bubba9497 Posted February 22, 2005 Author Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by Zen-like Todd Something else I found interesting, which I mentioned last night to Blade, was the division of SB payments. The Redskins generate crazy amounts of free cash flow. They can easily afford the bonus payments. So why did he split them? Is this something Snyder and crew had in mind all along? At the very least, it seems to offer some protection against the "Deion/Ricky" effect where players jump ship with their entire SB and the team has to litigate over a period of years to get the cash back. Bingo, another loophole Snyder uses to full advantage. You can't restructure money already paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 We will have to give up a draft pick as well I'm sure (Cerrato would insist on it). And then we'd have to sign Abraham to a monster contract. Sorry, I'm being negative again. On the bright side, our defense with a pure pass rusher is a damn nice thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen-like Todd Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 I'm sure there are also tax ramifications for the player. If Coles had gotten the 5 mil up front, he would have paid taxes on it. Negotiating a "giveback" would have been more of a pain in that case. Since he hasn't yet received the 5 mil, he doesnt have that problem. Such a tricky one, that Snyder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by Zen-like Todd Something else I found interesting, which I mentioned last night to Blade, was the division of SB payments. The Redskins generate crazy amounts of free cash flow. They can easily afford the bonus payments. So why did he split them? Is this something Snyder and crew had in mind all along? At the very least, it seems to offer some protection against the "Deion/Ricky" effect where players jump ship with their entire SB and the team has to litigate over a period of years to get the cash back. That as well as some of these players are plain stupid with their money. If they blow their huge signing bonus right aftr they get it, they are effectively getting paid small sums evry year remaining on their contract while their buddies are cashing in with huge signing bonuses. In Snyder's system, they get paid over a few installanments so they can blow their cash over a few years instead of one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 The short version: If Coles agrees to forgo $5 mil bonus before 3/2 on a promise of a trade after 3/2 here are the cap implications: Coles counts $4.28 against our '05 cap. This is $923,000 more than his current cap hit. We save $6.857 against the '06 cap. Because they would be eliminating Coles' big cap hit in '06, the Skins will probably shift every '05 dollar they can to '06 by converting base salaries to bonuses. This will help offset the $923,000 increase hit to the 2005 cap, plus the cost of replacing Coles in 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BD Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 I'm with the anti-Abraham people. Yes, he'd be an upgrade. And I think Gregg Williams could get a very decent season out of him. But honestly, I'd much rather see the Redskins get some additional picks instead of a hefty contract for a guy who didn't play when his team needed him (remember, Abraham didn't want to risk injury). BD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted February 22, 2005 Author Share Posted February 22, 2005 draft picks are nice but are a crap shoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 If I recall correctly Brunell's agreement also had his bonus paid in installments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGGS_DADDY Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by cphil006 Marcus Poolard??? hmmm...how much money is he seeking? Spark up the jet and find out!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUSTINMFOX Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by BD I'm with the anti-Abraham people. Yes, he'd be an upgrade. And I think Gregg Williams could get a very decent season out of him. But honestly, I'd much rather see the Redskins get some additional picks instead of a hefty contract for a guy who didn't play when his team needed him (remember, Abraham didn't want to risk injury). BD It's a tough one to call..... The media really spun that little sound bite by Abraham IMO. He did say something along the lines of that...but, he was really injured. Edwards backed him up in a press conference...saying it doens't matter what he said; he wasn't ready to play.... He is oft-injured, but so was Springs and Coles damn it.... He is the the legitimate pass rushing DE we've been lacking since Mann left... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLSKINSFAN Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Is the Abraham deal just a rumor? Or are we really negotiating for him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by bubba9497 hmmmmmmmmmmmm My thoughts exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by wskin44 The short version: If Coles agrees to forgo $5 mil bonus before 3/2 on a promise of a trade after 3/2 here are the cap implications: Coles counts $4.28 against our '05 cap. This is $923,000 more than his current cap hit. We save $6.857 against the '06 cap. Because they would be eliminating Coles' big cap hit in '06, the Skins will probably shift every '05 dollar they can to '06 by converting base salaries to bonuses. This will help offset the $923,000 increase hit to the 2005 cap, plus the cost of replacing Coles in 2005. Great post. And if it's accurate, I would love if we just traded Coles for a pick or picks. Saving 6 million dollars against the cap in 2006 would be HUGE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sire Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Here we go again we'll give up coles and a pick for an often injured big name player. I would rather roll the dice with a draft pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimster Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 How old is Spires from Tampa? I wonder if we could trade them Coles for Spires and a 2nd or 3rd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteve Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Why would you hesitate on Abraham if he's offered and we can make it work cap wise? Come on people. And I'm glad some of you aren't GM. A 2nd and 4th for Coles?:doh::doh::doh: We want a 2nd for Gardner!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Because the contract we would have to give Abraham would most likely prohibit us from signing some of our own free-agents and filling other needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synergist Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 But the question is, Is his unhappyness worth the #13th pick we gave up in that draft to get coles? I don't think so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inmate running the asylum Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by bubba9497 draft picks are nice but are a crap shoot See ParkCitySkins..... Bubba and Inmate never saw a trade they didn't like. :laugh: What is ParkCitySkins?...... sounds like a taxidermy outfit.................. What does he do? ..... Shoot squirrels and pigeons in the parks and then mount their heads on the wall? :paranoid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synergist Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by Hooper Because the contract we would have to give Abraham would most likely prohibit us from signing some of our own free-agents and filling other needs. I would rather have a draft pick as we could work a better deal long term then bringing in another FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Has this been done before in the NFL, a player giving up bonus money to be traded?? I have a feeling the union won't stand for it, just a hunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaylorPickSix Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Maske made sense of the whole Nunyo rambling crap about COles and the cap. Coles and our 3rd for Abraham? Fine with me, but we better get a atleast a 3rd for Rod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotgunner Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 That salary cap is a real science project. We must not give away any more draft picks in ths deal!!!:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSilverMaC Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44042-2005Feb22.html The Laveranues Coles situation severely tested the salary-cap acumen even of people around the league who know the intricacies of the system well. At one point Monday evening, an executive from one NFL team well-versed in salary-cap rules said he thought it would be virtually impossible for the Washington Redskins to trade the wide receiver even if Coles agrees to give back a sizable portion of his $13 million signing bonus. The executive said his understanding of the rule was that any give-back by Coles would give the Redskins a salary-cap savings in the 2006 season, not next season, and that would make a trade next to impossible on the Redskins' 2005 salary cap. He was close. But he wasn't exactly right, and there is enough of a difference to mean that trading Coles indeed is feasible for the Redskins from a salary-cap perspective -- at least if Coles agrees to a proposed signing-bonus give-back before March 2, the start of the league's fiscal year. Under the salary-cap rules, a signing-bonus give-back by a player results in a salary-cap savings for his team in the next league year, meaning that the Redskins can make a Coles trade work on their salary cap for the 2005 season only if Coles agrees to his signing-bonus give-back before March 2. That gives Coles, the Redskins and whatever team to which they'd like to trade him until only the middle of next week to work it all out. The clock is ticking. Here's how it all works from a salary-cap perspective: Coles is two seasons into a seven-year, $35 million contract with the Redskins that included a $13 million signing bonus. Since the signing bonus is prorated over the duration of the contract for salary cap accounting purposes, Coles's signing bonus counts $1.86 million against the Redskins' cap for each season that he is with the team. He is on the books to count $3.36 million against the Redskins' salary cap next season (the $1.86 million signing-bonus proration plus his $1.5 million salary for the 2005 season). Under salary-cap rules, if a player is traded or released, the remainder of his signing-bonus money that hasn't yet counted against the cap is "accelerated," and counts against his former team's salary cap the following season. In Coles's case, that would mean that he would count, under normal circumstances, $9.28 million against the Redskins' salary cap next season if they would trade him or release him (his $13 million signing bonus minus the $3.72 million of it that already has counted against the cap in his two seasons with the club). That's $5.92 million more than the $3.36 million that he'd count against the Redskins' cap by staying with the team, and that would be enough of an additional cap hit to keep him from being traded or released. The Redskins couldn't come up with the nearly $6 million in additional salary cap space without tearing apart their roster. (Coles would count only $1.86 million against the Redskins' salary cap next season if the club would release him after June 1, actually saving the team $1.5 million from the $3.36 million charge if he remains on the roster. But waiting until then to cut Coles wouldn't solve the Redskins' immediate problem of having a player who doesn't want to be around. It wouldn't solve Coles's problem of wanting to get to another team while other clubs still have jobs and money available. And it would leave Coles counting a cumbersome $7.42 million against the Redskins' salary cap in the 2006 season.) This is where the signing-bonus give-back comes in. And, in fact, it's not even a matter of Coles giving back money that he already has received; it's a matter of him forfeiting money that he's about to receive. Redskins owner Daniel Snyder makes it a policy not to pay a hefty signing bonus to a player in a single lump sum. He divides it up into a series of payments. That's what happened with Coles, who is due to receive a $5 million deferred payment (from his original $13 million signing bonus) on April 1. To free himself from the Redskins, Coles apparently is willing to forfeit that $5 million. And this, in turn, is where the give-back rule comes in. If Coles agrees by March 2 to forfeit the $5 million, the Redskins would get credit for the $5 million on their 2005 salary cap. So instead of their salary cap having to absorb an extra $5.92 million hit for trading Coles, the additional cap hit would be a far-more-manageable $920,000. Suddenly, trading Coles goes from not do-able against the salary cap to do-able. Coles and his agent, Roosevelt Barnes, apparently would expect any team trading for Coles to pay him the $5 million that he would agree to waive from the Redskins. The Redskins, in a trade, would get a draft pick or a player in return for their disgruntled player. The problem, of course, is finding a team willing to pay $5 million and surrender a draft choice or a player for a disgruntled player with an ailing foot who could end up being released if no trade is completed. What would be in it for that team? It would be getting Coles -- who, even with his disenchantment in D.C. and his bad foot, played at a near Pro Bowl level in 2003 and had 90 catches this past season -- without having to worry about pursuing him on the free-agent market, in which the competition to sign him could drive the financial parameters higher. One source familiar with the situation, speaking on the condition that he not be identified because the deliberations are at a sensitive stage, said Monday that a possible trade was in the works. The Redskins' leading trade partner for Coles could end up being the New York Jets, the team from which they stole Coles in restricted free agency prior to the 2003 season. The Jets wanted to keep Coles but were unwilling to match the Redskins' offer, and took a first-round draft choice as compensation instead. But Coles had a great relationship with Jets quarterback Chad Pennington. And anyone who watched the Jets play this past season knows that their offense remains in dire need of one more receiving threat. The Redskins probably would want defensive end John Abraham in return. The Jets have designated Abraham their franchise player. But with Coles's diminished value, given the league-wide wariness about the soundness of his foot and the fact that other teams believe the Redskins might release Coles if they can't trade him, it probably would take more than Coles to pry Abraham from the Jets. The Baltimore Ravens remain desperate for help at wide receiver a year after trying but failing to land Terrell Owens. But the animosity between the two I-95 neighbors might preclude a Redskins-Ravens trade. Dallas Cowboys Coach Bill Parcells drafted Coles for the Jets in 2000. The Cowboys need help at wideout. But it's highly doubtful that the Redskins and Cowboys, as heated divisional rivals, would be trade partners. I'd rather have another 1st rounder myself, but Abraham wouldn't be bad either:logo: :helmet: :dallasuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted February 23, 2005 Author Share Posted February 23, 2005 http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=92127 merge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.