rtandler Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58013-2004Jul17.html While it would be a stretch to say that my friend Nunyo’s article is riddled with errors, I caught a few big ones. The biggest one is not an error at all, but a simple statement that virtually wipes out the whole premise of the article: Washington structured an additional bonus, called a roster bonus, into all of its larger contracts this offseason, with the bulk of most of those bonuses slated to be paid in 2006. A roster bonus counts against the salary cap in its entirety for the season in which it is issued. However, These roster bonuses would appear to be a major hurdle to staying under the salary cap, but the Redskins also worked language into the contracts that gives the team the option to convert the roster bonuses into a signing bonus when they come due. As a signing bonus, that money could then be prorated over the remainder of the contract, thus further deferring the impact on the salary cap, according to numerous sources who have seen the contracts. So, in short, what the team has been saying about being able to avoid cap hell through 2006 is absolutely right. All they have to do is convert roster bonus to signing bonus, which they apparently can do at their option without having to redo any deals, and roll on through ’06 and possibly ’07. Depending on the new TV deal, which I believe will kick in in ’06, they might decide to eat a few roster bonuses right away to avoid future problems. In any case, the whole “two year” premise of the article is shot. Some other outright goofs: However, even if a player is released, his original signing bonus is counted against the team's cap each year until the original contract expires. Of course, if the player is cut that bonus is accelerated into that season if he’s cut before June 1, and into the next season if he’s cut after that date. Quarterback Brad Johnson, tailback Stephen Davis and fullback Larry Centers have shined elsewhere after being salary cap casualties in Washington. I suppose you could call Davis a cap casualty, but he was cut due to his having an ’03 cap figure that virtually any team in the league would have been unable to tolerate. Johnson was not cut, he played out his contract and became a free agent. Centers was cut over a disagreement with Marty, not for salary cap reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 That's IT! I'm after this guy's job. I'm dead serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtandler Posted July 18, 2004 Author Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by Renegade7 That's IT! I'm after this guy's job. I'm dead serious. You'll have to go through me to get it, Renegade, but, hey, go for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by rtandler You'll have to go through me to get it, Renegade, but, hey, go for it! Then here's a message from me, through you, to Nunyo: Watch your back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TenaciousB15 Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Tell him that he also mispelled Peyton. Also, I think you misunderstodd him when you said he made a mistake about specific players being cap casualities. He wasn't saying that they were all cut. But that they weren't resigned, becuase of cap considerations. He also put Champ Bailey in that category. But like Jerry Jones was saying. Eventually that money will have to be payed. And did I read that wrong, or did Gibbs seem to say they were going for a 3 year window? I understand the basics of" the cap, Gibbs said. "I think I understand how to get more cap room, and I kind of see, 'Hey, we sign this guy now, and it impacts you down the road.' But like I've said, most of our stuff is a three-year plan, and I think I understand the general workings of it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Doesn't matter to Nunyo. He won't be holding this job at the WP when 2006 rolls around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 So much can happen in the NFL in a two year period that it's absurd to discuss what will happen come 2006. Cap hell is a myth, and there are a myriad of ways around it. The Ravens supposedly fell victim to it, but had only a blip of something that remotely resembled a down year and then they were back in the playoffs. Same I'd guess with the Bucs. Hell, we went on an even bigger splurge in '98 and managed to avoid cap hell three years later with Marty 'freakin Schottenheimer at the helm. Cap hell is a remnant of the early salary cap era when teams had no clue what to do with their massive salaries. I'm not in the least bit worried about '06. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinMac Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 What's funny is Nyuno first reported this restructure plan in March when discussing the newly signed players (and Arrington). So many of us knew then that this was the plan. I guess Nyuno forgot he reported it then? Well, two weeks from today we start getting some real news. I can't wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Champ was traded partially for cap considerations. This, obviously, means we didn't pay the guy we got for him that much, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFanInTX Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by Bufford Doesn't matter to Nunyo. He won't be holding this job at the WP when 2006 rolls around. Yea, he'll get the ax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58013-2004Jul17.html Team's Cap May Come to a Head Many Skeptical That Redskins Can Spend Now Without Paying Later By Jason La Canfora and Nunyo Demasio Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, July 18, 2004; Page E01 After another offseason of lavish spending on free agents, the Washington Redskins have assembled the highest-paid team in NFL history, leading officials with several NFL teams to predict that Coach Joe Gibbs has a two-year window to win a fourth Super Bowl before facing a salary cap crisis that would force him to jettison many of his best players. Officials around the NFL are watching the developments in Washington with interest, several of them said, as Redskins owner Daniel Snyder pushes the boundaries of the salary cap, the annual limit on the amount each team can spend on salaries and bonuses, by deferring payments until the out-years of players' contracts. The Redskins' payroll in 2004 will exceed $110 million, breaking the previous record of $102 million set by the Denver Broncos in 2001, according to the NFL Players Association, but through prorated bonuses and other accounting devices Washington still will manage to come in under this year's $80.6 million salary cap. The average NFL payroll last season was $71.77 million. Redskins officials refute the notion that they are mortgaging the team's future and say they are positioned to avoid running up against cap problems at least through 2007. "Every move we make is done looking three years down the road," said Vinny Cerrato, Washington's vice president of football operations. "When we sign a free agent we know exactly how it's going to affect us and how it will count against the salary cap, and we're not going to do something that will put us in salary-cap jail or salary-cap hell." Yet, several officials from other NFL clubs who have looked at Washington's salary structure said they believe the bills on the Redskins' offseason spending will come due sooner than the Washington front office predicts. "To me what they're saying is they are banking on really winning in the next two years," said an executive who manages the salary cap for one NFL club, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "They just aren't going to be able to keep all those guys, they really aren't. There's nothing wrong with building for a run to the Super Bowl, but you're only kidding yourself to say you're not going to suffer the consequences of overextending in the free agent market. It's mathematically impossible." Whether the Redskins' strategy pays off remains to be seen. But with the team preparing to open training camp on July 31, an examination of its salary structure provides a window into how the NFL salary cap system works and how Snyder has sought to push its limits. The salary cap was created in 1993 -- the year after Gibbs first retired -- as part of an agreement between NFL owners and the players' association. The concept was simple: Players gained the right to become free agents in exchange for allowing the league to limit the amount each team could spend on salaries each year. The cap is credited as a major reason for the NFL's competitive balance and financial success, and other professional sports leagues hold it up as a model for limiting salary escalation and promoting competition. While the idea behind the cap was relatively straightforward, its execution has become exceedingly complex as teams experiment with ways to manipulate it. In recent years, for example, the league has been forced to add specific restrictions on teams providing perks such as free trips or transportation to circumvent the limit. The salary cap has spawned a new breed of NFL executive, the cap expert, a position that requires the cunning of a lawyer, the wiles of an accountant and the football instincts of a general manager. Careful management of the cap has become a prerequisite for success on the field. As teams have learned to massage the cap, they have found more creative ways to assemble highly paid talent and still stay within its limits. It has become routine for clubs to give star players healthy signing bonuses that, for bookkeeping purposes, are prorated annually for several years, while paying them minimal base salaries. The prorated bonuses and small base salaries work to lessen, or delay, the full impact on the cap. This season, all 32 NFL teams must be under an $80.6 million salary cap, but in reality teams are able to spend well beyond that -- this is referred to as spending cash over the cap -- given the way signing bonuses are computed. The problem is that deferred payments cannot be pushed down the road forever. They ultimately come due. And, according to a variety of NFL experts, no team owner has been more proactive in trying to structure cap-friendly contracts that delay the eventual financial consequences than Snyder since he bought the Redskins five years ago. "It doesn't surprise me at all [the way the Redskins have operated], and it's all worth it if you have a winning team," said Jerry Jones, who has won three Super Bowls as owner of the Dallas Cowboys. "I'm not criticizing the Redskins at all for spending. I've done it both ways: I've spent a lot of money and not won anything at all, and I've spent a lot of money and really gone for it and won it all. "I've watched with interest what the Redskins have done for the last four or five offseasons, especially because of our great rivalry and all that comes with it, but I also keep a close eye on what all of the teams in the league are doing in terms of the salary cap and how they make decisions with regard to the [economic] system we have in place. And there are mixed reviews around the league about how strong to go in spending over the cap." Juggling Numbers During the first three days of the NFL free agency period in March, the Redskins doled out $50 million in signing bonuses to six players -- quarterback Mark Brunell, running back Clinton Portis, defensive lineman Phillip Daniels, defensive tackle Cornelius Griffin, cornerback Shawn Springs and linebacker Marcus Washington. The Redskins also signed linebacker LaVar Arrington to an eight-year, $68 million contract extension in December. The deal led to an arbitration dispute between Arrington and the club, with Arrington claiming the team has reneged on paying him a $6.5 million bonus. In all, the Redskins signed more than 30 free agents since last season ended, awarding them more than $70 million in bonus payments, according to team officials. And Washington still must sign safety Sean Taylor, its No. 1 draft pick, and two other selections. Just how the Redskins can have a payroll well in excess of $110 million yet still fit under an $80.6 million salary cap illustrates how the cap system works, and how it ultimately could come back to haunt the team. "There are always guys that are here and gone because of cap reasons," said offensive lineman Jon Jansen, the Redskins' longest-serving player. "But we're in the business of trying to win now. I'm sure down the road we'll have to make some difficult decisions and hopefully -- I don't know that much about it -- but hopefully they do, and they've got it figured out." By design, the Redskins negotiated low base salaries in virtually all of its offseason contracts and rewarded the free agents with significant signing bonuses to minimize the salary cap impact, at least for the first few years. Signing bonuses are lump-sum payments made when the contract is signed, or in the early years of the contract. For salary cap purposes, however, they are often spread over the duration of the deal. Signing bonuses for players signed in 2004 can be prorated for a maximum of six years. Contracts in the NFL are not guaranteed, and a player can be cut before any season, allowing teams to alleviate his salary cap hit; this explains why the market often is filled with quality free agents each offseason. However, even if a player is released, his original signing bonus is counted against the team's cap each year until the original contract expires. The Redskins, among other teams, have added another wrinkle. To further minimize the cap impact, the Redskins often compensate free agents with bonuses scheduled to be paid in later years of their contracts in addition to the standard signing bonus. Washington structured an additional bonus, called a roster bonus, into all of its larger contracts this offseason, with the bulk of most of those bonuses slated to be paid in 2006. A roster bonus counts against the salary cap in its entirety for the season in which it is issued. The abundance of roster bonuses for the 2006 season is the primary reason why league officials who have looked over the Redskins' contracts predict salary cap trouble for Washington that year. This season, Portis, Brunell, Springs, Washington, Daniels and Griffin will combine for $13.17 million against the salary cap limit. That figure rises by a mere $10,000 in 2005. But in 2006, a steep increase begins due to roster bonuses. Arrington, Springs, Portis, Griffin, Washington and wide receiver Laveranues Coles, who was inked to a seven-year, $35 million deal a year ago, each has roster bonuses ranging between $2 million and $6.5 million due in 2006. These roster bonuses would appear to be a major hurdle to staying under the salary cap, but the Redskins also worked language into the contracts that gives the team the option to convert the roster bonuses into a signing bonus when they come due. As a signing bonus, that money could then be prorated over the remainder of the contract, thus further deferring the impact on the salary cap, according to numerous sources who have seen the contracts. This technique was first used by San Diego in 2000 when it re-signed linebacker Junior Seau, according to NFL sources, and was included in quarterback Payton Manning's new seven-year, $99 million contract with Indianapolis. But the Redskins have used this technique with much greater regularly than other teams, according to several executives with other NFL teams. Redskins officials maintain that the club began to implement this contract structure two years ago after considerable study of the salary cap and applied it more broadly this offseason after Gibbs came out of retirement in January. The Redskins' front office remains confident its contract maneuvers will ensure at least a three-year run with the current roster and allow for more free agent spending in future years if need be. "By the time we get to 2006 it will be clear that we knew what we were doing in 2004," Cerrato said. Snyder declined repeated requests to be interviewed for this story. Several officials with other NFL clubs said they were skeptical Washington can pull it off. "Our [personnel] guys say it's a two-year plan in Washington," said a high-ranking official of one NFL team who, like others, requested anonymity so as not to impede future dealings with the Redskins. "It could be they will cut some good veterans before then [2006] to try to stretch it out -- I don't know what they will do with a guy like [offensive lineman Chris] Samuels, for instance -- but ultimately you have to pay. You can't restructure forever." Samuels is entering the fifth year of a seven-year, $47 million deal. "You have to recognize that if you are spending heavily in one year, it will be spread over for years from now, and you will have less money to spend in the future -- period. That is our system," said Jones, who had to raze an aging dynasty in Dallas after he could no longer fit all of his stars under the cap. "There is no amount of creativity or ingenuity that will allow you to overcome that fundamental reality. I've lived through it." Can't Have it All In 1997, Jones and the Cowboys had a day of reckoning. The Cowboys had won three Super Bowls in four years and, with quarterback Troy Aikman, running back Emmitt Smith, wide receiver Michael Irvin and cornerback Deion Sanders, had the most star-studded lineup in the league. But years of eye-popping spending to keep these players took a toll, and Jones found his options under the salary cap becoming more limited. The Cowboys' nucleus was declining, but Jones was still heavily invested in them. One season, a third of his salary cap was already tied up by old contracts of players who had been released by the team, he said, and no amount of finagling could change that fact. "It's just like in everyday life," Jones said. "You can't always buy the most expensive thing all the time and still have enough money left over to spend on all the other things that you really need to get by. In our system you can't have it all." The Cowboys, who had a winning season last year with virtually a no-name lineup led by new coach Bill Parcells, are not the only NFL club demonstrating a newfound sense of caution about overspending. According to Joe Banner, Philadelphia's team president and salary cap guru, the league recently conducted a computer study to determine if there was any relationship between aggressive salary cap spending and winning. "There was only one thing that really directly correlated with any consistency," Banner said, "and that was the teams with the smallest amount of miscellaneous charges made the playoffs and advanced in the playoffs, way more than the teams that had the larger miscellaneous charges." In 2000, the Baltimore Ravens won their first Super Bowl and were loaded with veterans and facing cap problems. But they decided to sign free agent quarterback Elvis Grbac and push for back-to-back titles; instead, they lost early in the 2001 playoffs, had to release nearly all of their starters and entered the 2002 season with the youngest roster in NFL history. "We did whatever we had to do with restructuring contracts to be able to make one more run," Ravens General Manager Ozzie Newsome said, "but we knew full well that we were going to have to blow things up after the 2001 season. If we would have tried to stretch it out for another year, all that would have done is taken us another few years longer to get back to becoming competitive again." New York Giants General Manager Ernie Accorsi put it this way: "You can mortgage the future for the short term, but sooner or later you're going to have to pay for whatever you do. " Dead Money Early in his tenure as Redskins owner, Snyder signed many veterans like Sanders, Jeff George and Mark Carrier whose best playing days were behind them. Many were not around long -- Sanders lasted one season -- but their large signing bonuses still counted against Washington's salary cap for years, eating up valuable room. NFL people refer to this as "dead money" or "miscellaneous charges," and the Redskins faced as much as $27 million in such figures in one of Snyder's first seasons; last year the Redskins led the league with $14.5 million in dead money, according to league sources. Snyder has altered his tactics in recent years. In the past two offseasons Washington has sought players in their mid-20s -- largely restricted free agents who require the Redskins to send their former teams a draft pick. Brunell, who turns 34 in September, is the lone exception. The 11-year veteran signed a seven-year, $43.36 million contract in February, including an $8.6 million signing bonus. The contract is prorated over six years, and will cost the club $1.43 million against the cap each year. Redskins management projects a median age for the team of around 27 for the upcoming season; the league average in 2003 was 26.5. "We've learned from our mistakes," one Washington team official said. "Look at the age of the players we sign now. There's the difference." The Redskins generally have been able to steer clear of cap-induced salary purges under Snyder, although they have parted with pricey veterans with some regularity. Linebacker Jeremiah Trotter was cut in June to avert a more serious cap hit, and finances played an integral role in the decision to trade cornerback Champ Bailey to Denver for Portis. Quarterback Brad Johnson, tailback Stephen Davis and fullback Larry Centers have shined elsewhere after being salary cap casualties in Washington. But those cuts have not deterred Snyder's spending this year. Snyder, who works on the salary cap daily and handles major contract negotiations, retains the final say on spending. Gibbs, who is also the team president, said he took a "crash course" on the salary cap upon returning to the Redskins and knew he needed a sense of present day NFL economics after 11 years away from the game. His glory days in Washington came at a time when clubs could stockpile talent at all positions and retain players for virtually their entire career. Now, teams overhaul key players with regularity, and finances play a part in virtually every move an NFL club makes. "I understand the basics of" the cap, Gibbs said. "I think I understand how to get more cap room, and I kind of see, 'Hey, we sign this guy now, and it impacts you down the road.' But like I've said, most of our stuff is a three-year plan, and I think I understand the general workings of it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Haven't we been down this road before? http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63958&highlight=2006+renegade7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by rtandler http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58013-2004Jul17.html However, So, in short, what the team has been saying about being able to avoid cap hell through 2006 is absolutely right. All they have to do is convert roster bonus to signing bonus, which they apparently can do at their option without having to redo any deals, and roll on through ’06 and possibly ’07. Depending on the new TV deal, which I believe will kick in in ’06, they might decide to eat a few roster bonuses right away to avoid future problems. In any case, the whole “two year” premise of the article is shot. Yes indeed if we convert these roster bonuses to signing bonuses in 06 we can spread that "bonus" out over 4 years as it currently stands right now with CBA. However, I agree that a new TV deal will be in place before 06 and the new CBA will be there in 08 that will in all probability give us even longer than the current 4 years to spread theses bonuses out. As it stands the CBA runs thru 07 and is uncapped but once the new TV deal is negoiated this will need to be changed IMO. Pretty smart move. I suspect that Snyder & Co. have a good feeling for the new TV contract & CBA getting negoitaed and approved rather quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddha Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Let's just focus on base salaries for a moment, as they are most often the cause for restructuring and cap casualties. By my calculation, the Skins currently have $56.035 million committed in base salaries for 2006 (which excludes unsigned draft picks). This is base salaries alone, and does not include prorated bonus amounts for each player contract. The largest base salary belongs to Chris Samuels at $7.7 million. Since 2006 is a voidable contract year for him, he will either have a new contract or be gone before this figure hits the books. Two guys-- Brunell and Wynn-- are slated to make a base of $4 million each. That's an acceptable figure for Brunell if he is entrenched as the team's starter, but not as a backup. And unless Wynn produces big sack numbers in the next two seasons, he won't be seeing $4 million either. Then you come to a list of 10 guys who, for legitimate reasons other than cap problems ("natural turnover"), may not be in the team's plans for 2006: Micheal Barrow-- $2.5 million (age 36 in 2006) Matt Bowen -- $2 million (high salary for a marginal player) Chad Morton -- $1.8 million (voidable season) Brandon Noble -- $1.7 million (age 32, high salary for marginal player) Phillip Daniels -- $1.5 million (age 33) Regan Upshaw -- $1.3 mllion (high salary for marginal player) Jermaine Haley -- $1.2 million (age 33, high salary for marginal player) Walt Harris -- $1.5 million (age 32) Tom Tupa -- $775K (age 40) Walter Rasby -- $770K (age 34) Add up the base salaries for Samuels, Brunell, Wynn, and the list of 10 and these players account for $23.045 million. Subtract them from the committed base salary total of $56.035 million, and you are left with a total of $32.99 million in committed base salaries. A conservative estimate of the 2006 salary cap would have base salaries counting for a little over 1/3 of the Skins' cap. That leaves a lot of room available to account for new acquisitions, roster bonuses, escalators, and "dead money." Oh, and one other thing. The team has set itself out to have only 1 potential high dollar free agent to resign each season over the next two seasons-- Smoot in 2005 and Gardner in 2006. Cap hell is a myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocono Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by Art Champ was traded partially for cap considerations. This, obviously, means we didn't pay the guy we got for him that much, right? To be fair at the time of the trade Bailey was tagged and carried a 6.8M cap hit and Portis had a cap hit in the 400K range so the 6.4M difference in the two player's 04 cap hits would allow Snyder to write close to 40M in signing bonuses. Even after Portis was given his unneccessary monster contract there is still a 3M difference between the tag amount and Portis' hit which allowed Snyder to write an extra 18M in signing bonuses so I think saying he was traded "partially" for cap considerations is certainly a defensible statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 My understanding is that the new TV deal would affect (increase) the 2006 cap. That is why my line below is tongue in cheek to all the salary cap hell writers. Roy got his bigger boat and killed the Shark. Dan will get his bigger cap and will shut up the idiots who kept criticizing his methods. Also, Smoot in 2005, Gardener in 2006 and Ramsey in 2007. No problem. Finally, I vote Rich Tandler to take Numbnuts place at the Washington Post. I know that you would have to move from Richmond up to DC, but Joe Gibbs made the sacrifice so you should too Rich. There is no one more qualified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocono Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by Buddha Let's just focus on base salaries for a moment, as they are most often the cause for restructuring and cap casualties. By my calculation, the Skins currently have $56.035 million committed in base salaries for 2006 (which excludes unsigned draft picks). This is base salaries alone, and does not include prorated bonus amounts for each player contract. The largest base salary belongs to Chris Samuels at $7.7 million. Since 2006 is a voidable contract year for him, he will either have a new contract or be gone before this figure hits the books. Two guys-- Brunell and Wynn-- are slated to make a base of $4 million each. That's an acceptable figure for Brunell if he is entrenched as the team's starter, but not as a backup. And unless Wynn produces big sack numbers in the next two seasons, he won't be seeing $4 million either. Then you come to a list of 10 guys who, for legitimate reasons other than cap problems ("natural turnover"), may not be in the team's plans for 2006: Micheal Barrow-- $2.5 million (age 36 in 2006) Matt Bowen -- $2 million (high salary for a marginal player) Chad Morton -- $1.8 million (voidable season) Brandon Noble -- $1.7 million (age 32, high salary for marginal player) Phillip Daniels -- $1.5 million (age 33) Regan Upshaw -- $1.3 mllion (high salary for marginal player) Jermaine Haley -- $1.2 million (age 33, high salary for marginal player) Walt Harris -- $1.5 million (age 32) Tom Tupa -- $775K (age 40) Walter Rasby -- $770K (age 34) Add up the base salaries for Samuels, Brunell, Wynn, and the list of 10 and these players account for $23.045 million. Subtract them from the committed base salary total of $56.035 million, and you are left with a total of $32.99 million in committed base salaries. A conservative estimate of the 2006 salary cap would have base salaries counting for a little over 1/3 of the Skins' cap. That leaves a lot of room available to account for new acquisitions, roster bonuses, escalators, and "dead money." Oh, and one other thing. The team has set itself out to have only 1 potential high dollar free agent to resign each season over the next two seasons-- Smoot in 2005 and Gardner in 2006. Cap hell is a myth. Interesting way to look at the situation. To that 33M base salary commitment you would have to add about 14M of dead player charge for the players you just cut not including the 2.9M 06 charge for Samuels that will likely be accelerated into 05. That brings the total to 47M. Of course to that you have to add the 20M of proratia for the 18 or so players still under contract after your cuts[i included Cooley and Taylor] and that brings our total to 67M. You still have 20M of 06 roster boni due for the players you didn't cut so if they are guaranteed you are still going to take a 5M hit in 06 so that brings our grand total to 72M out of a projected cap of 88M with about 18 players under contract. If Ramsey should start because he wins the job or because Brunell is injured this year then he would trip an escalator which could increase his salary as much as 2.9M and there are still pesky incentives in other contracts which could steal some of that 16M of 06 cap space but let's leave them out of the equation. So with 16M of cap space you have to add 35 players. Out of those 35 players you have to replace present starters at S CB MLB RDE LDE DT LOT and FB. I assume your replacements for Gardner and Rasby will already be on the roster. So you have about 400K to spend on each of the 35 players which will include at least 8 starters. Good luck with that. Up til now cap hell has meant having to cut good players because the cap made you do it. In 06 you may be forced to keep players you'd rather cut because you need to guarantee their 06 roster bonus to get under the cap. Springs will be 31 then and if cut will eat more cap space than keeping him. You can't cut him after 6/1 because you'd have to pay him a 3M roster bonus before that point so what they will likely do is guarantee his roster bonus and keep a player they'd likely rather get rid of at that point. That in turn will make him more expensive to get rid of in 07 than it would be to keep him. Cap Hell means different things to different people. To me it's doing something which is clearly detrimental to the team because the cap makes you do it whether it's getting rid of someone you'd rather keep or keeping someone you'd rather axe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wicked Wop Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 All I have to say is.....in Dan and Joe I trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by Pocono Cap Hell means different things to different people. To me it's doing something which is clearly detrimental to the team because the cap makes you do it whether it's getting rid of someone you'd rather keep or keeping someone you'd rather axe. Good info as usual Pocono, but I have to disagree with your conclusion. Even teams which play the cap conservatively have to make hard decisions to remain within a conservative comfort zone, including cutting players that they would prefer to keep and keeping players they would like to cut. The iggles have consistently been many millions under the cap but have cut players who were contributors or refused the salary demands of key players who became free agents. The bottom line is that no team can perfectly balance the long term cost of all player contracts against the long term value of each player to the team. It is inevitable that players contracts will get out of synch with the value that an individual player brings to the team. All teams have to make hard choices because of the cap AND because no team has unlimited resources and unlimited roster positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddha Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by Pocono Interesting way to look at the situation. To that 33M base salary commitment you would have to add about 14M of dead player charge for the players you just cut not including the 2.9M 06 charge for Samuels that will likely be accelerated into 05. That brings the total to 47M. Of course to that you have to add the 20M of proratia for the 18 or so players still under contract after your cuts[i included Cooley and Taylor] and that brings our total to 67M. You still have 20M of 06 roster boni due for the players you didn't cut so if they are guaranteed you are still going to take a 5M hit in 06 so that brings our grand total to 72M out of a projected cap of 88M with about 18 players under contract. Adding all of the "$14 million" in dead money to the 2006 cap presumes that all the players I mentioned would be dumped between June 2005 and May 2006. This is a faulty presumption-- some will go immediately after this upcoming season as dead money on the 2005 cap, others will come June 2006 and go on the 2007 cap. I'd actually be interested in seeing how you came up with the $14 million dead money figure and the $20 million roster bonus figure as well. Both seem high to me. Originally posted by Pocono Cap Hell means different things to different people. To me it's doing something which is clearly detrimental to the team because the cap makes you do it whether it's getting rid of someone you'd rather keep or keeping someone you'd rather axe. What is so "clearly detrimental" about linking your cap strategy to a plan for the natural turnover of your roster? All of the players mentioned above with the exception of Samuels and perhaps Brunell are very likely to be replaced due to declining talent versus contract value. If they are still performing at a consistent level in 2006, their salaries are justifiable. If not, they will be on the back ends of their deals and produce lower amounts of dead money when released. The front office seems to have latched on to this phasing approach about as well as any team in the league, and only catastrophic injuries or unexpected drops in talent level can wreck it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocono Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 It's true 44 every year every team has dificult decisions to make. Each year each player has to be evaluated as to whether they are still good players and then as to whether their quality of play warrants the amount of the finite cap they tie up. This has to be done for the present and then again for the future. Teams do cut players that are still quality players who tie up a large portion of the cap because they believe they can get better value for that amount of cap space now or in the near future elsewhere. These kind of decisions to me are just a natural part of the process and wouldn't be part of being in "cap hell." I think a decision made by a team in cap hell would be cutting players who clearly are worth the portion of cap space they are tying up simply because you need to canabilize part of the team to keep the rest of the roster under the cap. So with these 06 bonuses their also could arise cases where you guarantee money for players who clearly aren't worth keeping because you need the cap relief provided by prorating their roster bonuses and can't afford to absorb the extra hit from acceleration that would come if they were cut. As far as how this applies to our teams players who aren't worth their present cap hit have never been in short supply on Snyder's rosters. As long as he keeps signing bad players there is no real sacrifice in getting rid of them so therefore no cap hell although it is interesting that 2 of the reasons the Skin's record declined in 03 was they couldn't run and couldn't stop the run and two of their cuts were a 1000 yd rusher and a runstopping DT. As for the Eagles it's hard to argue with the players they've cut with large salaries because most of them didn't find jobs elsewhere. Many Eagle fans[me among them] are not completely happy with FA's they fail to re-sign but most of them have had declining play and even if they didn't decline it's clear that the reason they weren't re-signed is that the FO believed they weren't worth the money they would get and not because we didn't have the cap space now and in the future required to keep them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/daily/graphics/skinsCap_071704.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by TK-IV II I http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/daily/graphics/skinsCap_071704.html First thing, soul thing, main thing that comes to mind? Brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 This is one of the few areas where I think Snyder has the rest of the league licked -- he is a genius when it comes to the cap and seems to be becoming more of a genius every day. Sure, we will have some tough decisions to make, but you always do in the NFL. Cap hell is a myth when you've got someone as devilish as Danny Boy running the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by Pocono To be fair at the time of the trade Bailey was tagged and carried a 6.8M cap hit and Portis had a cap hit in the 400K range so the 6.4M difference in the two player's 04 cap hits would allow Snyder to write close to 40M in signing bonuses. Even after Portis was given his unneccessary monster contract there is still a 3M difference between the tag amount and Portis' hit which allowed Snyder to write an extra 18M in signing bonuses so I think saying he was traded "partially" for cap considerations is certainly a defensible statement. So if Champ signed a contract here similar to what Denver paid hiim he'd have counted 6.8M against the cap this year? Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.