No Shanahan doesn't deserve a free pass because of the cap penalty

[Rufus T Firefly]

He signed Morgan for 6 mi per year and tried to sign Royal for the same. That's 12 mil, Jackson signed for 11 per.

 

Also, Jackson being a long-term big money deal would be very easy to manipulate the cap numbers and make them small in the first few years.

 

If he wanted Jackson he could have gone after him. There was no reason he couldn't have in spite of the penalty.

[DC9]

I do not have a clue what 'beenie weenies' are. 

 

I shall not google. I do not want to know. 

 

The image I have in my head is TOO hilarious to be spoilt by reality. 

 

This thread DELIVERS!

 

Hail. 

 

bangers and mash... replace mash with baked beans

 

That was the funniest post I've read all week, bro

[DC9]

He signed Morgan for 6 mi per year and tried to sign Royal for the same. That's 12 mil, Jackson signed for 11 per.

 

Also, Jackson being a long-term big money deal would be very easy to manipulate the cap numbers and make them small in the first few years.

 

If he wanted Jackson he could have gone after him. There was no reason he couldn't have in spite of the penalty.

 

 

Hindsight is 50/50, Rufus.

 

I've said I agreed with the approach he chose to take in trying to upgrade the unit as a core.  I think we still had Gaffney and Armstrong back then... Moss was still "the guy" and Gaffney led the team in catches.

 

Not to mention Brandon Banks.

 

If you disagree with that it's one thing. 

 

But I think trying to replace 3 "C" players and 1 "D" player with (what you think are) three "B" players and keeping one of those "C" players is better than just adding what is thought to be an "A" player.

 

Now, we obviously didn't do that.  Instead of 3 "B" WRs (Garcon, Morgan, Royal) we signed 2.  And only one of those turned out to be a "B" guy and I think most would argue he's been B+ at worst.  Morgan on the other hand has been a D at best and overall an F.

 

I think the approach was correct, but Morgan was the wrong player. 

 

Which bring me back to the original point, there is no way he is on the shopping list if we have $36 million more to spend.

[TheGoodBits]

God Garcon and VJax would have been so ridiculously good together.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Hindsight is 50/50, Rufus.

 

I've said I agreed with the approach he chose to take in trying to upgrade the unit as a core.  I think we still had Gaffney and Armstrong back then... Moss was still "the guy" and Gaffney led the team in catches.

 

Not to mention Brandon Banks.

 

If you disagree with that it's one thing. 

 

But I think trying to replace 3 "C" players and 1 "D" player with (what you think are) three "B" players and keeping one of those "C" players is better than just adding what is thought to be an "A" player.

 

Now, we obviously didn't do that.  Instead of 3 "B" WRs (Garcon, Morgan, Royal) we signed 2.  And only one of those turned out to be a "B" guy and I think most would argue he's been B+ at worst.  Morgan on the other hand has been a D at best and overall an F.

 

I think the approach was correct, but Morgan was the wrong player. 

 

Which bring me back to the original point, there is no way he is on the shopping list if we have $36 million more to spend.

I don't know how else to go over it, my man.

 

Shanahan tried to sign WRs (Garcon, Morgan, Royal) that combined would have cost 20.5 mil per year.

You're saying that, with more cap space, he clearly would have tried to sign WRs (Garcon,, Jackson) that would have cost 19.5 mil per year.

 

It just doesn't make any sense. And it makes less sense when you realize that the longer term deal that Jackson would have required would have made it much easier to manipulate the cap figues and keep them lower while the penalty was in effect.

[Laron Burgundy]

Just a problem with your haynesworth premise, even if teams did want to trade for him, a trade would have accelerated his guaranteed money to a cap hit that year, thereby still giving us the very same problem of being over the spirit of the cap as we got ourselves in by restructuring him.

We were screwed either way. Even in retrospect shanahan's way may have been the best way. Give him a chance to reform and then trade him away when he doesn't.

[chipwhich]

Just a problem with your haynesworth premise, even if teams did want to trade for him, a trade would have accelerated his guaranteed money to a cap hit that year, thereby still giving us the very same problem of being over the spirit of the cap as we got ourselves in by restructuring him.

We were screwed either way. Even in retrospect shanahan's way may have been the best way. Give him a chance to reform and then trade him away when he doesn't.

 

Rufus doesn't get that, he just keeps us chasing out tail.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Just a problem with your haynesworth premise, even if teams did want to trade for him, a trade would have accelerated his guaranteed money to a cap hit that year, thereby still giving us the very same problem of being over the spirit of the cap as we got ourselves in by restructuring him.

We were screwed either way. Even in retrospect shanahan's way may have been the best way. Give him a chance to reform and then trade him away when he doesn't.

Nope. A ton of players were traded all over the league, no one was punished for it.

 

What teams were told not to do was manipulate contracts to move the cap hits into the uncapped year. Like giving Haynseworth a cap figure of over 25 mil in 2010 and then 6 mil in 2011.

[chipwhich]

Nope. A ton of players were traded all over the league, no one was punished for it.

 

What teams were told not to do was manipulate contracts to move the cap hits into the uncapped year. Like giving Haynseworth a cap figure of over 25 mil in 2010 and then 6 mil in 2011.

 

Again avoiding reality.

[Laron Burgundy]

Nope. A ton of players were traded all over the league, no one was punished for it.

What teams were told not to do was manipulate contracts to move the cap hits into the uncapped year. Like giving Haynseworth a cap figure of over 25 mil in 2010 and then 6 mil in 2011.

Name a team who traded a player with a mega 100 mil contract that would have put their team over the cap. I'll wait.

Had we traded him when you suggest his cap hit would have been 35 million.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Name a team who traded a player with a mega 100 mil contract that would have put their team over the cap. I'll wait.

Had we traded him when you suggest his cap hit would have been 35 million.

No, the hit would have been about 25 mil. But the question is so ridiculous it doesn't deserve an answer, frankly. The idea that they punished no one for any of the myriad trades and cuts that year but if a bigger contract had been cut they DEFINITELY would have is beyond a hollow argument. You're trying to twist reality to create something that supports your false premise.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Again avoiding reality.

How the heck is he?

Or is that a rhetorical question to the standard, ill informed ES answer?

Hail.

[Laron Burgundy]

No, the hit would have been about 25 mil. But the question is so ridiculous it doesn't deserve an answer, frankly. The idea that they punished no one for any of the myriad trades and cuts that year but if a bigger contract had been cut they DEFINITELY would have is beyond a hollow argument. You're trying to twist reality to create something that supports your false premise.

Are you serious right now? I'm sorry but this is dumb and I hope it's just because you're tired. In a capped year, you can't sign or restructure someone who would put you over the cap, obviously, likewise you can't trade away a player whose accelerated guaranteed money would put you over the cap. Let me rephrase your argument with another matter and you tell me if it makes sense.

The idea that they punished no one for the myriad of RESTRUCTURES that year but if a bigger contract had been RESTRUCTURED they DEFINITELY would have is beyond a hollow argument.

Is that a logical statement to you?

[Laron Burgundy]

How the heck is he?

Or is that a rhetorical question to the standard, ill informed ES answer?

Hail.

Please tell me you don't actually think trading him a year earlier during the uncapped year, which would have given us a cap hit at least as large as his restructured contract did, would somehow not get punished exactly like the restructure was.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Are you serious right now? I'm sorry but this is dumb and I hope it's just because you're tired. In a capped year, you can't sign or restructure someone who would put you over the cap, obviously, likewise you can't trade away a player whose accelerated guaranteed money would put you over the cap. Let me rephrase your argument with another matter and you tell me if it makes sense.

The idea that they punished no one for the myriad of RESTRUCTURES that year but if a bigger contract had been RESTRUCTURED they DEFINITELY would have is beyond a hollow argument.

Is that a logical statement to you?

Because the restructures were used solely to get around the cap, trades and releases aren't. There was a rule you couldn't give a player a raise or cut more than 30% in any year around the uncapped year. What we did with Hall and AH in essence broke that rule (though not technically) because it gave them cap figures several times higher in 2010 than 2011. There is no correlation between that and a trade. There just isn't.

 

For the record, the dead cap on Jamarcus Russell was enormous that year. Might have been higher than Haynseworth's. 

[syrup]

Ultimately the blame has to be put at the feet of one and only one person: Dan Snyder.

[wit33]

I can't wait for Shanny to shut all this mess down next year and put up a successful season.

 

Many like to talk about his lack downfalls with the draft, free agents, asst. coaches or lack of coaching ability when IMO, it all comes down to the QB; this is Shanny's 2nd year with a legit future QB and the first yr. was amazing and this year not so much for many reasons. 

 

He has a QB now, let him develop Griff and watch all other problems fade away. 

[chipwhich]

How the heck is he?

Or is that a rhetorical question to the standard, ill informed ES answer?

Hail.

 

Because we couldn't avoid the cap hit and have spent what we wanted to spend.  I don't understand the point, the reality is the team did what it wanted to do in order to spend what it wanted to spend and beat the system.

 

Had we cut him or traded him, it would have put us in a spending situation that didn't fit with the teams direction.

[Laron Burgundy]

Because the restructures were used solely to get around the cap, trades and releases aren't. There was a rule you couldn't give a player a raise or cut more than 30% in any year around the uncapped year. What we did with Hall and AH in essence broke that rule (though not technically) because it gave them cap figures several times higher in 2010 than 2011. There is no correlation between that and a trade. There just isn't.

 

For the record, the dead cap on Jamarcus Russell was enormous that year. Might have been higher than Haynseworth's. 

 

The dead cap on Russell was 16 mil, about half of Haynesworth, to give an idea of the scope of Haynesworth's cap hit. 

 

Raiders also had a team salary of 135 mil, we had a team salary of 178 mil.  There was a rule that you couldn't raise or cut a player by more than 30%, true, but there was also this little rule that you can't exceed a certain salary cap.  That's why we were punished for violating the "spirit of the salary cap" rather than the "spirit of the 30% annual raise rule."

[Rufus T Firefly]

The dead cap on Russell was 16 mil, about half of Haynesworth, to give an idea of the scope of Haynesworth's cap hit. 

 

Raiders also had a team salary of 135 mil, we had a team salary of 178 mil.  There was a rule that you couldn't raise or cut a player by more than 30%, true, but there was also this little rule that you can't exceed a certain salary cap.  That's why we were punished for violating the "spirit of the salary cap" rather than the "spirit of the 30% annual raise rule."

The dead cap on Russell was near 18 mil, the hit on Haynesworth was near 26.

 

There was no rule about not exceeding the cap. The spirit of the cap that we violated was dumping cap from contracts into the uncapped year. AH's cap hit would have been near 27 mil in 2010 and like 6 in 2011. That's what they considered a competitve advantage. That's what the league told us not to do and what we did.

[Est.1974]

We got screwed by being penalised - this spirit of the cap thing is BS. Uncapped year or not, teams play the numbers game anyway they want year after year. We used voidable provisions, thats fair game. Maybe we should have just cut them and then re-signed them. 

 

That being said, as time as passed its made no difference. I agree with your points. The extra cap space would have been eaten up by the contracts we gave out being of shorter length with more front end hit. I'd estimate in real terms we'd have bagged 1, maybe 2 extra good to very good players in the short term. Make little difference to this carnage.

 

The real loser is the next HC or GM working his way around the dead cap from 2014 onwards as a result of the current debacle, IMO.

[Taylor703]

I could be wrong but didn't the bears basically violet the spirit of the rule as well bumping a massive amount of Julius Peppers contract into the uncapped year?

[DC9]

I don't know how else to go over it, my man.

 

Shanahan tried to sign WRs (Garcon, Morgan, Royal) that combined would have cost 20.5 mil per year.

You're saying that, with more cap space, he clearly would have tried to sign WRs (Garcon,, Jackson) that would have cost 19.5 mil per year.

 

It just doesn't make any sense. And it makes less sense when you realize that the longer term deal that Jackson would have required would have made it much easier to manipulate the cap figues and keep them lower while the penalty was in effect.

 

Where are you getting that we were going to pay Royal $6 mil per?

 

He signed a 3 year deal with the Chargers for 13.5 mil and only 6 of that was garunteed...

 

So he took less money to leave his home state and go to California?  Especially after that delicious brulee from Morton's?

[illone]

I read somewhere that MrOrange loved Vincent Jackson in the draft and was pissed he went to then Division competitor San Diego, but I was not aware that the Skins wanted to sign both him and Garçon had the Skins enough cap space to do it.

 

It would have been a beastly receiving corps, that's for sure, but why would the Skins tie up $100MM in receivers?

 

I really think it was one or the other, but I could be wrong.

 

Great OP btw, excellent job, and it doesn't even address the poor job of coaching that Shanahan has shown since signing here.

 

I dont think he is a very good coach, or GM for that matter.  You are right, he is at fault for the cap penalty he brought this on himself so he certainly should not get a pass for it.  Plus the jury is still out on the RG3 trade so there is no guarantee the Skins made a great decision on that player to begin with.

[RandyHolt]

Agree QB play has likely never been more important, with rule changes factored in.

Its why I have been arguing our Offense is killing the team more the defense, if forced to choose one. Its just my personal opinion of course, and both do play off of each other. We are so bad, its tough to find the clear cut answer. But I go O because of the modern game and frequency of high scoring affairs.