Yomar Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 From John Clayton: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfldraft/columnist?id=1370448 Another team to watch is the Washington Redskins, who took two great top-five choices in 2000 -- linebacker LaVar Arrington and left tackle Chris Samuels. Starting next year, Arrington and Samuels will eat up more than $10 million of cap room, but with Arrington expected to have a big year, watch those numbers soar because of the escalators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeB Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 This team is forever battling the cap. I'd like to see some patience and a 2-3 year plan worked through where we selectively utilize both the free agent market (I think we have done well so far, up until this Trotter deal) and the draft to build a contender, a la the Eagles. Spending big bucks on Trotter now, where we have other more urgent needs (DL and QB) is risky. Heck, the lack of a QB alone might keep us out of the playoffs, regardless of team talent and the most awe inspiring LB corp assembled. I can only assume that the braintrust are 100% confident that Spurrier's system will work with Joe Anybody for QB. Hope they are right. Actually, I am tired of hoping they are right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeletor The Invincible Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 Well, Davis will also be eating up mucho cap room, so We'll have to get some of those guys to restructure their contracts. But restructuring can only help so much, It'll come back to bite us in the *** sometime. Can't outrun the cap man forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddha Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 Well if the two guys eating up cap room are your Pro-Bowl strongside LB and your Pro-Bowl left tackle, AND both are under 25 years old, AND both are earning escalators because they are kicking @ss all over the football field, I don't see the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeB Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 Buddha, My man, you forget the "AND you don't have a solid D-line because of it" part... Heck, or the "AND you can't score any points because you don't have a decent starting QB because you don't have the cap left to sign one" part... Changes it a bit, doesn't it? Seriously, doesn't it? I think I am just a tad freaked out over this impending Trotter deal. I see 2000 all over again. Worse, I see 2001 all over again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddha Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 Mike, RELAX! If Clayton is right about Arrington and Samuels costing us more than $10 million, he must mean if they earned every freaking performance bonus in their contracts. From what I have, both are scheduled to make $385K next year in base salary. 1/7 of their signing bonuses count on next year's cap, which are both around $1.5 million each. So at a minimum, both will cost the Skins $3.74 million to have for 2003. If they earn $6.26 million in bonuses or base salary boosts, the Skins can always guarantee the amounts to further reduce their cap numbers-- which is what you'd want to do with your best players. As for signing Trotter, unless they give him an ungodly $8 million plus signing bonus with anything more than a base salary for 2002, it would be a great move. You'd be adding a 3rd Pro Bowl player at age 25 or less, and one that in teaming with Arrington would allow us to go a bit on the cheap for a DT. Just remember-- we can't fill every hole with an impact veteran just like we don't necessarily have to pay out the @ss for a solid QB. We did that back a few years ago, loading up on Stubblefields and Brad Johnsons and Deion Sanderses and Mark Carriers-- and ended up with haves and have nots with very few players making mid-range salaries. Now, with Schottenheimer's help, Mendes has a nice middle class going on this team that will keep us in decent cap shape for years to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 The truism is that cash solves cap. When you invest cash in young players who are performing, you have no cap issues. When you invest in older players who retire, get injured or fail to perform you get in trouble. Also, with younger players, like Arrington and Samuels, you can get in cap difficulty if they fail for you. Cash solves the cap. Eventually the cash you give to Arrington and Samuels may hurt you, if they get hurt and can't play, but, as long as they are performing, you can work through the cap hits they will cause right away. I'm interested in seeing the cost of Trotter, but, at a contract worth an average of $4 million, it'd be difficult to complain, especially with a signing bonus that has been reported. But, again, we'll have to see what that actually is before getting upset or getting happy over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeB Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 Buddha, Yeah, I think you have a point. Trotter just seems too good to be true, and you know what that can mean sometimes. I just don't want to have to pass up something critical in the near future because we are cap strapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 Mike, we'll be passing on areas that are critical every year. We have this year so far. We ignored Jackson and Adams so far. We didn't make a run at Kruetz. We weren't serious about Bledsoe or Blake. Trotter is the best free agent in this offseason and if we are the team that gets him, that's one heck of a feather in our cap. And let's all remember, last year's defense was a bit banged up and it took a while for the coaches to figure out it was OK to let Bailey and Smoot play flop man coverage on any consistent basis and we were No. 10 ranked in football. We have the same players now except if we sign Trotter we'll have upgraded two linebacker spots and balanced what was already a questionable defensive line. Obviously, we should look there for more, but, right now, it's going pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPare Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 Something to remember is that the only time you really have problems with the cap is when you have dead money from signing overaged or injury prone players to large contracts that are not fulfilled. Even when you include Bailey, Smoot, Davis and Jansen, you shouldn't have too many problems. Now, throw in Bledsoe, and you could be playing with fire (see above). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 All you guys are forgetting one important point : Each teams' individual salary cap changes each year, basec on the following formula : Projected Defined Gross Revenues x Collective Bargaining Agreement Percentage ) = Players Share of Defined Gross Revenues. Players Share minus Projected League wide Benefits = Amount Available for Player Salaries Amount Available for Player Salaries / Number of Teams = Unadjusted Salary Cap per Team Do you guys know what the above numbers to the in the above equations are going to be ? No, so then you also don't know what our salary cap will be in 2003. Therefore, you cannot determine that a certain individual's player's salary is going to be too great of a percentage of the cap for that particular year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdanrun Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 I'm not good with the cap, but if we don't sign Trotter, wouldn't we still be in a mess anyways? Who knows, maybe the league will increase the limit in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hauss Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 I would rather have 10 million invested in La Var and Samuels than have 12 million invested in Coleman and B. Smith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 Actually, Mick, there's a loud rumor out there that the cap will only go up about $2 million next year. Very, very scary . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 Let's worry about 2003's cap in 2003. You are always going to have cap problems. You just have to manage the cap wisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 Actually Art, my problem was that I thought the year discussed, 2003, was 2 years away. For some reason I forgot this was 2002, had a mental lapse and thought we were still in 2001, therefore assumed that 2003 was not projectable yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VoR Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 See the Giants' plight right now? They invested some massive sums in their young players. Those young players are still performing, yet they're in cap hell... We're headed in the same direction if we're not careful. So no, cash does not solve our cap issues. Paying players for what their worth (judged by performance & position), and not a penny above, solves the cap, not throwing more money around. All the latter does is delay the day of reckoning. If circumventing the cap were as easy as doling out bonuses to restructure contracts, there would be no such thing as cap hell. Danny, Jerry, & Carmen Policy would be gleefully spending their dough without a care in the world... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 Originally posted by Rdskns2000 Let's worry about 2003's cap in 2003. Sounds like famous last words of the 9ers and Cowboys of the 90's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 They've invested superstar money in fine, but not great players VoR. They don't have the cash available, or players willing, to take that cash, to limit massive cap hits in base contracts. Collins is costing them a base hit of $4 million. Strahan is a base hit of $8 million. Strahan wouldn't take a more than fair offer, but, the fact remains, that cash solves cap. Bonus dollars could solve the entire problem for any team as long as they don't have people retiring or getting injured. Obviously there would be an end of the road to when cash can't solve the cap because eventually players you are paying will start to decline and get injured and you'll have to eventually catch up with the tax man. But, when we're talking about cashing guys who are 23, 24, 25 and 26, we have YEARS left to balance that out. Once Lavar hits 30, we'll start having careful balancing points. The Giants ran into that with Armstead which is why he's here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzmuda Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 Maybe someone can help me out? How does LaVar have a big cap hit in 2003? From what I remember, he signed a 6-7 year deal with big bonus and minimum salaries. Looking at nflpa.org confirms that. We also see that LaVar earned ~500k in incentives last year. 500k? That's it? Here's Samuel's Salary History. I thought he signed a deal similar to LaVar? What happened to cause 2003 salary to jump to over 3.5 million? 2000 193000.00 2001 375000.00 2002 375000.00 2003 3575000.00 2004 4782000.00 2005 5675000.00 2006 7575000.00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddha Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 Good find, bob. I haven't checked Samuels's numbers in awhile and didn't notice the change. It's one of two things-- either he met some sort of performance milestone that automatically increased his base salaries in the coming years OR he restructured his contract to convert bonus money into base salary amounts. I'm leaning towards the latter. It's pretty safe to say that he could play out his contract here entrenched as a starter, and would be guaranteed to earn his base salaries each year even if his season is cut short by injuries-- which would otherwise cut into his ability to earn incentives. In fact, the more I look at his numbers, the more I think that his base salaries for 2003-2005 will be a closer reflection of his cap number in each of those years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCinOz Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 Its both Bhudda. If you followed his base contract figures on NFLPA over the past couple of months - Samuel's 2002 base figure went from $358k up to $675 because of escalators. So Samuels then restructured his contract reducing his 2002 base by $330k down to its present $375k plus he must have changed some of his 2002 incentives as well. All these things have resulted in the future years base salaries going up but I doubt with little affect on the incentives overall, So its the classic double whammy - restructured contracts and escalators. In estimating Samuels and Arringtons incentives this season they are close to earning a combined $8m anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 PC, Glad to see you posting over here, instead of with those "other guys." Just kidding. I havent seen you in a couple days, I thought the dingoes got you down under. :laugh: Hey, Now that we are about to sign Trotter....... I say lets pig out and sign Sam Adams too! It aint my money! I mean we're all hogs aint we? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted April 19, 2002 Share Posted April 19, 2002 Wish we could have ust a staright contract based on Signing Bonus and base salary. This is another reason to stand pat and go lineman because the big splash QB reach will mean more excalators even though I think the kid is a potential bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.