Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]I just had to come back and see what you people had to say about me and my post regarding the cap. Of course I supply the articles that show how teams run into the problems they do. And of course, the Redskins are above all other 31 teams and have a magical cap that no one else understands and no one else in the league has figured out. I forgot that most of our stuff is done in fantasy land, what am I thinking? You wanted proof of where I get my info, I gave it to you and you say that its not worth anything, that absolutely cracks me up. This is from a CAPOLOGIST, who does this, who knows the cap. How you and everyone else can discredit a capologist is beyond me. Of course Vinney and Dannys minions are going to say what they say. You quoted a redskin article. Are they going to come out and say we are mortgaging our future every year by handling contract this way, NO, HELL NO. they are going to say it, we have a plan, 3 year plan. Well , yeah, all these players they have now are young. and they can rework the deals to create cap room for upcoming years. But what are they going to do when these players are getting old and have to be cut, because that is what they are going to have to do. They are not going to be able to pay these backloaded deals. LaVar is a perfect example, 12 million, now you can rework it to save for the next 3 years, but when that 3 years is up, rework again? you have to pay the contracts eventually, You cannot run from it. Ask 49ers, Cowboys, Titans. You have to pay these off eventually, they dont go away, the debt just doesn't disappear. Like I said, maybe not next year or the year after, but when Portis, Arrington, Washington , Griffin, Taylor, Moss, when all these guys are getting older and it a decision do you pay them the 10 million or cut them? And when you cut them, yeah you may not pay the 10 million all in one year, but you still have to pay it over two year period. Are they going to do that with everyone? Is everyone going to be willing to renegotiate there contract? Dont think that every person here is loyal to this franchise because that is in no way the case. Samuels refused to rework his deal until his contract was up. They decided to pay him the 9 million the last year of his deal, but that was because they had to let players go, rework some deals here and there, which is all fine and dandy if other players agree to do it. This is all on assumption that players are willing to do these things, and Samuels is an example that no everyone is going to do it. Dont worry fellas, when all this happens I will hopefully be out here to say I dont you so. It may be 3 years, 5 years however many years, but it will happen. You cant keep putting off the payment of these contracts forever.


You know, you all questioning what a capologist does, is like questioning Bill Gates on Microsoft. Now you are going to say I am questioning Vinny, Well, tell me somebody that is going to come out and say his business is in 3 years going to have to make major cuts, cut costs and we are going to struggle for the 3 or 4 years, but we'll be back. Nobody, they will say down the end that we have plan, everything is great, we are thriving, ENRON, ring a bell. I am using that as an example of people who run businesses not telling you truth about what is going on. But, I guess Vinny, Danny and the minions always tell the truth, I forgot they are the gods, the greatest management ever assembled, the greatest owner and yes men ever, thats why our best record is 8-8 in 8 years.[/QUOTE]

Still.

You still don't get it man. I fully recognize that you have to eat the cap hit on a signing bonus. But you're just not grasping how it can be fit under the cap.

The cap doesn't sit at $85 million for eternity, you know. Next year it will be something between $92-$95 million. The next year (assuming the CBA gets reworked), it will be like $105 million. And the next year, close to $120 million.

When the cap grows like that you can afford to kick more bonus money down the road. Let's say, hypothetically, that this year the cap is $100 million and grows $10 million each year. Why would we eat a $5 million base salary this year, when it represents 5% of our cap, when we could spread it to later years when it will represent a smaller % of our cap?

Eating it all this year:
5/100 = 5%

Eating it gradually over 5 years:
1/100 = 1%
1/110 = 0.90%
1/120 = 0.83%
1/130 = 0.77%
1/140 = 0.71%

Total % = 4.23%

If you eat it all in year 1, you eat 5% of your cap that year. If you spread it evenly, you eat a smaller percentage of your cap. It's called leverage.

You talk like these capologist writers know what they're doing. THEY'RE WRITERS. Talk to someone with a finance or accounting background, we'll all tell you the same thing. The Skins are fine.

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]Still.

You still don't get it man. I fully recognize that you have to eat the cap hit on a signing bonus. But you're just not grasping how it can be fit under the cap.

The cap doesn't sit at $85 million for eternity, you know. Next year it will be something between $92-$95 million. The next year (assuming the CBA gets reworked), it will be like $105 million. And the next year, close to $120 million.

When the cap grows like that you can afford to kick more bonus money down the road.

You talk like these capologist writers know what they're doing. THEY'RE WRITERS. Talk to someone with a finance or accounting background, we'll all tell you the same thing. The Skins are fine.[/QUOTE]

Yes I do understand the cap does not stay the same. Do the contracts stay the same, NO. The contracts increase in size every year. they may get a 60 million dollar deal this year, and 70 million dollar deal next year, so what is the point? I dont think you people understand. You are buying into the organization and the spin they put on everything. Do you think they operate a cap system different than 31 other teams. That they have figured out some magical way around this. You have to be dilusional if you think that. Dont you think that there would be somebody else that after 11 years would have figured out this magical way of handleing the cap, or is Danny and boys the only ones that know it. come on, be serious. Like the articles from the Capologist and other experts say, you can mortgage the future for however long you want, but eventually you have to pay, there is no way around it, no matter what you plan for. The cap does not increase in the amounts needed to accomodate the large contracts. I mean some guys are like 20 million on the cap towards the end of the contract, farve is like 15% to 20% of his whole teams cap. that is why they stink!! that is why they cant afford to pay the offensive line man they lost. Same with the Titans.

Re: We must draft better...
 

And all teams do it this way. They all use bonuses to spread the cap hit out over the long haul. But you're right, that must be the wrong way to go. After all, all these billionaire owners became billionaires by managing money like idiots.
:insane:

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]Yes I do understand the cap does not stay the same. Do the contracts stay the same, NO. The contracts increase in size every year. they may get a 60 million dollar deal this year, and 70 million dollar deal next year, so what is the point? I dont think you people understand. You are buying into the organization and the spin they put on everything. Do you think they operate a cap system different than 31 other teams. That they have figured out some magical way around this. You have to be dilusional if you think that. Dont you think that there would be somebody else that after 11 years would have figured out this magical way of handleing the cap, or is Danny and boys the only ones that know it. come on, be serious. [b]Like the articles from the Capologist and other experts say, you can mortgage the future for however long you want, but eventually you have to pay, there is no way around it, no matter what you plan for.[/b] The cap does not increase in the amounts needed to accomodate the large contracts. I mean some guys are like 20 million on the cap towards the end of the contract, farve is like 15% to 20% of his whole teams cap. that is why they stink!! that is why they cant afford to pay the offensive line man they lost. Same with the Titans.[/QUOTE]

Yes you do eventually have to pay. The question isn't about whether or not you have to pay. The question is [b]can you afford to pay[/b] when you've mortgaged the future? The big cap hits are coming, but the Skins are positioned in such a way to be able to handle them.

Re: We must draft better...
 

Nobody is saying the Skins operate the cap to perfection. Of course they will face some difficult decisions along the way just like they did last year with Pierce and Smoot.

But what we [i]are[/i] saying is the Redskins have a plan in place, and they closely monitor how signing player X today is going to effect the cap down the road and how that will effect their ability to sign player Y.

You're acting like all contracts suddenly come due all at once. The Skins have the contracts spread out and structured so in any given year they know what is going to come due and they plan accordingly.

The cap articles you referenced are true, but as someone said they are basically capology 101.

Answer me this one simple thing, back in '00 the Skins spent like crazy, so why did they not fall into cap hell from that record breaking spending spree like the media said they would??

Re: We must draft better...
 

[URL=http://espn.go.com/nfl/preview00/s/000826clayton.html]ESPN.com 8/31/00[/URL]

"Redskins owner Daniel Snyder has the league abuzz by his $100-plus million spending spree this season. Capwise, they are in great shape for now. They have a $1 million cushion in this year's cap and are roughly only $700,000 over next season.

While most consider the cap window for a top team to be five years, the Redskins' window may only be three or four years because Snyder eventually faces tough cap consequences. Quarterback Brad Johnson, wide receiver Albert Connell and linebacker Greg Jones are free agents next year. Guard Tre Johnson, defensive end Kenard Lang and wide receiver Michael Westbrook are up after next year. Where the Redskins will run into cap trouble if Deion Sanders, Bruce Smith and Mark Carrier can't go longer than two seasons. The cap hits coupled with the high-priced re-signings could cause major cap problems for Snyder in 2002."

[URL=http://archive.profootballweekly.com/content/archives/features_2000/dickey_030501.asp ]Pro Football Weekly 3/5/01[/URL]

"The Redskins will be the next team in serious trouble. Loading up on veteran stars, Redskins owner Dan Snyder spent about $92 million last year. By deferring salary-cap obligations with various schemes, Snyder got under the $62 million ceiling, but the Redskins soon will face cap problems that will level them for several years. And what did Snyder get? A team that finished 8-8, out of the playoffs."

I think what Matty, Schneed and others are basically saying is that since the dawn of time we've heard that salary cap hell is just around the corner for Dan Snyder's Redskins. Yet, we keep working around it and we just remain in salary cap purgatory. It's like the NFL media experts who cried wolf. They keep saying we'll have to do a major purge but so far it really hasn't happened. So why should we believe it will?

Re: We must draft better...
 

Thanks for digging those up Tafkas, that's my point exactly.

Re: We must draft better...
 

56fanatic, since you have such a profound understanding of the salary cap, please go to the Cap Info section of the Warpath and tell me where you think the Skins are in danger. I want you to point out specific players in specific years and explain what they will do to our cap, and how it will hurt us so badly.

If you can't do that, you don't understand finance and you don't understand the salary cap. All the reading you do of "capologist" articles are great for building a general understanding of caponomics, but you have to be able to apply it to the Redskins' situation. That's your homework. No more talking in generalities. I want to discuss specifics, which contracts specifically are going to cause the Redskins to enter cap hell?

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]Yes you do eventually have to pay. The question isn't about whether or not you have to pay. The question is [b]can you afford to pay[/b] when you've mortgaged the future? The big cap hits are coming, but the Skins are positioned in such a way to be able to handle them.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Nobody is saying the Skins operate the cap to perfection. Of course they will face some difficult decisions along the way just like they did last year with Pierce and Smoot.

But what we are saying is the Redskins have a plan in place, and they closely monitor how signing player X today is going to effect the cap down the road and how that will effect their ability to sign player Y.[/QUOTE]

Thank you Schneed, Matty. Nicely put.

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Nobody is saying the Skins operate the cap to perfection. Of course they will face some difficult decisions along the way just like they did last year with Pierce and Smoot.

But what we [i]are[/i] saying is the Redskins have a plan in place, and they closely monitor how signing player X today is going to effect the cap down the road and how that will effect their ability to sign player Y.

You're acting like all contracts suddenly come due all at once. The Skins have the contracts spread out and structured so in any given year they know what is going to come due and they plan accordingly.

The cap articles you referenced are true, but as someone said they are basically capology 101.

Answer me this one simple thing, back in '00 the Skins spent like crazy, so why did they not fall into cap hell from that record breaking spending spree like the media said they would??[/QUOTE]

Apparently when Marty took over, he rectified that by sending Dieon into retirement, Carrier gone, George gone. Marty cleaned house basically. those contracts never had a chance to make it to the large numbers.

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]56fanatic, since you have such a profound understanding of the salary cap, please go to the Cap Info section of the Warpath and tell me where you think the Skins are in danger. I want you to point out specific players in specific years and explain what they will do to our cap, and how it will hurt us so badly.

If you can't do that, you don't understand finance and you don't understand the salary cap. All the reading you do of "capologist" articles are great for building a general understanding of caponomics, but you have to be able to apply it to the Redskins' situation. That's your homework. No more talking in generalities. I want to discuss specifics, which contracts specifically are going to cause the Redskins to enter cap hell?[/QUOTE]

I will go through them in a second, but the cap is a NFL wide thing. the Redskins dont have a different cap. the articles I posted are regarding the NFL cap. just like rules, the NFL, NBA, MLB all have rules. Certain teams dont have there own rules to operate, they operate under the same umbrella.

Re: We must draft better...
 

Schneed10, where am I to go and get the info on the players contracts and yearly impact throughout the contract? The cap info is basic cap info, not any specifics.

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]Apparently when Marty took over, he rectified that by sending Dieon into retirement, Carrier gone, George gone. Marty cleaned house basically. those contracts never had a chance to make it to the large numbers.[/QUOTE]

ARRRGGHHHH. Don't you see? It was the housecleaning that was supposed to send us into cap hell. AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Supposedly, when we cut Carrier, Deion, Bruce Smith and George it was going to cause such a large cap hit because their prorated bonuses would be accelerated. In turn, the accelerated bonuses would cause such a big cap hit that we would be forced to make wholesale cuts to get under the cap. HOW MANY PLAYERS WERE CUT B/C OF THE "CAP HELL" CAUSED BY DEION, CARRIER AND SMITH???

Do you even understand the articles you posted??? Could you at least try for some consistency in your arguments? I know that seems to be asking for a lot, but others in this thread seem to manage it.

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin]ARRRGGHHHH. Don't you see? It was the housecleaning that was supposed to send us into cap hell. AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Supposedly, when we cut Carrier, Deion, Bruce Smith and George it was going to cause such a large cap hit because their prorated bonuses would be accelerated. In turn, the accelerated bonuses would cause such a big cap hit that we would be forced to make wholesale cuts to get under the cap. HOW MANY PLAYERS WERE CUT B/C OF THE "CAP HELL" CAUSED BY DEION, CARRIER AND SMITH???

Do you even understand the articles you posted??? Could you at least try for some consistency in your arguments? I know that seems to be asking for a lot, but others in this thread seem to manage it.[/QUOTE]


In all due respect Marty deserves a big thank you for basically taking care of that situation, he took the hit and stabilized our roster fiscally in 1 year.

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=offiss]In all due respect Marty deserves a big thank you for basically taking care of that situation, he took the hit and stabilized our roster fiscally in 1 year.[/QUOTE]

I agree. He took a hit and, as Matty pointed out, we weren't particularly active that year. BUT we weren't forced to basically destroy our roster as the Ravens were two years after their SB. As Schneed pointed out, we took the hit BUT we then managed it w/out total roster destruction.

Re: We must draft better...
 

I agree. Marty did nothing but help the REDSKINS! If we had kept him around we would have been to the playoffs by now. :censored:

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Still waiting for that cap hell...

:sleep:[/QUOTE]

"Cap Hell" may not be what everybody perceives it to be -- everyone uses San Fransisco as the ultimate example. They had to purge their roster, now look at them.

While the Skins haven't fallen to that point, our version of Cap Hell might be less debilitating, but still negates our ability to keep the players once they become free agents -- Smoot and Pierce are the most recent examples. Can you imagine how retaining those players could have helped us out now?

Re: We must draft better...
 

Cap hell is not being limited to making tough choices like the Skins did with Smoot and Pierce. Every team is faced with decisions like that, you can't just sign everyone.

When the media talks of the Skins headed towards cap hell each offseason, they're referring to what teams like the Titans went through last year, where they have to sell off players just to be able to field a full roster and they are [u]severely[/u] limited in what they can do personnel wise.

C'mon Beems, are you telling me the Skins are in cap hell right now?

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Cap hell is not being limited to making tough choices like the Skins did with Smoot and Pierce. Every team is faced with decisions like that, you can't just sign everyone.

When the media talks of the Skins headed towards cap hell each offseason, they're referring to what teams like the Titans went through last year, where they have to sell off players just to be able to field a full roster and they are [u]severely[/u] limited in what they can do personnel wise.

C'mon Beems, are you telling me the Skins are in cap hell right now?[/QUOTE]

I think we can safely say that cap constraints were a factor in our inability to retain Fred Smoot and Antonio Pierce.

Look, if this everything's coming up roses with regard to personnel decision-making and cap management as some here seem to imply, are you telling me that we wouldn't be in any better of a situation than we're in right now?

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]I will go through them in a second, but the cap is a NFL wide thing. the Redskins dont have a different cap. the articles I posted are regarding the NFL cap. just like rules, the NFL, NBA, MLB all have rules. Certain teams dont have there own rules to operate, they operate under the same umbrella.[/QUOTE]

On the Warpath's main page you'll see a link to the left hand side of the screen for Salary Cap Info. Click that and you'll get a set of spreadsheets with tabs at the bottom. Click on the cap summary sheet to see the players' cap figures for each season. These sheets are managed by CrazyCanuck.

I'm not saying there are different rules for the Redskins. I'm saying that the Redskins have not put themselves in the precarious situation that you are making them out to be in. When you examine the numbers, you can tell me where the major problems are that will cause us to dismantle our squad. Because I don't see it.

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]"Cap Hell" may not be what everybody perceives it to be -- everyone uses San Fransisco as the ultimate example. They had to purge their roster, now look at them.

While the Skins haven't fallen to that point, our version of Cap Hell might be less debilitating, but still negates our ability to keep the players once they become free agents -- Smoot and Pierce are the most recent examples. Can you imagine how retaining those players could have helped us out now?[/QUOTE]

OK first off, the reason we had to let Smoot and Pierce go was because we ran up against the cap. I'll give you that. But the reason we ran up against the cap is because we are carrying so much dead money for L Coles and J Trotter. Both of those players were signed under the Spurrier regime, and were deemed not to fit with the new coaching staff. If you're going to change coaches every year or so, then no, it doesn't makes sense to sign guys to big bonuses, because there is a good chance they won't fit with the new regime. But somehow I think we've solved the revolving door at the head coaching position, and the front office appears to be quite stable. Even on defense when Williams ultimately leaves, Blache will take over and be able to keep the same talent.

My main point is that the moves being made since Gibbs came back have been of a much more prudent nature. The Springs, Griffin, Washington and Salavea'a signings were not exhorbitant with signing bonuses. Portis and Samuels have gotten big bonuses under the Gibbs regime. But they are rocks on our team, and are both young. You see that the front office has changed it's ways with giving out signing bonuses, which is a good thing. It's just that they still have to deal with some mistakes made by the Spurrier regime.

I definitely am not saying the Skins managed the cap very well back in 2003. The signing bonuses were too large. But now if you notice the deals they're giving out, there's less in the signing bonus and more in roster and workout bonuses. That really helps the cap situation.

I think the current regime has it down pat at this point.

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]I think we can safely say that cap constraints were a factor in our inability to retain Fred Smoot and Antonio Pierce.

Look, if this everything's coming up roses with regard to personnel decision-making and cap management as some here seem to imply, are you telling me that we wouldn't be in any better of a situation than we're in right now?[/QUOTE]

I agree with you here, Beem. If we hadn't given Coles and Trotter such big signing bonuses, we probably could have kept Smoot and Pierce. But the point is the Gibbs regime has learned those lessons through the mistakes of the Spurrier regime. Since Gibbs took over, I haven't seen one deal signed that could be considered potentially crippling to the salary cap.

The thing about the salary cap is the mistakes you make in the past haunt you in the present. The mistakes you make in the present don't haunt you until the future. We can't do anything about past mistakes at this point, except learn from them. So the question is what mistakes are we making [b]today[/b]? As I look at the numbers, I don't see any.

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]I think we can safely say that cap constraints were a factor in our inability to retain Fred Smoot and Antonio Pierce.

Look, if this everything's coming up roses with regard to personnel decision-making and cap management as some here seem to imply, are you telling me that we wouldn't be in any better of a situation than we're in right now?[/QUOTE]

I'm not denying that cap constraints played a role in our inability to re-sign both Smoot & Pierce, though I would argue a deal with Pierce was on the table so the Skins obviously had some room for him, not as much as he wanted but that's life.

Nobody is implying our cap situation is perfect, but the argument is are we headed towards an impending cap hell, and I argue we definitely are not.

Re: We must draft better...
 

Here are the players who got big signing bonuses under Gibbs:

Carlos Rogers $9.1 million
Clinton Portis $11.5 million
Cornelius Griffin $8.3 million
Marcus Washington $7 million
Mark Brunell $8.6 million
Santana Moss $10 million
Sean Taylor $11.6 million
Shawn Springs $10.2 million

In my eyes, based on their play over the last two years, every single one of them has justified those bonuses and then some, with the exception of Rogers who needs more time to prove himself. Brunell's contract was steep at the time of signing, but ask yourself, where would we be without him right now?

Kudos to the current staff. There's a reason we've already won more games this year than we did last year.

Re: We must draft better...
 

OH WELL, I was looking for a discussion on our draft experience, and it started out that way, but by god, "CAP HELL" took over. I sure would like to have a discussion on our drafting. I am not sure where to get the info for other teams, but it would be worth while to compare with maybe the feagles, the giants, the cowgirls, and the pats.

If anyone has a website, I'll do the analysis!

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=lifetimeskin]OH WELL, I was looking for a discussion on our draft experience, and it started out that way, but by god, "CAP HELL" took over. I sure would like to have a discussion on our drafting. I am not sure where to get the info for other teams, but it would be worth while to compare with maybe the feagles, the giants, the cowgirls, and the pats.

If anyone has a website, I'll do the analysis![/QUOTE]

LOL. Maybe next time start a thread called "Cap Hell"...[I]then[/I] we can discuss our draft history.

Re: We must draft better...
 

As for the original discusion on the draft the leugue is littered with first day draft busts and really it is day one where you have to make your choices count and in that regard I belive we havent done too bad . One problem is fans have no patience in regard to player development already Taylor Jaobs is written off, Betts is written off etc etc .

Yes it is good to find good players on day 2 but equallly if you can get equal value from UDFA isn't that a good way to go too ? Ryan Clark, Lamar Marshell, Chris Clemons, Demetric Evans, Ade Jimoha (makes a good 4th CB in this legue), Aki Smith, Cedric Killings even the likes of mike Sellars and James Thrash were orginally UDFAs by this team .

Another point is FA and traded players can make a winning team . Just looking at QB a key area talked about in the draft Jake Delhomme took the panthers to the super bowl wasnt drafted by them, Matt Hasselbeck was in Green Bay, Brad Johnson took the bucs to the superbowl and he started life where he is now with the Vikings .

The point is there is always more than one way to field a competitive team and those who live throught the mantra of draft draft draft have to live with the consiquence and be prepared to wait 3-4 years to see thier draft classes pan out .

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=bedlamVR]As for the original discusion on the draft the leugue is littered with first day draft busts and really it is day one where you have to make your choices count and in that regard I belive we havent done too bad . One problem is fans have no patience in regard to player development already Taylor Jaobs is written off, Betts is written off etc etc .

Yes it is good to find good players on day 2 but equallly if you can get equal value from UDFA isn't that a good way to go too ? Ryan Clark, Lamar Marshell, Chris Clemons, Demetric Evans, Ade Jimoha (makes a good 4th CB in this legue), Aki Smith, Cedric Killings even the likes of mike Sellars and James Thrash were orginally UDFAs by this team .

Another point is FA and traded players can make a winning team . Just looking at QB a key area talked about in the draft Jake Delhomme took the panthers to the super bowl wasnt drafted by them, Matt Hasselbeck was in Green Bay, Brad Johnson took the bucs to the superbowl and he started life where he is now with the Vikings .

The point is there is always more than one way to field a competitive team and those who live throught the mantra of draft draft draft have to live with the consiquence and be prepared to wait 3-4 years to see thier draft classes pan out .[/QUOTE]

That sums up my, and many other people's, feelings perfectly. The draft isn't the end all, be all answer to everything. We should just lock the thread now because that was a great post...because I agreed with it, haha

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=offiss]Well most of them aren't on our roster, or sitting the bench or practice squad somewhere's else.

I remember Desmond to, that's another reason I worry about Gibbs ability to judge talent. lol[/QUOTE]


You are Both wrong! I remember back about The Howard pick. Gibbs didn't want him. The facts are when Desmond was timed after he was picked Gibbs said "is that all he has"? That pick was all the FO!!! As for Gibbs picking talent we will see!!! That first round pick we gave up on top of others for Campbell will come due in april!!! :dallas:

Re: We must draft better...
 

The draft will always be a crap shoot. No one can blame any team for taking a Heisman winner(Desmond). They just always seem to be busts. We'll all see where Reggie ends up....However, how can we complain at this moment? Cooley, Taylor, and Rogers(already) are household names. Not bad in my opinion. McCune and Broughton may become household sooner than later. Btw how about the Moss/Coles trade for free agency!
Cowpunks will be kicked all around sunday! GO SKINS!

Re: We must draft better...
 

#56, i can find you other capologists that say its not a big problem, just cause one person agrees with you doesn't make it true.

as far as the original topic, look at the bengals, when i went over their roster, 30+ players have been around over 3 years and there's a ton of draft picks in there too. most importantly, their high picks (CP, CJ) have been absolute slam dunks, and the lower round guys make up very cheap depth on their roster.

Re: We must draft better...
 

I love how people just can't let go of Desmond Howard. One draft bust and it's tainted Gibbs ability to "judge talent" for the rest of his life. Give me a break.

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin]ARRRGGHHHH. Don't you see? It was the housecleaning that was supposed to send us into cap hell. AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Supposedly, when we cut Carrier, Deion, Bruce Smith and George it was going to cause such a large cap hit because their prorated bonuses would be accelerated. In turn, the accelerated bonuses would cause such a big cap hit that we would be forced to make wholesale cuts to get under the cap. HOW MANY PLAYERS WERE CUT B/C OF THE "CAP HELL" CAUSED BY DEION, CARRIER AND SMITH???

Do you even understand the articles you posted??? Could you at least try for some consistency in your arguments? I know that seems to be asking for a lot, but others in this thread seem to manage it.[/QUOTE]

i just read this today, so sorry for not getting back to you yesterday. The accelerated portions were spread over the two year period since it was after June 1. so the cap hits were not as big as a 1 year hit, obviously. Cutting people is what saves money on the cap. If a player is due 10 million on the cap, they generally cut him because they can spread what ever portion of the signing is left over that year and next,again depending on when he is cut. Deion screwed us by retiring, but the other guys were able to be spread over two years. Dont sound so rude, its just a discussion. You sound a little too stressed out. relax.

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven]"Cap Hell" may not be what everybody perceives it to be -- everyone uses San Fransisco as the ultimate example. They had to purge their roster, now look at them.

While the Skins haven't fallen to that point, our version of Cap Hell might be less debilitating, but still negates our ability to keep the players once they become free agents -- Smoot and Pierce are the most recent examples. Can you imagine how retaining those players could have helped us out now?[/QUOTE]

Thank you!! I have been trying to say this. That we cant keep certain players around because we dont manage the cap very well in the terms of allowing core players leave because of a million here or there. You can not build a chemisty with a team when every 3 years or 4 years you are adding new talent at key positions. I hope we can keep Washington, Arrington, Taylor, Rogers, Giffin for more than just 4 years. Those guys could be awesome together, especially after they play together for several years. How bad to we need smoot right now. Look how many years Tampa was dominant on D with Lynch, brooks, Barber, Sapp.

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]Thank you!! I have been trying to say this. That we cant keep certain players around because we dont manage the cap very well in the terms of allowing core players leave because of a million here or there. You can not build a chemisty with a team when every 3 years or 4 years you are adding new talent at key positions. I hope we can keep Washington, Arrington, Taylor, Rogers, Giffin for more than just 4 years. Those guys could be awesome together, especially after they play together for several years. How bad to we need smoot right now. Look how many years Tampa was dominant on D with Lynch, brooks, Barber, Sapp.[/QUOTE]

But you continue to miss the main point. Go back and read all responses to Beem's posts.

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]On the Warpath's main page you'll see a link to the left hand side of the screen for Salary Cap Info. Click that and you'll get a set of spreadsheets with tabs at the bottom. Click on the cap summary sheet to see the players' cap figures for each season. These sheets are managed by CrazyCanuck.

I'm not saying there are different rules for the Redskins. I'm saying that the Redskins have not put themselves in the precarious situation that you are making them out to be in. When you examine the numbers, you can tell me where the major problems are that will cause us to dismantle our squad. Because I don't see it.[/QUOTE]


OK, I went throught them this morning and of the contracts listed there are a few that I would say could be problems. COULB BE problems.
1) LaVar, he is 12million next year, then its about 11 million a year there after.
2)Samuels 8 to 9 million everyyear for the 5
3) Brunell - 5.5 next yr,at 36yrs old then goes up about a million each year, with 9 million at age 40 approximately, now obviously I realize he probably doesn't make into 2007, which it will be about 8 million against the cap and spread that out, its about 4 million a year.
Portis jumps to 5.5 next year, then a million each year from there ending at about 8 or 9 million
Springs at 30 years old is 5.5 then 6.5 and around 8 million at like age 34.

those are the ones I think could be problems. 3 or 4 of those guys are key position player if not all, not counting Brunell.
when we get to 2008 We have aproximately 70+ million tied up in only 10 to 11 players. If those guys are released, because they still have multiple years left, your are talking about spreading out there bonuses over 2 year period max, of those players Lavar, samuels, springs, brunell, portis, all have big signing bonuses. Restructure? Still has future implications of some sort.

But overall, 2008 they will have to be reworking, cutting, or what ever. Which again leads to turnover on the roster ofter guys playing a few years together. I dont know what will happen in the 2007, 2008 or beyond. But 70+ million in 11 players is alot of money when you have 53 players to account for. The cap could be as much as 110 million by then, which gives you 40 million for 40 other guys. But we only have 17 guys under contract in 2008. Dont know, but you asked for what I thought would be , or could be problems and thats what I gather.

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]But you continue to miss the main point. Go back and read all responses to Beem's posts.[/QUOTE]

Not again today!! He just said will our limited amount of cap space, we sometimes, SOMETIMES can not afford to keep certain players. I agreed with his statement, how am I missing the point, HOW!! I didn't make a point, I agreed with his!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]OK, I went throught them this morning and of the contracts listed there are a few that I would say could be problems. COULB BE problems.
1) LaVar, he is 12million next year, then its about 11 million a year there after.
2)Samuels 8 to 9 million everyyear for the 5
3) Brunell - 5.5 next yr,at 36yrs old then goes up about a million each year, with 9 million at age 40 approximately, now obviously I realize he probably doesn't make into 2007, which it will be about 8 million against the cap and spread that out, its about 4 million a year.
Portis jumps to 5.5 next year, then a million each year from there ending at about 8 or 9 million
Springs at 30 years old is 5.5 then 6.5 and around 8 million at like age 34.

those are the ones I think could be problems. 3 or 4 of those guys are key position player if not all, not counting Brunell.
when we get to 2008 We have aproximately 70+ million tied up in only 10 to 11 players. If those guys are released, because they still have multiple years left, your are talking about spreading out there bonuses over 2 year period max, of those players Lavar, samuels, springs, brunell, portis, all have big signing bonuses. Restructure? Still has future implications of some sort.

But overall, 2008 they will have to be reworking, cutting, or what ever. Which again leads to turnover on the roster ofter guys playing a few years together. I dont know what will happen in the 2007, 2008 or beyond. But 70+ million in 11 players is alot of money when you have 53 players to account for. The cap could be as much as 110 million by then, which gives you 40 million for 40 other guys. But we only have 17 guys under contract in 2008. Dont know, but you asked for what I thought would be , or could be problems and thats what I gather.[/QUOTE]

You need to check out the Release Fee tab. It's very revealing. It lists, for each year, the guy's expected cap hit for that year and the "release fee." The release fee represents the cap hit we'd carry for that player if we cut him or traded him that year. So basically, if the release fee is lower than the cap hit in that year, you can SAVE CAP ROOM by getting rid of that player.

With that in mind let's examine Brunell. In 2006, Brunell's cap hit will be $5.4 million if he's on the team, and his release fee would hit our cap with $5.7 million if we cut him. So we wouldn't want to cut him in 2006, because it would cost more to cut him than to keep him. Plus the intention was to have Brunell around as starter for 3 years. Sure enough, in 2007, the release fee would represent a savings over his 2007 cap hit. In 2007 he's scheduled to hit us for $6.6 million, but releasing him would hit us with only $4.3 million in dead money. That's a lot more palatable than something like Coles' $9 million.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. When we do eventually have to eat a hit on these guys, the hits aren't as big. The players signed under Spurrier like Coles and Trotter resulted in crippling blows to our salary cap. But Brunell won't, and that was one of the signings people were complaining about most.

Let's consider the rest of the players Gibbs has signed. Let's say we cut them in 2007. The most dead money we'd carry in 2007 would be for Carlos Rogers or Santana Moss, who would both hit us with $7 million in dead cap money. The rest would be like $4 million or less. Now, can you imagine us cutting Moss or Rogers by 2007? I can't. This is proof positive that we're in great shape. Samuels was a re-sign under Gibbs, he'd represent a big cap hit if we had to cut him. But he's such a rock and always plays hurt, the chance of cutting him seems pretty low.

Nobody has reasonable potential to decimate our salary cap, with the exception of Arrington. Arrington's contract is the one that causes most concern, but mostly because he is now developing a reputation as an injury-prone guy. But if you only have one player on your team that represents a risk of decimating your cap, you're not doing too bad. Again, we're not perfect. But we're in good shape overall.

Re: We must draft better...
 

Ladies and Gentlemen -

I believe we have found the true meaning of Question 3.

Re: We must draft better...
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]But overall, 2008 they will have to be reworking, cutting, or what ever. Which again leads to turnover on the roster ofter guys playing a few years together. I dont know what will happen in the 2007, 2008 or beyond. But 70+ million in 11 players is alot of money when you have 53 players to account for. The cap could be as much as 110 million by then, which gives you 40 million for 40 other guys. But we only have 17 guys under contract in 2008. Dont know, but you asked for what I thought would be , or could be problems and thats what I gather.[/QUOTE]

If you're figuring a 10% rise in the salary cap each year, the 2008 cap will be $113 million. Seems about right given the new TV deals and such, it might even be higher. But I doubt lower than $113 million.

The $70 million that is currently wrapped up in those 11 players is mostly base salary and roster bonuses. That would easily be restructured by then, moving most of the money into the future years. But before you start, please spare me the sermon on delaying the cap hits in this fashion. As long as you don't delay TOO MUCH of it, you stay in great shape.