that chicago would've offered us more than a 6th round pick for Archuleta had they not needed to guaranteed him 5M.

Agreed on all this... I will also say that after researching this more, I came to a conclusion that was different from my original position. I'm not sure we could've gotten more than a 6th rounder for Archuleta, since he played like crap and we were pretty set on getting rid of him anyway. There really was only one team willing to trade for his services.