CBA talks have broken down again

[Gmanc711]

Honestly, I'm just trying to think of who I hope survies this......

I'm not going to kid myself anymore....Thursday is going to be really, REALLY bad.

[BigSKINBauer]

I am actually scared for the first time


"In past years, you'd see a lot of guys released who maybe still had some name value, but who were really in decline in terms of production," said one AFC team executive who was working late Tuesday, trying to figure out how to pare down a prohibitively bloated cap figure. "This year? People are going to be stunned -- not just by the quantity of players who are cut by Thursday, but by the quality, too. It's going to be ugly. There's going to be blood in the streets and, compared to past years, it's going to be from some bluebloods, guys who can still play."

--part of fatass's article http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...len&id=2348970

[Gmanc711]

This was posted on ES, I dont really know how realistic this is, but heres a read....

http://redskins.scout.com/2/501659.html

[BigSKINBauer]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

This was posted on ES, I dont really know how realistic this is, but heres a read....

http://redskins.scout.com/2/501659.html

that makes it sound easy
i'm still scared
-------------------

Ok i have stayed away from this topic far to long. Now my understanding(hard to call it that) is that the players want like 60% and the teams are only offering 56. something % of revenues that will be allotted to caps in future years. this much i think i know but this is where i get confused. The rich teams like the skins have less a problem than do the cardinals in giving the players money. In this the poorer teams want to share revenues to afford this shit and the rich teams are like HELL NO. so there are like 3 groups all acting a fool....
Now if i got that right(which i know i dont) wouldn't the poor teams be the first to crack. I mean they will havve to compete with teams w/o a cap. the packers won't be able to afford to stay competitive so wouldn't they just agree on paying more in a cap than being horrible w/o a cap??
I am going to learn everything i can

[RedskinPete]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

This was posted on ES, I dont really know how realistic this is, but heres a read....

http://redskins.scout.com/2/501659.html

I read this and it seem to work out if all the players help the team out! Here is something that I known not a person wants to hear. Maybe this is a good thing! Let the CBA go away!!! Yes we will take it hard in 06. But we start a new with that damn Cap not hanging over us in 07. Lets face something people that we are in trouble even if a cap is moved up and the CBA is agreeed to. It may not be this year but it will happen soon! :smashfrea To take the hurt now or later but its going to hurt sometime!!!

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by RedskinPete

I read this and it seem to work out if all the players help the team out! Here is something that I known not a person wants to hear. Maybe this is a good thing! Let the CBA go away!!! Yes we will take it hard in 06. But we start a new with that damn Cap not hanging over us in 07. Lets face something people that we are in trouble even if a cap is moved up and the CBA is agreeed to. It may not be this year but it will happen soon! :smashfrea To take the hurt now or later but its going to hurt sometime!!!

Yeah well with our luck 2007 will be uncapped then they'll throw it right back on in 2008. I still say the NFL should install a soft cap.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

This was posted on ES, I dont really know how realistic this is, but heres a read....

http://redskins.scout.com/2/501659.html

that plan is complete bullshit. it disregards the 30% rule and assume that nearly 20 players are all going to be perfectly willing to let the skins butcher their contracts and take money from them.

[Redskins8588]

can someone please explain the 30% rule in common terms? what are the immediate problems that this will bring up for teams, basicly what happens, i am so confused!!!

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

can someone please explain the 30% rule in common terms? what are the immediate problems that this will bring up for teams, basicly what happens, i am so confused!!!

I believe the 30% rule forbids a player's base salary from increasing by 30% from season to season. So, while teams backload deals, they cannot pay a player the minimum the first 6 years of a deal and put $50 million in the last year. The 30% rule effectively hampers a team's cap "creativity" - thereby forcing teams to release guys they don't want to release.

Anyone else, please correct me if I am wrong (which is quite possible).

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

I believe the 30% rule forbids a player's base salary from increasing by 30% from season to season. So, while teams backload deals, they cannot pay a player the minimum the first 6 years of a deal and put $50 million in the last year. The 30% rule effectively hampers a team's cap "creativity" - thereby forcing teams to release guys they don't want to release.

Anyone else, please correct me if I am wrong (which is quite possible).

thats right. if you pay him 4mill this year, you can't pay him more than 5.2mill next year etc. it takes effect this year (since there's no cap next season) to prevent a parade of $1 contracts and the formation of super teams (yankees) right before the cap expires.

[RedskinPete]

Here is something that know one has said about the new CBA formula that has been put forth. It dosen't take in to account debt on stadiums that some team own like us. It only takes in to account money made! Not money going out! Many of the so called lower money making teams do not own thier on stadiums like we do or New England!

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

We all know that Matt Bowen, Walt Harris, John Hall, James Thrash, Tom Tupa, Brandon Noble, and Patrick Ramsey are going to be cap cuts or traded. We can easily recover from those losses. Cutting or trading those guys and a few other guys you’ve never heard of will likely save the team about $12 million. We’ll likely save another few million on restructured deals (i.e. Randy Thomas, LaVar Arrington, and maybe Mark Brunell).

Even after cutting or trading the above-mentioned players and restructuring a few deals, we’ll likely need to shave off another $4-$6 million. Unfortunately, to get the other $4-6 million, we’ll have to lose some big name players.

The big names players who might be cut barring an extension to the CBA are: Jon Jansen (saves $800K), Marcus Washington (saves $500K), Reynaldo Wynn (saves $400K), Casey Rabach (saves $1.1M), Philip Daniels (saves $800K), David Patten (saves $650K), Joe Salave’a (saves $500K), Ladell Betts (saves $550K), Lemar Marshall (saves $400K). Those cuts would save us roughly $6 million.

Who would cut a player of Jansen’s caliber when it would just save us $800K? The answer: a team that has no options and is FORCED by the cap to make such cuts.

[RedskinPete]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

We all know that Matt Bowen, Walt Harris, John Hall, James Thrash, Tom Tupa, Brandon Noble, and Patrick Ramsey are going to be cap cuts or traded. We can easily recover from those losses. Cutting or trading those guys and a few other guys you’ve never heard of will likely save the team about $12 million. We’ll likely save another few million on restructured deals (i.e. Randy Thomas, LaVar Arrington, and maybe Mark Brunell).

Even after cutting or trading the above-mentioned players and restructuring a few deals, we’ll likely need to shave off another $4-$6 million. Unfortunately, to get the other $4-6 million, we’ll have to lose some big name players.

The big names players who might be cut barring an extension to the CBA are: Jon Jansen (saves $800K), Marcus Washington (saves $500K), Reynaldo Wynn (saves $400K), Casey Rabach (saves $1.1M), Philip Daniels (saves $800K), David Patten (saves $650K), Joe Salave’a (saves $500K), Ladell Betts (saves $550K), Lemar Marshall (saves $400K). Those cuts would save us roughly $6 million.

Who would cut a player of Jansen’s caliber when it would just save us $800K? The answer: a team that has no options and is FORCED by the cap to make such cuts.

Why not cut Burnell and keep Ramsey???? Ramsey has a smaller cap then Burnell right?

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by RedskinPete

Why not cut Burnell and keep Ramsey???? Ramsey has a smaller cap then Burnell right?

ugh, no. brunell cost 300k more to cut, ramsey saves 1.6mill... all of the questions here were answered in the cap analysis thread guess i'll cut and paste it.

[That Guy]

let's speed this up and avoid another 30 posts that we've already had

• 30% rule - simple definition, a player's salary cannot increase more than 30% from one year to the next, starting in 2006.

Originally Posted by RedskinPete
I see something being said about [potential cuts] but not if a deal is not made! So lets say you are right and the projected cuts are made and some money is redone in player contracts that leaves us a long way from 0 cap short fall. Who do you think would be let go along with the projected cuts? Isn't it right to say that this all needs to be done by march 3rd?

free agency could be pushed back... you can look at the cap sheets to see some examples of savings... but guys like brunell would cost 300k to cut, jacobs (who not only sucks, but is also a huge pansy) only saves 117k to cut (and rookie vet min is 230k, meaning that keeping him is the cheapest way to fill that roster spot).

bowen, harris, noble, ramsey, raymer, hall, tupa (who may still have years left, but is expensive and lost last season to IR), among others... beyond that, wynn would save 396k, thrash would save 875k.

guys that you'd like to keep that could save money (and this is why its a big problem, look how little you save with each starter you cut):
jansen: 800k
samuels: 300k
M washington: 500k
P daniels: 800k
patten: 650k
rabach: 1.15mill
prioleau: 550k
salave'a: 500k
betts: 550k
lemar marshall: 400k
sellers: 500k
dockery: 460k
cooley: 220k

and that's about it... there's some nobodies that can be ditched for much younger nobodies to save 100-200k per roster spot, but making up the difference with the tiny amount of savings made by cutting starters is going to be harsh... you have to cut down even more to have space to sign rookies from the draft, and we're going to need them. Maybe we'll have to have a fire sale for draft picks :/ cause its kinda hard to make 8million pop out of that list up there.

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359
So let me get this straight. The reason we want a CBA is because without one we can't restructure deals 3-7 years in the future since their will be no salary cap. And instead of restructuring guys like Jansen, Thomas, Arrington, and Washington we'll have to cut guys like Jansen and Washington to get under the cap. Then we're going to have to carry about 15 rookies on our roster like the Ravens did 2 years removed from the their Super Bowl win.

Also one more question:
Is the reason deals can't be restructured is because its not legal or it would be stupid for the players to do it?

it's legal to restructure contracts, but without a new cba the bonuses can't be pro-rated like normal and you have to obey the 30% rule (which means converting 2 years from base salary to bonus instead of just one... and with limited pro-ration you end up paying a lot of the money you were trying to move down the road immediately anyways).


the skins only have 3 people with base salaries in the 3.5-4mill range right now (jansen, brunell, and thomas), so there's just not much money to move. (the next highest base salary is 1.5mill which is nearly nothing above vet min).

Originally Posted by Redskins8588
Someone help me on understanding this one, but if the salary cap is $95 million for 2006, than the Redskins are only over by about $11 million? And if thats the case then we are not really in that bad of shape, like say the jets or oakland, right???

116 - 95 = 21$ mill over... the raiders are over by more, but they're MUCH better off, becaue they can release 2 players and clear 18.5$mill in space, even without a new cba... the skins can't do that cause ALL the contracts here inflate at the same time, so there's no big money guys to drop outside of maybe lavar.

Originally Posted by Redskins8588
ok, so what would you say would be our worse case plan if there is no cba agreement, like who do you see us getting rid of, or what other options do we have?

listed this before, but basically, if lavar can be ditched and his bonus withheld, that's the biggest move (5mill i believe).

Lavar - $5mill
Bowen - $2mill
Harris - $2mill
Noble - $1.7mill
Ramsey - $1.6mill
Hall - $1.18mill
Raymer - $985k
Thrash - $875k
Tupa - $601k
Prioleau - $550k

that's about $16mill in somewhat easy cuts...

Frost (P), Brown (WR), Farris (WR), Riley (DE) - 460k each, but would have to be replaced with younger FAs at 235k-310k a pop... at 230k savings each - $920k

5 no names at 385k - 235 = 150k savings each - $750k

up to about 17.7mill, as you can see, its getting harder

only 3 guys on the roster have over 1.5mill in base salary (jansen, thomas, brunell), if you can ask them to each give back (actual give money back, yikes) 500k this year (AND enough money next year to comply with the 30% rule)
jansen - $500k (gives back 500k in 2006 and 0k in 2007)
brunell - $500k (500k in 06 and 650k in 07)
thomas - $500k (500k in 06 and 100k in 07)

up to 19.2mill and we've already had to make huge logic stretches... now it gets really harsh

releasing 16 1st/2nd years and bringing in absolutely NO competition for training camp (10@235k, 6@310k) - $2.35mill + $1.86mill = $4.21mill

23.4mill, just enough to sign rookies and pray no one sucks or gets hurt in training camp

and that's a real stretch, in reality, guys like betts, sellers, and maybe starters like dockery or daniels or patten or wynn all get released too.






Salary cap numbers
hopefully that answers some questions