inmate running the asylum Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Gulp! According to the WT, Lavar Arrington made certain escalators and will count $12.7 Mil against our 2003 cap. :doh: Obviously his contract needs to be redone, if we are to sign any free agents of repute. Trying to look at this positively.... if Snyder guarantees a lot of it with cash we might be able to reduce it to the 600k minimum this year, and free up about 5.3 Mil [his base salary for 2003 is 5.96M] Otherwise they will have to cut back on the free barbecue's at Redskin Park. Either that or not invite Big Daddy to the pig-outs. :laugh: http://www.washingtontimes.com/sports/20030103-75792497.htm P.S. Commentary: There is something wrong here to me, in that it seems like the Redskins front office [translation:shootinth Vinny Cerrato + Dan Snyder's O.K. on contracts] were both mathematical morons when it comes to contracts. Here we are 4 years after the 2000 draft in 2003 and we are barely out of CAP HELL so to speak. For example, Stephen Davis's contract ballooned to $11.3 Mil in only 3 years [see below]. Quite naturally we have to get rid of him now. :cry: But the Rams by comparison were able to resign Marshall Faulk recently [the league's past MVP] to a cap-friendly new contract, and Faulk's contract does not balloon to some ridiculous figure. Consequently Faulk will remain in St. Louis for the duration of his career. And Faulk surprisingly is actually almost a year older then Davis. Faulk was 29 on Feb 26, 2002 and Davis is 29 on March 1st, 2003. And Faulk with all his carries and pass catching on artificial turf, has taken more of a physical pounding then Davis. Yet the Rams and many other teams to my knowledge have managed their cap well over this same time frame 2000-2003 -- in comparison to the Redskins -- in spite of being a Super Bowl contender almost every year...... And in spite of having other high priced players, such as Torry Holt, Kurt Warner, Isaac Bruce, Orlando Pace, Grant Wistrom, Leonard Little, Aeneus Williams, Kevin Carter (traded), etc. In fact in Faulk and Kurt Warner they had to pay two guys who I believe won 3 league MVP's! By salary comparison we aint done crap over the same period from a winning standpoint. Even the Cowboys I understand are about $11 Mil under the 2003 cap this year. :doh: All our cap problems seem to me to stem from Vinny Cerrato, when he was in charge of negotiating contracts. :deal: Now we seem to have complications with Arrington and Samuel's contracts. Then also by comparison, there are the Philadelphia Buzzards who recently gave Donovan McNabb a $100 million dollar contract, but always seem to be $5 to $10 Mil under the cap! And to think that after Marty fired Vinny Cerrato.... we brought Vinny back into the fold! :shootinth I think we see now why Marty fired Vinny, although the newspapers never gave a specific reason why he was fired. Comments anyone? http://cbs.sportsline.com/u/ce/multi/0,1329,2725968_59,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 The thought of a reneg with LaVar scares the hell out of me. It's kind of cheesy if ya think about it. The boss tells ya that if you do this you'll get paid that. Then when you meet the goal the boss sets, he turns and says, I don't want to pay you what I said I would. Instsant friction between team, and player. This may be the modern NFL, but it still strikes me as a dishonorable tactic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Renegotiation is the only way to go in this situation. You cant survive the salary cap era when two of your players account for one forth of your cap. Renegotiation may be to arringtons advantage if he gets enough guaranteed money, either up front or built into the contract. If we dont restructure and their salaries continue to go up at some point you have to choose between the two and noone want to let either go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 See, now according to Buddha and NFLplayers .org, (whom I tend to believe more than the Times,) LaVar's base salaries in 2003 and 2004 have already been escalated to these figures: 2003-- $5.96M (was $4.973M) 2004-- $6.36M (was $5.74M) Now, maybe I just need more coffee, but there seems to be confusion here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 I'm with Park City here. The Times has no more info that you or me if we called Redskins Park and started asking questions. However, you want to extended Lavar right now? Go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdsknbill Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 There is no way that we can let Lavar go. This guy is the franchise Defensive player! That would be worse than the Mitchell release :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Faulk's conract was the same as S Davis he just agreed to renegotiate his deal and T Candidate was brought in in case Faulk didnt want to reneg unfortuantely the kid has fumblitis and is still in Marx doghouse. If the WTs is correct then this does fall at the feet of Vinnie and Dan which is a reason to keep Mendes here in a capacity that we dont have ridiculous contracts in the future. NO player is worth 12 mil per year even Favre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 The Washington Times seems to be just adding $3 million blocks after the $6 million base to get to $12 million. I think Lavar's cap number is $7.5 million or so next year. His base should include his escalators and his base is $5.96 million. He then gets around $1.5 million against the cap from his signing bonus. I think his initial contract basically had him at about $1 million in base money for next year, but he's met incentives and escalators to get to $6 million. This is just my understanding and I don't believe the Times actually has it right here. The Times saw his base at $6 million and then thought the incentives and stuff were on top of it, but I'm almost certain it works out so it is added to his base. I guess we'll know soon enough. When Cerrato was in charge of the front office he certainly altered the contract method to one where cash solves the cap. If Lavar met his incentives, Snyder would give him another $10 million bonus and lower the base for a few years. That may still happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 The thought of a reneg with LaVar scares the hell out of me. It's kind of cheesy if ya think about it. The boss tells ya that if you do this you'll get paid that. Then when you meet the goal the boss sets, he turns and says, I don't want to pay you what I said I would. Instsant friction between team, and player. This may be the modern NFL, but it still strikes me as a dishonorable tactic That's not how re-negotiations always work and how it would work with Lavar. The 'Skins could simply take his $3 million incentive and pay it up front as a bonus. The payment would then be spread across the rest of his contract, which is four years, and would count $750 K against our cap this year, instead of the hefty $3 million figure. In this scenario, which happens quite frequently, the player gets his money up front rather than waiting for it (and is therefore happier) and the team gets to amortize the cap hit. Bottom line: no problem when you're dealing with a young guy with as much talent as Lavar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TennesseeCarl Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 PC in OZ (CPND's resident capologist) says the Times figure is the more accurate. PC's been on to this stuff for a long while. We knew this was coming the day we signed the #2 and #3 players in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Don't we see what the Times is trying to do here? I think they're saddled up with ESPN here. They're real "saddlers"!!! Totally against the Redskins, they would be all for kicking us out of FedEX feild so the DC united can kick their soccar ball around:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsThug Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 I guess we'll have to cut Arrington, just like SD. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by SkinsThug I guess we'll have to cut Arrington, just like SD. :laugh: And he sucks just like SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rv581 Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 He's a great player, but that's a lot of $ for a LB not named LT. That's probably more $ than most starting QBs or RBs make. Fortunately he's a young healthy player, so there are probably ways to give him a big bonus and keep his base salary low for the next 5-or-so years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty dread Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 This info is from the WT?? :laugh: nuff said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Validity aside, the article certainly makes the cap picture look better than I had personally expected. "With Arrington's new payouts official, Washington is in line to consume more than $70million of the $73.9million limit with 51 players in the fold. That figure assumes that the club makes tender offers to each of its nine restricted players, and that Davis and safety Sam Shade are cut as expected." That's actually not too bad. If we really intend to make a strong push this year we could easily clear in excess of $10 million by renegotiating Arrington's and Samuels's contracts. Also, with the new DirecTV contract, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a rise of about $3-5 million in this years cap limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.