Mickalino Posted January 3, 2002 Share Posted January 3, 2002 Stubby's cap effect will be MUCH greater this offseason than last. We will save $9.3 million this coming year thanks to Stubby. And we're alraedy $14 million below the 2002 cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted January 3, 2002 Share Posted January 3, 2002 Mick, Are you sure that Stubby's "savings" aren't already included in the $14 mil figure? Cap specialist, please expound.... Also, mick do you have a link with this information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VoR Posted January 3, 2002 Share Posted January 3, 2002 Link: http://www.nestofdeath.com/headline/2002SalaryCap.html [ by VoR on January 03, 2002.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted January 3, 2002 Author Share Posted January 3, 2002 I was going to post another link, but it gives the same figure. As fas as whether that number includes Stubby's amount, I think I misunderstood it. I believe it already factors in Stubby's flubby contract Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 3, 2002 Share Posted January 3, 2002 Stubby's money is counted against us THIS year. We cut him before June 1 and took his hit all this year. It was a hefty hit to take too . ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted January 3, 2002 Author Share Posted January 3, 2002 Art, according to this article, Stubby has a cap effect on next year as well. Check 5th paragraph http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20020103-277342.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 3, 2002 Share Posted January 3, 2002 Mick, Two things. You should always listen to this board over the Post or Times in regard to the cap. Second, in this case, the Times is correct. By cutting Stubby prior to March 1, we took all his bonus money and the hit THIS year. Had we not done that, he was scheduled to earn $7 million in salary and $2 million plus in bonus next year. That salary is gone as is the bonus. So, the Times, and I are saying the same thing. Jump on board. ------------------ Doom is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted January 3, 2002 Author Share Posted January 3, 2002 "I see", said the blind Mick. Sorry to be a "mick in the mud" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Angry Buddha Posted January 3, 2002 Share Posted January 3, 2002 WT: "The scheduled cap figures of Smith ($5.4million) and Coleman ($5.3million) rank Nos.2 and 3 on the Redskins, behind only running back Stephen Davis ($5.9million). The costs of the two ends could lead to one or the other being cut, particularly if Washington re-signs Lang and wants to move him back to end." There are only FIVE Redskins slated to make a base salary of more than $1 million next year-- Big Daddy, Bruce, Marco, Champ, and Davis. This fact alone makes it highly unlikely that either Bruce or Marco will be cut. None of our UFAs-- Lang included-- will bust our cap to re-sign, and we likely won't be trying to nab expensive free agents to fill every open slot on the roster. We'd be much better off looking at 2003 to make a cost cutting move in order to reduce the amount of bonus liability remaining on those two guys. But Bruce will likely retire by then anyway if he doesn't do so this offseason. ------------------ <IMG SRC="http://home.earthlink.net/~wahoofamily/flag.gif" border=0> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted January 3, 2002 Share Posted January 3, 2002 I cant believe you guys didnt mention the most interesting part of that salary cap list. 1. Arizona, $27.1 million. 2. Chicago, $24.6 million. 3. Philadelphia, $20.2 million. 4. Cleveland, $16.9 million. 5. Washington, $14.3 million. 6. Dallas, $13.0 million. Look at all of those NFC East teams in prime position to take teams with talented players at many positions, and make a real run. Ok, so Arizona won't be in the East next year, but I still think it's might interesting. $27 million under the cap. That's unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 Those figures are deceiving, though. The question is, how many players does the team currently have under contract, and what are the quality of those players (stars vs. journeyman). Currently, the Redskins have something like 18 UFAs, and some RFAs, too. An upgrade in QB is necessary, which might get somewhat expensive. New deals for Jansen, Bailey, etc. might be necessary (which might even reduce their cap numbers). I'm not saying the cap situation is bad, but that $14 million figure needs to go a long way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted January 4, 2002 Share Posted January 4, 2002 T.C.O. I was looking at that too then you have to take into account the teams in the red: 18. Detroit, $2.4 million. 19. New Orleans, -$1.6 million. 20. Atlanta, -$2.2 million. 21. Tampa Bay, -$3.4 million. 22. Minnesota, -$4.00 million. 23. Carolina, -$4.04 million. 24. Giants, -$6.5 million. 25. Denver, -$9.0 million. 26. Miami, -$9.9 million. 27. Oakland, -$13.0 million. 28. Jets, -$15.6 million. 29. Baltimore, -$16.8 million. 30. Tennessee, -$18.3 million. 31. Jacksonville, -$23.3 million The NFC East Teams as well as the Houston Texans will be able to load up when these teams have to make the cap before the NFL Draft. And what is ironic is how The Media Darling Broncos weren't trying to buy a championship like the Redskins did last year and wouldnt be as capstrapped ------------------ Take A Sip of the Marty KoolAid and Believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.