Boss, what exactly has LA done off the field that represents the team with such loyality? The contract screw-up, the bonus money flap, the not allowing the use of his name and likeness on redskin merchandise? Just wondering.

[QUOTE=Daseal]The leagues gives you some special ways to pay draft picks even if you're strapped by the cap don't they?[/QUOTE]

No. If you cannot afford to sign players, you're SOL. And no, there is no 'cap within the cap'. That's why it's expected that we'll renegoiate a few contracts to make more room. A first round pick will eat up a chunk of your cap due to a significant signing bonus. :oink:

[QUOTE=BossHog]What I do know about contract rules is that signing bonuses are the only guaranteed money in the NFL. And signing bonuses can only be spread out over a period of four years (not sure what happens with extensions). When a player is traded his contract goes with him! When you cut a player, or he retires, the signing bonus goes against your cap accordingly.
.[/QUOTE]
Actually no...like I said above any bonus already paid to a player counts only against the team that paid it. Looking at Arringtons bonus numbers...it looks like he was supposed to get a 4.5 RB next seaon...not sure if the 6.5 counts that or what. Lets simply eliminate that and look at the plain ole signing bonus which isprorated out oevr the rest on the contract(not four years but the entire length of the contract up to 7 years I believe). It adds up to somewhere in the nighborhood of 10 mil. This ahs laready been paid to lavar so it counts against us only. It would excelarte foward to whatever year we traded him in. IE:he aint going nowhere. Not even for Randy Moss and Daunte Culpepper.

[QUOTE=Gmanc711]I just dont get it.

Trade Arrington.....

Trade Portis....

Lets cut Coles....

Why do we have to overturn the roster every single year. Koy Demter and AJ Feeley filled in awsome for Donavan McNabb a couple seasons ago, should the Eagles have let him go to save some cap room? It just dosent make sense, and people dont understand that we cant do these things with guys carrying this kind of cap number. It would make things worse... not better. Arrington is going no where. Portis is going no where. None of these guys are leaving, I dont know why we even have to speculate it.[/QUOTE]

well, this is a discussion board, and people just want to discuss. our offense was terrible this year and Arrington wasn't missed on defense so thats where all this is coming from.

but all these guys mentioned are GREAT players. as good as they are, yes, they are overpaid. not many teams pay like the Skins and won't want their contract. so we've made our bed, and we gotta sleep in it, but its not a bad bed at ALL.

we should focus on getting rid of guys who haven't produced or don't have the ability like Gardner or Raymer.

[QUOTE=BossHog]No. If you cannot afford to sign players, you're SOL. And no, there is no 'cap within the cap'. That's why it's expected that we'll renegoiate a few contracts to make more room. A first round pick will eat up a chunk of your cap due to a significant signing bonus. :oink:[/QUOTE]
Actually no again sorta...there is a specific part of the Salary Cap designated to the rookies. It is part of the cap and not something extra. You don't have to use it all and the money isn't designated for rookies only. It is there to simply limit the amounts of money rookies can get.

[QUOTE=illdefined]we should focus on getting rid of guys who haven't produced or don't have the ability like Gardner or Raymer.[/QUOTE]
This is a novel idea!

[QUOTE=irish]Boss, what exactly has LA done off the field that represents the team with such loyality? The contract screw-up, the bonus money flap, the not allowing the use of his name and likeness on redskin merchandise? Just wondering.[/QUOTE]
The issue with his name was a dispute with Players Inc and NFLPA not with the skins.

[QUOTE=irish]Boss, what exactly has LA done off the field that represents the team with such loyality? The contract screw-up, the bonus money flap, the not allowing the use of his name and likeness on redskin merchandise? Just wondering.[/QUOTE]

Alright. Alright. He signed my jersey and my hat and my ball and my poster and my book and my picture and...

You can find Arrington stuff in the Redskins stores and on NFLShop.com now. He's no longer just #56 on Madden. He just took a stand for players to get a larger slice of the player-merchandise revenue pie. You heard him yourself. The bonus money flop was not going to be an issue when the season started. And through all of those instances, he remained a lovable guy. Sigh. :oink:

This is a discussion board so I guess anything is up for discussion. And the defense did excel this season, mostly without Lavar. But if we add him in the mix, doesn't that make the defense that much better?

If we're going to trade anyone I'd say trade Vinny Cerrato to the 49ers for their first round pick, or Dan Snyder to the Cardinals for Larry Fitzgerald and cash. These offers make about as much sense to me as trading a Pro Bowl linebacker just about to enter his prime.

[QUOTE=illdefined]LaVar is a strength, not a weakness. im surprised at how 'what have you done for me lately' you guys are. he's a massive lockerroom presence, not to mention the ferocity he brings onto the field. like Ramsey, he's had to suffer along being a Redskin for so many disappointing and tumultous seasons, but UNLIKE Champ or now Smoot, he's always stayed optimistic and enthusiastic about the club.

if Arrington played this season, we would have the number one defense this season instead of number three. alot of those 'oh so close' to getting the QB (vinny) situations would have been certain sacks. probably would have gotten a couple more fumbles too.[/QUOTE]


:iamwithst

[QUOTE=Riggo44]:iamwithst[/QUOTE]

and. whats your argument

Cap-a-nomics
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]Actually no...like I said above any bonus already paid to a player counts only against the team that paid it. Looking at Arringtons bonus numbers...it looks like he was supposed to get a 4.5 RB next seaon...not sure if the 6.5 counts that or what. Lets simply eliminate that and look at the plain ole signing bonus which isprorated out oevr the rest on the contract(not four years but the entire length of the contract up to 7 years I believe). It adds up to somewhere in the nighborhood of 10 mil. This ahs laready been paid to lavar so it counts against us only. It would excelarte foward to whatever year we traded him in. IE:he aint going nowhere. Not even for Randy Moss and Daunte Culpepper.[/QUOTE]

I'm with you here, believe it or not. I didn't mean to lure anyone to thinking that the signing bonus is 'traded'. I only said the bonus is guaranteed and the contract term (money not guaranteed) is traded. The players' union and the NFL agreed that signing bonuses can not be spread over four years, simply because players don't want to wait forever. The term of the contract is what makes the the salary seem so high. Many of these new age contracts have incentives and escalators. It gets really tricky after renegotiang because essentially the team gives a player 'contract term' money up front (as if a bonus). Here's an example. And guys i don't claim to be a genius. It's just that i'm an aries.

(Example: Player A signs 73 million dollar contract with a 18 million dollar signing bonus over 5 years whereas only 18 mil is guaranteed and paid within 4 years. $73 contract-$18 bonus=$55 non guaranteed. $55/5 years=$11 a year contract terms. $18 bonus/4 years spread= $4.5 bonus per four first years. So with this very simple example, Player A will be paid 15.5 per year for the first four years and 11.5 his final year). :oink:

[QUOTE=firstdown]We would have been 14 and 2[/QUOTE]

Now just look at that and tell me we need to trade any of our stars...

[QUOTE=FRPLG]Actually no again sorta...there is a specific part of the Salary Cap designated to the rookies. It is part of the cap and not something extra. You don't have to use it all and the money isn't designated for rookies only. It is there to simply limit the amounts of money rookies can get.[/QUOTE]

In other words you agree with me, but just for the sake of arguing you'll reword it? Whatever works for you. :oink:

Yes, Arrington is a strength... but we may have too many strengths on defense and not enough strengths on offense. The difference between having the #1 or #3 defense doesn't mean all that much when your offense is second from the bottom.

[QUOTE=BossHog]In other words you agree with me, but just for the sake of arguing you'll reword it? Whatever works for you. :oink:[/QUOTE]
There is a cap within the cap. He didn't re-word it; he added more detail.

I think we are all getting a little to pissy here...lets sing Kumbaya and be friends again.

[QUOTE=FRPLG]I am not the resident cap expert in in these here parts (that would good ole Canuck) but I do believe I have a rather sound grasp of the way the cap works and how teams get around it. I have written in the past about this adn I believe it to be true...the redksins manage the cap better than anyone in the league. In fact they probably blaze the trail on just about every good way to avoid cap difficulties. They have for years been discussed as going into cap hell next year or the year after or whenever and they never end up getting blown up like the 49ers. I actually think they'll be fine in 2006 but there will clearly be some reworking which I am hoping is a bad thing in that we were successful in '05 and making changes after that would be difficult.

The three year window is the they way I believe Joe Mendes adn Cerrato divised the handle the cap when Mendes was the cap expert for Danny Boy. Mendes was regarded as the best cap manager int he game and realized that you could basically float money around and put it off over and oevr again for long periods of time. It's akin to getting 2 credit cards and passing the balance back and forth to avoid finance charges and having to ever really pay the bill.

What they do is attempt to move as much money into the future as possible. Ideally the cap blows up in the projected 4th year from what I can tell. Then every year they do various restructurings and post-june cuts to fix any upcoming problems. Inevitably they'll end up with some high priced guys that get cut based on performance which always fixes the cap for the future. It looks to me like they build in dead money now. This may seem stupid to give up cap space ever year but when you think about it it is actually ingenius. They figure they can get a better and more talented roster by signing free agents which require big contracts that are usually back loaded in terms of the cap. This allows them to get a lot of talent in the follwoing year for less money on the cap than it really costs. The dead money is just the price you pay but you end up with more talent. There problem has not been in managing the cap but in eveluating talent.

Arrington is not going anywhere because it is not time for them to do anything about his contract. It would cost a ridiculous amount of money to do anything with him now. Trading him is no better than cutting him since all bonus money alrady paid excelerates foward onto the current year's cap. Without looking at his cap numbers I am guessing he would cost us somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 mil on 2005 if we cut him or traded him. He aint going nowhere for 10 mil.[/QUOTE]Your point that managing the cap has not been the problem evaluating the talent has been the problem. Hit the nail right on the head. This is what has haunted us for the past several years and I feel that gibbs will stop this trend. He made his one bad call with brunell and I am coffident he will not repeat this error.

Indeed... no need in getting out of joint over something like this.

Now if someone who was in a position of power to actually DO something about it, that might be a different story, but it's all speculation.

It's only January, but who else is ready for Fall again?

[QUOTE=cpayne5]There is a cap within the cap. He didn't re-word it; he added more detail.[/QUOTE]

There is only one cap. And no seperate cap for signing rookies. Period. Teams have to have cap room to be able to sign rookies. That's why teams project salaries and account for how much it will take to sign rookies and free agents. You can essentially be over the cap at any time during the offseason. That's why there's a deadline for getting under the cap. Maybe you're misinformed or just understanding it the best way that you can. No hard feelings. :oink:

Not to beleaguer the point but...
"The rookie pool is, essentially, a cap within a cap. A team's rookie pool allocation is part of, not an addition to, the league's $75.1 million spending limit."

[url]http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/pasquarelli_len/1547910.html[/url]

why we gotta lose lavar? please dont lose smoot and lavar

:coach:
[QUOTE=BossHog]Maybe you're misinformed or just understanding it the best way that you can. No hard feelings. [/QUOTE]

Did you catch FRPLG's post above? Maybe you should read into things a little better the next time you start spouting off inaccuracies. But, no hard feelings right?
:laughing2

[QUOTE=BossHog]There is only one cap. And no seperate cap for signing rookies. Period. Teams have to have cap room to be able to sign rookies. That's why teams project salaries and account for how much it will take to sign rookies and free agents. You can essentially be over the cap at any time during the offseason. That's why there's a deadline for getting under the cap. Maybe you're misinformed or just understanding it the best way that you can. No hard feelings. :oink:[/QUOTE]

Yes and No. The point that everyone is trying to make about rookies is this:

Based on the number and placement of draft picks a team makes, it is assigned a "rookie pool". When signing draftees, teams cannot exceed the "rookie pool" (Thus, some of the mid to low round draftees try to sign early before the top draft picks take it all).

Regardless of the rookie pool, a team must fit all its salaries (including those in the draftees) under their salary cap.

I don't know all the mechanics of the rookie pool - I think teams get an estimate before the draft and then a final after the draft to take into account any trades. Also, I assume that the Rookie Pool is governed by the standard cap rules: Thus a signing bonus will be prorated over the length of the contract (up to seven years) and the salary and prorated SB create the cap number.

It's discussions like this that make me want to stay away until training camp. :frusty:

Common sense says you don't trade elite players, real or percived status, the year after you make a huge financial committment to them.

If you don't like the team as they are constructed, find another team, the targets (Arrington, Portis, Coles, Ramsey, Brunell, Taylor) are here to stay. Love it or leave.

Only a few more months til the draft to spice up some even MORE heated discussions! :)

[QUOTE=Paintrain]It's discussions like this that make me want to stay away until training camp. :frusty:

Common sense says you don't trade elite players, real or percived status, the year after you make a huge financial committment to them.

If you don't like the team as they are constructed, find another team, the targets (Arrington, Portis, Coles, Ramsey, Brunell, Taylor) are here to stay. Love it or leave.[/QUOTE]


I agree Paintrain.....

These past few weeks have been insane. This is why I hate Dan Snyder. He made you all think like this. If JKC still owned this team and Joe Gibbs had come back to coach, do any of you actually believe we would be having any of these conversations? Trade LaVar, Trade Portis, Trade Coles. Are you on crack?

BTW, what makes all of you think that we could get a Herschel Walker type trade anyway? Everyone saw what happened to the Vikes when they did it. Bledsoe had all time numbers and he only garnered a 1st round pick...1! T.O., one of the top 3 receivers in the NFL got traded for a 3rd round pick and an okay player. Why would we get so many picks for LaVar and Portis, again?

if JKC was owner we'd be in salary cap hell because he couldn't buy whatever he wanted. =p

TO was a Free Agent too, jdlea, and shouldn't have even gotten that.

TO wasn't a free agent, remember? He was a 49er

when was the last time we had a 70 reply thread in less than a day? Craziness I tell you...

I haven't been on here that long, but I would say this has been the quickest bunch of replies I've ever seen.

Then again, look how controversial the subject matter is. I like how everyone is quick to put down the thought of trading our core players.

I got tired of reading every single post, but to sum up..it doesn't make any sense to get rid of Lavar Arrington. If he hadn't gotten hurt this year, the issue would have never been discussed. We have our team set with just a couple adjustments on offense. I'm sure the FO knows how to handle the cap situation.

[QUOTE=skinsguy]I got tired of reading every single post, but to sum up..it doesn't make any sense to get rid of Lavar Arrington. If he hadn't gotten hurt this year, the issue would have never been discussed. We have our team set with just a couple adjustments on offense. I'm sure the FO knows how to handle the cap situation.[/QUOTE]

Amen. Accept for the FO part, I kinda disagree, but time will tell.

[QUOTE=FRPLG]"The rookie pool is, essentially, a cap within a cap. A team's rookie pool allocation is part of, not an addition to, the league's $75.1 million spending limit."
[/QUOTE]

True. The NFL determines the rookie pool for each team based on the number of draft picks and position of those picks. They are assigned a rookie pool number. The total money allocated to draft picks cannot exceed this number, and is included the salary cap.

For instance in 2004 our rookie pool was about $3M. Here's the 2004 cap hits of our drafted rookies:

Taylor - $2.16M
Cooley - $395K
Molinaro - $255K
Wilson - $270K

Total - $3.06M

As for Arrington, I don't think this thread is out of line.

The fact is Lavar is our most expensive player, missed most of the year, and the defense didn't seem to miss him too much. If we can run Samuels into the ground because of his cap number, I don't think it's crazy to bring up the same issue with Arrington.

That being said, like many have mentioned, the cap pretty much ensures Arrington will be here for a while. I estimate he's here at least thru 2007.

ARE YOU GUYS SERIOUS? I cannot believe we are second guessing a guy who has been the soul of our team for years, i guess now that we have a few other guys who can play football we forget who has gave us hope over the last few years. Dont get me wrong i know that we have a few good ball players but NONE OF THEM are better than LA Baby

We haven't had a winning team with Lavar as our "soul".

You know, if were were discussing about Resigning LaVar and people were against it, I would understand.

If somthing happens in court and the contract is void and people want to argue to not resign him, thats great.

However, in no way, shape or form can we afford to trade him. End. Of. story.