We must draft better...

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I'd like you to point to one time during Snyders reign that we've actually been in salary cap hell, as you put it. The "experts" tell us every year that we have no money and we have to cut half the team, I have yet to see anything to that extent. I'll argue that the Redskins are far and away one of the top teams in the NFL at managing the cap. We've had lengthy discussions with CrazyCannuck on here (who seems to know a lot about the cap) and it seems the Redskins factor in X amount of lost money due to the cap in order to make everything else work. While I don't like our free agency sprees often, they have yet to actually kill us via the salary cap.

As far as drafting, I think we get a bum rap for it. Granted, I don't think we've handled our picks very well (Ie giving them away) but in the first round we've been dead on lately. (In no particular order) Taylor, Rogers, Arrington, Bailey, Samuels. While most people argue you should get that #1 pick right, fact is many teams miss on their #1s. I think we need to work a little harder to develop our late picks so we have sufficient depth (especially seeing what our secondary looks like this year!)

Now, Im also not opposed giving up a #1 or a #2 pick for a guy that's proven but still young enough to give us a good 6-10 years. When we did the Coles trade I thought it was a good use of a first rounder. We got a receiver that was talented, established, and from all accounts a good team guy. I know Coles has been demonized here, but I think using a first round pick in that sense is okay IF you feel like the players in the draft aren't as good or would take too long to develop. Ideally we can keep picking up players like Marcus Washington for cheap and build through the draft, but he's the steal of a lifetime.

Boy, where does one start. The cap hell thing, I hope I am still here when people start to understand why we avoid the cap hell every year. When we restructure contracts that is just moving money to later years, that eventually has to be paid. an example will be Arrington in the offseason with his 12 million cap number. He will restructure(maybe) his deal move some of the money to later years to free up some immediate cash for upcoming seasons. We do not experience these cap hits because of restructuring, or flat out cutting people, which does cost money towards the cap. Generally, so much in 1year and the remaining amount the 2nd year, depends on when they cut him before or after June 1st(I think the date is right)
Regarding the draft picks, those # 1 picks are pretty easy to pick. Those are talented guys that any owner, GM or coach can make. You cant go wrong selecting any of those guys. Granted there may be a few busts here and there, but for the most part your 1st round guys are pretty damn good players. Where our organization has problems is developing young talent and picking quality players in the later rounds. Once we get to the 3rd or 4th round we essentially waste picks(except Cooley, which is a pretty good pick) Coles deal turned out the be awful. He was never the guy we thought he would be, and we lost a ton of money on him. Fact is we never got what we put into it. Now, if we had drafted a receiver from the draft, he may or may not have turned out but we would not have lost 9 million dollars or so. Giving up draft picks for pricy free agents, or players has not proven in the last 10 years to be all that great for this team. Have we won anything, had a winning season, gone to the playoffs? NO, an infatic NO. Why people think this way of filling roster spots or picking up free agent after free agent is making us a better team, I have no idea. Since Danny took over there has not been a steady progression in this teams progress. Only when Norv was here did we see a progression that usually good teams do. Norv started out kinda bad, but his win total increased every year, with a NFC east title, and one play away from the NFC championship. Since Danny took over, and spent freely every year with this guy and that guy, traded pick after pick away, we have been at best 8-8. that is pretty damn bad concidering we generally have the highest payroll every year, and I believe 2nd highest cost of ticket prices. Hopefully Joe or whoever is here over the next several years can persuade The Danny not to put his nose in the "football" business and just write the checks. AND GET A GM FOR CRYIN OUT LOUD!!!

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

Boy, where does one start. The cap hell thing, I hope I am still here when people start to understand why we avoid the cap hell every year. When we restructure contracts that is just moving money to later years, that eventually has to be paid. an example will be Arrington in the offseason with his 12 million cap number. He will restructure(maybe) his deal move some of the money to later years to free up some immediate cash for upcoming seasons. We do not experience these cap hits because of restructuring, or flat out cutting people, which does cost money towards the cap. Generally, so much in 1year and the remaining amount the 2nd year, depends on when they cut him before or after June 1st(I think the date is right)
Regarding the draft picks, those # 1 picks are pretty easy to pick. Those are talented guys that any owner, GM or coach can make. You cant go wrong selecting any of those guys. Granted there may be a few busts here and there, but for the most part your 1st round guys are pretty damn good players. Where our organization has problems is developing young talent and picking quality players in the later rounds. Once we get to the 3rd or 4th round we essentially waste picks(except Cooley, which is a pretty good pick) Coles deal turned out the be awful. He was never the guy we thought he would be, and we lost a ton of money on him. Fact is we never got what we put into it. Now, if we had drafted a receiver from the draft, he may or may not have turned out but we would not have lost 9 million dollars or so. Giving up draft picks for pricy free agents, or players has not proven in the last 10 years to be all that great for this team. Have we won anything, had a winning season, gone to the playoffs? NO, an infatic NO. Why people think this way of filling roster spots or picking up free agent after free agent is making us a better team, I have no idea. Since Danny took over there has not been a steady progression in this teams progress. Only when Norv was here did we see a progression that usually good teams do. Norv started out kinda bad, but his win total increased every year, with a NFC east title, and one play away from the NFC championship. Since Danny took over, and spent freely every year with this guy and that guy, traded pick after pick away, we have been at best 8-8. that is pretty damn bad concidering we generally have the highest payroll every year, and I believe 2nd highest cost of ticket prices. Hopefully Joe or whoever is here over the next several years can persuade The Danny not to put his nose in the "football" business and just write the checks. AND GET A GM FOR CRYIN OUT LOUD!!!

One of these days I'm going to create a cookie cutter post to put up whenever somebody misunderstands the salary cap as is done in this post.

First off, Snyder is a great business man. He has people who can project the salary cap limits in future years based on the league's growing finances. Actually, as smart as Snyder is with numbers, he can probably do it himself in his head.

The signing bonuses are only part of the equation. The team schedules roster bonuses to occur in lumpsum halfway through the contracts. These bonuses make it very easy for the team to keep the player by restructuring them to signing bonuses. Because of the growth taking place in NFL salaries, once players are 3 years removed from their original signing bonus, the allocated portion of said bonus takes up a lot lower % of the growing salary cap limit. That growing limit is why we never run into "cap hell."

While our cap figure for 2006 looks crappy now, it's very easy for the Skins to fit under the 2006 limit just by cutting a few chumps like Matt Bowen, and then restructuring a bunch of roster bonuses. Our cap figure will come down by about $20 million from where it is now, and we won't have to get rid of any core players. And in future years, the cap will either cease to exist or continue to grow. And Snyder's financial projections will be right on the money.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

One of these days I'm going to create a cookie cutter post to put up whenever somebody misunderstands the salary cap as is done in this post.

First off, Snyder is a great business man. He has people who can project the salary cap limits in future years based on the league's growing finances. Actually, as smart as Snyder is with numbers, he can probably do it himself in his head.

The signing bonuses are only part of the equation. The team schedules roster bonuses to occur in lumpsum halfway through the contracts. These bonuses make it very easy for the team to keep the player by restructuring them to signing bonuses. Because of the growth taking place in NFL salaries, once players are 3 years removed from their original signing bonus, the allocated portion of said bonus takes up a lot lower % of the growing salary cap limit. That growing limit is why we never run into "cap hell."

While our cap figure for 2006 looks crappy now, it's very easy for the Skins to fit under the 2006 limit just by cutting a few chumps like Matt Bowen, and then restructuring a bunch of roster bonuses. Our cap figure will come down by about $20 million from where it is now, and we won't have to get rid of any core players. And in future years, the cap will either cease to exist or continue to grow. And Snyder's financial projections will be right on the money.

I found an artice that basically says exactly what I have been saying about all this restructuring and reworking of the bonuses that you and other people seem to think they dont hurt our cap figures down the road.





In our example, let's say the Falcons need to save some extra space so they need to restructure some contracts. Say it is the offseason prior to Year 3 of Ed's contract, so it would not be a good idea to cut him (would add an extra $1 million to the Falcons cap). So they decide to restructure Ed's contract. A common form of restructuring is lowering the player's base salary. In this case, the Falcons can lower Ed's base salary of $1.5 million to $500,000. Now the Falcons have cleared $1 million off Ed's contract. But now what happens to that $1 million? Usually teams treat it as a signing bonus. In that way, it becomes prorated over the remaining years of his contract just like a normal signing bonus. That means that there will be a $333,333 cap hit ($1 million / 3 years) in Years 3, 4, and 5. Although this frees up $666,667 in cap space in Year 3, it adds an additional $333,333 to the Falcons cap in Years 4 and 5.
So although restructuring is a quick way to gain cap space without losing a player, but it also can hurt a team down the road. When you begin to restructure contracts with large bonuses, it can be very detrimental to the salary cap in future years.

Now, I dont see how people can keep arguing with me in regards to all this restructing crap. It says it right here, load and clear.

[Daseal]

56Fanatic -- I believe Snyder was planning on an uncapped year this coming year which is part of the reason he's holding the CBA from being signed, and whats wrong with restructuring contracts. Every team does it and we just make it work for the player. First round picks aren't as easy as you may say, need I name a few Redskins players drafted in the first round to remind you that it's not a given? We've picked up incrediable talent that people ahead of us missed, Rogers looks to be the best CB thus far in the rookie class this years yet was 3rd CB taken.

While I agree that you have to develop and scout later round picks better, I think we've done a fairly decent job. Rock, Nemo, (I still have faith) McCune, etc.

As far as Coles, let's look at Coles who went to the Pro Bowl in Spurrier's system. Coles was built for that kind of offense and he made HUGE plays. He also got hurt which limited his best skill -- speed. Coles put up monster numbers when he was in an offense that suited him, just like Portis averaged about 5 YPC in denver and it drops to 3.something in Washington. He was in an offense that suits them.

I often wonder what today's "stars" would be if they weren't in the scheme they were in.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by Daseal

56Fanatic -- I believe Snyder was planning on an uncapped year this coming year which is part of the reason he's holding the CBA from being signed, and whats wrong with restructuring contracts. Every team does it and we just make it work for the player. First round picks aren't as easy as you may say, need I name a few Redskins players drafted in the first round to remind you that it's not a given? We've picked up incrediable talent that people ahead of us missed, Rogers looks to be the best CB thus far in the rookie class this years yet was 3rd CB taken.

While I agree that you have to develop and scout later round picks better, I think we've done a fairly decent job. Rock, Nemo, (I still have faith) McCune, etc.

As far as Coles, let's look at Coles who went to the Pro Bowl in Spurrier's system. Coles was built for that kind of offense and he made HUGE plays. He also got hurt which limited his best skill -- speed. Coles put up monster numbers when he was in an offense that suited him, just like Portis averaged about 5 YPC in denver and it drops to 3.something in Washington. He was in an offense that suits them.

I often wonder what today's "stars" would be if they weren't in the scheme they were in.

As I stated there are some picks in the 1st round that did not work out. But Arrington, Samuels, Jansen, Taylor, come on! And later picks getting better. Are Nemo, McCune playing? Not that I have noticed. If they were good they would be playing, and its not like we have a great short yardage guy, which Nemo was brought in to do. McCune, I actually think he could be a good player, but I may be wrong. He isn't playing on special teams, and he was special teams player of the year for Louisville. ROck is playing special teams, and contributes when called upon. As far as Coles goes, he made the probowl, as an alternate. and Monster year, he never led the Skins in TDs in any of the years he was here. and averaged about 6 yards a catch. Stud? Waste of money and a #1 draft pick. You can not plan on an uncapped year, that is just rediculous. What happens if you spend till you can spend anymore and there is a cap, then what do you do. that is crazy.

[Schneed10]

On draft picks, the "risk" of missing on players you pick is part of the reason it makes sense to trade picks away. For example, we traded a 5th round pick for James Thrash. What are the chances that you're going to find a guy in the draft with a 5th round pick to become more of a sure thing than Thrash is? He's a known commodity, you're getting a good special teams player for a pick that would likely turn into a nobody of a player.

Same thing can be said for the Cooley trade. Gibbs was so confident that Cooley was a sure thing, that he felt comfortable giving up a 2nd rounder the next year. He felt Cooley was more certain to be effective than a player he might find in the 2nd round next year. And so far, we can't complain on that one.

The Campbell trade appears dubious because we gave up so much. But the same line of thinking applies, Gibbs apparently feels that Campbell really is that much of a sure thing to develop into an effective player. Enough that he'll be worth what all those picks could have turned into. To be fair, we have to wait and see on that one.

Champ and a 2nd rounder for Portis seems like a lot though. I'll agree that was a wasted pick.

[MTK]

Still waiting for that cap hell...

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Still waiting for that cap hell...

How come this is hard to understand? We avoid every year by reworking contracts. Further moving the cap hits later in years. eventually you have to pay the contracts. Here is another article from a cap person



Teams also gain a degree of flexibility from the contract length and the early cheap years. This means that a player who in effect is being paid five or six million per year has less of an impact on the salary cap his first couple of seasons than in the outyears. Of course eventually you have to pay the piper. Often the length of the contract extends beyond the likely career of a given player, or the latter year salary levels are so high its obvious the player will be cut rather retained.

Such contracts are virtually certain to lead to “dead money” at some future date. Obviously we can only estimate what that will be for a given contract, but it’s still very real. This is what I mean by “cap overhang”: unamortized bonus money likely to become dead money in the future. In effect, teams are trading off the future for the present.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

How come this is hard to understand? We avoid every year by reworking contracts. Further moving the cap hits later in years. eventually you have to pay the contracts. Here is another article from a cap person

Like I said, still waiting.

Snyder has been running the team for 5 years now. Shouldn't we be paying the piper already? Where is this cap hell that is supposed to ruin the team?

Snyder knows how to massage the cap better than just about anyone. Why is that so hard to understand??

What the Skins do isn't exclusive to them. Every team re-works deals, every team backloads deals, etc. Why is that so hard to understand?

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Like I said, still waiting.

Snyder has been running the team for 5 years now. Shouldn't we be paying the piper already? Where is this cap hell that is supposed to ruin the team?

Snyder knows how to massage the cap better than just about anyone. Why is that so hard to understand??

What the Skins do isn't exclusive to them. Every team re-works deals, every team backloads deals, etc. Why is that so hard to understand?

HELLO!!! McFly, the constant turnover, cutting of players here or there, restructing of contracts, reworking bonuses, this is how we avoid it. No it isn't exclusive to them. Teams have cap troubles. Remember the 49ers, Cowboys who reworked all those deals, bonuses , contracts , free agent signings, once the players were too old and diminished talent they had to cut them, trade em what ever. How long did it take the Cowboys to get out of there mess, 3 to 4 years, the 49 ers just recently got out of their cap trouble. Titans, after all the years of stuff they did to compete are in it now. I am done with this. I have provided two articles regarding cap implications, how these thing work and people still question not necessarily me, but what the articles are saying. Better yet, why dont the people saying we will not have cap problems find articles supporting there version of the cap and how it works. Like I said, I supplied 2 showing exactly what I have been saying.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

How come this is hard to understand? We avoid every year by reworking contracts. Further moving the cap hits later in years. eventually you have to pay the contracts. Here is another article from a cap person



Teams also gain a degree of flexibility from the contract length and the early cheap years. This means that a player who in effect is being paid five or six million per year has less of an impact on the salary cap his first couple of seasons than in the outyears. Of course eventually you have to pay the piper. Often the length of the contract extends beyond the likely career of a given player, or the latter year salary levels are so high its obvious the player will be cut rather retained.

Such contracts are virtually certain to lead to “dead money” at some future date. Obviously we can only estimate what that will be for a given contract, but it’s still very real. This is what I mean by “cap overhang”: unamortized bonus money likely to become dead money in the future. In effect, teams are trading off the future for the present.

I think it would help if you specify your sources-link and person, just so you know whou you're referring to.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

I think it would help if you specify your sources-link and person, just so you know whou you're referring to.

This one came from falcfans.com / salary cap tutorial & faq.



In our example, let's say the Falcons need to save some extra space so they need to restructure some contracts. Say it is the offseason prior to Year 3 of Ed's contract, so it would not be a good idea to cut him (would add an extra $1 million to the Falcons cap). So they decide to restructure Ed's contract. A common form of restructuring is lowering the player's base salary. In this case, the Falcons can lower Ed's base salary of $1.5 million to $500,000. Now the Falcons have cleared $1 million off Ed's contract. But now what happens to that $1 million? Usually teams treat it as a signing bonus. In that way, it becomes prorated over the remaining years of his contract just like a normal signing bonus. That means that there will be a $333,333 cap hit ($1 million / 3 years) in Years 3, 4, and 5. Although this frees up $666,667 in cap space in Year 3, it adds an additional $333,333 to the Falcons cap in Years 4 and 5.
So although restructuring is a quick way to gain cap space without losing a player, but it also can hurt a team down the road. When you begin to restructure contracts with large bonuses, it can be very detrimental to the salary cap in future years.

2nd one came from football outsiders.com Capanomics II cap management strategies.

I’d like to introduce another term: “Cap Overhang”. These are bonus payments that will not be amortized over the life of the contracts of players currently with the team. We all know that NFL teams sign players to very long contracts that include up front bonuses, and to measure the value of the contract against the salary cap, those bonuses are amortized (evenly spread on an annual basis) over the length of the contract. These contracts typically have very low salary levels in the early years, escalate to “normal” levels in the middle (say the third and fourth years), and then typically include some very high salary years at the end. These last years are not intended to be paid — the players are usually cut instead — but exist in order to extend the amortization period to lower the immediate cap impact.

This is really a pretty efficient form for a contract in the NFL. It gives the player what he needs most, guaranteed cash, and gives the team a high degree of flexibility to cut the player rather than pay him if his skills decline through age or injury. Of course they’re left with dead cap money, but at least they’re not forced to throw good money after bad as per baseball contracts.

Teams also gain a degree of flexibility from the contract length and the early cheap years. This means that a player who in effect is being paid five or six million per year has less of an impact on the salary cap his first couple of seasons than in the outyears. Of course eventually you have to pay the piper. Often the length of the contract extends beyond the likely career of a given player, or the latter year salary levels are so high its obvious the player will be cut rather retained.

Here are some quotes from CBS sportsline.com regarding cap numbers :


In recent years, the 49ers, Packers, Steelers and Cowboys have all seen juggernauts torn apart because their front offices planned for today with little regard for tomorrow.

Here is another article from the post-gazette.com regarding the steelers pending cap problems by doing the same thing we do.







Cap games costly in long run

Friday, March 04, 2005

By Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


Are the Steelers mortgaging their future to try to keep their team together?

That's the opinion of some NFL executives, and maybe one of their own, as the Steelers voraciously restructure contracts to retrofit their salary cap.

They reworked at least four contracts the past week to clear $5 million worth of salary cap room for 2005. But in the NFL's world of the hard salary cap, that room doesn't magically appear -- or disappear.

The room created today must be made up tomorrow, which reduces their salary caps in future years. Once begun, it's a vicious cycle that ultimately must be confronted, like paying the minimum on a credit-card bill.

Despite $5 million in restructured savings, the Steelers were only $1.7 million under the NFL's $85.5 million salary cap. They might have to restructure more contracts as they sign their draft picks, possible free agents and extend contracts to such players as Hines Ward and Casey Hampton, who enter the final year of their deals.

The Steelers, who once stood steadfast against such tactics, began restructuring contracts to create immediate salary cap relief about three years ago and have routinely done so since then. Dan Rooney, their chairman, long opposed the strategy, believing it to be an unsound way to operate under the salary cap. Nevertheless, they continue to do it.

"You're pushing your problems into the future," an executive from another NFL team said. "It's not a solid way to do it. You can avoid it for a while, but eventually it will catch up to you." Other NFL teams have done it, some wholly embracing the idea as a way to keep a good team together. But their financial judgment day arrived, and it forced them to dump players in order to comply with the salary cap. An example of that this year is Tennessee. Jacksonville, San Francisco and Baltimore are teams that also had to purge players in recent years because of contract restructures that ultimately caught up to them. "They're going to get into trouble," said one team financial officer. "You can't keep pushing it on to other years. It's going to catch up with you."





Now, there is 3 to 4 different people, atricles, executives, capologists, experts that say what we do will eventually catch up to us. Not in a year two years, eventually. As long as we continue to restructure, renegoiate, whatever, we just keep putting it off until the future.

Do you need anymore proof?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Still waiting for that cap hell...

"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?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.