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

[Laron Burgundy]

Rufus..

 

I'm still confused how you think cutting Haynesworth would've solved all of our problems...

 

The guaranteed money still has to count against the cap.

 

I know you don't believe in guaranteed money, but it's not the tooth fairy.

 

So regardless of whether it was the accelerated money from Hall plus Haynesworth's contracts in 2010 (over two years - 2012 and this year) the guaranteed money (which was just north of $20 million, I believe) would've counted against the cap over the next few years or at least somewhere.

 

Paying a guy for nothing.  Not the right move and not the right message to send when you are trying to change the culture of a franchise.

 

Say what you want about Morgan, he isn't half assing practice and he isn't lying down on the ground or anything like that.

 

The guaranteed money left for 2010 was $34 million.  It blows my mind that he thinks the nfl would have allowed us to dump $34 million into the 2010 cap but not $21 million.

 

And the even worse part, if we had gained a draft pick WHILE dumping future cap room to 2010, I guarantee we would have lost an equivalent draft pick in 2012 when they handed out the punishment (good bye rg3 if we got a high draft pick).

[worstSeat]

So, there is really nothing in Shanahan's history here that leads me to believe he would have done anything good with whatever extra cap he could have had.

 

Didn't the Skins miss out on Aqib Talib because of cash?  NE gave him $5 mil and for a single year.  Think he wouldn't've come to play for Raheem for a year at $7?  (Not to mention it would've made the NE game a little easier.)

 

A pass?  Maybe not.  A bit of a break?  Yes.  $18 mil isn't chump change.

[Ghost of]

 one that gives more respect to the Natives of this land whom the immigrant Europeans practiced genocide on successfully. One of the bleakest and despicable truths of our history as a nation.

If genocide was practiced why are/were there reservations?  Even during the Indian wars, I'd argue that it was more like reduction of a less advanced people, which happened in probably most large-scale civilizations that came up against people who could not resist them effectively, esp. because of immunity.  The vast VAST majority of deaths were due to disease not warfare or intentional genocide. It's one reason why there are a lot more Indians in C and S. America.  Disease killed a lot there but not as many.  It's the same reason why black Africans still predominate in Africa, due to resistance to disease (and why europeans could not settle the continent like they did the southern parts of it, due to climate/malaria.)  Arguably, what happened in Africa would be similar to what happened here, without disease--conquest, colonialism, or imperialism but not genocide.

 

I think there is a popular narrative that exaggerates what occurred but what often did happen was terrible enough, we don't need to overstate it.  In fact, the very word that is the subject of controversy is an English version of the names given by at least one tribe to distinguish Indians from Europeans.  Whatever use it may have come to, it was not a slur originally and arguably, from what I recall wasn't used as a slur for most of its history.  Some slurs are appropriated regular words like "Yankee," "Jew" or the like. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

Because we don't know what Royal agreed to because he never signed.  It's literally all speculation.

 

But I have a hard time believing he'd sign with another team for less than he'd make here... especially when this is his home state.  He played High School ball in Chantilly and college ball at Va Tech.  And the coach who he had his best years under just happens to be the head coach here...

 

You are making no sense in assuming that he'd get the same money as Morgan because Hog's Heaven said he would?  Yet he signed for less to play for San Diego?

 

But, carry on you silly goose

First off, that was one link (which actually was from the fox station, which said multiple sours had reporters it) I'm not going to go googling links, it was all over the place that that's what he was signing for. And then he didn't, and the talk was that he thought he would get more PT in San Diego. Him taking 1.5 mil less per year for a better environment, on a deal that ran a year longer, is far from out of the question. 

 

And back to the point that started all this, even if it was 4.5 mil per, it remains that we easily could have signed Jackson instead of Morgan and Royal if that's what we wanted.

[DC9]

First off, that was one link (which actually was from the fox station, which said multiple sours had reporters it) I'm not going to go googling links, it was all over the place that that's what he was signing for. And then he didn't, and the talk was that he thought he would get more PT in San Diego. Him taking 1.5 mil less per year for a better environment, on a deal that ran a year longer, is far from out of the question. 

 

And back to the point that started all this, even if it was 4.5 mil per, it remains that we easily could have signed Jackson instead of Morgan and Royal if that's what we wanted.

 

I don't need a link.

 

You have one guy who says he's going to sign for "x" and then the player goes somewhere else and signs for less than "x".  So I doubt he was offered "x" from us.

 

And given that we didn't sign Royal and then decided not to add another weapon (ironically), we just stopped after we re-upped Carriker, added Garcon and Morgan, and then some defensive depth.

 

If you remember back that year, we were up against it to sign our draft picks and camp roster.

 

There wouldn't have been a way for us to sign VJax and Garcon.

 

But in the words of the great Robert Plant... Ramble On.

 

Look at you, you have me defending Shanny you slick willy

[Rufus T Firefly]

I don't need a link.

 

You have one guy who says he's going to sign for "x" and then the player goes somewhere else and signs for less than "x".  So I doubt he was offered "x" from us.

 

And given that we didn't sign Royal and then decided not to add another weapon (ironically), we just stopped after we re-upped Carriker, added Garcon and Morgan, and then some defensive depth.

 

If you remember back that year, we were up against it to sign our draft picks and camp roster.

 

There wouldn't have been a way for us to sign VJax and Garcon.

 

But in the words of the great Robert Plant... Ramble On.

 

Look at you, you have me defending Shanny you slick willy

Once again, it's very easy to structure and move cap around to get some extra cap. Clearly we were willing to do that for Royal, whether you want to believe the whole media was engaged in a conspiracy to make us think Royal would have gotten more money or not, I'm sure you won't question that the courtship itself was real. We definitely were willing to make the space to sign him

 

To me, it seems clear we settled on Garcon as the #1, Morgan as #2 and Royal as the slot guy. When we didn't sign Royal, we settled for Moss as that guy (releasing Moss would have offset the Royal cost, imo). We chose to go that way rather than Jackson. We could have gone after him if we really wanted him.

 

(I was halfway thru a response to the Haynesworth uestion when I moved to the big TV and my laptop, btw. I'll finiish it later)

[Rufus T Firefly]

Rufus..

 

I'm still confused how you think cutting Haynesworth would've solved all of our problems...

 

The guaranteed money still has to count against the cap.

 

I know you don't believe in guaranteed money, but it's not the tooth fairy.

 

So regardless of whether it was the accelerated money from Hall plus Haynesworth's contracts in 2010 (over two years - 2012 and this year) the guaranteed money (which was just north of $20 million, I believe) would've counted against the cap over the next few years or at least somewhere.

 

Paying a guy for nothing.  Not the right move and not the right message to send when you are trying to change the culture of a franchise.

 

Say what you want about Morgan, he isn't half assing practice and he isn't lying down on the ground or anything like that.

First off, I wouldn't have cut Haynesworth, I would have traded him. The new team would have taken on his salary, including the guaranteed portion. What would be left is the 21 mil bonus, plus the remaining 4 of the original signing bonus. So, a $25 mil dead cap hit. All accelerated into 2010, the uncapped year.

 

What we were punished for was specifically structuring contracts to slip too much into the uncapped year. It had nothing to do with how much anyone spent, or with cutting or trading players. No one was punished for that. No one. 

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7680283/nfl-league-sends-signal-penalties-dallas-cowboys-washington-redskins

Team officials around the NFL, however, said there were several warnings -- although not in writing -- at the start of 2010 advising teams of (1) potential "retroactive accounting" for the uncapped year, and (2) potential discipline for "abuse" of the uncapped year.

 

The NFL announced its reasoning for the discipline in a statement that reads in part: "The Management Council Executive Committee (CEC) determined that the contract practices of a small number of clubs during the 2010 league year created an unacceptable risk to future competitive balance."

 

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/cowboys-and-redskins-lose-appeal-of-salary-cap-penalties/?_r=1

 

Owners roundly rejected the idea that they had sought to suppress salaries, saying they merely wanted to protect competitive integrity by not allowing contracts to be structured so that when the salary cap returned, the Cowboys and the Redskins would not be charged for outsize deals awarded during the uncapped year.

 

You could search out more links and find more of the same. "Future competitive balance" wouldn't be hurt by a trade or release. All it would have done is give a team a chance to do is clear their cap, which at absolute most would give teams a chance to start over and spend their cap (in other words, I have dumped every one on my roster, now I build a roster with the 120 mil that the cap allows... no advantage competitively). What we did was get around the 30% rule which was put in to stop teams from using the uncapped year to basically end up with a bigger salary cap, through accounting tricks. 

 

The Haynesworth contract

http://insidethecap.blogspot.com/2009/03/haynesworth-contract-detailsdont.html

It was really a 4 year/ $48.2 mil deal.

After we converted his bonus the way we did, his cap hits ended up looking like this-

2009: 7 mil

2010: 25.6 mil

2011: 6.4 mil

2012: 8.2 mil

1 mil in dead cap would hit in 2013

 

That's what the league didn't want to see. A contract that was paid out 12 mil per year including two years after the uncapped year, and yet only 22.6 mil was ever applied to the cap, and the only way that was done was finding a loophole so we could specifically get around the 30% rule. That accounting trick, and likewise the ones for Hall and Miles Austin, were the only thing the league took away cap space for. It was what we were warned about, it was what we did, it was what we were punished for (improperly, to be clear).

 

Lots of teams exceeded what the cap would have been in 2010

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/19/team-by-team-salary-cap-numbers-if-there-were-a-salary-cap/

I count 13 teams that were over the 128 mil figure that was the cap in 2009. Not one team was punished for that.

 

Lots of players were traded that year, more than most years

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=5150926

No one was punished for making them.

 

Lots of players were released, probably more than usual. We dumped over 30 mil in dead cap that year and weren't punished for it. The Raiders (who were well over the cap) dumped Jamarcus Russell and the near 18 mil in dead cap that went with it (keep in mind AH's was 25 mil)

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Russells-enormous-cost-to-the-Raiders.html

And weren't punished for it. Though Mike Florio guessed that that was why they weren't allowed the extra 1.6 mil in cap that was awarded to 28 teams from the space us and Dallas were docked. The league never said why Oakland and New Orleans weren't given that space other than to say they had done smaller versions of what we had done. In the case of Oakland, it was almost surely the Nnamdi Asomugha or Kamerion Wimbley deals that "cost" them.

 

No one was punished for being over the cap. No one was punished for making trades. No one was punished for releasing players. Not one team. Not one penny. There is absolutely no reason to believe we would have been. None. Zip. Nada.

[DC9]

First off, I wouldn't have cut Haynesworth, I would have traded him. The new team would have taken on his salary, including the guaranteed portion. What would be left is the 21 mil bonus, plus the remaining 4 of the original signing bonus. So, a $25 mil dead cap hit. All accelerated into 2010, the uncapped year.

 

What we were punished for was specifically structuring contracts to slip too much into the uncapped year. It had nothing to do with how much anyone spent, or with cutting or trading players. No one was punished for that. No one. 

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7680283/nfl-league-sends-signal-penalties-dallas-cowboys-washington-redskins

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/cowboys-and-redskins-lose-appeal-of-salary-cap-penalties/?_r=1

 

Who would've traded for that contract?

 

You would've traded him?  Just like that?

 

Makes sense in Madden.

 

And we're not talking about most teams who cut scruff, we're talking about a team cutting their richest contract.  (and one of the richest in the NFL and even more so I believe the largest guaranteed money contract in NFL history).

 

Were those teams still on the hook for the guaranteed money and was it substantial enough (over $34 million) to warrant the proverbial eyebrow raise on the "competative advantage" we gained?

[Rufus T Firefly]

Who would've traded for that contract?

 

You would've traded him?  Just like that?

 

Makes sense in Madden.

 

And we're not talking about most teams who cut scruff, we're talking about a team cutting their richest contract.  (and one of the richest in the NFL and even more so I believe the largest guaranteed money contract in NFL history).

 

Were those teams still on the hook for the guaranteed money and was it substantial enough (over $34 million) to warrant the proverbial eyebrow raise on the "competative advantage" we gained?

Again, it was 25 mil, not 34.

 

And lots of teams would have traded for him. He was a guy a year removed from DPOY who would be paid 16 mil over the next 3 years. That's why there were a hundred trade rumors flying around at the draft. We traded him when he was a year older, his salary was higher and he had spent a season making a joke of himself.

[DC9]

Again, it was 25 mil, not 34.

 

And lots of teams would have traded for him. He was a guy a year removed from DPOY who would be paid 16 mil over the next 3 years. That's why there were a hundred trade rumors flying around at the draft. We traded him when he was a year older, his salary was higher and he had spent a season making a joke of himself.

 

Don't forget the most important piece of when we traded him... his salary was more cap friendly and condusive to a trade.

 

EDIT:  I'd also argue if there was a trade to be made (that was worth it) it would've been made.

 

I also think that he had cashed that $20 million check by the time the draft had rolled around... not 100% sure though.  I try to block that part of our history out and I've almost succeeded.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Don't forget the most important piece of when we traded him... his salary was more cap friendly and condusive to a trade.

No it wasn't. His salary was higher and it was down to being just a two year deal. 

[DC9]

No it wasn't. His salary was higher and it was down to being just a two year deal. 

 

The guaranteed money (that you do not acknowledge, yet most NFL FO exects look at) was lower by $20 mil.

 

Which is why the Pats had no problem trading for him and then cutting him.

[Rufus T Firefly]

The guaranteed money (that you do not acknowledge, yet most NFL FO exects look at) was lower by $20 mil.

 

Which is why the Pats had no problem trading for him and then cutting him.

We paid the 21 mil. That was entirely our hit. If we traded him in 2010, it would accelerate to that year and not count against the cap. But it was completely irrelevant to any trading team.

 

I've explained this multiple times, and you just keep making me repeat it. And now, you're throwing in this dumb and insulting comment about me not understanding guaranteed money. 

 

I don't want to be rude, as I've enjoyed talking to you on other subjects. But at this point you're just being douchey and I'm done with it.

[Laron Burgundy]

First, rufus, guaranteed money is owed by the team who signs the contract, regardless of if it is a signing bonus, a roster bonus, an option bonus, or yes, even guaranteed p5 salary.  His cap hit in 2011 was $6.4 million guaranteed.  New England would not pay him that, they negotiated their own contract with him.  The only reason we got free of paying that guaranteed salary was because by skipping offseason workouts (after we renegotiated his option bonus) he voided those guarantees.

 

Miles Austin's contract was no "accounting trick."  By all means the Saints contracts were trickier, and Chicago did almost the exact same thing with Pepper's contract as Dallas did with Austin's.  Austin's contract is 100% legal.

 

No one is arguing that any trade would be punished, that's a red herring.  What we're arguing is that a trade, which would have given us future salary cap relief and therefor FUTURE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, would have been punished.  NFL didn't want to punish every team that violated the cap (afterall there was no cap lolololz!) but they were going to punish the most egregious offenders.  What we did was massively reduce our salaries in future years.  It had nothing to do with the 30% rule, it was the fact that we took future money off the books.

 

We were punished for egregiously reducing our future team salaries.  Your scenario, for the billionth time, would have egregiously reduced our future team salaries.  Therefor, and this is just common sense, we would have been punished for trading haynesworth.  If there was a salary cap, we wouldn't have been able to trade Haynesworth in 2010.

[Rufus T Firefly]

First, rufus, guaranteed money is owed by the team who signs the contract, regardless of if it is a signing bonus, a roster bonus, an option bonus, or yes, even guaranteed p5 salary.  His cap hit in 2011 was $6.4 million guaranteed.  New England would not pay him that, they negotiated their own contract with him.  The only reason we got free of paying that guaranteed salary was because by skipping offseason workouts (after we renegotiated his option bonus) he voided those guarantees.

 

Miles Austin's contract was no "accounting trick."  By all means the Saints contracts were trickier, and Chicago did almost the exact same thing with Pepper's contract as Dallas did with Austin's.  Austin's contract is 100% legal.

 

No one is arguing that any trade would be punished, that's a red herring.  What we're arguing is that a trade, which would have given us future salary cap relief and therefor FUTURE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, would have been punished.  NFL didn't want to punish every team that violated the cap (afterall there was no cap lolololz!) but they were going to punish the most egregious offenders.  What we did was massively reduce our salaries in future years.  It had nothing to do with the 30% rule, it was the fact that we took future money off the books.

 

We were punished for egregiously reducing our future team salaries.  Your scenario, for the billionth time, would have egregiously reduced our future team salaries.  Therefor, and this is just common sense, we would have been punished for trading haynesworth.  If there was a salary cap, we wouldn't have been able to trade Haynesworth in 2010.

Of course a team that traded for Haynseworth would pay his salary.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/378521-why-haynesworths-trade-market-is-smaller-than-you-would-expect

 

A lot of sources are reporting that after the signing bonus that the Redskins already paid Haynesworth, any team that obtained Haynesworth would only have to pay him $16.2 million over the next three years, with only $9 million guaranteed.

While this is true, it is also misleading. I emailed former Redskins Salary Cap Analyst J.I. Halsell and asked about the details of Haynesworth's contract.

"The 16.2M over the next three seasons does remain the same if Albert is traded," he told me.

Not that that should need to be explained. Obviously the team that acquired him would pay his salary. 16.2 mil for three years was considered an absolute bargain at the time. That's why so many teams were rumored to be interested in him. Even if there were something in the contract that made it so we have to pay him after a trade, the trading team and AH would of course agree to re-wording to change that.

That this would even be  brought up is astounding, frankly. Astounding.

 

The Peppers contract I already linked to, and you cite it again anyway. There was nothing even slightly out of line with that deal. And it is no way comparable to the Austin contract. That is a laughable assertion.

The Saints with their bonuses (which is likely what cost them the extra 1.6 mil) were still pro-rated bonuses that would carry forward after the uncapped year.  The advantage" it gave them was for 2009. Which is surely why the league didn't go after them, it wasn't a "future competitive balance" issue, it was a past one (ditto the Raiders with Asomugha and Wimbley). Or maybe just because it was a small amount. Here's more on it

http://adamjt13.blogspot.com/2009/03/loophole-around-nfls-30-percent-rule.html

 

Andrew Brandt knows more about the cap than any of us. He managed it for one of the best front offices in football for over a decade. Here he is on the uncapped year and the penalties

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Cap-Control.html

 

As it turned out, the Cowboys and Redskins did not engage in disproportionate cash spending. However, they did engage in disproportionate Cap spending. To the league, therein lies the problem.

...

At the time, I noted how two teams that traditionally have pushed their Cap problems into the future had become more prudent. As it turned out, they were ignoring warnings not to do so.

......

 

 

The NFL will argue that teams were not advised to spend or not to spend; only to not engage in accounting practices that took advantage of a unique year on the calendar.

 

For the last time, no one was warned about nor punished for anything but contract structuring of the type we did. That you think we would have been punished for a trade is not only unsubstantiated, it is based on nothing, and directly contradicts everything we know about the penalties. It would be bad enough if you theorized this as an improbable and somewhat paranoid idea of what could have happened. But instead you think you have the right to be insulting and condescending to someone for not accepting your crackpot theory as unassailable fact. That's why I really shouldn't be wasting my time even typing this response.

[redskins55]

You know I sat here for four years reading so many people bash Gibbs 2.0 after he took us to the playoffs twice and won a playoff game.!! He did this with Mark Brunnell, Jason Campbell and  Todd Collins btw.. I told everyone then that you will wish you had Gibbs back. Fast forward to today going on 7 years later, and we have no playoff wins and 5 last place finishes. Three of them under Mike Shanahan!

 

The moment he got here he made mistakes. Trading for McNabb, then benching McNabb crushing his trade value, then signing him to a contract extension after benching him???  He changes the top 10 defense to a 3-4, while endorsing John Beck as a legitamate starter in the league????  He's just been bad folks! Decisions like these had nothing to do with a cap penalty its just bad personnel moves. I don't even give him credit for getting Griffin. He got lucky that there were two top QBs coming out that year and he did what any team president in year three with no QB would've done...he traded the farm him. He had no choice because he had waisted two years already. Now I'll give him a pass on Griffin taking a step back in year two. Even without the injury there was no way Griffin was going to repeat a season like last year. But the rest of the team has looked flat out bad!! How does the head coach explain this?? The biggest diference between Gibbs and Shanny is that the players played for Gibbs. They got better as the year went on in each year ( including the losing ones)  In the three losing seasons we've had under Shanny the team dhasn't  looked better. That's important when evaluating a head coach.

[PeterMP]

You know I sat here for four years reading so many people bash Gibbs 2.0 after he took us to the playoffs twice and won a playoff game.!! He did this with Mark Brunnell, Jason Campbell and  Todd Collins btw.. I told everyone then that you will wish you had Gibbs back. Fast forward to today going on 7 years later, and we have no playoff wins and 5 last place finishes. Three of them under Mike Shanahan!

 

The moment he got here he made mistakes. Trading for McNabb, then benching McNabb crushing his trade value, then signing him to a contract extension after benching him??? 

 

I've bashed Shanhan pretty hard, but the extension was really nothing.  It put them in a position to see if they wanted him the following year while costing them very little.  Right, they were able to get some value by trading him without taking a huge cap hit.

 

The Jammal Brown resigning, after the trade had been made, was probably a worse decision.

 

**EDIT**

Brown is $3.3. million on our cap this year.  Cooley is $1.8 million.  Those two moves didn't make much sense.

[goskins10]

First, I will say I appreciate the thought that went into the post. It's obvious that this was not an off the cuff "I am pissed" rant. However, I disagree with some of the conclusions drawn. I will respond by point.

 

1. Your summary conclusion on this point is that it was reckless to challenge the NFL and it's "don't overspend in an uncapped season or you will be punished." The problem with that is we would have owed a lot of that money anyway meaning by taking no action we would not have had much of that cap space any way. It was a gamble but not reckless. It was pretty close to a win/break even decision.

 

2. This point I agree with 100%. There is no way to say with no cap penalty exactly what players we would have. We still would have had cap problems. If we did end up with more cap, we would likely not have taken the same players we did sign but we may have. No way to really tell.

 

3. If you use the logic in #2 to say you can't say who would be here or what the players would be, you can't then judge the FAs here saying they would be the same. Some were necessities. Let's take Merriweather, Jackson and Morgan. Would those really have been our 1st choice if we had some cap space to work with? How can we know that here but not know it in #2? At least some of the FAs chosen (including the 3 listed) were likely forced due to the cap penalty. I am not for a minute saying we would have made better FA choices. I am saying it's nearly impossible to draw any comparison or conclusion just as it is in your #2 point.

[Rufus T Firefly]

First, I will say I appreciate the thought that went into the post. It's obvious that this was not an off the cuff "I am pissed" rant. However, I disagree with some of the conclusions drawn. I will respond by point.

 

1. Your summary conclusion on this point is that it was reckless to challenge the NFL and it's "don't overspend in an uncapped season or you will be punished." The problem with that is we would have owed a lot of that money anyway meaning by taking no action we would not have had much of that cap space any way. It was a gamble but not reckless. It was pretty close to a win/break even decision.

 

2. This point I agree with 100%. There is no way to say with no cap penalty exactly what players we would have. We still would have had cap problems. If we did end up with more cap, we would likely not have taken the same players we did sign but we may have. No way to really tell.

 

3. If you use the logic in #2 to say you can't say who would be here or what the players would be, you can't then judge the FAs here saying they would be the same. Some were necessities. Let's take Merriweather, Jackson and Morgan. Would those really have been our 1st choice if we had some cap space to work with? How can we know that here but not know it in #2? At least some of the FAs chosen (including the 3 listed) were likely forced due to the cap penalty. I am not for a minute saying we would have made better FA choices. I am saying it's nearly impossible to draw any comparison or conclusion just as it is in your #2 point.

1. Again, the problem in 2010 was not getting rid of players. Many of us on this board were practically begging the team to use the uncapped year to trade and release expensive vets. Get a few extra draft picks, clear the salary cap, open up the roster for developmental players, take some lumps and get the higher draft picks that came with that. We were saying that not even knowing that the league was warning us we were risking a huge punishment for the way we did things. 

We could have/should have taken that course of action, which would not have brought on any penalty (in spite of some posters' unfounded idea that we would have become the only team punished for trades/cuts for that year). That was the way to not risk the penalty. And let's not forget, the cap penalty wasn't the worst that could have happened. The league could have taken picks. They risked losing us the chance for the RG3 trade.

 

3. The point here is that we can't assume a GM with a bad history of FA signings would have done anything special with more space. Losing the ability to sign FAs only hurts your team to the extent you would have adding quality with that ability. So far, Shanny's spending of cap has been, to say the least, underwhelming. People on this board want to assume he would have gone out and spent it on a bunch of great players. Nothing about his history suggests he would have done any such thing.

[Laron Burgundy]

Of course a team that traded for Haynseworth would pay his salary.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/378521-why-haynesworths-trade-market-is-smaller-than-you-would-expect

Not that that should need to be explained. Obviously the team that acquired him would pay his salary. 16.2 mil for three years was considered an absolute bargain at the time. That's why so many teams were rumored to be interested in him. Even if there were something in the contract that made it so we have to pay him after a trade, the trading team and AH would of course agree to re-wording to change that.

That this would even be brought up is astounding, frankly. Astounding.

The Peppers contract I already linked to, and you cite it again anyway. There was nothing even slightly out of line with that deal. And it is no way comparable to the Austin contract. That is a laughable assertion.

The Saints with their bonuses (which is likely what cost them the extra 1.6 mil) were still pro-rated bonuses that would carry forward after the uncapped year. The advantage" it gave them was for 2009. Which is surely why the league didn't go after them, it wasn't a "future competitive balance" issue, it was a past one (ditto the Raiders with Asomugha and Wimbley). Or maybe just because it was a small amount. Here's more on it

http://adamjt13.blogspot.com/2009/03/loophole-around-nfls-30-percent-rule.html

Andrew Brandt knows more about the cap than any of us. He managed it for one of the best front offices in football for over a decade. Here he is on the uncapped year and the penalties

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Cap-Control.html

For the last time, no one was warned about nor punished for anything but contract structuring of the type we did. That you think we would have been punished for a trade is not only unsubstantiated, it is based on nothing, and directly contradicts everything we know about the penalties. It would be bad enough if you theorized this as an improbable and somewhat paranoid idea of what could have happened. But instead you think you have the right to be insulting and condescending to someone for not accepting your crackpot theory as unassailable fact. That's why I really shouldn't be wasting my time even typing this response.

Perhaps that article is right, though I've never seen p5 salary guaranteed before and then traded. It's guaranteed through injury or skill, so I'm not certain how that pertains to a trade, but what I do know is that haynesworth settled for far less money with the patriots. Why change your deal when the money is guaranteed even if you get cut? Regardless, that article even states that teams didn't want him at that price, so why, exactly, do you assume a lot of teams DID want him. The article you cite is in exact contradiction to your theory on that. In fact, the very title is: "Why Albert Haynesworth's Trade Market Is Smaller Than You Would Expect"

The peppers contract dropped his cap hit from 12 million in the uncapped year to 4 million in the capped year. How, exactly, is that dissimilar to the Austin contract? The only difference is after year 2 the peppers contract goes back up whereas the Austin contract does not. Regardless, it certainly saved the Bears cap room in 2011.

The more astounding thing is how you don't understand that dumping $21 mil in the uncapped year through a reworded option bonus is somehow different than dumping $25 mil by trading. Let me restate it again, if there was a salary cap, we could NOT have traded Haynesworth in 2010. Let me break down that Brandt quote since you're having such a hard time understanding it.

As it turned out, the Cowboys and Redskins did not engage in disproportionate cash spending. However, they did engage in disproportionate Cap spending. To the league, therein lies the problem.

...

At the time, I noted how two teams that traditionally have pushed their Cap problems into the future had become more prudent. As it turned out, they were ignoring warnings not to do so.

......

The NFL will argue that teams were not advised to spend or not to spend; only to not engage in accounting practices that took advantage of a unique year on the calendar.

We didn't sign Haynesworth to a massive deal in 2010, we signed him in 2009 (the cash spending part), we, however, restructured his contract to dump all that cash into 2010 (the cap spending part). If, by your trade idea, we still had pushed his guaranteed option bonus and pro-rated signing bonus all in to 2010, we would have STILL engaged in disproportionate CAP spending. Trading would, in this sense, have been an account practice to wipe any future balance off our salary cap; that's a fact whether you believe it is make believe or not. Brandt implies that it was generally thought that the redskins and cowboys would spend big and sign Peppers and Nicks to huge contracts, but instead all they really did was resign their own players and used the uncapped year to dump money in to.

It is unbelievable that you don't understand this. It's so simple that I can't believe I have to type this out. Trading would, in essence, have been removing future cap burden and giving us a competitive advantage to sign players.

Please explain how accelerating $21 mil to the 2010 cap is somehow less of a future competitive advantage than accelerating $25 mil to the 2010 cap. I hope stating it that way makes you understand how dumb your stance is, but something tells me you still won't get it.

Dallas violated no rules in the austin contract, just like we wouldn't have in a trade, but what we would do is get a boatload of salary cap space in future capped years, just like dallas did with the austin contract.

[elkabong82]

We took Josh Morgan instead of Vincent Jackson. That right there should be the best example of how the cap penalty hurt our player acquisition abilities.

 

How did Tamp afford him you ask? Simple, they stayed way under the "spirit of the cap" during the uncapped year and had a ton of cap room afterward as a result, so they could give V-Jax and Dashon Goldson, a high-value safety we wanted. They didn't get any penalty though, in fact they got a couple extra million in cap from us.

[SJValleySkinz]

We took Josh Morgan instead of Vincent Jackson. That right there should be the best example of how the cap penalty hurt our player acquisition abilities.

 

How did Tamp afford him you ask? Simple, they stayed way under the "spirit of the cap" during the uncapped year and had a ton of cap room afterward as a result, so they could give V-Jax and Dashon Goldson, a high-value safety we wanted. They didn't get any penalty though, in fact they got a couple extra million in cap from us.

 

What's their record been the past two years?

[elkabong82]

What's their record been the past two years?

 

 How is that at all relevant to the point I was making?

[nimblehippo]

The Cap isn't the only reason we suck, but it is a large reason. Our squad is inferior in a number of areas. Think what the Cap money buys you. 18 million more turns 5-6 wastes of space into above average starters. If we had a better than average nfl starter level RT, FS, SS, OG, and maybe DE, WR - how much better would our team be? Our crappy Oline means we can't establish the run and griffin is getting sacked a lot, while our interior D can't stop the run, and is dodgy on the deep ball. I would give Mike next year, with the ability to be free of the cap penalty and then set benchmark as playoffs. Imagine if we had Oher, Mack, Byrd, Tillman and McCluster - how much better would we be? To my mind - 5 upgrades like that would have us above 500 this season. RG3 had the pressure put on him straight away, coming off the injury - nobody has had the quality to take that pressure off. Add some more talent in the mix and I think we are right back in the playoff hunt next year. Replace Fletcher with Skov in the draft, signs some FAs like the ones I've mentioned, and we could be in business again. 

[Commander PK]

The Cap isn't the only reason we suck, but it is a large reason. 

 

 

Not it's not.  They only did it because it would not make any difference whatsoever. 

 

 

(sarcasm)