Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Fox Sports: 'Skins rework Cooley deal to save cap space (Current ~$7M over cap)

SkinsMaster88

By SkinsMaster88
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

Titaw

Titaw

Posted
Posted
LOL!!! Ok... if you think so. What's o masterful in going to older players and asking them to restructure EVERY year just so that you can get UNDER the cap? If Snyder is such a MASTER of the cap situation, then what does that say about the rest of the teams that are significantly UNDER the cap and thereby don't ave to go and restructure their players?

They don't spend enough money to help out their team. The one thing you can say about Snyder he WILL be right at that cap line EVERY year because he uses EVERY dime of the cap.

All the other teams that are SIGNIFCANTLY under the cap have owners that would much rather save some coin that spend a little extra. You do understand that if EVERY team in the NFL used the model that you feel is so efficient then the cap would DROP and some of those teams would be OVER the cap and they would have to purge their rosters because they do not have the provisions that the Skins have already set in place.

Under the current CBA you need owners like Dan Snyder. He offsets those penny pinching owners like Jeff Lurie. He also drives the cap up every year so teams can spend more on the players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Rook

The Rook

Posted
Posted
They don't spend enough money to help out their team. The one thing you can say about Snyder he WILL be right at that cap line EVERY year because he uses EVERY dime of the cap.

All the other teams that are SIGNIFCANTLY under the cap have owners that would much rather save some coin that spend a little extra. You do understand that if EVERY team in the NFL used the model that you feel is so efficient then the cap would DROP and some of those teams would be OVER the cap and they would have to purge their rosters because they do not have the provisions that the Skins have already set in place.

Under the current CBA you need owners like Dan Snyder. He offsets those penny pinching owners like Jeff Lurie. He also drives the cap up every year so teams can spend more on the players.

Best post of the thread. :applause:

Our only problem is that we have been hit by the under-producing or injury bug with players who count so high against the cap. It doesn't allow us "wiggle" room to replace this situations.

:helmet: The Rook

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TomE

TomE

Posted
Posted
He actually doesn't have to sign off on it. The contracts are worded so that the team has the option to convert the bonus. The Redskins excercised the option.

The posts shouls read:

"Great job Cooley playing so well that the team has enough confidence in you to keep you on the roster for at least the next 3 years!"

Thanks for the info, I'm not privy to the exact wording of Cooley's contract.

I just figured that any "revamping or reworking" of a contract had to be approved by both parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darth Tater

Darth Tater

Posted
Posted
Guess what.... businessmen think ahead... they plan for the future... Im sure Snyder and his experts have a budget/plan that corresponds with the annual salary cap increase. We will never be in "cap hell".

Yes! Basically, you estimate how much the cap will go up every year, estimate what your cap numbers going to be with your current players, and estimate probable bust rates. Good business analysts can calculate the first two and any good statistician could figure the last number. You design your contracts based on this information. Because of accounting methods used for the cap, you may seem to be obscenely over but if the estimates are right, you'll almost never have any real problems. Issues may occur when you have more busts then expected, the cap doesn't go up as much as expected or lots of players do much better than expected (think incentives). The only unexpected risk event would be a coach that wants to clean house. To deal with these, you plan your exit strategies, and 'cap hell' provides you with the basis for one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedskinzOwnU

RedskinzOwnU

Posted
Posted

I love Cooley as much as everyone here, but praising him for this move is retarded. In fact, he probably wasn't even given an option. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter. This is a good deal for him and the team, and he didn't give up a dime by doing this. It's a move that only results in a change "on the books" so to speak. He'll get paid the same amount of money at the exact same time (or earlier) than he would have under the roster bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
moviedude25

moviedude25

Posted
Posted
"Dead cap" doesn't go into future years... Where we get killed in this process is when players who would usually get cut (see Brandon Lloydd and Jon Jansen) either because of injury or inactivity become too costly to cut.

No one commented on this post yet. Can someone speak about this as I feel as if this is the real problem with Daniel Snyders cap strategy as well. I really want Lloyd off the team as I believe he is a cancer but if I understand correctly, we flat out can't afford to kick him to the curb. Correct or incorrect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darth Tater

Darth Tater

Posted
Posted
I am actually surprised, that Cooley who just signed a long term deal last year, is the guy they asked to restructure. We need to cut Brunell today, why wait. But, Zorn is a lefty also, just like Boonell. They should rework Jansen's deal, he has a huge contract.

Um, no one asked Cooley anything unless by asked you mean that in the original contract negotiations he was asked how big of a bonus would we have to give him in 2008 to get him to take a smaller signing bonus then given that the future roster bonus was convertable at the organizations discretion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
turbodiesel#44

turbodiesel#44

Posted
Posted
Putting Dead cap into future years
If a guy is going to be around and productive for a few years, there are worse options. It's a gamble he has no serious injury. We really do need to clean up our Dead Cap situation though.

What gets me is the NFL enforcing the Dead Cap hit on dead players. A team goes through the tragedy and hardship of losing a member of their active roster, then the NFL kicks them in the nuts. There is simply no reasoning why the NFL does this. Do they really think a team would whack a BL type rather than pay his cap hit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stwasm

stwasm

Posted
Posted
After sticking with Gibbs for 4 years, we can actually do that. At the very least, Gibbs at least hands off a team that is in pretty decent shape and that a new coach can build off of. That's something you can't say for the last three handoffs, which involved a lot of demolition and mess.

Jason

Can you really call a team that went 30-34 plus one playoff win during that stretch one "in pretty decent shape?"

Dear swasm-

We'll have none of that. In order to generate excitement for a team that once again did not go far into the playoffs, we need offseason headlines. Grooming our own talent does not do so. Only in taking a month to hire a new coach, converting bloated salaries, and signing Free Agents from other teams generate the type of excitement we need in order to sell more advertisements inside the stadium.

Please take your ideas elsewhere.

Regards,

D & V

:rotflmao: :cheers:

Post of the off-season!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stwasm

stwasm

Posted
Posted
The Giants have been free agent whores as well so I don't see why people keep grouping them in there with the Colts and Patriots (Colts more than the Patriots) just because they won a SB.

ALL of the Giants 2007 draft picks were heavy contributors to that Super Bowl run. Our draft history has been spotty at best.

Yeah. Keeping OLDER, EXPENSIVE, and UNDERPERFORMING players.

Snyder's "finessing" the salary cap has left you guys with the OLDEST and most EXPENSIVE roster in the league.

While they other three teams in the the division, has singificantly YOUNGER and more TALENTED rosters with significantly MORE salary cap space for further retooling and WITHOUT having to go and restructure any of their players.

QFT

BTW, what older players are you talking about?

I think of an offensive line, whose top seven members are over the age of 31. The rest of the division is getting younger and faster while our core is getting older and slower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bat~man

Bat~man

Posted
Posted
Can you really call a team that went 30-34 plus one playoff win during that stretch one "in pretty decent shape?"

:rotflmao: :cheers:

Post of the off-season!

yes... we went to the playoffs, twice... we woulda been better if it wasnt for JC being a turnover machine in crucial drives ... so yea this team is in pretty decent shape, he didn't say a SB caliber team so pretty decent is about 100% accurate IMO =p

Link to comment
Share on other sites
turbodiesel#44

turbodiesel#44

Posted
Posted
As a girl who absolutely does not get this cap stuff, can someone explain to me what all of this means? Is Cooley taking a pay cut? I don't understand this at all.
It's kind of like remortgaging your house at a higher interst rate. Your payments are lower, but strung out longer. In the end you pay more, but since the NFL only lets you pay so much for all your players in total every year, it gives the team a little more room to spend. But in later years, if that player is gone, you are still paying and it counts against the cap. Hope that helps, I'm sure someone will correct me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...