Possibility Of The Uncapped Season?

[Ax]

Didn't see anything I thought was a good match for this on the first 3 pages. So, here goes...

Everybody seems to be focused on releasing some of the players eating up a large chunk of the cap.

What I wonder, if anybody knows, is if instead of releasing the player, could their contract be restructured so that their entire remaining signing bonus, would count against the 2010 season? Thus making their future salaries more than "cap friendly", and, keeping Snyder from taking such a financial hit, that releasing them would do.

Even though "we" wouldn't take the hit for releasing players, the money has still been paid. We, lose good players, but on top of that, Snyder loses lots of money. And we're talking millions of dollars here. Nobody, including Snyder, should have to lose that much money. And, I would think it's part of any GM's job to save money, at the same time he's trying to fix things.

So, if it can be done, and the remaining signing bonus money can be applied to the 2010 season, we could keep guys that can help the team, without being cap-strapped in 2011.

Does anybody know if it's even possible?

[HigSkin]

Well, first the contract restructuring game is what got us in to this mess with Samuels, CP, etc. I think the point of getting rid of players and their contracts is that we need an infusion of young talent and new faces. We certainly aren't getting anywhere with the current group. I mean, look across our roster, and you see too many aging, over paid guys.

Besides, nobody knows what's going to happen in 2011. There could be a new and different agreement between the NFL and players. Our team should look at this as an opportunity.

[chipwhich]

Sure it can be done. Personally I will pass. A decade of nonsense for me wants to start fresh.

Which player do you want that is the cap player? There are only probably 5 players that have real cap issues...like Portis, Samuels to name a few. Everyone on the team isn't a cap disaster. Portis is probably the worst cap person, for me I say no thanks.

[GibbsFactor]

First, not sure it's possible but...

What good player?

Portis? Franchise player that is long in the tooth and a possible cancer.

R. Thomas? Above average guard that is past his prime and injury prone.

ARE? Overplayed 4th option, fumbling no yardage return man.

Moss? I'd like to keep him as a slot if used like Royal/Welker

Samuels? If healthy, he's a keeper but he's starting to wear down and has some serious health issues.

Sellers? Got paid and then laid down. Seemed to purposefully stick it to CP on the field. Cut his ass!

CGriff? Old and hasn't performed in 4 years.

Haynesworth? I'd like to see him restructured as you said.

DHall? Again, we could do as you said.

Smoot? I love him, but he can't cover. A potential short time fix at FS?

Landry? He's a SS but we also have Doughty and Horton. Too many SSs with no legit FS. Trade one of them.

Of our big money players, I'd like to see Moss, Cooley, Dockery, Fletcher, DHall, Carter and Haynesworth kept with a restructured contract.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Technically, I don't think there is a way a contract can be 're-structured' to do that.

What could be done, and it'll be interesting to see if this kind of thing happens, is you could release a player and then immediately re-sign him to basically the same contract. Now, you would have to give something extra to the player to get them to agree to that, as just accepting the release/re-sign for the same contract doesn't benefit them, while eliminating their release fee makes it more likely that player will be cut in future years. So you could cut their future salaries by a little and give them that money now. Again that reduces their future cap cost and adds it to the uncapped year, so that's even more of a benefit for the team while giving the player more money upfront.

As I said, I think seeing whether things like this will be done will be one of the more interesting aspects of the uncapped year.

[Ax]

Of our big money players, I'd like to see Moss, Cooley, Dockery, Fletcher, DHall, Carter and Haynesworth kept with a restructured contract.

These are the main guys I'm talking about, as well.

There may be others as well.

No reason we can't try to remain competitive, while rebuilding.

[chipwhich]

Technically, I don't think there is a way a contract can be 're-structured' to do that.

Sure there is, just as you restructure the money from the outyears to next year.

It's no different, just you pay a player a ton up front, and little later. Of course if the player is any good, in the years they get paid little they will want to restructure

[Est.1974]

Yeah, cut & re-sign seems to be a logical way to pulls things f/wd into 2010.

There are some interesting thoughts on this in this thread on Pg2 at present.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=313733

[chipwhich]

No reason we can't try to remain competitive, while rebuilding.

Because we have been so competitive with them. :doh:

I hope people wake up and realize the play on the field is not going to be fixed by continually swapping out coaches and keeping the same guy.

We have poisoned the waters on the team, we need to flush out the poison.

[Ax]

Of course if the player is any good, in the years they get paid little they will want to restructure

Yeah, but with a smaller cap figure, and the fac they would be under contract, it would make it easier to trade them, and at least get something for them.

[Ax]

Because we have been so competitive with them. :doh:

I hope people wake up and realize the play on the field is not going to be fixed by continually swapping out coaches and keeping the same guy.

We have poisoned the waters on the team, we need to flush out the poison.

Flushing doesn't guarantee a thing. And, we can't do it all in one year. Keeping the best talent we have, even if just for one more season, isn't a bad thing.

[chipwhich]

Yeah, but with a smaller cap figure, and the fac they would be under contract, it would make it easier to trade them, and at least get something for them.

True, but you are only talking a couple of players. The real salary cap hogs like Samuels and Portis won't be wanted by any other team and have no trade value in a year or two.

[chipwhich]

Flushing doesn't guarantee a thing. And, we can't do it all in one year. Keeping the best talent we have, even if just for one more season, isn't a bad thing.

Good teams Eagles, Patriots, Ravens, etc they flush. They don't have this conversation. Once a player is in decline they drop them. I am talking Portis, Samuels, Thomas, etc.

We need to build a team of players fighting for jobs. Not a team of Portis' fighting for air time and snyder time.

[Ax]

True, but you are only talking a couple of players. The real salary cap hogs like Samuels and Portis won't be wanted by any other team and have no trade value in a year or two.

Like many have said, I look for Samuels to retire. And, unlike the seeming majority, I don't think Portis done. I think it's worth another season to find out.

Of course, I could be wrong.

[chipwhich]

Like many have said, I look for Samuels to retire. And, unlike the seeming majority, I don't think Portis done. I think it's worth another season to find out.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Whether or not Portis is done is not my issue.

He is the cancer on the team, he epitomizes everything wrong with the franchise with his refusal to practice, fraternizing with Dan Snyder, calling out his o-line, fullback.

You cut someone like that. You don't let him poison the waters for what you are trying to create here in the new regime.

[Ax]

Good teams Eagles, Patriots, Ravens, etc they flush. They don't have this conversation. Once a player is in decline they drop them. I am talking Portis, Samuels, Thomas, etc.

We need to build a team of players fighting for jobs. Not a team of Portis' fighting for air time and snyder time.

We're obviously talking different degrees of flushing. I took you to mean a 60%-70% flush of the roster. Which I think is too much for one offseason.

Eagles, Pats, and other already established teams do minor "flushes", which hopefully we'll soon be able to do, too.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Sure there is, just as you restructure the money from the outyears to next year.

It's no different, just you pay a player a ton up front, and little later. Of course if the player is any good, in the years they get paid little they will want to restructure

We're talking about signing bonus allocations. That's money that's already been paid and is amortized over the life of the contract.

For example, say a player signed a 5 year deal last off-season with a $5 mil signing bonus. That's 1 mil counted every year from 09-13. There's no "re-structure" that eliminates that cap cost. I suppose that player could re-pay the team the rest of that bonus and the team could then give it back as a roster bonus or salary, but I believe there are rules about that sort of thing in an uncapped year (not sure about that, but that's really not a re-structure anyway).

[dachozenone]

Didn't see anything I thought was a good match for this on the first 3 pages. So, here goes...

Everybody seems to be focused on releasing some of the players eating up a large chunk of the cap.

What I wonder, if anybody knows, is if instead of releasing the player, could their contract be restructured so that their entire remaining signing bonus, would count against the 2010 season? Thus making their future salaries more than "cap friendly", and, keeping Snyder from taking such a financial hit, that releasing them would do.

Even though "we" wouldn't take the hit for releasing players, the money has still been paid. We, lose good players, but on top of that, Snyder loses lots of money. And we're talking millions of dollars here. Nobody, including Snyder, should have to lose that much money. And, I would think it's part of any GM's job to save money, at the same time he's trying to fix things.

So, if it can be done, and the remaining signing bonus money can be applied to the 2010 season, we could keep guys that can help the team, without being cap-strapped in 2011.

Does anybody know if it's even possible?

Snyder would actually save money by dumping players like Portis, Thomas, ARE, etc. Not sure what you mean about Snyder losing money.

[Ax]

We're talking about signing bonus allocations. That's money that's already been paid and is amortized over the life of the contract.

For example, say a player signed a 5 year deal last off-season with a $5 mil signing bonus. That's 1 mil counted every year from 09-13. There's no "re-structure" that eliminates that cap cost. I suppose that player could re-pay the team the rest of that bonus and the team could then give it back as a roster bonus or salary, but I believe there are rules about that sort of thing in an uncapped year (not sure about that, but that's really not a re-structure anyway).

You may be right, I don't know. I just HOPE, there is a way to do it, so we won't have to cut someone for financial concerns, alone.

[Ax]

Snyder would actually save money by dumping players like Portis, Thomas, ARE, etc. Not sure what you mean about Snyder losing money.

They'd be on the payroll, playing for someone else.

[chipwhich]

For example, say a player signed a 5 year deal last off-season with a $5 mil signing bonus. That's 1 mil counted every year from 09-13. There's no "re-structure" that eliminates that cap cost. I suppose that player could re-pay the team the rest of that bonus and the team could then give it back as a roster bonus or salary, but I believe there are rules about that sort of thing in an uncapped year (not sure about that, but that's really not a re-structure anyway).

No you restructure the contract.

I think you are looking at it too complicated.

A restructure is a NEW contract, it's not a contract mod.

Essentially you give the player a new contract. The old contract bonus would accelerate to 2010 on paper.

[chipwhich]

They'd be on the payroll, playing for someone else.

No they wouldn't, they would have a cap hit on paper playing for someone else. In an uncapped year the cap hit would all accelerate to 2010 and be gone in 2011.

It's not a guaranteed contract. He would only be paid through the contract year.

[Commander Adama]

They could also for the players that they want to keep is restructure their contracts to pay out their bonus in the first year, so they have a very small cap impact for their remaining contract. Take all the hit for the uncapped year.

[Commander Adama]

They'd be on the payroll, playing for someone else.

They wouldn't since they already paid out their bonus, it was just prorated to being throughout the contract so the cap hit was not that big. By cutting Portis, the remainder of the bonus cap hit would be forced, but since it is an uncapped year that does not mean anything.

It is a Get Out of Jail Free Card for the Redskins.

[Rufus T Firefly]

No you restructure the contract.

I think you are looking at it too complicated.

A restructure is a NEW contract, it's not a contract mod.

Essentially you give the player a new contract. The old contract bonus would accelerate to 2010 on paper.

That's not a re-structure by any definition that's been used around the NFL. The re-structures we have done are to turn salary into signing bonus money and spread the cap hit over several seasons. There's no way to reverse that process.

What you're talking about is, as I said, cutting and then re-signing players. That's the only way to accelerate signing bonus allocations to the current year. But that's not something that would be considered a "re-srtructure".