Est.1974 Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 Here's the theory ; Setting aside the combined $36m :yikes:2010 bonus payments due Haynesworth & Hall, we appear to have padded out their 2009 salaries to utilise more cap space than we needed to. In 2009, Haynesworth has a base salary of $6m whilst Hall gets $5m. Thats $11m straight through this years cap. Why is this ? Normal practice is to have minimum salaries & high signing bonuses in Year 1 isn't it ? In 2010, they have combined salaries of $6.6m. Due to the 30% restriction on salary increases on new contracts (linked to the CBA / potential uncapped 2010), the minimum combined salaries these two could have recieved in 2009 was ~$5m. So, why didn't we do that instead of paying salaries of $11m ? The extra $6m could have been paid as bonus, spread over 5 years & created an extra ~$5m in 2009 cap space ? The team is very keen to state that its 'vet-min' deals only. But have we buried some cap space away just incase ? Perhaps it was going to Cutler. Maybe it will eventually go to Rocky or Carlos if nothing else happens in FA. Or maybe it is there incase someone hits the market we really want (eg Boldin...if the trade price starts to drop). At that point, we dig out our buried money by converting some of their salaries to bonus payments via contract restructures ? Information from here ; http://www.thewarpath.net/WarpathRedskinsCap.htm :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 Or maybe it is there incase someone hits the market we really want (eg Boldin...if the trade price starts to drop). At that point' date=' we dig out our buried money by converting some of their salaries to bonus payments via contract restructures ? :logo:[/quote'] I don't think I have ever heard of anyone besides TO asking for a restructure within a year or two of signing a long contract. I can't remember a single occasion when this has happened. I suppose it may be technically possible, but so is the Coltster starting all year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 Yea I've never heard of a contract being re-done that quickly but the Skins do know how to set precedent with these contracts. Albert haynesworth was the first of it's kind and i think they did hall's the same way so you never know with these contracts. I wonder how long it takes them to draft these docs, it must be 500 pages:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted May 10, 2009 Author Share Posted May 10, 2009 I don't think I have ever heard of anyone besides TO asking for a restructure within a year or two of signing a long contract. I can't remember a single occasion when this has happened. I suppose it may be technically possible, but so is the Coltster starting all year. I'm not thinking that they ask for a restructure, more that the contracts are written in a manner that allows them to be quickly changed if space is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 Contracts can't be re-structured like that within a year of being signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annonymous Source Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 Why is this ? Normal practice is to have minimum salaries & high signing bonuses in Year 1 isn't it ? http://www.thewarpath.net/WarpathRedskinsCap.htm :logo: What you are talking about is front loading a contract vs back loading it. Because the Redskins have been in cap trouble for the past 10 years they have had to pay people with big bonuses and the incentive of big contracts that really start to scale up at the end of the payment. This has allowed them to continue their spending while still making a splash in FA every year. However many teams choose to front load their contracts because they have a great deal of current cap space but they want to have more cap space available in later years. Many very good teams front load their contracts and that is why they are continuously under the cap every year. I hope I explained this well because the issue of salary cap is pretty close to rocket science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudechain Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 Contracts can't be re-structured like that within a year of being signed. Sure they can. It's probably not prudent, but there is nothing preventing both parties from restructuring a contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted May 10, 2009 Author Share Posted May 10, 2009 However many teams choose to front load their contracts because they have a great deal of current cap space but they want to have more cap space available in later years. Many very good teams front load their contracts and that is why they are continuously under the cap every year. I think thats the point I'm trying to make. I'm not convinced we are ever in 'cap hell'. I think we probably have the best 'cap-guy' in the business. So why, in 2009, pay combined salaries to AH & DH of $11m & combined bonus payments in 2009 of $6.5m. That has, in total, put $12.3 against the 2009 cap. We could have paid $5m in salaries, & $12.5m in bonuses. That would have created in total a $7.5m cap hit in 2009 on the same cash outflow. Thats a $5m swing in cap space. Also, pushing an extra $5m back make no difference when there is no cap to worry about. (Anyway, I would consider the $1m per year over 5 years as small change in cap terms). Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make out I know more than our cap guy , I just think it seems odd & doesn't follow our normal logic. I think we've stashed some away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboomking Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 I think the reason is that a contract can only increase by a certain percentage per year now that the collective bargaining agreement is about to expire. The large 2010 bonuses just speak to the fact that there will almoster certainly be no cap in 2010, and if there is, we are ******. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 Sure they can. It's probably not prudent, but there is nothing preventing both parties from restructuring a contract. Yes there is. There's a rule against it. Can't re-do a deal twice in a year. Or re-do a deal within it's first year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapitalDefense Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 Contracts can't be re-structured like that within a year of being signed. Right....but come March 5th 2010 they can be.... So that throws all the cap rules and the original posters theory out the window. The link is also garbage when talking the Redskins and the cap, Danny can throw any amount of money he wants at players year after year with little to no cap ramifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted May 10, 2009 Author Share Posted May 10, 2009 Right....but come March 5th 2010 they can be....So that throws all the cap rules and the original posters theory out the window. The link is also garbage when talking the Redskins and the cap, Danny can throw any amount of money he wants at players year after year with little to no cap ramifications. I'm talking about 2009. Not 2010 when things will be uncapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outlaw Torn Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 Too many big numbers Iz confused Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laxpunk2006 Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 I'm under the impression that contracts cannot be redone twice in one year, or within the same year the original contract was signed. No link to back this up as fast but I remember reading it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted May 10, 2009 Author Share Posted May 10, 2009 I'm under the impression that contracts cannot be redone twice in one year, or within the same year the original contract was signed. No link to back this up as fast but I remember reading it. That'll be a theory killer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 I'm not convinced 2010 will end up uncapped. My feeling is that there will be a new CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 What you are talking about is front loading a contract vs back loading it.Because the Redskins have been in cap trouble for the past 10 years they have had to pay people with big bonuses and the incentive of big contracts that really start to scale up at the end of the payment. This has allowed them to continue their spending while still making a splash in FA every year. However many teams choose to front load their contracts because they have a great deal of current cap space but they want to have more cap space available in later years. Many very good teams front load their contracts and that is why they are continuously under the cap every year. I hope I explained this well because the issue of salary cap is pretty close to rocket science. And this my friends is why we are hoping for an uncapped season. Not to pick up free agents, there will not be that many because of uncapped season rules. But instead because we can clear some space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedevilhimself Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 I'm not convinced 2010 will end up uncapped. My feeling is that there will be a new CBA. These contracts are a departure from the norm redskins MO . I think the ways the contracts are dealt with this season has an eye on 2010. Because 2009 is the last capped season there are certain modifiers in the way contracts can be handled . For example the salaries cannot increase more than 30% in any season . The Skins normally give a big salary bonus, and bonues throughout the length of the contract but the vet min salary, meaning the cap hit goes up, but not evenly, but more in relation to the cap increases . Once 2010 is sorted out.... and I really don't see it being capless, there is so much talk at the moment about deals being sorted and the head of the NFPA is much more of a deal maker than Upshaw who could be driven by the more militant aspects of the Uninon...I can see the Skins goingback to their old ways and spreading chunks of the 2010 and future bonuses into additional years . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboomking Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 What will happen to those 2010 bonus payments to Hall and Haynesworth if 2010 is not uncapped. I understood that they were roster bonuses. I guess we can convert them to signing bonuses and pro-rate them? Does anyone here know what our current 2010 cap # would look like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted May 10, 2009 Author Share Posted May 10, 2009 I think the ways the contracts are dealt with this season has an eye on 2010. Because 2009 is the last capped season there are certain modifiers in the way contracts can be handled . For example the salaries cannot increase more than 30% in any season. That salary increase part is what looks odd. $11m in 2009 / $6.6m in 2010. They could be much, much lower this year. Perhaps they are structured in a way to push as much through as possible this year as the feeling is a cap will be around in 2010. Otherwise, you'd put as much back as possible to 2010 & clear the decks in the uncapped year. What will happen to those 2010 bonus payments to Hall and Haynesworth if 2010 is not uncapped. I understood that they were roster bonuses. I guess we can convert them to signing bonuses and pro-rate them? If there is a cap, I'm sure the $36m will be converted to SB's & spread over 5 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outlaw Torn Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 I'm not convinced 2010 will end up uncapped. My feeling is that there will be a new CBA. I agree. I dont think the NFL or the Owners will allow it to go uncapped because from what I heard on NFL Network i think not sure but if it goes uncapped it wont ever go back to having a salary cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 I agree. I dont think the NFL or the Owners will allow it to go uncapped because from what I heard on NFL Network i think not sure but if it goes uncapped it wont ever go back to having a salary cap. It's reasonable someone could have that opinion, but I wouldn't agree with that either. There might be a prolonged period without a cap if the CBA expires, but I don't see it lasting more than five years before everyone realizes how retarded the salaries will become and how much it will hurt the league. I might be totally wrong, though. We'll really just have to wait and see how it all plays out. An extended run of uncapped years would be good for our team's success since the Dan grows Ben Franklins in an undisclosed location. However, my opinion is that it would be bad for the league as a whole, which is why I am hoping for a new CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedevilhimself Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 That salary increase part is what looks odd. $11m in 2009 / $6.6m in 2010. They could be much' date=' much lower this year. Perhaps they are structured in a way to push as much through as possible this year as the feeling is a cap will be around in 2010. Otherwise, you'd put as much back as possible to 2010 & clear the decks in the uncapped year.[/quote']It does look odd but the Warpath only has Haynesworth getting 1m in bonus this year, and $5.2million in subsequent years which gives him a cap (SB+Salary) of $7million this year $8.3million next and $10.6 million the year after . That is year on year increases of (09-10) 18.5 and (10-11) 27.7% (ish my math may be off) . Hall has a $300k bonus this year but a big base salary of $5 million with a bigger bonus due next year of $3.3million giving his a cap number (sal+bonus) $5.3, $6.8, $8.3 giving a year on year increase of 28.3 (09-10) and 22.1% (10-11). Dockerys deal is structured very similar . This has to have been done with at least an eye to the 2010 being uncapped and 2009 being the final capped season where the 30% rule comes into play . If a new CBA is agreed this year, and the majority of things stay as they are, then I can see us using those (relativly big base sallaries in Hall. Dockery and Haynesworths contracts) rolling 80-90% of the money due in 2010/11 into an option bonuses possibly spread over the next couple of years that will automatically be converted into (for cap purposes) signing bonuses and pro-rated over the remaining 4-6 years of their contracts . Taking Hayensworth for example by converting all but 1mil of the salaries in 2010,2011 (about vet min) then you could create around $2mil in 2010 cap space for an extra 0.44 mill pver the length of the deal OR if we did a similar thing in 2011 we could create nearly $2.4 million in cap space for an addional $0.66million cap hit over 5 years .... You have to take this figures with a pinch of salt though because I am not cap guru it is just my take . I think what is possitive . IF the cap remains in place and is around the same level of increase as has been over the last few years then we are not in bad shape, and some of the deals of older players Griffin, Jansen, Betts, Smoot get to the point at which we could save money by cutting them . Even cutting Portis or Moss would result in a net cap saving in 2010 . The only uncuttable players in the next few years would be ARE, Samuels, Haynesworth and Hall . Dockerys deal is pretty much a push to keep or cut over the next few seasons . IF the cap goes away, and that is not in anyones best interest right now, then there are some poison pills but nothing too serious and any of the deals can be dumped and essentially voided . The most worrying thing about no CBA is no NFL in 2010-11 and no draft after 2010 . No cap is bad for the NFL and the Redskins . With the Cap we can remain competitive for years to come and can attract players because of the resources and willingness of the Owner to pay the big $$$... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 I don't think I have ever heard of anyone besides TO asking for a restructure within a year or two of signing a long contract. I can't remember a single occasion when this has happened. I suppose it may be technically possible, but so is the Coltster starting all year. Mike Sellers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laxpck Posted May 11, 2009 Share Posted May 11, 2009 What you are talking about is front loading a contract vs back loading it.Because the Redskins have been in cap trouble for the past 10 years they have had to pay people with big bonuses and the incentive of big contracts that really start to scale up at the end of the payment. This has allowed them to continue their spending while still making a splash in FA every year. However many teams choose to front load their contracts because they have a great deal of current cap space but they want to have more cap space available in later years. Many very good teams front load their contracts and that is why they are continuously under the cap every year. I hope I explained this well because the issue of salary cap is pretty close to rocket science. What cap trouble have we been in? If Anything our team is MASTER of the salary cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.