WP: Cap Hell in '06?!

[Pocono]

Originally posted by Buddha

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.

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.

Buddha....Dead player charge is yearly SB proration times number of years left in the proration term. I'm sure some will be set loose before 6/1/05 but you really didn't specify that in your cap hell is a myth post. If Snyder does all he can do to compete in 05 the larger hits will be postponed until 06 by cutting players after 6/1/05 and most likely he won't be able to wait until 6/1/06 because he will need the cap space provided by cutting the player to get under the limit by 3/1/06.

http://redskins.theinsiders.com/3/salary_cap_chart.html

Since I've already been proved accurate by later posts on the roster bonus total I'll just say all the info you need is at the link I provided plus what you already know from the NFLPA site about salary.

I got a good chuckle Buddha out of your statement about the Skin's being better at "phasing" than the rest of the NFL. Since Wynn is the only FA acquisition on your roster who played more than 1 year with the Skins and you already earlier designated him for the scrap heap one really has to wonder about how well the Skins do at acquiring long-term FA's. The Eagles are known for not signing a lot of FA's and even we have 2 that are at least entering their 4th year with the team.

As for the story about fitting 110M of spending under a 80M cap it's really nothing new. Denver had 102M total payroll when the cap was only 67M so that's 35M over the cap. The same year the Browns spent 92M and all I can hope is the Skins have the same kind of success these 2 teams have had since their spending spree. The Steelers also had a lot more success in the days when then paid low signing bonuses and large salaries than they have since the new stadium allowed them to go on a spending spree and lead the league in total payroll one year.

Manning and even TO have convertible roster bonuses in 06 so it's nothing Snyder invented. For the most part it's something the agents ask for because it forces the team to cut the player before the 6/1 date and gets the player out into the market before the draft when teams are more likely to be willing to spend. It prevents teams from Trotterizing players and forcing them into situations where they play for minimum contracts. Since Snyder is well known for Trotterizing players you are more likly to see roster bonuses in Skin's contracts than with most other teams.

[Pocono]

Originally posted by Henry

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.

You know that's not true Henry and you also know that when the trade was made no deal with Bailey was on the horizon. Time was of the essence because Snyder wanted to be able to spend big at the beginning of FA when the most players were available and when he had the best chance to sign a replacement he deemed suitable for Bailey.

[Buddha]

Originally posted by Pocono

Buddha....Dead player charge is yearly SB proration times number of years left in the proration term. I'm sure some will be set loose before 6/1/05 but you really didn't specify that in your cap hell is a myth post. If Snyder does all he can do to compete in 05 the larger hits will be postponed until 06 by cutting players after 6/1/05 and most likely he won't be able to wait until 6/1/06 because he will need the cap space provided by cutting the player to get under the limit by 3/1/06.

http://redskins.theinsiders.com/3/salary_cap_chart.html

Since I've already been proved accurate by later posts on the roster bonus total I'll just say all the info you need is at the link I provided plus what you already know from the NFLPA site about salary.

I got a good chuckle Buddha out of your statement about the Skin's being better at "phasing" than the rest of the NFL. Since Wynn is the only FA acquisition on your roster who played more than 1 year with the Skins and you already earlier designated him for the scrap heap one really has to wonder about how well the Skins do at acquiring long-term FA's. The Eagles are known for not signing a lot of FA's and even we have 2 that are at least entering their 4th year with the team.

As for the story about fitting 110M of spending under a 80M cap it's really nothing new. Denver had 102M total payroll when the cap was only 67M so that's 35M over the cap. The same year the Browns spent 92M and all I can hope is the Skins have the same kind of success these 2 teams have had since their spending spree. The Steelers also had a lot more success in the days when then paid low signing bonuses and large salaries than they have since the new stadium allowed them to go on a spending spree and lead the league in total payroll one year.

Manning and even TO have convertible roster bonuses in 06 so it's nothing Snyder invented. For the most part it's something the agents ask for because it forces the team to cut the player before the 6/1 date and gets the player out into the market before the draft when teams are more likely to be willing to spend. It prevents teams from Trotterizing players and forcing them into situations where they play for minimum contracts. Since Snyder is well known for Trotterizing players you are more likly to see roster bonuses in Skin's contracts than with most other teams.

So Pocono, are you going to show me how you got $14 million and $20 million, or are you going to rest your argument on the salary chart link? You're not THAT lazy, are you???

[JimboDaMan]

Originally posted by TK-IV II I

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/daily/graphics/skinsCap_071704.html

Hey, is that pic really Vinny Cerrato? He's sportin' a different look these days.

Pocono, like many posters have said, "cap hell" is in the eye of the beholder. I'd argue that the Eagles are perhaps the NFL's most notable example of cap hell. A highly talented team, the Iggs have fallen short every year in no small part due to their cap management strategy, which has prevented them from obtaining/retaining the two or three players each year that could have put them over the top. Tell me that acquiring two legitimate starting WRs and a top-tier running back for the last two years would not have made a difference. The Eagles have plenty enough maneuverability under the cap to have done so. That is also a form of "cap hell", is it not?

[Pocono]

Originally posted by Buddha

So Pocono, are you going to show me how you got $14 million and $20 million, or are you going to rest your argument on the salary chart link? You're not THAT lazy, are you???

Well yes Buddha I am "THAT lazy" and more actually but I'll tell you how. On that chart for Daniels as an example it lists his 04 signing bonus hit as 600K and so it will be over the course of his entire contract. It lists his 06 cap hit as 2.6M and he has 2 more years of proration after 06. If cut before 6/1/06 his 2M salary or salary plus roster bonus goes away but the 600K SB hit for that year stays and is joined by his twins from 07 and 08 to provide 1.8M of dead player hit.

Figuring out a player's roster bonus for 06 is a little more complicated. You take his cap hit for 06 and subtract the portion of the cap hit which is prorated SB which again is listed on the chart as 04 signing bonus allocation and then you have to go to the NFLPA site and find the player's salary for 06 and subtract that from what's left. The amount that is left is roster bonus. So if Daniels has a 2.6M hit in 06 and 600K is SB allocation and he has a listed salary of perhaps 1.5M then the remaining 500K would be roster bonus. If you think I'm going to do this for all the players you cut on here you certainly aren't the Enlightened one."

BTW if Arrington wins this fuss about an extra 6.5M of roster bonus in 06 then another 1.6M of 06 cap space goes down the drain even if they do guarantee it and thus prorate it.

[Pocono]

Originally posted by JimboDaMan

Hey, is that pic really Vinny Cerrato? He's sportin' a different look these days.

Pocono, like many posters have said, "cap hell" is in the eye of the beholder. I'd argue that the Eagles are perhaps the NFL's most notable example of cap hell. A highly talented team, the Iggs have fallen short every year in no small part due to their cap management strategy, which has prevented them from obtaining/retaining the two or three players each year that could have put them over the top. Tell me that acquiring two legitimate starting WRs and a top-tier running back for the last two years would not have made a difference. The Eagles have plenty enough maneuverability under the cap to have done so. That is also a form of "cap hell", is it not?

Jimbo....Many times I've said on EMB's that staying out of cap hell looks a lot like being in cap hell........BUT.......the last two years we had the NFCCG in our house against a team we handily beat during the regular season and failed. If you have the NFCCG on your field against a team you beat earlier you should win and if you should win it's hard to fault the level of talent assembled. Since we were 3rd in the NFL last year with 4.7 yds per carry and 1st or 2nd in TD's scored by RB's I wouldn't put getting a RB on the list and if we did get one what's to say he wouldn't get injured and miss the PO's like Westbrook.

As for WR I would agree but if you research who was available and also the lack of success some WR's have had switching from system to system there is no definitive choice. When a WR of singular ability who knows the WCO became available this year we grabbed him.

I think the Eagle's FO philosphy is to always leave yourself in a position to be better in the future while staying PO worthy and that one year we will win it all. Since you don't find many PO teams at the top of the list of highest payrolls going for broke may not be the way to go. NE TB and NE again won the last 3 SB's and they were 8th 16th and I believe 23rd on the payroll list the year they won so maybe moderation has some merrit.

[Art]

The bottom line is what we know of the contracts out there and how they are structured as well as those of players we will no longer plan on keeping, we'll be well under the projected cap with room to spare and the ability to sign other players in 2006. But, without any question at all, Pocono and the legion of dopes out there will be here in 2006 telling us that in 2009 we are doomed.

[Buddha]

Originally posted by Pocono

Well yes Buddha I am "THAT lazy" and more actually but I'll tell you how. On that chart for Daniels as an example it lists his 04 signing bonus hit as 600K and so it will be over the course of his entire contract. It lists his 06 cap hit as 2.6M and he has 2 more years of proration after 06. If cut before 6/1/06 his 2M salary or salary plus roster bonus goes away but the 600K SB hit for that year stays and is joined by his twins from 07 and 08 to provide 1.8M of dead player hit.

Figuring out a player's roster bonus for 06 is a little more complicated. You take his cap hit for 06 and subtract the portion of the cap hit which is prorated SB which again is listed on the chart as 04 signing bonus allocation and then you have to go to the NFLPA site and find the player's salary for 06 and subtract that from what's left. The amount that is left is roster bonus. So if Daniels has a 2.6M hit in 06 and 600K is SB allocation and he has a listed salary of perhaps 1.5M then the remaining 500K would be roster bonus. If you think I'm going to do this for all the players you cut on here you certainly aren't the Enlightened one."

BTW if Arrington wins this fuss about an extra 6.5M of roster bonus in 06 then another 1.6M of 06 cap space goes down the drain even if they do guarantee it and thus prorate it.

Thanks for admitting you pulled those numbers out of your ass. I appreciate it.

[rtandler]

Originally posted by wskin44

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.

Hey, it's a long commute and I'd have to leave at about 4 AM every day, but, I'd be willing to make the drive for that job!

Still, in these matters, I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as the likes of Buddah and PC from the CPND board. And neither are Nunyo or La Canfora. Nor are the anonymous "insiders" that they talked to as intimately familiar with the Skins cap situation as Buddah or PC. The co-authors of the piece would have been well served to solicit the opinion of one or both of them before going off half ****ed with this piece.

But, I can guarantee you that if Nunyo went to George Solomon and said that he got some info from a cap guru named Buddah, the editor would have laughed the writer out of his office. To an establishment paper like the Post, an anonymous NFL source has more credibility than a knowledgeable “amateur”.

[Pocono]

Originally posted by Buddha

Thanks for admitting you pulled those numbers out of your ass. I appreciate it.

Oh I get it. We're having a nice friendly Sunday conversation where everyone is being curteous and then the moderator comes on and calls me a dope and then it's open season. Buddha just because the numbers are really crappy for the Skins doesn't mean I pulled them "out of my ass." I said 20M of roster bonuses in 06 and then someone posts an article from the Post and proves I'm right.....or maybe the Post pulled those numbers "out of my ass" also......but how could they pull them "out of my ass" before I "pulled them out of my ass?" Conspiracy maybe???

As for the dead money are you really telling me you can't follow the instructions. Those numbers come straight from the NFLPA I've been told so they're reliable. I added them in my head so seeing as how it's not my team but it is your team taking the time to transfer them into a post would seem more worthwhile for you then it is for me. Do the math Buddha. Prove I was as wrong about the dead money as I was about the roster bonuses.

[Pocono]

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.

Buddha....I just noticed you made about an 8M error in your subtraction and instead of being left with 33M of commitments after these players are cut they are left with about 25M of salary commitments after these players are cut. Having 24M of space to sign 35 players including 8 starters is not a great situation but it sure is better than only having 16M to sign 35 players. Maybe you should double check your math before you post so that threads like this don't get screwed up.

[wskin44]

Originally posted by Pocono

Oh I get it. We're having a nice friendly Sunday conversation where everyone is being curteous and then the moderator comes on and calls me a dope and then it's open season.

Pocono, you're not a dope because Buddha called you one. You're a dope for being an iggle fan. :laugh:

Just kidding. Seriously though, I believe that the iggles ultra conservative approach to cap management in the past will give way to more agressive strategies. The reason is directly related to the revenues being generated by the new stadium. The iggles were somewhat financially hamstrung in the past. One season in the new stadium and they sign Kearse and Owens. Look for more of this in the future.

[Buddha]

Originally posted by Pocono

Oh I get it. We're having a nice friendly Sunday conversation where everyone is being curteous and then the moderator comes on and calls me a dope and then it's open season. Buddha just because the numbers are really crappy for the Skins doesn't mean I pulled them "out of my ass." I said 20M of roster bonuses in 06 and then someone posts an article from the Post and proves I'm right.....or maybe the Post pulled those numbers "out of my ass" also......but how could they pull them "out of my ass" before I "pulled them out of my ass?" Conspiracy maybe???

As for the dead money are you really telling me you can't follow the instructions. Those numbers come straight from the NFLPA I've been told so they're reliable. I added them in my head so seeing as how it's not my team but it is your team taking the time to transfer them into a post would seem more worthwhile for you then it is for me. Do the math Buddha. Prove I was as wrong about the dead money as I was about the roster bonuses.

Head...ass...what's the difference? You've posted several times and still haven't shown us the numbers to support yourself. And now you are getting defensive and trying to argue that I should prove you wrong by doing the math myself. I'm not the one that made the post, you did. So back up your argument and shut me up.

[Pocono]

Originally posted by wskin44

Pocono, you're not a dope because Buddha called you one. You're a dope for being an iggle fan. :laugh:

Just kidding. Seriously though, I believe that the iggles ultra conservative approach to cap management in the past will give way to more agressive strategies. The reason is directly related to the revenues being generated by the new stadium. The iggles were somewhat financially hamstrung in the past. One season in the new stadium and they sign Kearse and Owens. Look for more of this in the future.

Believe me 44 I've called myself a lot worse things then dope in the past for being an Eagle fan especially certain days in the last three Januaries but on the bright side I do have something to get upset about late in the last 3 Janauries.

This year's Eagle spending spree is largely an illusion. They are still 10M under the cap and 20M of the charges against this year's cap are proration from signing bonuses given out before this year. So only 50M of their present cap charge came out of the 80.6M part of the revenue sharing check they will receive designed to cover the cap. They did write about 30M in bonus checks for FA's and re-signed players but only about 15M of that will be charged against the cap in future years because about half were either roster bonuses counting wholey in 04 or 04 proration charges. So you add that 15M of bonus money that won't be absorbed this year to the 50M and they still have about 15M of revenue sharing money in hand. Signing bonuses for the rookies will eat up a good portion of that but they will still end up with extra money in hand.

That may be the most boring paragraph written in the entire history of mankind.

[Oldskool]

:blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah:

This topic has been beaten more often than the D line vs. Safety thread..

[Pocono]

Originally posted by Buddha

Head...ass...what's the difference? You've posted several times and still haven't shown us the numbers to support yourself. And now you are getting defensive and trying to argue that I should prove you wrong by doing the math myself. I'm not the one that made the post, you did. So back up your argument and shut me up.

Buddha that's a mighty aggressive attitude for someone who screwed up a whole thread because he can't add up a column of numbers which he supplied to the board. Check my math and let's see if the numbers that I added in my head that "came out of my ass" are more accurate than the ones you didn't add in your head that made you look like an............

I think I was a tad mean so to make up here's the dead player charges for the players you cut Buddha...

Brunell 1.43M X 4 years= 5.7M

Wynn 583K X 2= 1.16m

Barrow 417K X 4= 1.65M

Bowen 400K X 1= 400K

Morton 500K X 2= 1M

Noble 450K X 1= 450K

Daniels 600K X 3= 1.8M

Upshaw 400K X 2= 800K

Haley 163K X 1= 163K

Harris 250K X 1= 250K

Tupa 168K X 2= 340K

Rasby 133K X 1= 133K

The grand total is 13.836M which makes my original statement of around 14M pretty darn accurate.

[inmate running the asylum]

Snyder and cap hell is more myth then reality, and here is why.

You don't need to add up all the salaries, roster bonuses, signing bonuses, etc., between now and 2006, to get an idea of what is going on. Just figure that every team will stay under the cap they are mandated to stay under, because they have no choice. Then after that look at the amount of dead money they are carrying on their books.

For example, last year the Raiders were $50 million OVER the cap in January, and everyone except the Raiders was crying doom. Were the Raiders in cap hell and did the Raiders have to tear up their roster to get back under the cap? Hell no. And they not only managed to get back under but were also very active in free agency. Now they did have a lousy season, but it was not due to their cap management, but due to injuries to Gannon, poor coaching, etc., etc. So if the Raiders were $50 million OVER and had no problem, why should we be worrying now about cap hell in 2006? :doh1:

Of the 32 teams, only the Ravens after they won the Super Bowl and the 49ers for a couple years have been in so-called "cap hell." Even after the Ravens had a $90 million payroll and won the Super Bowl, they were only in cap hell one year and after blowing up that team, they still finished better then many teams at 7-9. Then last year they returned to the playoffs. So if the Skins can win a Super Bowl or two as the Ravens and 49ers did, and experience one year of cap hell, I say its well worth it.

But even under Snyder's big free agent signing sprees, the Skins have yet to experience cap hell. In 2001 under Shot-for-brains we were in a little bit of a bind that spring, and we lost James Thrash, Kenard Lang, N.D. Kalu, Mike Sellers, etc to other teams, because we were in no position to outbid them. That was because in 2001 we had $17 million in dead money. But the main reason for that was the FO made the mistake of signing Deion to a huge contract and then he retired after only one season. If you sign a player to a huge signing bonus, and lose him after only ONE SEASON, it will hurt you.

As long as the Skins have no more then $15 million in dead money, they seem to have no problem in going after all the free agents they want each year. Here's a look at the dead money the Skins have compiled in the last 5 years according to my records.

2001 - dead money $ 17 Mil est.

2002 - dead money $ 14 Mil est.

2003 - dead money $ 14.947

2004 - dead money $ 9.233 Mil (to date)

2005 - dead money $ 5.398 Mil (on the books)

So even if Chris Samuels is cut next year -- which I don't think will happen anyway -- and we absorb a $5-6 Mil cap hit for him, we would still only have $10-11 Mil dead money for 2005. Well under our $15 million average, which has been no problem to date.

Jerry Jones and the Cowboys got into problems last year with dead money, because theirs was around $25 million, which is almost double what we usually carry. And that was because Jones decided to take his lumps all in one year, rather then spread it out over two years. That was his choice.

And with the salary cap rising $4-5 million each year, teams can afford to carry even more dead money than in the past.

CAP HELL FOR THE SKINS WON'T HAPPEN unless we have a couple of star players like Coles, Portis or Arrington have career-ending injuries and they have to be cut immediately and their huge signing bonuses accellerate to the front. :doh:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

2004 - REDSKINS DEAD CAP MONEY

Information from CPND - 7-1-2004

Brian Mance CB 0.004 Million

Gibran Hamdan QB 0.011 Million (cut, on practice squad)

Kevin Ware TE 0.001 Million

Clifton Smith LB 0.003 Million

Rashidi Barnes S 0.002 Million

Nic Clemons DE 0.001 Million

Rod Jones OL 0.167 Million

Alex Molden CB 0.100 Million (cut in preseason)

Greg Scott DE 0.010 Million

Zeron Flemister TE 0.175 Million

Dan Wilkinson DT 3.945 Million

Rob Johnson QB 0.123 Million

Jessie Armstead LB 0.417 Million (last year of contract)

Bruce Smith DE 2.335 Million (retired)

Bryan Barker P 0.125 Million

Byron Chamberlain TE 0.110 Million

Larry Moore 0.167 Million

Jer. Trotter...after June 1 1.162 Million

Dave Foire after June 1 0.375 Million

Total: $9.233 Million

Right now the Skins are $4.8 million UNDER the cap and are only carrying $ 9.2 million in dead money. You can afford to make 1 or 2 mistakes in free agent signings -- as we did with Trotter and Wilkinson -- and although not desirable, it will not kill you. As long as it seems your total dead cap money does not exceed $17 million or higher.

So knowing that every team has to be under the cap at all times, I only pay attention the amount of dead money on their books.

If I see the Skins dead money hit $15-20 million next year or any year for that matter, then I might start to get concerned. But not before.

[jpgirth]

What I enjoy about the cap is there is no championship trophy for it. Teams have applied it different ways and still won the superbowl. I don't worry about it. Whether you have millions under or are right against it, you will still lose players that you think could help you.

[TenaciousB15]

Inmates, congrats on being the first person in this topic besides pocono that seems to know what he is saying.

However, I don't know if its accurate to say that you can afford to use the cap increase money, and pay it backward, to what you owe in dead money to even things out, year after year. Assuming other teams can actually take advantage of that money and spend it on current players. Then theoritically, (and idealy) they would be able to bring in more talent.

[Romberjo]

Unfortunately, it's not just about the dead money. It's also about a) "walking dead money" -- i.e., $ that go to people who are still on the roster, but get more than they should: i.e., their cap hit for a particular year is greater than the value provided. (This happens, e.g., when you can't readily cut someone b/c it would accelerate their remaining sb in ways that you couldn't handle b/c the dead money would be too much.)

Moreover, it's about the fact that we are spending relatively more on the next 3 or so years than we are reserving for the couple of years after that. Maybe that's wise, but it is what it is.

For example, Brunell's cap hit for 2004 is $2.2 million. He's worth more than that for 2004. How do we manage to get a cap hit that's less than his value? By pushing some of the cap hit into future years, so a few years down the road his cap hit will be greater than his value. So, fourish years from now, we'll have a lot of players whom we are obligated to pay more than they are worth. This means we'll have less money than the average NFL team to fill out the rest of our roster, and will have to do some painful cutting and scrimping (and b/c we'll be tight against the cap, we'll have a lot less flexibility, e.g., to place a franchise tag on someone and temporarily tie up cap space). We can defer some of that pain by converting roster bonuses to signing bonuses in 2006, but eventually the rent will come due.

Yes, the cap will go up 2006ish, but it will go up for every team, so we'll have relatively less money to spend on free agents than other teams. And yes, most of the NFL has not paid attention to the fact that we have given out very large signing bonuses, but for the most part have balanced that out with correspondingly lower salaries; thus, if players pan out and aren't injured for several years, it means that we won't have overpaid over the long term. Moreover, we will have been able to get a very high percentage of the players we really want b/c we gave them big guaranteed $ and big headlines (and b/c players perceive us to be overpaying).

Nonetheless, even though the average of what we will pay over the next several years is generally reasonable, and far more so than the press would have you believe, a disproportionate amount of those $ have been deferred till a few years down the road, at which time we will be significantly, though not disastrously, pinched.

[Pocono]

It's interesting how all the attention is focused on 06 and very little on 05. The Skin's situation in 05 is no walk in the park and what they do in an attempt to improve in 05 will also greatly effect 06. If anyone wants to look at the cap chart linked earlier they will find about 68.5M of cap commitments for 33 players likely to still be on the team at the start of next off season. There are also 10 players who will be RFA's in 05 who if tendered would eat up another 7M of cap space and bring the total to 43 players. Also when this year's 3 unsigned picks are signed they will eat up 3M of 05 cap space and you have to budget about 3M to sign the 5 picks in the 05 draft. When you add in dead cap from Trotter and Fiore of 5.4M it adds up to about 87M for 51 players when the cap is projected to be 84M.

Wynn is an obvious cut but his savings will be more than offset when Samuels opts to void 06 and his 06 SB hit is accelerated into 05. The team can restructure contracts but most of the players you want to keep longterm have real low salaries in 05 leaving many of the players Buddha designated as phase players that will be cut in 06 like Barrow Daniels and Brunell as the targets that have some salary meat in their cap hits who would be the likely targets of restructure ordinarily. You can cut a lot of the players who are phase players but who do you replace them with that won't make your 06 cap even worse???? You only have one prime draft pick in 05 and you have a coach that loves veteran players.

If there is no extension of the CBA by next off season any additions or extensions will have to have their signing bonuses prorated over only 5 years plus their contracts would require large cap hits in 06 to meet CBA rules about how salary can be treated in uncapped years. Those rules are the reason Coles could have 3 years of cap hit under the contract's average value while Springs Griffin and the rest of 04 signings have only 2 years of low cap hits. So extending Smoot and snaring a good DLM would use about twice as much 05+06 cap space if there is no CBA extension then it would if there were an extension.......Yes sir...no walk in the park.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by wskin44

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.

The key point is the new TV Deal and it looks like the other owners want to make the cap harder to get around to make it fair for everyone. This is becoming a big issues with owners like Snyder and Jones compared the Indy's of the world.

So the free spending days might be changed a little.

I hate to agree with this article but when your release good players because of salaries then yes those are cap issues.

We are not going to keep Samuels, Morton, maybe Thomas and others come 2006.

So if we have let Davis, Champ, Samuels, Morton, Thomas (don't know his salary structure), in the last few years you have to point at the cap. Now we might not be in "salary cap he$$", but when you let good young players go that is not a good sign.

[Henry]

jbooma, you are talking about cap decisions. Every team makes them, every year. For example, the Eagles did not keep their two starting CBs from last season. Was that due to 'cap hell?' No. It was decided they weren't worth the money they were going to ask for. Technically then, that could be called a cap decision. Again, that's not the same thing as being forced to let someone go because you're cap-strapped.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by Henry

jbooma, you are talking about cap decisions. Every team makes them, every year. For example, the Eagles did not keep their two starting CBs from last season. Was that due to 'cap hell?' No. It was decided they weren't worth the money they were going to ask for. Technically then, that could be called a cap decision. Again, that's not the same thing as being forced to let someone go because you're cap-strapped.

Henry I agree with you but if you say we are 1 million under and Samuels is sitting at 9 million for next year that is a cap decision based on a bad cap.

In round-about way we are being forced to let them go because we can't afford them, aka Champ and Davis. Yes Champ didn't want to be here because we had to pay Lavar and he wanted to be the #1. Everyone says we let Davis go because Spurrier didn't want them, but the bottom line is we couldn't afford him. If lavar wins his arguement then we will have to release some other players because if he gets that other 6 million dollar roster bonus we are screwed because we can't release him.

Like I said we don't get in cap hell we just seem to have a lot of cap decisions because of our cap. Getting rid or releasing good young players is not good business.

[Henry]

Jbooma, you do realize we could have afforded Champ, but instead gave that money to Portis, don't you? Pocono in this very thread pointed out that Champ was costing us 6.8M against the cap as a franchised player, which we could afford, but once signed to a long-term deal would have been a much smaller hit against the cap. Champ was clearly a personnel decision rather than a salary-cap victim.

Davis is another story. While I have no doubt we could have worked something out with Davis has we really wanted to keep him, at the time of his release he set to make more money than any team would ever think to pay him. I guess it could be argued that he was strictly a cap decision, but I tend to think otherwise.