Redskins 2013 Salary Cap Status

[That Guy]

the draft picks aren't going to cost them any money. when figuring out your salary (for the cap), you only count the top 51 salaries. our rookies (outside of amerson) will be vet minimum and won't affect the cap number at all. amerson will add maybe 100k or so (whatever his salary is - vet min guy at the #51 spot).

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by That Guy

the draft picks aren't going to cost them any money. when figuring out your salary (for the cap), you only count the top 51 salaries. our rookies (outside of amerson) will be vet minimum and won't affect the cap number at all. amerson will add maybe 100k or so (whatever his salary is - vet min guy at the #51 spot).

The rule of 51 only applies in the offseason. Once it gets time to cut down to the 53 man roster, all 53 of them count against the cap. So the rookies will most certainly have to be accounted for under the cap.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

The rule of 51 only applies in the offseason. Once it gets time to cut down to the 53 man roster, all 53 of them count against the cap. So the rookies will most certainly have to be accounted for under the cap.

Yes, but not at any incremental amount beyond what the bottom of the current 51 is counting.

Rookies make less than anybody else. 1st and 2nd round picks are the only exception to that. So when a rookie makes the team it will kick someone out of the cap total who's making more than a rookie.

So we have $3.6M or so to spend on the rookies, but when cut-down day arrives we'll kick $3.6M out of the cap number. Net impact will be minimal.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yes, but not at any incremental amount beyond what the bottom of the current 51 is counting.

Rookies make less than anybody else. 1st and 2nd round picks are the only exception to that. So when a rookie makes the team it will kick someone out of the cap total who's making more than a rookie.

So we have $3.6M or so to spend on the rookies, but when cut-down day arrives we'll kick $3.6M out of the cap number. Net impact will be minimal.

What does any of that have to do with 51 people are counted against the cap in the offseason, and 53 are counted during the season (actually more than 53 if we have someone put on injured reserve).

While the overall premise may be true, there are exceptions. You are not taking into account that rookie contracts are now guaranteed. If a rookie from this year supplants a rookie from last year, we are still paying both contracts. Given how guarantees come due early, you could actually go up in cap space cutting a younger player on the new 4 year guaranteed contracts. As we get 4 years into the new CBA, meaning all 1st through 4th year players are operating under guaranteed contracts, you could be kicking off a year three or four player, and still be paying both contracts.

Rookies may make less than everyone else, but that doesnt mean paying for 5 guaranteed contracts when you only have 2 of those players remaining on your team has saved you cap space. If any player that we drafted and signed last year is cut, we are still paying for him this year. So adding a 7th rounder and cutting Josh Leribues will actually cost us cap space, not save it.

One other thing, kicking out a vet for a rookie is not instant cap space saving if the vet still has plenty of guaranteed money on a multiple year contract. There are plenty of ways to cut someone for a rookie, yet it cost cap space and not save it.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

What does any of that have to do with 51 people are counted against the cap in the offseason, and 53 are counted during the season (actually more than 53 if we have someone put on injured reserve).

While the overall premise may be true, there are exceptions. You are not taking into account that rookie contracts are now guaranteed. If a rookie from this year supplants a rookie from last year, we are still paying both contracts. Given how guarantees come due early, you could actually go up in cap space cutting a younger player on the new 4 year guaranteed contracts. As we get 4 years into the new CBA, meaning all 1st through 4th year players are operating under guaranteed contracts, you could be kicking off a year three or four player, and still be paying both contracts.

Rookies may make less than everyone else, but that doesnt mean paying for 5 guaranteed contracts when you only have 2 of those players remaining on your team has saved you cap space. If any player that we drafted and signed last year is cut, we are still paying for him this year. So adding a 7th rounder and cutting Josh Leribues will actually cost us cap space, not save it.

One other thing, kicking out a vet for a rookie is not instant cap space saving if the vet still has plenty of guaranteed money on a multiple year contract. There are plenty of ways to cut someone for a rookie, yet it cost cap space and not save it.

» Over the Cap- Washington Redskins 2013 Salary Cap Page

Pretty straight review of the cap situation. Not sure what your point is. The rule of 51 is only during the offseason, true, but unless you cut some guy who has a huge cap hit the effect of keeping a rookie is negligible. According to overthecap, there are 5 players who would be a net cap hit of over 500k if released, Griffin, TW, Kerrigan, Kory Licht, and Garcon. Pretty sure none of those guys are getting released. Plus should any release happen after June 1st, they become Jun1 cuts and some of there cap hit is pushed to next year.

As for IR, I am fairly confident that BA has a restructure lined up for both Garcon and TW that just needs a signature if it came to that. Just holding off unless it becomes imperative.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

» Over the Cap- Washington Redskins 2013 Salary Cap Page

Pretty straight review of the cap situation. Not sure what your point is. The rule of 51 is only during the offseason, true, but unless you cut some guy who has a huge cap hit the effect of keeping a rookie is negligible. According to overthecap, there are 5 players who would be a net cap hit of over 500k if released, Griffin, TW, Kerrigan, Kory Licht, and Garcon. Pretty sure none of those guys are getting released. Plus should any release happen after June 1st, they become Jun1 cuts and some of there cap hit is pushed to next year.

As for IR, I am fairly confident that BA has a restructure lined up for both Garcon and TW that just needs a signature if it came to that. Just holding off unless it becomes imperative.

Im not sure why people are saying they dont know my point, and then make the exact same point that I made. The point is, the rule of 51 counts during the offseason, and all 53 count during the regular season.

the point was made that only 51 players count against the cap. I corrected that statement to be a true statement. Which you acknowledge.

Shneed then made the comment that when you cut a vet for a rookie, it is going to always save you cap space, with the exception being 1st and 2nd rounders. That is also not true every time, which I can only assume you will also acknowledge. It was never put to our exact situation, they were generic statements that could lead someone who doesnt know the rule to actually think the incorrect statements are correct. If I had said a factually incorrect statement, someone would have corrected me, and I would be glad that I now knew the correct info.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

Im not sure why people are saying they dont know my point, and then make the exact same point that I made. The point is, the rule of 51 counts during the offseason, and all 53 count during the regular season.

the point was made that only 51 players count against the cap. I corrected that statement to be a true statement. Which you acknowledge.

Shneed then made the comment that when you cut a vet for a rookie, it is going to always save you cap space, with the exception being 1st and 2nd rounders. That is also not true every time, which I can only assume you will also acknowledge. It was never put to our exact situation, they were generic statements that could lead someone who doesnt know the rule to actually think the incorrect statements are correct. If I had said a factually incorrect statement, someone would have corrected me, and I would be glad that I now knew the correct info.

Technically you're right:

- When you have to count 53 vs when you have to count 51, obviously that's 2 more players. The 2 extra that don't fit into the top 51 will be low salary players. Figure $600K in space needed.

- Sometimes low round picks can have a cap number higher than the lowest-paid vet on the team who would get booted. But it's extremely rare. And the difference in $ terms would be minimal. A 3 year vet's minimum salary is about $100 or $200K higher than a rookie's minimum salary.

So when you add it all up, it's a negligible impact. I'd even go so far as to say you're splitting hairs. We may have to clear $500K of cap space in order to accommodate signing the rookie class. But it's definitely not a few million.