The 30% Rule
 

As I'm working through potential ways for the Redskins to reduce their cap number in 2009, I'm bumping up against the 30% Rule, and I'm sure Vinny and the gang are too. I'm starting this thread because I need help on the interpretation of the rule. If anyone has access to a copy of the CBA as written today, that would be helpful, or if you just know the answer or can link to other helpful information, I can proceed down the road of crunching numbers and posting a plan here on the site.

The 30% rule states that any contracts signed during the last capped year (2009) that stretch into years thereafter (2010 and beyond) must have base salary increases (defined as salary + roster bonuses, but not signing bonus allocations) no more than 30% from one year to the next. In simpler terms, if a player's base compensation in 2009 is $1 million dollars, his 2010 base compensation cannot be any more than $1.3 million.

This prevents the Redskins from using their standard contract restructuring practice. I've got a way around this, but only if I'm interpreting the 30% rule correctly:

My understanding is the 30% limit on increases only applies when comparing 2009 to 2010 base compensation. I haven't seen anything indicating a team can't give more than 30% when comparing 2010 to 2011. In other words, while $1.3 million may be the max a contract can show in 2010, I know of no reason why a team can't just jack up the base compensation in 2011 to $10 million if they want.

Does anybody know if this is possible? Or does the 30% rule apply to all future years?

Thanks in advance for the info.

Re: The 30% Rule
 

I got the answer myself. Per the CBA, Article XXIV, Section 8, Part B:

[quote](b) No NFL Player Contract entered into in a Capped Year and extending into the Final League Year or beyond may provide for an annual increase in Salary, excluding any amount attributable to a signing bonus as defined in Section 7(b)(iv) above, of more than 30% of the Salary provided for in the Final Capped Year, per year, either in the Final League Year or in any subsequent League Year covered by the Player Contract. For example, without limitation on any other applicable example, a four-year Player Contract signed in the 2011 League Year, assuming that it is Capped, may not provide for an annual increase of more than 30% of the 2011 League Year Salary, excluding amounts treated as a signing bonus, [B]in any of the three additional League Years covered by the Contract.[/B][/quote]

In other words, the 30% Rule limits teams from increasing base compensation in all out years, not just in 2010. This severely limits the Redskins in their ability to restructure contracts, and in my judgment increases the likelihood that veterans nearing the end of their contracts will be jettisoned to clear cap space.

Re: The 30% Rule
 

[quote=Schneed10;518062]I got the answer myself. Per the CBA, Article XXIV, Section 8, Part B:



In other words, the 30% Rule limits teams from increasing base compensation in all out years, not just in 2010. This severely limits the Redskins in their ability to restructure contracts, and in my judgment increases the likelihood that veterans nearing the end of their contracts will be jettisoned to clear cap space.[/quote]

Any guesses who is most likely to be shown the door based on your research?

Re: The 30% Rule
 

Instead of starting a thread I'll just pose the question here: when can we expect some changes to the roster i.e. guys let go, restructured etc?

How about changes to the coaching staff? I get the feeling coaching changes (if they're coming) can happen anytime. Just saw Green Bay canned like half a dozen. Crazy.

Re: The 30% Rule
 

[quote=The Goat;518091]Any guesses who is most likely to be shown the door based on your research?[/quote]

I'd say Marcus Washington is the most likely. Cutting him would save us $4.5 million in cap space.

Re: The 30% Rule
 

[quote=Schneed10;518097]I'd say Marcus Washington is the most likely. Cutting him would save us $4.5 million in cap space.[/quote]

I'm a little bummed but figured that was the story. Have only seen him play live once but I loved his enthusiasm out there. I've heard some suggestions he could be cut then resigned (for the much lower value he's probably worth) when nobody comes knocking. Any insight there?

Also, why Marcus over Springs? I thought cutting Springs would save like $5 mill looking at the cap sheet (other thread).

Re: The 30% Rule
 

[quote=The Goat;518099]I'm a little bummed but figured that was the story. Have only seen him play live once but I loved his enthusiasm out there. I've heard some suggestions he could be cut then resigned (for the much lower value he's probably worth) when nobody comes knocking. Any insight there?

Also, why Marcus over Springs? I thought cutting Springs would save like $5 mill looking at the cap sheet (other thread).[/quote]

Yeah cutting Springs would save $6 million. But I'm also going by the behavior of the coaching staff, tendencies we've observed from Vinny, and to some extent inside info from JLC.

Blache started Springs over Rogers coming down the stretch. It's clear the team still thinks he is the top CB on the team. Vinny doesn't seem scared of having old guys around either, after all he traded for Jason Taylor. And everything we hear from JLC seems to indicate the 'Skins coaches seem to feel Springs is viewed as an indispensable member of the defense as he is capable of locking down top WRs like Terrell Owens and catching the ball when he gets a shot at it.

My opinion of him is very high, as well. When healthy he is a top flight CB. The "when healthy" part is certainly the issue though.

I think they bring Springs back with a new 3 year deal or something like that to get his cap number down.

Re: The 30% Rule
 

Jeez I really thought w/ Hall in town Springs would be the one "top corner" to get the boot, especially w/ his massive salary. Then do we boot Rogers or retain three extremely talented corners? Add Landry and Horton in that equation and we're insanely talented in the secondary (as 4 of those 5 guys probably just continue to get better at this point in their careers w/ Springs holding more or less steady).

Re: The 30% Rule
 

Unless we get blown away with an offer, Rogers will be back [I]next[/I] season. That I'm sure of. I remain unconvinced that Rogers would ever leave the team, but I'm not so sure he's getting a long term deal here.

Either way, end of contract, plus a RFA year, and then (theoretically) a franchise tag year, and Rogers is here through 2011, without actually signing a longer deal. I imagine those would be his three best years, so it might actually make sense to not resign him.

Re: The 30% Rule
 

[quote=GTripp0012;518125][B]Unless we get blown away with an offer, Rogers will be back [I]next[/I] season.[/B] That I'm sure of. I remain unconvinced that Rogers would ever leave the team, but I'm not so sure he's getting a long term deal here.

Either way, end of contract, plus a RFA year, and then (theoretically) a franchise tag year, and Rogers is here through 2011, without actually signing a longer deal. I imagine those would be his three best years, so it might actually make sense to not resign him.[/quote]

I would tend to agree. It will be tough for the Redskins to clear cap space this year, and they can't easily afford to give up the additional $1.5 million in space that would result from trading Rogers. They need to create enough space to resign DeAngelo Hall as they appear intent on, resign the Red Snapper, resign Suisham (or a kicker like him), and make any other free agent moves they intend to make. The math works out in such a way that taking a $1.5 million hit from trading Rogers becomes no insignificant task. I think he stays.

Re: The 30% Rule
 

[quote=Schneed10;518132]I would tend to agree. It will be tough for the Redskins to clear cap space this year, and they can't easily afford to give up the additional $1.5 million in space that would result from trading Rogers. They need to create enough space to resign DeAngelo Hall as they appear intent on, resign the Red Snapper, resign Suisham (or a kicker like him), and make any other free agent moves they intend to make. The math works out in such a way that taking a $1.5 million hit from trading Rogers becomes no insignificant task. I think he stays.[/quote]

My thoughts exactly. As well as the thoughts from Tripp. We can tie Rogers up for 3 years and at if he has magically learned to catch in year three we can still work on a long term deal. By then Springs will almost certainly be gone or swapped to safety (at a much cheaper price) and we'll still need a 1 or 2 CB

Re: The 30% Rule
 

Our current action plan towards personnel decisions seems to be meeting with limited postive results. We are constantly bombarded with shrewd rookie picks from other teams and late rounders that are "making history", etc. We have had some good things, but not enough.
That having been said, (in a perfect world) I would REALLY like the team to take a step back and look at a little "spring cleaning" of high priced players that are largely ineffective or beyond their ability to deliver the goods. Get some guys on the field who HAVE the killer instinct and "hopefully" can deliver some of that.........this isn't working as well as we want. After all, we know far to well, it AIN'T about the old superstar.
Maybe a little Bill Parcells type moves or at least consider following his lead

Re: The 30% Rule
 

[quote=Schneed10;518101]Yeah cutting Springs would save $6 million. But I'm also going by the behavior of the coaching staff, tendencies we've observed from Vinny, and to some extent inside info from JLC.

Blache started Springs over Rogers coming down the stretch. It's clear the team still thinks he is the top CB on the team. Vinny doesn't seem scared of having old guys around either, after all he traded for Jason Taylor. And everything we hear from JLC seems to indicate the 'Skins coaches seem to feel Springs is viewed as an indispensable member of the defense as he is capable of locking down top WRs like Terrell Owens and catching the ball when he gets a shot at it.

My opinion of him is very high, as well. When healthy he is a top flight CB. The "when healthy" part is certainly the issue though.

I think they bring Springs back with a new 3 year deal or something like that to get his cap number down.[/quote]

Springs has so many issues outside the football field that may incline him to just stick with the devil he knows and remain with the Redskins. In fact, the Redskins probably have more leverage this year than in year's past to "encourage" him to restructure his deal.

Will he stay? I don't know for sure but I think it's more probable than it was at the beginning of the season. I think Washington is gone. I suspect they'll add two to three linebackers this year through the draft and free agency.

Re: The 30% Rule
 

is Vilma a free agent? i wanted him last year

Re: The 30% Rule
 

[quote=Hog1;518142]Our current action plan towards personnel decisions seems to be meeting with limited postive results. We are constantly bombarded with shrewd rookie picks from other teams and late rounders that are "making history", etc. We have had some good things, but not enough.
That having been said, (in a perfect world) I would REALLY like the team to take a step back and look at a little "spring cleaning" of high priced players that are largely ineffective or beyond their ability to deliver the goods. Get some guys on the field who HAVE the killer instinct and "hopefully" can deliver some of that.........this isn't working as well as we want. After all, we know far to well, it AIN'T about the old superstar.
Maybe a little Bill Parcells type moves or at least consider following his lead[/quote]

agreed a little bill parcells would go a long way to instill some youth in a team that is old at to many positions.

Re: The 30% Rule
 

[quote=redskinjim;518181]agreed a little bill parcells would go a long way to instill some youth in a team that is old at to many positions.[/quote]

Springs is gone

Re: The 30% Rule
 

did you just quote yourself?:)

Re: The 30% Rule
 

I'd say the number one player that is going to be cut has got to be Jason Taylor - instant savings of $8.5 million makes this priority cut #1. Now many have said we should renegotiate a new multi-year contract to lower the cap number and keep him here for a couple of years because we gave away picks to get him, but why not free up all the space and use some to bolster the oline and maybe use a draft pick or 2 on a DE?

Cut Taylor and Springs
 

We gotta get rid of Springs re-sign Hall, or vice versa. Either way it's about the same amount of money, so lock the young guy up. Cut Taylor, not worth 8 or even 4 million to give him another try. Suck it up and take the loss of the picks. We made a mistake and he doesn't want to play anymore, he wants to go to the entertainment business, even though he'd never say that.

Re: The 30% Rule
 

Ok, I'll ask it here since everyone is here now. I thought the CBA/CAP was going to end in 2010 which would mean our only year to worry about is 2010 in reference to CAP? I would assume that if we can make it through 2010 then after there is no CAP and DS can pay what ever he wants? am I wrong? I also read in your post Schneed, it says "In any of the 3 additional league yrs" ? what does that mean? Am I mixing fruit? apples and oranges? CBA/CAP.

Re: The 30% Rule
 

[quote=SBXVII;518611]Ok, I'll ask it here since everyone is here now. I thought the CBA/CAP was going to end in 2010 which would mean our only year to worry about is 2010 in reference to CAP? I would assume that if we can make it through 2010 then after there is no CAP and DS can pay what ever he wants? am I wrong? I also read in your post Schneed, it says "In any of the 3 additional league yrs" ? what does that mean? Am I mixing fruit? apples and oranges? CBA/CAP.[/quote]

You've got the concept right, you're just off by a year.

The CBA is set to expire in 2010, which would mean 2010 would have no salary cap at all and we'd be free to have as much salary on the books as we wanted.

But that means 2009 becomes the Final Capped Season, and as such specific rules governing contracts and cap allocation methodology are in effect.

The 30% Rule says whatever a player's base salary in 2009 is, you can't increase that base salary by more than 30% in any of the next three seasons (2010, 2011, and 2012).

So if you want to give a guy a base salary of $3.0 million in 2010, his 2009 base salary can be no less than $2.3 million (3.0 / 1.3 = 2.3).

Re: The 30% Rule
 

Vilma is a free agent this year, but I think it would be best if we stayed clear of him and went the route of the draft to plug in the LB spots. Last year I was praying Mayo would fall to us at 21 in the draft, but of course the Pats got him in the early teens or around that area and he ended up being the defensive rookie of the year. Imagine having something like that for a long time, and for considerably cheaper then Vilma!

Re: The 30% Rule
 

i read somewhere that in an uncapped year a team can only sign as many free agents as it loses. not 100 percent sure but i know i saw it somewhere.

Re: Compensatory Picks
 

[quote=an23dy;518574]One aspect that gets ignored in these older guys deals is compensatory picks. If we wait until the ends of these deals and they leave as unrestricted free agents we get compensatory picks if they are signed by another team. We got a third rounder last year when Derrick Dockery left. Taylor doesn't sound like he will keep playing but Springs and Washington might and that could add some late picks to the equation.[/quote]

compensatory picks are only awarded for players you lost that were drafted. No comp. picks are awarded for free agents you signed, then let walk at the end of their contract.

Re: The 30% Rule
 

[quote=RedskinMike;518671]i read somewhere that in an uncapped year a team can only sign as many free agents as it loses. not 100 percent sure but i know i saw it somewhere.[/quote]

That's sort of true. It applies only to the eight teams that make the divisional playoffs the previous season. So if the uncapped year was this offseason it would apply to the teams that are playing this weekend. Other factors that are overlooked.

-Teams would be able to franchise or transition tag up to three players, as opposed to the current one

-Players would have to six years of NFL experience to make them eligible for free agency. Meaning that those of us who might have thought someone like a DeMeco Ryans could be a good 2010 target can forget about it.

Re: The 30% Rule
 

[quote=SmootSmack;518681]That's sort of true. It applies only to the eight teams that make the divisional playoffs the previous season. So if the uncapped year was this offseason it would apply to the teams that are playing this weekend. Other factors that are overlooked.

-Teams would be able to franchise or transition tag up to three players, as opposed to the current one

-Players would have to six years of NFL experience to make them eligible for free agency. Meaning that those of us who might have thought someone like a DeMeco Ryans could be a good 2010 target can forget about it.[/quote]


Smootsmack - you are dead on - here is a link that gives a nice little overview of what will happen if the NFL goes uncapped...

[URL="http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80864e15&template=with-video&confirm=true"]Uncapped years would actually limit free agency[/URL]

Take a look at part 3 - here is a summary and my thinking on this...

[B][quote]Playoff restrictions[/B]

"If the league gets to the point of an uncapped year, people are afraid that deep-pocket owners such as Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder will come in and buy a championship. If the aggressive owners already have playoff teams, there will be restrictions on how much money they can spend. The formula may slide with the number of players they lose in free agency, but the plan is designed to not let teams buy a championship. [B][SIZE=5]The truth is, the first two triggers aren't going to leave too many players available to acquire anyway.[/SIZE][/B]"

The interesting thing is if it goes to an uncapped method drafting will become even more important and trying to build a team via free agents will become even more obsolete because of the protections that this article is talking about - in other words Synder and Jerry Jones will have a very difficult time buying a championships and you better have some top quailty front office men that can put together good draft after good draft because that is the way it will go - Vinny and the rest of the stafff better be ready if it comes to this.

Re: The 30% Rule
 

[quote=SmootSmack;518681]That's sort of true. It applies only to the eight teams that make the divisional playoffs the previous season. So if the uncapped year was this offseason it would apply to the teams that are playing this weekend. Other factors that are overlooked.

-Teams would be able to franchise or transition tag up to three players, as opposed to the current one

-Players would have to six years of NFL experience to make them eligible for free agency. Meaning that those of us who might have thought someone like a DeMeco Ryans could be a good 2010 target can forget about it.[/quote]

thanks that clears it up

Re: The 30% Rule
 

So Bill, If I read the last paragraph correctly...

[B]The interesting thing is if it goes to an uncapped method drafting will become even more important and trying to build a team via free agents will become even more obsolete [/B]

Then does that mean the draft will probably be bumped back up to more then seven rounds or more then seven picks per team?

Re: The 30% Rule
 

[quote=SBXVII;518746]So Bill, If I read the last paragraph correctly...

[B]The interesting thing is if it goes to an uncapped method drafting will become even more important and trying to build a team via free agents will become even more obsolete [/B]

Then does that mean the draft will probably be bumped back up to more then seven rounds or more then seven picks per team?[/quote]


Maybe - although I think a lot of players like the rounds limited the way they are because it gives a lot of undrafted players a better chance to make a team - lets say you are a WR and a team loaded with them drafts you in a late round of lets say the 10th round if the draft was expanded hypotetically - the way it is now you would not have been drafted and had the ability to go to any team you wanted you where you think you have the best chance of making it but if the draft was longer you may not get that break. Overall a uncapped year would restrict player movement more than we see now and it will be intersting to see what happens with the agreement - my take is it will get extended another couple of years because the NFL is doing well even and players and owners would be wise not to break it.