bsmsss Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 everyone says we will be fine in terms of the cap--but looking at sf and tb back loaded deals are only good if the player restrutures when it is needed to look at lynch and garcia--both had huge back loaded deals both refused to restructure--both were cut samuels is already pulling that --he is refusing via jimmy sexton to restructure what happens in 2006 when coles,arrington,portis,washington etc cap friendly deals that are back loaded refuse to restructure to get under the cap will it be sf and tb in which we have no choice but to cut them--you bet it will be--players refusing to restructure can come back and kill a teams cap im fearful of this it all starts in 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadKarma Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 win now, worry later, hopefullly we will have 2 SB rings by 06. :hump: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom [Giants fan] Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 Take into account the increase of the salary cap next year and you may not have to cut as many as you think. If you get a couple to restructure, that may be enough. The trick is to get those couple to restructure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 Fox wants to take the ESPN Sunday Night Football package from ESPN. There will be a huge increase in the cap after the new TV deals are finalized next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 Samuels may not be here after 2005. That is the reality of the cap. That is why a season before you have a major contract that will require restructuring/release, you have to think about replacement personnel via the draft and failing that via potential free agents. I am firmly convinced that the Redskins and Bailey had already decided by the start of last season that there was going to be a parting of the ways. As such, the potential availability of Winfield, Springs, McAlister no doubt factored in their considerations of how Bailey could be replaced. On the other hand, winning causes people to re-evaluate their circumstances. If the Redskins are in the ascendancy under Gibbs in 2004 Samuels will be that much more likely to want to stay here and give his agent directions to make it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Slammer Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 Players like to restructure for the simple reason that players enjoy guaranteed money. When we restructure contracts, we make the season salary less and throw in a few bonuses to compensate the player. These get split up, capwise, over the length of the contract, the end result being that we get a few million into the black on the difference between the player's old salary and the new salary/bonuses. It works out for both the team and the player, since the player gets additional guaranteed money and the team gets a smaller cap hit from the player for that season. And that's how we can keep playing the cap, no matter what the talking heads would like us to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 As I gather, we are under next year's cap given the projected increase with the players we project to keep. Again though, I don't keep full track of that anymore. In 2006 I think we project to be over by a few million, but that depends on how much the cap goes up. Every team backloads contracts. Every team has tough decisions to make. What the Redskins have done by signing young players who have years left in front of them but have proven themselves to be capable to excellent NFL players is allowed themselves about a six-year window before any real haunting will come against the cap. This assumes victory. If this team is comprised largely of the key components for winning football games, it alters future offseasons. We convert more to the draft. We spend less money on outside players. We convert "paragraph 5" salaries which are base salaries to bonuses when they have their major jump, which immediately shaves millions off the cap now. If this is the team that can win, you can stretch these contracts out for years until the players are in their 30s and you need to reload. At that point you will have some issue with the cap. But, a conversion to more drafted players fills that gap for a year, allowing the cap purge and ultimate reload. If this team isn't capable of winning, we will have "cap hell" in a couple of years because we'll blow it up and take the hit and start over. Just depends on our success. As long as Snyder is willing to pay money he can keep this team together for the most part for the next six years. We'll want that if we're good. If we suck, we'll take a cap hit and start over. That's how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miragv Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 Originally posted by Tom [Giants fan] Take into account the increase of the salary cap next year and you may not have to cut as many as you think. If you get a couple to restructure, that may be enough. The trick is to get those couple to restructure. exactly, i am sure we can get something done with those players. they probably dont have as hole agents like sexton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinamatic Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 I am not worried about the cap in 2006 yet. With new TV deals and a new CBA the cap should go up a great deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Williams Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 Originally posted by bsmsss look at lynch and garcia--both had huge back loaded deals both refused to restructure--both were cut #1~ I think it's horrible what they did to lynch. The entire city of Tampa is dumbfounded as to why lynch was released. Sure he has lost a step but HE WENT TO THE TEAM and asked them to redo his contract and they never called him back. They just released him......He is better than the guy replacing him, and 100X beter than the guy backing him up! Why not keep him as even a coach.....WTF!! their GM is dumber than ours #2~ If they do it then oh well each one can be replaced.....I doubt all of them will do it though so maybe were safe....arrington may remain a skin forever. Coles might stay if we win. As for samuels I have mixed feelings.....so much potential so little care for the team......I remember when going into game 4 we had 16 sacks or so already....now only 2 of those we faulted by our LINE and guess who.....R.Thomas?!?!?....Maybe our RB's were the problem......Therefore if portis pans out we give him his inflated contract all he wants......BUT thats a big if... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwninja420 Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 Its been said already a 100 times the cap will increase and a new CB agreement will be forged. The Redskins will burn that bridge when we get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 can anyone doubt that both Lynch and Garcia are near the end of the line at 33 and 34, given their recent injury histories? maybe that was one reason they were cut beyond the money issue, which as others have mentioned, is workable if the club is willing to guarantee additional future dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugs' Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 How do you guys know so much about the cap and how salaires are loaded.....damn. I have learned alot about them and have a lot more respect for organizations that do well with "working" the cap... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 I thought there wasn't a cap in 2007?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlsbadd Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 2006 is a long way away. no worries mate. Cool, I am a starter now:40oz: Happy 1000! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinMac Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 Very few of them will say "No" because of the accompanying roster bonuses slated to be given at the time we will need to restructure. Let's say someone is due a $2 million roster bonus in 2006 with a base salary of $8 million. So we want to restructure. The player in question will have the choice of taking about $5 million in guaranteed money (roster bonus + restructure bonus) or be cut. What would you choose? Again, a brilliant job managing the salary cap by the FO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big z Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 I thought the ONLY reason Samuels is not wanting to restructure is because he had a down year and figures he can make millions more by waiting, especially under the tutelage of bugel.... players that are worth big money in bonuses will not turn down a restructure....only when they think they are worth more on the open market than what their current team is willing to pay them up front, only then will they say no thanks..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.