WP: Coles Deal Could Cost Skins

[JeepRyder]

If this really costs us Smoot I will really be pissed off. Man I hate Coles. I just bought his poster about 3 months ago. I'm gonna throw it in the fire now the next time it snows.

[inmate running the asylum]

For what it’s worth on 3-4 John Clayton reported that the Skins were $9.6M under the cap, one day after the Skins had already signed Rabach and Patten. Were their cap hits calculated into that 9.6M? Hard to say at the moment. Then that same day 3-4 NFLPA.org indicated that Noble and Harris had restructured their contracts saving about 2M and that Gardener’s contract had escalated by about 660k, for a net savings of around 1.4M. Were these cap hit changes included in Clayton’s 9.6M? Again hard to say at the moment.

Then on 3-5 we are informed about the Coles-Moss trade which entails a 9.3M cap hit. But it’s my understanding that a 3.3M cap hit had already been calculated into the Skins salary cap, which would mean that there was only an additional 6M cap hit for the trade.

So where could that possibly leave us? On the positive side it could mean:

$9.6M plus 1.4M (for Noble, Harris, Gardener) = 11 Mil under the cap. Then the Coles-Moss trade deducts 6M, leaving us 5M under the cap. Then if we trade Gardener (there is a cap hit here also, but we save about 900k) which now leaves us 5.9M under the cap. And then if we cut Friedman we save 700k, which brings us back to 6.6M under the cap. Then if the Skins restructure Brunell’s contract -- why not, they’ve restructured everybody else’s, and this is the last bit of meat on the carcass -- :laugh: they can save another 1M. This would bring us back to 7.6M under the cap, which wouldn’t be too bad all things considered.

Now the timing of the above transactions which I’m not quite sure of here, is what is important. I just hope this is the way it works out and that Nunyo has screwed up again with another mistake in his reporting as usual. But I could be wrong too, depending on the timing of the initial calculations above.

To resign Smoot assuming his SB remains at $10 Mil, we would have to have about $ 2.6 M of cap space.

Hey, does this make any sense to anyone? :laugh:

[The X-Factor]

Originally posted by inmate running the asylum

For what it’s worth on 3-4 John Clayton reported that the Skins were $9.6M under the cap, one day after the Skins had already signed Rabach and Patten. Were their cap hits calculated into that 9.6M? Hard to say at the moment. Then that same day 3-4 NFLPA.org indicated that Noble and Harris had restructured their contracts saving about 2M and that Gardener’s contract had escalated by about 660k, for a net savings of around 1.4M. Were these cap hit changes included in Clayton’s 9.6M? Again hard to say at the moment.

Then on 3-5 we are informed about the Coles-Moss trade which entails a 9.3M cap hit. But it’s my understanding that a 3.3M cap hit had already been calculated into the Skins salary cap, which would mean that there was only an additional 6M cap hit for the trade.

So where could that possibly leave us? On the positive side it could mean:

$9.6M plus 1.4M (for Noble, Harris, Gardener) = 11 Mil under the cap. Then the Coles-Moss trade deducts 6M, leaving us 5M under the cap. Then if we trade Gardener (there is a cap hit here also, but we save about 900k) which now leaves us 5.9M under the cap. And then if we cut Friedman we save 700k, which brings us back to 6.6M under the cap. Then if the Skins restructure Brunell’s contract (why not, they’ve restructured everybody else’ :laugh:) they can save another 1M. This would bring us back to 7.6M under the cap, which wouldn’t be too bad all things considered.

Now the timing of the above transactions which I’m not quite sure of here, is what is important. I just hope this is the way it works out and that Nunyo has screwed up again with another mistake in his reporting as usual. But I could be wrong too, depending on the timing of the initial calculations above.

To resign Smoot assuming his SB remains at $10 Mil, we would have to have about $ 2.6 M of cap space.

Hey, does this make any sense to anyone? :laugh:

Makes perfect sense. However somehow I doubt Brunell will be willing to do anything.

[PCS]

Scarey part is................. yes. :twitch: And I believe the $6 mil hit from Coles is more accurate. Nunyo needed to do his homework a bit more carefully if that's the case.

[spanishomelette]

I believe Inmate has found the rabbit. Nunyo likes the personal stories more than technical contract details, and it shows.

[inmate running the asylum]

Originally posted by The X-Factor

Makes perfect sense. However somehow I doubt Brunell will be willing to do anything.

Well it would be to Brunell's advantage to restructure, because he would pocket $1 million bucks, while saving us $1M of cap space.

Unless.......... unless the Skins FO doesn't want to give him that $1M in case, they plan on cutting him after June 1st. But I think the cap hits for 2005 and 2006 even then would be too high to cut Brunell this year.

Oh........ I also forgot that we will need another $1.5 - 2.0M of cap space to extend Santana Moss's new contract. Thats assuming he gets $5-7 Mil SB and $20 million backloaded over 5 yrs.

[Hauss]

The Skins don't have much cap room right now. Clayton's cap number didn't take into account all the recent signings. HOWEVER, this is just bad reporting by Nunyo-full of "could" and "might". The Skins have restuctured a good many contracts, but there are things they can still do. Nunyo just brushed on this without elaborating. Just enough to scare the average fan that all is not well and Smoot is gone. As one poster pointed out--the Skins could wait until 6/1 to extend Moss. There are other contracts that can be restructured, trading Gardner and even withdrawing the money for one or more of our restricted free agents.

[PCRoughrider]

Originally posted by Spear

That's probably Gibbs' whole rationale. I think it's nonsense easily outweighed by the realities of the salary cap. What happens when the next malcontent with a huge cap penalty pops up? You can only go so far with this philiosophy before we run into a brick wall. We should never have even set this precedent.

It's a terrible precedent. And, I tell you, there are a lot more unhappy players on the team now after the FO sh*ted away $6 million precious cap dollars!

[spanishomelette]

Originally posted by PCRoughrider

It's a terrible precedent. And, I tell you, there are a lot more unhappy players on the team now after the FO sh*ted away $6 million precious cap dollars!

Apparently a lot of unhappy fans, but unhappy players? Which ones?

[PCS]

Originally posted by PCRoughrider

It's a terrible precedent. And, I tell you, there are a lot more unhappy players on the team now after the FO sh*ted away $6 million precious cap dollars!

I would also add that if one reads the recent statements from Thomas, one could get the impression that the players feel just the opposite. Apparently there are reports that he's not the only one who feels the way he does.

[PCRoughrider]

Originally posted by spanishomelette

Apparently a lot of unhappy fans, but unhappy players? Which ones?

Wouldn't you expect that knowing that we disposed of $6 million cap dollars that could have been used to get some better players like, oh, Fred Smoot, for example, to make the team better, would make a couple of players not very happy?

[inmate running the asylum]

Originally posted by Hauss

There are other contracts that can be restructured, trading Gardner and even withdrawing the money for one or more of our restricted free agents.

Well actually there isn't, realistically speaking. Brunell's contract is the last one practically speaking.

Yeah you can cut Cartwright 660k and Hasselbeck 660k, which saves $1.3. Mil, but then they want to re-sign Ray Brown and Sellers at almost the same price, so there is very little savings here. The Rule of 51 is now in effect and the only way you save is by cutting someone way above 380k.

You could cut Raymer and save 900k or so, but Gibbs said Raymer's job is safe. I don't think you want to cut Hall or Bowen, so no one else has a salary above 1M, except Barrow and I think they will wait on him until June 1st to save the 1.74M. If you cut him sooner, you don't save even that.

If you cut or trade say McCants, you wipe his 545k salary away, but you have a dead cap hit maybe even larger, so there is no net savings.

On the positive side when they sign someone like Ray Brown for $790k, his salary only counts 480k initially against the cap. But because of the Rule of 51 he will push a 380k player off the roster, which really means we signed him for only an additional 100k.

The FO has done just about all they can.

[spanishomelette]

Originally posted by PCRoughrider

Wouldn't you expect that knowing that we disposed of $6 million cap dollars that could have been used to get some better players like, oh, Fred Smoot, for example, to make the team better, would make a couple of players not very happy?

When it comes to free agency and the business in general, I think the players don't fret as much about it. In fact I'm sure many are happy for Pierce even though I'm sure they really wanted to play with him again.

[inmate running the asylum]

I think more and more its looking like the Skins may trade down in the draft to save the needed money and cap space. Instead of paying out big bucks to another top 10 pick.

By trading down -- personally I think Mike Williams will be drafted between the 10th and 20th pick, unless he runs under 4.5 which I doubt -- the Skins could still draft a good WR in the 1st round. If Williams is gone, maybe Troy Williamson will be there or Mark Clayton.

And then if the Skins picked up another 2nd round pick, they could also address the CB position or DE position as well.

[The X-Factor]

Originally posted by inmate running the asylum

Well it would be to Brunell's advantage to restructure, because he would pocket $1 million bucks, while saving us $1M of cap space.

Unless.......... unless the Skins FO doesn't want to give him that $1M in case, they plan on cutting him after June 1st. But I think the cap hits for 2005 and 2006 even then would be too high to cut Brunell this year.

Oh........ I also forgot that we will need another $1.5 - 2.0M of cap space to extend Santana Moss's new contract. Thats assuming he gets $5-7 Mil SB and $20 million backloaded over 5 yrs.

From what you're saying, it seems we are going to be VERY tight against the cap this year. Will this translate into us being comfortably under the cap next year? With the loss of Coles and Samuels restructure, it would seem like next year we would not be in too bad of shape. Plus hopefully Brunell is cut after next year and we recoup some of his cap number.

[Oldskool]

Originally posted by inmate running the asylum

I think more and more its looking like the Skins may trade down in the draft to save the needed money and cap space. Instead of paying out big bucks to another top 10 pick.

By trading down -- personally I think Mike Williams will be drafted between the 10th and 20th pick, unless he runs under 4.5 which I doubt -- the Skins could still draft a good WR in the 1st round. If Williams is gone, maybe Troy Williamson will be there or Mark Clayton.

And then if the Skins picked up another 2nd round pick, they could also address the CB position or DE position as well.

Williams ran a 4.59, and a 4.61 / 40 time at the combine. He's still going to go top 10 due to pure physical talent.

We are better off going after Edwards or Williams in the 1st, even if we have to trade up. We've done enough in FA to cover our defects.

[scottlo34]

Forget it guys....learn your lesson from Pierce. Money talks and the Redskins can walk. I know we are fans and we love our Redskins, but the bottom line is that there is very very little loyalty these days in the NFL. Smoot may like being in Washington but you and I aren't paying for his vacations and 16 cars in the garage.....the highest bidder will be picking up the tab on that. Let him walk and get Antrelle Rolle.

[inmate running the asylum]

Originally posted by Oldskool

Williams ran a 4.59, and a 4.61 / 40 time at the combine. He's still going to go top 10 due to pure physical talent.

We are better off going after Edwards or Williams in the 1st, even if we have to trade up. We've done enough in FA to cover our defects.

Williams could go top 10 of course. But I'll tell you what I've noticed over the years in the draft. After the Pro Day's are finished the WR burners will start rising up the board and Williams will get pushed down further unless he can run under 4.5. Guys like Troy Williamson who ran a 4.38 and Mark Clayton who ran around 4.43 will start rising, and I think Williams will wind up between 10-20th.

Trading up would be a killer money wise and cap wise, as you are talking about spending top 5 bucks I imagine, which is another $10-13 Mil signing bonus.

Besides, the Skins will be in a 2 WR-set most of the time with Patten, Moss and Cooley starting, because they are primarily a running team. If the Skins draft Williams that means that one of three mentioned players has to go to the bench and sit. Now I know that in 3rd-and-long situations Gibbs will use 3 WR's, but not for long, otherwise Cooley remains on the bench. So I don't see the practicality of drafting Williams if we are using 2 WR-formations most of the time.

[inmate running the asylum]

Originally posted by The X-Factor

From what you're saying, it seems we are going to be VERY tight against the cap this year. Will this translate into us being comfortably under the cap next year? With the loss of Coles and Samuels restructure, it would seem like next year we would not be in too bad of shape. Plus hopefully Brunell is cut after next year and we recoup some of his cap number.

Its too early to say, but I do agree with Die Hard's post at least, that we don't have to worry about "cap hell" in 2006. I think the Skins F0 has learned their lesson about overpaying for FA and are using restraint now. Something the Buzzards have been doing for years, I'm sorry to say.

But I also figure that the following players may not be around next year after June 1st -- if not sooner -- and their salaries getting wiped off the books will really help our cap situation.

Barrow 1.74m

Brunell 4.0m

Friedman 1.0m

McCants 1.0m

Noble ?? 1.7m

Morton 1.8m

Coles 3.0m

Raymer 985k

Daniels ?? 1.5m

Thats roughly 17.5 Mil wiped off the books. And you figure the salary cap should at least rise to $90M in 2006, so that we are looking at maybe another 23M to play with, not counting more restructuring. Of course we really don't have 23M to play with, because the remaining players salaries will rise, but the trend looks good.

[BruinSkin]

I'd like to make a poker analogy if I may. Talking about losing the 1st round pick is a moot point. That's like complaining about losing a big blind. If it's already in the pot, it's already in the pot. If your hand isn't worth playing, you fold it and cut your losses. That's what we did with Coles and our compensation just so happened to be Moss. I have an inkling that if we straight up cut Coles, a lot of people would say it would've been better to at least get SOMETHING in return (i.e. Moss). You can't have it both ways people.

[Oldskool]

Originally posted by inmate running the asylum

Williams could go top 10 of course. But I'll tell you what I've noticed over the years in the draft. After the Pro Day's are finished the WR burners will start rising up the board and Williams will get pushed down further unless he can run under 4.5. Guys like Troy Williamson who ran a 4.38 and Mark Clayton who ran around 4.43 will start rising, and I think Williams will wind up between 10-20th.

Ive seen that happen as well but we have seen in the past few years guys like Roy Williams, Anquan Boldin and Michael Clayton who didnt come close to running 4.0/40's but have made an immediate impact as rookies. Smart Gm's know that 40 times arent everything.

Trading up would be a killer money wise and cap wise, as you are talking about spending top 5 bucks I imagine, which is another $10-13 Mil signing bonus.

If trading up would cost us a s/b in the range of 10-15 million, then how did we get away with a 7.2 million s/b for Taylor at the #5 spot last year?

Besides, the Skins will be in a 2 WR-set most of the time with Patten, Moss and Cooley starting, because they are primarily a running team. If the Skins draft Williams that means that one of three mentioned players has to go to the bench and sit. Now I know that in 3rd-and-long situations Gibbs will use 3 WR's, but not for long, otherwise Cooley remains on the bench. So I don't see the practicality of drafting Williams if we are using 2 WR-formations most of the time.

the 2 WR set is a standard set for the Skins but that means that we need a reliable posession receiver. I think Patton can be that player for this year but he's 32 already and he's no Tim Brown or Jerry Rice, so we'll draft a big WR to be groomed in the mold of Art Monk.

Cooley is a great option in the passing game but remember that H-backs are still primarily blockers.

[Art]

This reads like a post on this board, not an article in the Washington Post.

There are no sources. Just the writer surmising possibilities. The writer apparently unable to actually get a source to speak, decided to write his own opinion as a story. The Post must be getting pretty desperate if this is the type of story they have now.

[Commander Adama]

We all know how accurate Nunyo is. Probably only seconded by Pastabelly :doh:

[Commander Adama]

Originally posted by Art

This reads like a post on this board, not an article in the Washington Post.

There are no sources. Just the writer surmising possibilities. The writer apparently unable to actually get a source to speak, decided to write his own opinion as a story. The Post must be getting pretty desperate if this is the type of story they have now.

:yes:

[inmate running the asylum]

Originally posted by Oldskool

(1) Ive seen that happen as well but we have seen in the past few years guys like Roy Williams, Anquan Boldin and Michael Clayton who didnt come close to running 4.0/40's but have made an immediate impact as rookies. Smart Gm's know that 40 times arent everything.

(2) If trading up would cost us a s/b in the range of 10-15 million, then how did we get away with a 7.2 million s/b for Taylor at the #5 spot last year?

(3) the 2 WR set is a standard set for the Skins but that means that we need a reliable posession receiver. I think Patton can be that player for this year but he's 32 already and he's no Tim Brown or Jerry Rice, so we'll draft a big WR to be groomed in the mold of Art Monk.

Cooley is a great option in the passing game but remember that H-backs are still primarily blockers.

(1) I'm not saying Mike Williams will not make an impact and is not a good player.

But you're making my point. What happened to Anquan Boldin and Michael Clayton when they ran a little bit slower then expected? They slid down the board. Bolden even went in the 2nd round. That's what might happen to Mike Williams if he doesn't run under 4.5 at his Pro Day. So I think we could still trade down and probably get him between pick 10-20 if thats what they want and pick up another high draft choice.

2) We made up the difference in SB with roster bonuses. But the problem we have this year is lack of cap space because of eating so much cap hit on Coles. And although we restructured Samuels contract and saved some (probably 3M), we didn't save 6M like we thought we could, because we had to pay him that record 15.75M SB.

3) The reliable possession receiver we need is when Cooley is in the lineup and its a pass play and not a run. Because we are a running team, obviously Gibbs wants Cooley on the field most of the time. When Cooley is in the lineup, the team will be using 2 WR sets, which would mean that if we had Mike Williams, David Patten, and Santana Moss, one of these guys would be on the bench too much and I think unhappy about that. Anyway IMHO, thats the way I see it.

Thats why I think Bulldog could possibly be right and the Skins could go DE with the 9th pick; or trade down for a 2nd and draft WR & DE; or CB & DE, etc.

I like Mike Williams but a concern I have is the bad eating habits I've read about. He's 228 lbs., now, and a couple scouts have said that he could eat his way up to being an H-back or TE. The problem with that is we don't need another $10 Mil H-back and I doubt he has the temperament to play TE and slug it out all game blocking big DE's and LB's. He wouldn't be the first NFL player who ate his way out of a job.