alleycat Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 I think his salary is important to the team and worthy of consideration. Its HUGE and it affects the rest of the team. I agree it sucks to have this discussion when a great Redskins career hangs unknown... But...When a player is hurt...the rest of the team doesn't refuse to fill the place on the field cuz its RUDE... No matter how its looked at...from any direction...#60 not on the field is BAD for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 Yes, and I also said multiple times, I assume the cap hit would be assessed next year, much like the Sean Taylor situation. The rule says this year ; In most cases, if a player retires, the remaining signing bonus that has not been included in salary “accelerates” and is included in that year’s team salary. Thus, the team will take an immediate salary cap hit of the remaining signing bonus. Your answer that "they could put him on IR" makes no sense. Could they put him on the IR next year too? Is this a big loophole, that you can place any retired player on the IR to get out of the bad cap situation the retirement brings? Not to mention, the net effect of IR'ing him would be exactly the same as what I suggested- it would push the dead money hit to next year. IR would be a loophole IF next year is uncapped. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/jason-reid/samuels-expected-to-go-on-ir-d.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erictheman10 Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 It seems to me at this point we're debating mostly theoreticals. Samuels has stated he's not retiring til the end of the year, so he'll be put on IR this year most likely. When he retires (after the season in over), the cap hits will affect next year's cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HigSkin Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 Man, what a cap hit.... Here's a an except from the article: One reason among many is money. If Samuels were to formally retire this week, or at any time during the season, his unallocated bonuses would accelerate into this season’s salary cap. Samuels reworked his contract before both the 2008 and 2009 seasons. He lowered his base salary both years and got the difference in various guarantees and bonuses. Along with the other bonuses and guarantees that Samuels has picked up in the past several years, the cap hit for putting Samuels on the retired list this year would be, according to the unofficial information on The Warpath, a whopping $19.4 million. That, of course, would put the Redskins way over the cap and cause all manner of problems. By the way, this situation brings light to the dangerous game that the Redskins have been playing with reworking contracts in order to get under cap and sign free agents. There is a possibility, albeit a slim one, that there will be a salary cap in 2010. If there is, the Redskins will have to figure out how to deal with over $14 million in dead cap charges due to Samuels’ expected retirement. Add on to that the $9.4 million hit that would be accelerated if Randy Thomas, who will be 34 in January, retires or is released and you have a very sticky situation should 2010 end up being a capped year. http://realredskins.com/2009/10/samuels%e2%80%99-decision-has-salary-cap-implications.html#more-2239 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaBeachRedskin Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 Yes, and I also said multiple times, I assume the cap hit would be assessed next year, much like the Sean Taylor situation.Your answer that "they could put him on IR" makes no sense. Could they put him on the IR next year too? Is this a big loophole, that you can place any retired player on the IR to get out of the bad cap situation the retirement brings? Not to mention, the net effect of IR'ing him would be exactly the same as what I suggested- it would push the dead money hit to next year. And you're suggesting at other points that the league would start releasing Redskins left and right to get them in cap compliance (which wouldn't be enough, we literally couldn't release enough players to get under the cap if we had to take the whole release fee from Samuels this year) and fine Snyder tens of millions of dollars. This is kind of peril plenty of teams would find themselves in, where any player could up and retire in the middle of the year and screw the team over in a way they couldn't recover from. So, short of a better answer, yes, my assumption remains that the hit would be taken next year. I don't see how that adds up to me suggesting "the league would just brush it under the carpet". The assumption that the cap hit would be taken next year if he retires now is wrong. You are also wrong about Sean Taylor's cap hit being pushed to the next year as his cap hit was felt immediately. The NFL has a hard cap and they would force us to get under the cap by whatever means necessary. It is not the NFL's fault for our getting around the salary cap each year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 The assumption that the cap hit would be taken next year if he retires now is wrong. You are also wrong about Sean Taylor's cap hit being pushed to the next year as his cap hit was felt immediately. The NFL has a hard cap and they would force us to get under the cap by whatever means necessary. It is not the NFL's fault for our getting around the salary cap each year. http://curlyr.blogspot.com/2007/12/redskins-will-get-no-salary-cap-relief.html "come the offseason the team will take a cap hit exactly as if the team had cut him." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaBeachRedskin Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 http://curlyr.blogspot.com/2007/12/redskins-will-get-no-salary-cap-relief.html"come the offseason the team will take a cap hit exactly as if the team had cut him." Good find. I thought it got accelerated immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 We'll be alright. We always handle the cap. No we dont Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliforniaSkin Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Samuels is a vested veteran which means that he continues to receive his full salary for the year. Standard procedure in this case is for him to be IRed and then file his retirement papers in the offseason. I believe for him to officially retire this year he would need to file the paperwork which would entail him giving up his guaranteed salary. Obviously doing that would cost him and the team and there is no reason for him to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 No we dont Yeah, a reported $18m in dead cap money isn't too clever. Especially $6m on Jansen & $5m on Lloyd. That kinda space gets you a couple of top notch free agents, or we could be rewarding a player like Rocky Mc with a new contract instead. When Samuels & Randy Thomas have significant combined release fees in 2010, we are gonna get incredibly lucky with the uncapped year. Whilst the situation with Samuels is very unfortunate, the contracts of Jansen & Thomas demonstate how we have taken the wrong approach in the area of our OLine over recent years. Instead of drafting, we invested too heavily in our existing veteran players at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Man, what a cap hit....The Warpath, a whopping $19.4 million. I think that is a little misleading as it appears to include $11.475m that relates to a SB due in 2011. That is pro-rated over 5 years as you can see the $2.295m ( one fifth) in the final out years through to 2015. That probably doesn't exist if Samuels doesn't get the bonus in 2011, so the number is actually $11.475m less at present. Thats how I read it, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polywog999 Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 No we dont Wrong! Every year we are going to "end up in cap hell" only to scrape by. Skins get everyone they want every year. How do we not handle the cap? Say what we want about The Dan... he sure handles the business end of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskinzfan30 Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I'm hoping next year is uncapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Wrong! Every year we are going to "end up in cap hell" only to scrape by. Skins get everyone they want every year. How do we not handle the cap? Say what we want about The Dan... he sure handles the business end of things. If I stole $20 from your wallet and then used the defense "he could still afford his dinner, so that $20 didn't mean anything", would you be OK with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polywog999 Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 If I stole $20 from your wallet and then used the defense "he could still afford his dinner, so that $20 didn't mean anything", would you be OK with it? This is a bad example. You are talking about two different things! Stealing $20.00 from me would be a misdemeanor offense. You could be arrested and at least spend the better part of the day in jail. Could you be arrested for finagling the cap? No. The example also is lacking in the ability, to properly examine the outcome. In real life though, if someone stole from me, they would be missing teeth. As far as the salary cap... It does hurt that we are always nearly tapped out. We could do better with the money available, but that is a different issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 This is a bad example. You are talking about two different things!Stealing $20.00 from me would be a misdemeanor offense. You could be arrested and at least spend the better part of the day in jail. Could you be arrested for finagling the cap? No. The example also is lacking in the ability, to properly examine the outcome. In real life though, if someone stole from me, they would be missing teeth. As far as the salary cap... It does hurt that we are always nearly tapped out. We could do better with the money available, but that is a different issue. If an analogy was exactly the same as the situation it is analogous to, it would cease to be an analogy. Mine was meant to be silly anyway. The point, though, remains. There is a theme to salary cap posts here from people who essentially make the case that 'it doesn't matter if we lose x number of dollars in cap room, because we always manage to have money to spend'. As if somehow having cap space to spend means it doesn't matter that we could/should have more. And to that my silly analogy applies- why not just give me $20, because you'll still have money to spend afterward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rk3025 Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 We could be the Tampa Bay Bucs and not spend it at all This is a bad example. You are talking about two different things!Stealing $20.00 from me would be a misdemeanor offense. You could be arrested and at least spend the better part of the day in jail. Could you be arrested for finagling the cap? No. The example also is lacking in the ability, to properly examine the outcome. In real life though, if someone stole from me, they would be missing teeth. As far as the salary cap... It does hurt that we are always nearly tapped out. We could do better with the money available, but that is a different issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald362 Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Remember the salary cap is not what you pay the player, but what the NFL owners have put into place to prevent one team( read NY Yankees) from going out and buying all the players and keep the small market teams more fiscally competetive. You could put in a clause that allows for retirement/career ending injurys to not count against the cap, but that would not allow the team to not pay the guaranteed money, such as bonuses. Remember, the bonuses have already been paid for the most part anyway, so the teams wouldnt have to pay anything else. Remember, the salary cap is just a form of accounting, not what is really spent each year. I got to disagree. That's part of the risk you run in signing players especially those with big bonuses. No one forced us to sign him, and really his cap hit is are problem because we've kept restructuring his deal........why give teams a break for not managing their cap efficently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 The point, though, remains. There is a theme to salary cap posts here from people who essentially make the case that 'it doesn't matter if we lose x number of dollars in cap room, because we always manage to have money to spend'. As if somehow having cap space to spend means it doesn't matter that we could/should have more Very true. When the combination of Jansen & BLloyd count more against the 2009 cap than the combination of Haynesworth & Fletcher, we clearly have too much wasted cap space. That is discounted by some far too readily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Moseley Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Does anyone else think it's ironic that the guy with the biggest neck roll in football retires from a neck injury? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidFan Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 We should have IR'd him signed Runyan for a week for the Philly playbook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.