Art Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 I saw it Sanders. I couldn't expect a writer to actually look at numbers or anything. And even your analysis shows vast sums of available cap room if we choose to use it. We may not if we're losing. But, given our cash flow advantages, if we DO choose to, the cap won't come calling until 2010. And even then, it'll be our choice to take the year of hit to retool. Like San Francisco is doing now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanders 83 Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 Excatly. Snyder has everything under control. But I guess we can't expect people, who are supposed to find this stuff out for a living, figure that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 It is simply amazing to me that so many people, year after year, say "cap hell is coming for Washington in two years," and expect to be taken seriously. I'm even more concerned by the terribly childish minds that don't realize how dumb it seems to believe the same thing year after year. The Redskins, like every team, will have a year where we take our cap medicine. Like every team we'll take a huge $20-plus million cap hit in dead money, purge the roster accordingly, and then reload the following season. Because of our financial situation we can limit our cap problems to a single year where many teams have to spread it out over a few. Further, if we're winning, we can keep the run together as long as we'd like. The Bucs are making dramatic changes down there. They are doing so because they lost and they are taking this opportunity to take a change in path. Of course, had they gone 12-4 last year, they'd have kept the beast together another year by working deals and paying out cash to do so. One writer recently got it right. The salary cap is largely a fictional thing. Owners use it to claim they can't keep players they don't want. Or they use it to change the direction an organization is going. No team has ever had cap hell come calling when they are winning. Why? Because they convert contract to cash and keep it going. Once a team starts to lose through injury or through age, then teams say the cap has come calling and nothing can be done about it. They take their massive hit over a year or two and start new. We will take our hit too. If we're winning that hit will come in 2008 to 2010. If we're losing that hit can come pretty much whenever we want it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanders 83 Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 I do remember that article, but I don't remember who the writer was. It was a great article though, and it explained how this "cap" thing actually works. I know the more knowledgeable posters in here have always maintained that cap is solved by cash, which is excatly what we are doing. The same thing you are saying, then we decide it's time to take the hit, then it will be time. There is no specific year, and certainly the fact that Snyder has more money than most, helps even more. But if we can't expect so called football experts on ESPN to understand this, we certainly can't expect the cowboy fans to understand this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 Originally posted by Art JB, The problem with the article posted here is simple. It's so simple it explains why Cowboy fans missed it. They are even more simple. The writer outlines that the Redskins have cap increases for many players in 2006. We do. That's the point. We do that on purpose. So in 2006 we have a built in mechanism to lower those values with more cash. As long as Snyder spends cash, we'll never have a cap hell period that's a concern. If this team is a losing group, then the 2006 timing allows us to take dead hits and start new in 2007. Cowboy fans just don't appreciate how much money we have and how well we can manipulate things given the way Snyder does business. Thanks So you think if we stink it up the next two years then that is a good year to start a new, makes sense. The bottom line is we have 2 years to potentially give Gibbs a very good shot at another title. GO SKINS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 No, JB, that's not the bottom line at all. If we have a good shot to win another title in the next two years, then we'll have five to seven years to give Gibbs without any issues. If we don't have the roster capable of that in two years, then we'll blow it up, and reload to give Gibbs another run at it. But, if we're winning or think we have the roster capable of winning in a couple of years, we're going to be able to continue on with it for as long as we have that feeling and experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanders 83 Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 Art, here is that article we were just talking about. Searching for the salary cap By Jason Whitlock Page 2 columnist Each year that Daniel Snyder owns the Washington Redskins, it becomes more difficult for me to believe in the NFL's "salary cap." The Cap might as well be the Tooth Fairy, Bigfoot or The Loch Ness Monster. The Cap is widely discussed. Mature, intelligent men swear they see it on a daily basis. Some NFL fans believe their franchise has been swallowed whole by it. But I've never seen concrete proof that The Cap exists. And neither has Daniel Snyder. Daniel Snyder had no problem paying big bucks for Clinton Portis. He spends and spends each offseason, taunting and baiting this allegedly-lethal Cap. Snyder is the great Cap hunter. He's Captain Ahab in search of Moby ####, and Wednesday's kickoff of the NFL's free-agency period means it's whaling season. Snyder, in hopes of luring The Cap, has dumped lots of blood in Washington's water. Even with promising, second-year quarterback Patrick Ramsey already under contract, Snyder handed veteran Mark Brunell more than $40 million to lead Joe Gibbs' offense. Snyder traded for Denver running back Clinton Portis, sending Pro Bowl corner Champ Bailey to the Broncos. Portis, with three years left on his Denver contract, had no negotiating leverage. Still, Snyder made Portis the highest-paid running back in the game. Seriously, where's The Cap? I realize Dan Snyder has never won anything during his five years of Cap hunting. I realize New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, frugal by Snyder's standards, has a far more effective plan for winning the Super Bowl. I'm not suggesting that all NFL owners should adopt Snyder's approach. I just want proof that there is a salary cap. Oh, I've heard about the teams that have allegedly had their rosters gutted by The Cap. Football fans in San Francisco swear that one offseason, The Cap ran wild in The Bay and so spooked the G.O.A.T -- Greatest Of All Time, Jerry Rice -- that Rice moved to Oakland and started wearing a corn-over hairstyle. According to legend, it was to ward off The Cap. Yeah, every offseason, there are wild stories about The Cap. They're like UFO sightings. No one ever has a clear picture of The Cap. All they'll show you is a grainy, shadowy image that you can't really make out, but they point excitedly and say, "There it is!" There what is? "The Cap!" they scream. "The Redskins released their 53-year-old, backup defensive end to make room in the salary cap." No. Bruce Smith was retiring, anyway. He should've retired two years ago. That's not a Cap move. Orlando Pace forced Bruce Smith out of the game with a pancake block in Week 6 of the 2001 season. If The Cap exists, how do you explain the Denver Broncos? They reportedly went into this offseason in a salary-cap pinch. When Clinton Portis flapped his gums to the Denver Post's Adam Schefter about wanting a new contract, the Broncos claimed they didn't have the Cap room to accommodate Portis. But two weeks later, they magically found room to accommodate Champ Bailey's $63 million contract. To me, The Cap is a tool created by the owners so -- if they choose -- they can have an excuse to be fiscally responsible. If they want to be irresponsible, they can circumvent The Cap by giving players large sums of guaranteed money in the form of signing bonuses. A signing bonus doesn't impact the salary cap the way a player's yearly salary does. Joe Gibbs must love the deep pockets Daniel Snyder has. Ah, but those are details. The bottom line is that Dan Snyder doesn't mind forking over lots and lots of his own cash. He passes out phat signing bonuses the way Ronald McDonald hands out cheeseburgers. Daniel Snyder's bank account has never seen The Cap. And neither have I. There are no definitive photos of The Cap, but people still describe it in great detail. And it isn't just football fans. Respected journalists tell vivid stories about the devastation caused by The Cap. John Clayton, Adam Teicher, Jim Trotter, Peter King, Vic Carruci, Jay Glazer, Adam Schefter, Jim Thomas, Clarence Hill, Howard Balzer and other NFL scribes once held an all-day seminar to discuss The Cap. They had a short video presentation that allegedly contained highlights of The Cap savagely attacking Emmitt Smith inside Jerry Jones' office. The images were so gruesome many of the writers reportedly turned their heads away from the video screen. "I lost all respect for Jerry Jones after seeing those pictures," one witness told me. "You could hear Emmitt begging for help and crying out that he would sign with Arizona. Jerry Jones just laughed." What did The Cap look like? "It was huge, tall and white," the witness said. "A big midsection, straight white hair. Emmitt kept yelling that it smells like tuna." (Repeated requests to obtain a copy of the video were denied by the Pro Football Writers Association.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerm Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 I think most posters in this thread are right. As long as you structure contracts like the Skins do it will always be smart to cut their players. It was smart to cut Davis because of his cap hit. It will be smart to cut Trotter. And in a few years it will be smart to cut Coles. I'm sure many here think it was smart to let Brad Johnson go. It may be smart to cut everyone but maybe that should be a consideration when you sign a guy in the first place. I keep hearing that the Skins players are so young and that is why the FA pickups are so smart. Um, if you have to cut them in three years... who cares if they are young? Some here seem to think the Skins record of success should give them the benefit of the doubt. Did you watch Brad Johnson and Davis play in the Super Bowl? If Sameuels and Coles are playing for SB teams in the future are you still going to be happy? Never mind... I know the answer to that one. After Marty cut a 3rd of the starting team and you have seen Johnson and Davis playing in the Super Bowl... I know what the response will be. "BWAHAHAHAH... the stupid Cowboy (or Philly/Giants) fans think we are going to be in cap hell. They have been saying that for years! Look how stupid they are!" The "biased" reporters will be talking about the Redskin moves and will be laughed off on this board. What do they know? They have been saying this stuff about our (sub .500) team for years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotgunner Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 If you find yourself riding in green fields with the sun on your face don't be troubled for you are in Alesium and your already dead. And it shall be so...... Maximus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 Originally posted by Nerm I think most posters in this thread are right. As long as you structure contracts like the Skins do it will always be smart to cut their players. It was smart to cut Davis because of his cap hit. It will be smart to cut Trotter. And in a few years it will be smart to cut Coles. I'm sure many here think it was smart to let Brad Johnson go. It may be smart to cut everyone but maybe that should be a consideration when you sign a guy in the first place. I keep hearing that the Skins players are so young and that is why the FA pickups are so smart. Um, if you have to cut them in three years... who cares if they are young? Some here seem to think the Skins record of success should give them the benefit of the doubt. Did you watch Brad Johnson and Davis play in the Super Bowl? If Sameuels and Coles are playing for SB teams in the future are you still going to be happy? Never mind... I know the answer to that one. After Marty cut a 3rd of the starting team and you have seen Johnson and Davis playing in the Super Bowl... I know what the response will be. "BWAHAHAHAH... the stupid Cowboy (or Philly/Giants) fans think we are going to be in cap hell. They have been saying that for years! Look how stupid they are!" The "biased" reporters will be talking about the Redskin moves and will be laughed off on this board. What do they know? They have been saying this stuff about our (sub .500) team for years! Nerm, The Redskins didn't cut Davis because of the cap hit. They cut Davis because he had a high cap number and the team didn't need his type of player in the offense Spurrier was running. Turns out Spurrier was wrong about that. But, had we felt like Davis was the type of player we needed from a coaching aspect, he'd have been restructured. It may be smart to cut Trotter if he fails to perform up to his level of excellence. He started to get there before getting hurt with Lewis. Struggled a little last year coming back from injury. And probably has this year to take to a defense more suitable to his skills. If he struggles again, he'll probably be cut for not being as good as his cap number would indicate. The Redskins didn't let Brad Johnson go. He was a free agent who rebuffed Marty, and wouldn't come back to play for him, and out of anger at Snyder. No one let him go. So, part of the problem with your post is a fundamental disconnect from reality. Another problem with your post is, a continued inability to realize the way the Skins structure contracts is done specificially to build in millions of dollars against the cap nearly every year they can play with. See, in year three of most deals, if a player hasn't worked out, the team can cut him, and not take a big cap hit because his bonus and his salary even out, essentially putting the team back to even rather than forcing the team to carry a negative cap number. If the player is working out, the deal gets redone pushing several million into another bonus. It's why we've avoided any cap hell the last couple of years and aren't even projected to see it until 2006 now. Yeah, we'll cut guys then that don't fit whatever Gibbs wants. Gibbs may be wrong to do it. But, you do what your coach wants in such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 Originally posted by Art Nerm, The Redskins didn't cut Davis because of the cap hit. They cut Davis because he had a high cap number and the team didn't need his type of player in the offense Spurrier was running. Turns out Spurrier was wrong about that. But, had we felt like Davis was the type of player we needed from a coaching aspect, he'd have been restructured. It may be smart to cut Trotter if he fails to perform up to his level of excellence. He started to get there before getting hurt with Lewis. Struggled a little last year coming back from injury. And probably has this year to take to a defense more suitable to his skills. If he struggles again, he'll probably be cut for not being as good as his cap number would indicate. The Redskins didn't let Brad Johnson go. He was a free agent who rebuffed Marty, and wouldn't come back to play for him, and out of anger at Snyder. No one let him go. So, part of the problem with your post is a fundamental disconnect from reality. Another problem with your post is, a continued inability to realize the way the Skins structure contracts is done specificially to build in millions of dollars against the cap nearly every year they can play with. See, in year three of most deals, if a player hasn't worked out, the team can cut him, and not take a big cap hit because his bonus and his salary even out, essentially putting the team back to even rather than forcing the team to carry a negative cap number. If the player is working out, the deal gets redone pushing several million into another bonus. It's why we've avoided any cap hell the last couple of years and aren't even projected to see it until 2006 now. Yeah, we'll cut guys then that don't fit whatever Gibbs wants. Gibbs may be wrong to do it. But, you do what your coach wants in such things. This is pretty accurate to me, and I hope it ends this discussion of how we got rid of Davis because of money issues. People who actually know anything about the situation and actually watch Redskin games and read the press (and occasionally between the lines)... they know that Davis wasn't happy with his reduced role. They know that Spurrier wasn't all that happy with Davis. I still think that Spurrier actually probably thought Davis was good, but maybe even a little bit of him felt that it would be that much better for him to win without Davis. Such is my opinon of Spurrier's ego. It's funny how some people don't seem to understand what would seem to be a pretty obvious thing. Spurrier likes to pass. Was that really so hard to see? Snyder supported Spurrier, so he tried to get a RB that Spurrier preferred- a guy who could maybe have more of a quick burst... and I think they hoped that guy would be Canidate. But again, Spurrier likes to pass. Davis wasn't much of a pass catcher. Davis was a great runner though (despite injuries and some fumble-itis). Davis... did... not... fit... Spurrier's... system (in Spurrier's mind). I would have thought it was obvious. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDevil'sAdvocate Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Originally posted by Dirk Diggler According to the forecast back in 2000, we were supposed to be in cap hell this last year and this year. Yet we're still spending away. the difference was and is marty schottenheimer took over, and he demanded the GM role before he agreed to work for Snyder. And he headed off the impending doom of that cap by cutting many players before 2001. in effect, marty saved the redskins years of cap trouble. of course, snyder went out and hired an absolute joke to coach the team after he told marty "i just had more fun picking the players". when the team cut tre johnson, larry centers, mark carrier, deion sanders, and jeff george...all 30-something players, no one shed too many teams. this time around, it will be different. when you're cutting a chris samuels IN HIS PRIME or a L. Coles IN HIS PRIME or LaVar Arrington IN HIS PRIME or trading a Patrick Ramsey or Clinton Portis IN THEIR PRIME because of undisciplined cap spending now, the feeling will be a lot different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potato Sack Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Originally posted by NYC Umm ok, you better hope the salary cap either becomes extinct or goes up $50 million dollars because judgement day is in 06'. You weren't in cap hell because you let go of your best player both on offense and defense, that's ok we'll take L.Cole$ back in 06' when you can no longer afford him. You've got the damn apostrophe in the wrong position cheesedick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.