Cap Question

Skinsfanatic · 03-12-2005, 10:11 PM

Not that I think that this should or would happen (ok, maybe should), but I have a question. Brunell is scheduled to make 3.4 million this year with a 7.1 million dollar release fee. He is scheduled to make 5.4 million next year. If we were to cut him after June first, wouldn't the release fee be applied to next years cap, resulting in 3.4 million in additional cap space this year while only resulting in 1.7 million in dead space (7.1 cap hit - 5.4 million in salary savings) next year? Is it just me, or does this sound like a good plan to anyone else. After June 1st, drop him like Rod Gardner drops passes. Draft a QB late in the draft to be our 3rd stringer and let Timmy be the backup. Then, we can use the 3.4 million this year to sign some defensive line help after the June 1st cuts.

sportscurmudgeon · 03-12-2005, 10:18 PM

Skinsfanatic:

Not a horrible plan of attack at all. Here is the only rub that I see:

Joe Gibbs likes "veteran leadershop" on the field or on the bench. If Brunell was jettisoned and a college guy was drafted/signed to be the #3 guy, that would leave Gibbs with a young QB - Ramesy - and another young and inexperienced QB - Hasselbeck - behind him and a rookie that may not know all 32 teams in the NFL. I just don't see this coach setting up this team with that situation.

But, stranger things have happened. I promise you that if we had done a poll here last Thanksgiving and asked for the 3 most notable Skins who would be gonzo in March 2005, no one would have had Smoot, Pierce and Coles as the trifecta...

CrazyCanuck · 03-12-2005, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinsfanatic

Not that I think that this should or would happen (ok, maybe should), but I have a question. Brunell is scheduled to make 3.4 million this year with a 7.1 million dollar release fee. He is scheduled to make 5.4 million next year. If we were to cut him after June first, wouldn't the release fee be applied to next years cap, resulting in 3.4 million in additional cap space this year while only resulting in 1.7 million in dead space (7.1 cap hit - 5.4 million in salary savings) next year? Is it just me, or does this sound like a good plan to anyone else. After June 1st, drop him like Rod Gardner drops passes. Draft a QB late in the draft to be our 3rd stringer and let Timmy be the backup. Then, we can use the 3.4 million this year to sign some defensive line help after the June 1st cuts.

Your numbers are off (unfortunately).

For starters, Brunell restructured recently, so his 2005 cap number is now only $2.433M. This is what would happen if we cut Brunell after June 1, 2005:

- We would eat $1.433M of deadcap for 2005 (the 2005 portion of his signing bonus).
- We would eat $5.733M of deadcap for 2006 (the remaining unallocated signing bonus).
- Our 2005 savings would only be $1M ($2.433M - $1.433M).

So we'd only save $1M this year and take a big deadcap hit in 2006, where we're already in trouble. Plus you still have to pay Brunell's replacement. I don't think it's happening.

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't agree more with your intentions. Unfortunately the "Cut Brunell in 2005" code cannot be broken. Trust me I've (we've) tried.

I think they'll cut him June 1, 2006 and take the bulk of the deadcap hit in 2007.

CRT3 · 03-13-2005, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyCanuck

I think they'll cut him June 1, 2006 and take the bulk of the deadcap hit in 2007.

Crazy why would you say we would cut him after 6/1/06 and have deadcap in 2007? There is no cap in 2007 yet. This is a uncapped year and the way that things have been going between NFLPA and the NFL, an aggreement to the CBA will not happen. Expect no cap for 2007 or if they do agree a change in the cap system. I honestly think the the Redskins are playing their cards for the 2007 season and will break the bank. What is your thought on this?

CrazyCanuck · 03-13-2005, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRT3

Crazy why would you say we would cut him after 6/1/06 and have deadcap in 2007? There is no cap in 2007 yet. This is a uncapped year and the way that things have been going between NFLPA and the NFL, an aggreement to the CBA will not happen. Expect no cap for 2007 or if they do agree a change in the cap system. I honestly think the the Redskins are playing their cards for the 2007 season and will break the bank. What is your thought on this?

Agreed, that's one reason why I think they'll push the money to 2007. Another reason is that we are already in toruble for 2006.

I really hope they renew the CBA and get rid of that uncapped year. First off, what would I do all year? Secondly I've seen how badly baseball is run and I don't ever want to go back to that, even if we'd have the greatest advantage in the new system.

Schneed10 · 03-12-2005, 11:43 PM

Brunell just restructured his deal for 2005. His cap hit is going to be a lot lower than that $3.4 million you're quoting. He's not going anywere this year. Next year at this time we might be having the same conversation though.

CrazyCanuck · 03-13-2005, 12:08 AM

By the way, I think I understand how Brunell's restructure works.

He gives back $1M in 2005. In exchange we give him $1M in ULTBE (unlikely to be earned) incentives. We can't give him LTBE (likely to be earned) incentives because these would count against the 2005 cap.

But for Brunell to accept ULTBE doesn't make sense. Like the name says, these incentives are "unlikely to be earned", so there's a good chance he won't see his money. To counter this the Skins give him a bunch of ULTBE incentives (8 I think). So each incentive individually is ULTBE, but because there are 8 of them, the odds are good that at least one will hit. When it does hit Brunell gets his $1M back and it counts against our 2006 cap.

I'm not positive this is how it works, but if so it's another interesting way the Skins have found to get around the cap.

As for Brunell, I think it's a classy move. Granted he probably isn't giving back any money, but he does stand to lose one year of interest on $1M, plus there's a small chance that he might not see that $1M at all. Not that it comes close to making up for his play this year, but it's a start.

JWsleep · 03-13-2005, 02:30 AM

Basically, he moved 1 mil from this year to next, I think. That will help if we go after any more FAs right now or after the June 1st cut date. Plus, if the team gets better this year, he's more likely to earn the incentives, so long as he stays on the bench!

Schneed10 · 03-13-2005, 10:01 AM

Canuck, I think it's actually a pretty ingenious way that the Skins got around the cap.

The definition of an "Unlikely To Be Earned" incentive is that it's something they did not achieve the previous year. One of the eight incentives is that the team offense finishes 29th or higher in the league rankings (based on yardage gained). Last year the team finished 30th, so technically this was not achieved last year and thus it's labeled ULTBE. But this is a team incentive, so Brunell can be cheering from the sidelines rooting for Ramsey to take the team to a 29th ranking or higher, which is nearly certain to happen.

The result is the ULTBE incentive does not count against the cap like you mentioned. I'm not sure, but now that I think about it, I don't think it would count against the 2006 cap if the incentive were met. The best part though, this isn't an incentive that is necessarily based on Brunell's personal performance. He can be a cheerleader all season long holding the clipboard and still get his $1 million. I like that. If he's going to bitch about playing time, it's not going to be because of money. His financial motivation is to see the team do well, and not care about himself.

Brilliant contract work in my mind, they've aligned Brunell's financial interests with the concept of putting the team before yourself. Just another step in fostering the kind of attitude we need at Redskins Park.

CrazyCanuck · 03-13-2005, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

The definition of an "Unlikely To Be Earned" incentive is that it's something they did not achieve the previous year. One of the eight incentives is that the team offense finishes 29th or higher in the league rankings (based on yardage gained). Last year the team finished 30th, so technically this was not achieved last year and thus it's labeled ULTBE. But this is a team incentive, so Brunell can be cheering from the sidelines rooting for Ramsey to take the team to a 29th ranking or higher, which is nearly certain to happen.

This makes sense. I'm surprised the ULTBE standards aren't a little tougher but i'm not complaining.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

The result is the ULTBE incentive does not count against the cap like you mentioned. I'm not sure, but now that I think about it, I don't think it would count against the 2006 cap if the incentive were met.

You may be right I'm not sure. I was under the impression that if the incentive is met, even if it's unlikely, it will count against the cap the following year.

drew54 · 03-13-2005, 01:27 PM

Is this the same method the Eagles are using?

e16bball · 03-13-2005, 02:29 PM

I am somewhat confused by this notion of the uncapped year. I understand it to some extent, but are they going to re-install a cap after 2007? If so, how will they allow for the fact that some teams (Skins, Cowboys, Raiders, etc.) will be spending huge amounts of money in 2007?

I think this uncapped year principle may have been installed brilliantly, as the uncertainty associated with it may well be the incentive necessary for the league to come to a new CBA.

03-12-2005, 10:11 PM	#1
Skinsfanatic The Starter Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 2,385	Cap Question Not that I think that this should or would happen (ok, maybe should), but I have a question. Brunell is scheduled to make 3.4 million this year with a 7.1 million dollar release fee. He is scheduled to make 5.4 million next year. If we were to cut him after June first, wouldn't the release fee be applied to next years cap, resulting in 3.4 million in additional cap space this year while only resulting in 1.7 million in dead space (7.1 cap hit - 5.4 million in salary savings) next year? Is it just me, or does this sound like a good plan to anyone else. After June 1st, drop him like Rod Gardner drops passes. Draft a QB late in the draft to be our 3rd stringer and let Timmy be the backup. Then, we can use the 3.4 million this year to sign some defensive line help after the June 1st cuts.

03-12-2005, 10:18 PM	#2
sportscurmudgeon Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,159	Re: Cap Question Skinsfanatic: Not a horrible plan of attack at all. Here is the only rub that I see: Joe Gibbs likes "veteran leadershop" on the field or on the bench. If Brunell was jettisoned and a college guy was drafted/signed to be the #3 guy, that would leave Gibbs with a young QB - Ramesy - and another young and inexperienced QB - Hasselbeck - behind him and a rookie that may not know all 32 teams in the NFL. I just don't see this coach setting up this team with that situation. But, stranger things have happened. I promise you that if we had done a poll here last Thanksgiving and asked for the 3 most notable Skins who would be gonzo in March 2005, no one would have had Smoot, Pierce and Coles as the trifecta... __________________ The Sports Curmudgeon www.sportscurmudgeon.com But don't get me wrong, I love sports...

03-12-2005, 11:43 PM	#6
Schneed10 A Dude Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 45 Posts: 12,426	Re: Cap Question Brunell just restructured his deal for 2005. His cap hit is going to be a lot lower than that $3.4 million you're quoting. He's not going anywere this year. Next year at this time we might be having the same conversation though.

03-13-2005, 12:08 AM	#7
CrazyCanuck Serenity Now Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 2,008	Re: Cap Question By the way, I think I understand how Brunell's restructure works. He gives back $1M in 2005. In exchange we give him $1M in ULTBE (unlikely to be earned) incentives. We can't give him LTBE (likely to be earned) incentives because these would count against the 2005 cap. But for Brunell to accept ULTBE doesn't make sense. Like the name says, these incentives are "unlikely to be earned", so there's a good chance he won't see his money. To counter this the Skins give him a bunch of ULTBE incentives (8 I think). So each incentive individually is ULTBE, but because there are 8 of them, the odds are good that at least one will hit. When it does hit Brunell gets his $1M back and it counts against our 2006 cap. I'm not positive this is how it works, but if so it's another interesting way the Skins have found to get around the cap. As for Brunell, I think it's a classy move. Granted he probably isn't giving back any money, but he does stand to lose one year of interest on $1M, plus there's a small chance that he might not see that $1M at all. Not that it comes close to making up for his play this year, but it's a start.

03-13-2005, 02:30 AM	#8
JWsleep Propane and propane accessories Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 55 Posts: 4,719	Re: Cap Question Basically, he moved 1 mil from this year to next, I think. That will help if we go after any more FAs right now or after the June 1st cut date. Plus, if the team gets better this year, he's more likely to earn the incentives, so long as he stays on the bench! __________________ Hail from Houston!

03-13-2005, 10:01 AM	#9
Schneed10 A Dude Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 45 Posts: 12,426	Re: Cap Question Canuck, I think it's actually a pretty ingenious way that the Skins got around the cap. The definition of an "Unlikely To Be Earned" incentive is that it's something they did not achieve the previous year. One of the eight incentives is that the team offense finishes 29th or higher in the league rankings (based on yardage gained). Last year the team finished 30th, so technically this was not achieved last year and thus it's labeled ULTBE. But this is a team incentive, so Brunell can be cheering from the sidelines rooting for Ramsey to take the team to a 29th ranking or higher, which is nearly certain to happen. The result is the ULTBE incentive does not count against the cap like you mentioned. I'm not sure, but now that I think about it, I don't think it would count against the 2006 cap if the incentive were met. The best part though, this isn't an incentive that is necessarily based on Brunell's personal performance. He can be a cheerleader all season long holding the clipboard and still get his $1 million. I like that. If he's going to bitch about playing time, it's not going to be because of money. His financial motivation is to see the team do well, and not care about himself. Brilliant contract work in my mind, they've aligned Brunell's financial interests with the concept of putting the team before yourself. Just another step in fostering the kind of attitude we need at Redskins Park.

03-13-2005, 01:27 PM	#11
drew54 The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: IOWA Age: 42 Posts: 1,324	Re: Cap Question Is this the same method the Eagles are using?

03-13-2005, 02:29 PM	#12
e16bball Special Teams Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 163	Re: Cap Question I am somewhat confused by this notion of the uncapped year. I understand it to some extent, but are they going to re-install a cap after 2007? If so, how will they allow for the fact that some teams (Skins, Cowboys, Raiders, etc.) will be spending huge amounts of money in 2007? I think this uncapped year principle may have been installed brilliantly, as the uncertainty associated with it may well be the incentive necessary for the league to come to a new CBA.

Cap Question

Locker Room Main Forum