In a Perfect World: A Look Back at the 'Skins Major Offseason Moves

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by hurrykaine

Another thing to consider, Ramseyfan, is that the cap number increases by atleast 3-4 million every year.

In 2001, it was around 67 million,
In 2002, it was 71.1 million
In 2003, it was 75 million,
and this year it is almost 79 million.

That is true, but that is no reason to sign a player to a deal which you know will result in a $4-6 million cap hit a few years down the road.

Originally Posted by hurrykaine

it is conceviable that we could get the likes of LC, Samuels, etc. to restructure.

I am sure that we will continue to restructure deals to put off huge cap numbers, but it will come back to bite you at some point (as the recent Washington Post article re: the cap noted). We had to release Stephen Davis because his cap numbers got too unwieldy (would have been $11 million for 2003 if we had kept him), not just because he didn’t fit Spurrier’s scheme. Samuels is eating up a ton of cap space right now because we kept restructuring his deal. I’m not saying that teams shouldn’t restructure players’ contracts – every team does it. I am saying that you cannot disregard the cap and that someday you have to pay the pied piper.

Originally Posted by hurrykaine

In the next 3 yrs, if we've been to the playoffs and won the superbowl, it will have been worth all the salary cap hell you point to. If in the next 3 yrs we don't achieve squat, surely we can't have done any better through the 2003-04 draft class. Basically, Snyder-Gibbs have placed a huge premium on winning now and to them, the benefits of winning over the next 3 yrs outweigh the costs of salary cap misery in 2007.

. If this SB run results in a Lombardi trophy, I’ll say that Snyder and Gibbs were right and that I was embarrassingly wrong. However, if they don’t get us to the promised land AND they screw up our cap, I’ll be one pissed on fan.

To his credit, Snyder has big rocks and he’s aggressive. I prefer that to an owner who tries to spend as little as possible. I’m just afraid Danny is a little too aggressive.

[hurrykaine]

"That is true, but that is no reason to sign a player to a deal which you know will result in a $4-6 million cap hit a few years down the road."

In fact, I would say the opposite - you have to give the likes of Brunell long term backloaded deals since there would be no cap-space in the next two yrs if you didn't. That would affect the signing of other cheap but decent free agents (such as the Kozlowskis, Baxters, & CBs).

As an example, It is cheaper for us (short-term cap-wise) to give Brunell a huge deal over 7-8yrs than to give him a short term deal like say, 15 million over 3 yrs. How would you spread a 3yr 15 million deal in a way that doesn't adversely affect the cap in 2005? What's worse, he would've turned down the short term deal and signed elswhere, and our QB search would've been painful.

I realize you can't play a ponzi type game with the long term cap - stuff adds up and will count against the cap in 2007, but with 93 million as the cap, the extra 13-14 million will more than make up for both Portis and Brunell's back loaded deals.

I'm with you that if this experiment fails, it will be a costly failure, and we will be pissed off fans, but this year more than ever, we have the coaching staff in place to justify Snyder's spending spree.