Art Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 A number of guys have seen the dollars thrown about for Bailey and said signing him would almost certainly mean we couldn't resign Arrington or Samuels. Fortunately this is not true. People have to remember that next season Arrington and Samuels are slated to receive almost $12 million in strictly base salary. It goes up from there. In terms of affording them against the cap, we can give Bailey, Arrington and Samuels $20 million signing bonuses EACH, and we'd actually be saving money the next three years against what we are already slated to be paying against the cap. Given that we are projected as under next year's cap WITH those salaries and with Bruce's $6 million he'll never see, there is a lot more room here than most seem to appreciate. Now, while signing Bailey will not have any real direct impact on reworking deals with Arrington or Samuels, issues will begin to arise when we want to work contracts with our secondary level players who could emerge. If Rod Gardner becomes a 100-catch, 10 TD guy, assuming Coles is also performing up to his contract level, Gardner's a guy you probably couldn't afford to give a $14 million bonus to. You'd have to hope Jacobs could step up there. Smoot, unless you get him now, quick and early, is a guy who could emerge and be unaffordable. This hurts if these sorts of players do emerge. If they don't, then it's ok. In cap parlance, there is a saying, though, that remains true. Cash solves cap. As long as the owner is willing to convert base salary to guaranteed bonus dollars, the cap will never be a massive issue, in terms of year over year management. It becomes an issue when you give that cash -- big cash -- to a guy who can't reasonably be expected to play three or four years. Giving money to the likes of Deion Sanders is a cap killing concept, because you knew he was nothing more than a two-year guy at most going in. Smith got too much money, but he's wound up earning it with now four years on the roster. Giving $17 million to a 25-year-old multiple Pro Bowler is not a cap worrisome move because barring a massive injury -- which is also a crushing cap consideration -- he'll play through five years before you really have to worry about restructuring or cutting him and those are cap hits you can live with if you even take them. The future for this team is tied very closely to the next couple of drafts. If we draft very well and are able to replenish some of the guys we know we'll need to replace in three seasons, we'll still have a core of very good, still prime players like Jansen, Trotter, Arrington, Samuels, Bailey, Coles and Ramsey, to lead us and lift us -- if they lift us in the first place any time soon -- and a younger batch of future guys to extend the life of the team's competitiveness and cap freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thito_da_skins_fan Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 sounds good to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gridironmike Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 So if you have a guy in the front office that has a Pete Rozelle School of Sales Certificate, you might be able to persuade all the players that it is better to take a little less money so your teammates can make a little more, we keep you all together, and we win together for a few years. That is one TOUGH sell that I don't think will ever happen. Snyder is persuasive, but usually with his wallet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMac Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 Art, go ahead and paste this article to Karl Swanson now that he is back with Snyder. Im ready to get it done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 so you are telling all of use we can have 3 guys with a least a 15 mill signing bonus???!!! I don't buy it for a second. What about Ramsey if he has 25 to 30 tds don't you think he will want some more money next year, you know to be paid like an actual starter??!! lets do a math game, 13 (coles) 7 (trotter) 15 (champ) 15 (lavar) 15 (samuels) 6 (jansen) = 71 million in bonuses over 5 years = 14.2 million a year in SB for 6 players not including salary you think 3 mill year for salary then you have 32 million tied up in only 6 players that is against this years cap that is close to 50% of the cap for the next 6 years. so the rest of the 47 divide 40 million?? The law of averages say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All In Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 For all the crap Cerrato takes his drafts have been better than Casserly's. We actually drafted guys who are still with the team! I know he didn't do it alone, Scott Cambell a Marty hold over is still on staff and he was always seen as a up and comer. Like I said, in Regards to the draft, I'd say Cerrato's record has been much better than Casserly's at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 Originally posted by Skins_Freak Like I said, in Regards to the draft, I'd say Cerrato's record has been much better than Casserly's at this point. You really have no clue do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All In Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 Come on, The Rock, Robert Royal, Dockery, Jacobs, what did Casserly have to show for his drafts, besides the one that landed Champ. I'm just saying give him some credit, and that hopefully he'll continue to manage solid drafts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All In Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 The year of Marty's draft, we were headed by Ron Nay, who is no longer with the team. Scott Cambell joined the team then. Casserly was a nice guy, but we had much more misses than hits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 Originally posted by Skins_Freak Come on, The Rock, Robert Royal, Dockery, Jacobs, what did Casserly have to show for his drafts, besides the one that landed Champ. I'm just saying give him some credit, and that hopefully he'll continue to manage solid drafts. Ok I do give him some credit, and since now he is running the show it will be intersting to see what he can do. Casserly is still a better GM, even though Danny is the real GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted August 19, 2003 Author Share Posted August 19, 2003 Jbooma, Factoring in the natural increase in the cap we've seen over the past few years, the cap will likely be around $80 million by the beginning of the year after next if not more. If the team did have $32 million committed to six players, leaving $48 million for 47 players, trust me when I tell you, not only is it doable, but, that'd be remarkable. You'll fit 25 players every year in roster space of around $7.5 million. This is younger players like recent draft picks and unrestricted free agents. My guess is we'll end up having around $50 million committed to Coles, Ramsey, Arrington, Bailey, Samuels, Trotter, Samuels and Jansen, and the rest of the team will fit under that. Go to NFLPA.org and look up every team's roster and pay scale and you'll see why this is not only possible, but generally very likely given the batch of relatively cheap players that is out there. Also, Snyder is not the real GM. Snyder is the closer. But he's not, by all accounts, working in the personnel evaluation field. He's the contract guy based on who he's told the team needs to get based on the ratings the personnel people have put together. He's not as far as I've seen anywhere involved in any personnel evaluation or determination matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 Originally posted by Art Jbooma, Factoring in the natural increase in the cap we've seen over the past few years, the cap will likely be around $80 million by the beginning of the year after next if not more. If the team did have $32 million committed to six players, leaving $48 million for 47 players, trust me when I tell you, not only is it doable, but, that'd be remarkable. B] Interesting I just hope you are right. The other question I have what happends in 2007 the year where there is no cap. What kind of changes does everyone see coming in the next agreement. They need to find a way where you can keep your young players as well as veterans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 at some point the money wheel has to stop. the Skins are giving everybody zillions of dollars and we still are finishing in 3rd place. something has to give. Jansen is worth a mint. Samuels is worth a mint. Bailey is worth a mint. Arrington is worth a mint. Coles and Thomas are worth a mint. Next it will be Smoot and Gardner that feel THEY are worth a mint. If the Redskins really had that many players who were dominating their week to week matchups the record of this team would be a helluva lot better than 23-25 since 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 What Bulldog said!:applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 Originally posted by jbooma Interesting I just hope you are right. The other question I have what happends in 2007 the year where there is no cap. What kind of changes does everyone see coming in the next agreement. They need to find a way where you can keep your young players as well as veterans. I suspect the uncapped year will be replaced by a capped year when the new agreement is signed in 2005-06ish. The NFL ran into the same situation with the last agreement, and the uncapped year never materialized. Expect the cap to be around 77mil next year...it goes up about 5-6% every year, due to tv revenues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted August 19, 2003 Author Share Posted August 19, 2003 BD, I don't disagree with you at all. You're right that at some point the team has to rise to the level of talent it has or we have to at some point come to realize the talent may not be as there as one would expect. Still, unlike Dallas which has had relative continuity and still blown, we haven't had relative continuity while being largely average -- though average with remarkable stretches of excellence and atrociousness. I don't view the average seasons we've had on a lack of talent here or there. I view it as having so much inconsistency and continuity that as a team we have only been able to be a group of individuals. The biggest improvement this team has going for it isn't from anyone we brought in. It's from being somewhat the same. Same basic systems. Not having to spend months teaching the terminology to everyone. Having a majority of players here one year to the next. My hope is we maintain some consistency at an even greater clip than this year into next and the year after. Doing that, and having a reasonably talented, somewhat successful QB in Ramsey -- IF that's what he is -- and we can be a better team than the group of individuals has been able to be. If after next year we have that consistency and still can't break beyond average, it'll be much more clear where the problem lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 The idea is to sign a Smoot to a long not as expensive deal like the iggles did with the skinny WR. And besides you should divide the SB for each player by the length of their contract. Imagine Champ getting 16 million SB for 10 yrs. There is no way that hurts the cap for the first 4 to 6 yrs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GURU Posted August 19, 2003 Share Posted August 19, 2003 Well, you can't keep every player you want to. You have to decide who your cornerstones are, get them inked long term, and then fill in. The key is the development of young players, not signing bargain free agents every single year. I doubt we keep Rod Gardner when his contract is up, even if he becomes a Pro Bowler. We made a committment to Coles as "the Man." We should happily take every ounce of effort and production Gardner gives us, but we should also be developing guys like Jacobs, Russell, etc. Same at cornerback. Keep Champ, be happy if Smoot develops into the player he can be, but start developing his replacement now or next year. Those are the choices you have to make. You have to decide which ones you can build a team around and pay'em. The Bucs pay Sapp, McFarland, Rice, Brooks, and Lynch. They continually fill in everywhere else. But they do it by constantly developing players. Same with the Eagles. They pay their OTs and QB. On defense they've kept their secondary intact because that's become the identity of their team. Ultimately, I think Art is right. But what the Skins have to realize is that they need to do a better job of developing players. There are signs this is happening--Bauman behind Smoot. And the receivers. But what about the D-line? They've ignored that position too long. They can't keep filling in with mediocre free agents. And another question is whether or not the signings on the O-line were too much. They drafted Dockery. If they had paid more attention to that position, they wouldn't have to have paid so much for the guards. The Skins say they have a plan. I'm still not convinced. If they do, they waited too long to implement one. I hope the Skins can find a way to win in spite of that. And it might take some luck to sustain any success. We shall see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsanity56 Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 everyone go back and reread arts original post.he knows what he's saying....guaranteed money in the form of signing bonus.. we can afford this team & still resign bailey,arrington & samuels.our problems will arise if/when the likes of smoot,gardener & ramsey become allpros,we may not be able to afford them without some serious cap adjustments.. ND you can only prorate a SB over 7yrs max i believe.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 How wrongheaded does it seem that we're referring to the possible emergence of Ramsey, Gardner, and Smoot as a PROBLEM? :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaganaut Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Art, you know more than anyone on the forum about cap issues, but why the chinsing over Darrell Gardner, Shawn Barber etc. if we have so much money left over for players? They won't even sign some players if they are 500K to high. I don't know how to rectify what you are saying with what appears to be spendthrift behavior on the other (with the exceptions of Morton, Coles etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 I'm afraid that we might have a hard time signing players we want because of Danny's aggressive negotiating style and pocket. Those agents will raise the bars up high when their clients get drafted or persued by us. Just like when a hi-profile billionare goes shopping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsanity56 Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 reaganaut would you rather have coles or gardner??barber was a marty cap casualty to get our cap under budget.. orange it may not be a problem.i can't see smoot signing for anything less than #1 CB money,so i figure he's gone.we may already have the player(s) on the roster to replace gardener eventually.as for ramsey,if he becomes everything we dream we should be able to keep him with the likes of gardeners or trotters cap space as there contracts become large or expire right around the time we need it.we also have some large money coming when smith retires. the real problem in our strategy is if a few of these bigtime/high priced players go down for extended time with injuries.we already learned our lesson with with overaged/overpriced veterans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 Wait, I'm still on this 2007 thing. What is this uncapped year? Does the CBA (or whatever it is in the NFL) run out then? What's going to happen? Are we going to go out and spend a billion dollars on 1 year contracts? What's up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaganaut Posted August 20, 2003 Share Posted August 20, 2003 reaganaut would you rather have coles or gardner?? We haven't had a legit superstar receiver for years here. I'd rather have Coles because Gardner would demand a similar type of bonus if he made it to the pro bowl. I'd like to have both if cap permits. I'm just not sure how the darn thing works. I think there are two sets of rules - one for players like Jon Jansen and others for players like Dan Wilkensen. There is no middle class here only the rich and the poor. The maid gets paid what she gets paid in other words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.