Current Redskins Salary Cap Status - 2009

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

To the Redskins credit, they do budget a part of their cap every year to deadcap in order to remain competitive. I deem this the CrazyCanuck Principle in honor of the man who first observed this trend.

Recently, the Redskins have been really, really obvious about this. Starting with Brunell, and adding in Moss, Griffin, Carter, and Randle El, the Redskins have been writing automatic voids into contracts, essentially picking a date at which the deadcap will accelerate. So it's a calculated approach to wasted cap space, if that makes sense.

It's like saying, "yeah, we're going to waste a bunch of cap space on players not on our roster, but we're going to go about it responsibly, goddamn it!"

Yeah, I can live with it. It just kind of makes me shake my head and sort of sarcastically laugh every time I see it happen. Like I said, it's what we do. Then again, we could just stop putting ourselves in situations like this and we wouldn't have to piss away a chunk of our cap on guys not on the roster year in and year out.

You say we portion out X amount of space each year for deadcap in order to remain competitive. Gotta wonder how much more competitive we'd be if X amount of deadcap space actually went to a player(s) of that worth....

"So it's a calculated approach to wasted cap space, if that makes sense." That's got signature written all over it.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Yeah, I can live with it. It just kind of makes me shake my head and sort of sarcastically laugh every time I see it happen. Like I said, it's what we do.
Then again, we could just stop putting ourselves in situations like this and we wouldn't have to piss away a chunk of our cap on guys not on the roster year in and year out.

You say we portion out X amount of space each year for deadcap in order to remain competitive. Gotta wonder how much more competitive we'd be if X amount of deadcap space actually went to a player of that worth....

"So it's a calculated approach to wasted cap space, if that makes sense." That's got signature written all over it.

I think a lot of the media is going to be eating their words when the Redskins are 5-2 and offering $70 million to Jason Campbell by Halloween, in that, it will look like the Redskins bought their way to unsustainable success. But that's only part of the story.

The Redskins have a remarkably team-friendly contract with the best defensive player in football, with only one caveat: the Haynesworth contract comes with a simply unfathomable amount of risk to the team. As of right now, before any restructure, the amount of money the Redskins can go after should Haynesworth get himself suspended is a whopping: not one dime.

Out of the $41 million guarenteed figure, or otherwise put, the combined total of money owed to Albert Haynesworth for his first three seasons here, not one cent is paid out in a signing bonus, or a non-guarenteed salary. About $22 million of that is subject to be restructured next offseason, which would give the team the ability to reclaim that if Haynesworth does something stupid. But Haynesworth will stay a Redskin through 2011 no matter how many games he's actually healthy enough to play.

But in exchange for that risk, the Redskins get the best defensive player in football at relatively cap-friendly prices for the remainder of the prime of his career. Taking the risk was necessary to get Haynesworth in with a reasonable cap number, but ultimately, this gamble will be the reason the team will win in the near future.

There's no other team in football who would have taken a risk like that. Any argument for Snyder being a great owner has to start with the Haynesworth contract.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think a lot of the media is going to be eating their words when the Redskins are 5-2 and offering $70 million to Jason Campbell by Halloween, in that, it will look like the Redskins bought their way to unsustainable success. But that's only part of the story.

The Redskins have a remarkably team-friendly contract with the best defensive player in football, with only one caveat: the Haynesworth contract comes with a simply unfathomable amount of risk to the team. As of right now, before any restructure, the amount of money the Redskins can go after should Haynesworth get himself suspended is a whopping: not one dime.

Out of the $41 million guarenteed figure, or otherwise put, the combined total of money owed to Albert Haynesworth for his first three seasons here, not one cent is paid out in a signing bonus, or a non-guarenteed salary. About $22 million of that is subject to be restructured next offseason, which would give the team the ability to reclaim that if Haynesworth does something stupid. But Haynesworth will stay a Redskin through 2011 no matter how many games he's actually healthy enough to play.

But in exchange for that risk, the Redskins get the best defensive player in football at relatively cap-friendly prices for the remainder of the prime of his career. Taking the risk was necessary to get Haynesworth in with a reasonable cap number, but ultimately, this gamble will be the reason the team will win in the near future.

There's no other team in football who would have taken a risk like that. Any argument for Snyder being a great owner has to start with the Haynesworth contract.

I don't think Haynesworth will get suspended for any reason in the near future, so I'd have to agree. Of course if it goes in the other direction, any argument for Snyder being a terrible owner will be highlighted by the Haynesworth contract. However I don't see that happening.

And I hope you're right about Campbell. I feel that way about it as well. I think he has a very nice year upcoming.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Yeah, I can live with it. It just kind of makes me shake my head and sort of sarcastically laugh every time I see it happen. Like I said, it's what we do. Then again, we could just stop putting ourselves in situations like this and we wouldn't have to piss away a chunk of our cap on guys not on the roster year in and year out.

You say we portion out X amount of space each year for deadcap in order to remain competitive. Gotta wonder how much more competitive we'd be if X amount of deadcap space actually went to a player(s) of that worth....

"So it's a calculated approach to wasted cap space, if that makes sense." That's got signature written all over it.

We would probably be the same because we are always pushing money into future years which evens out the deadcap. So we get to spend money that we don't even have yet basically. Since the cap goes up every year we can sustain this as long as we don't go too crazy with it.

We cut somebody which accelerates the cap hit, but then we extend or restructure somebody else. So on this, from a cap perspective, we took money from Moss this year to give to Jansen, but then we gave the money that was owed to Jansen later to Moss.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by steveo395

We would probably be the same because we are always pushing money into future years which evens out the deadcap. So we get to spend money that we don't even have yet basically. Since the cap goes up every year we can sustain this as long as we don't go too crazy with it.

We cut somebody which accelerates the cap hit, but then we extend or restructure somebody else. So on this, from a cap perspective, we took money from Moss this year to give to Jansen, but then we gave the money that was owed to Jansen later to Moss.

I get what you're saying, but pushing money into future years doesn't really even out the deadcap. It actually creates bigger deadcap numbers down the road. It's kind of a version of short term thinking. It's almost like we've accepted the fact that every season there will be a player or two whose contract(s) we've blundered so badly that we have no choice but do this kind of stuff.

Sure the Moss restructuring evens out the Jansen thing for 2009, but what does "even" mean? If by even you mean on par with what we always do, then sure. All it really does is rectify Jansen's cap hit for 2009 by creating another Jansen-like situation for Santana in 2011 or 2012. And around and around we go.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I get what you're saying, but pushing money into future years doesn't really even out the deadcap. It actually creates bigger deadcap numbers down the road. It's kind of a version of short term thinking. It's almost like we've accepted the fact that every season there will be a player or two who's contract(s) we've blundered so badly that we have no choice but do this kind of stuff.

Sure the Moss restructuring evens out the Jansen thing for 2009, but what does "even" mean? If by even you mean on par with what we always do, then sure. All it really does is rectify Jansen's cap hit for 2009 by creating another Jansen-like situation for Santana in 2011 or 2012. And around and around we go.

Well hopefully next year will be uncapped and we can somehow push all kinds of money into that year, so we won't have to do this anymore.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I get what you're saying, but pushing money into future years doesn't really even out the deadcap. It actually creates bigger deadcap numbers down the road. It's kind of a version of short term thinking. It's almost like we've accepted the fact that every season there will be a player or two whose contract(s) we've blundered so badly that we have no choice but do this kind of stuff.

Sure the Moss restructuring evens out the Jansen thing for 2009, but what does "even" mean? If by even you mean on par with what we always do, then sure. All it really does is rectify Jansen's cap hit for 2009 by creating another Jansen-like situation for Santana in 2011 or 2012. And around and around we go.

See I look at it more along these lines. The Skins pay top dollar in the players prime years, the players get very good money for the years they play. Good for both sides

Using Jansen and Santana as an example, Jansen was paid at his peak, and deserved a top dollar contract, the contract length was written so the team could pay him what they felt he was worth. I think that is praiseworthy. Santana is still a solid player, and we now give him his money that we feel he is worth, and extend it to make room for the salary cap hit from paying Jansen at his time. I don't think that is short-sighted, I think it is maximizing the full flexibility of the cap. Sure some teams have 36million + in cap room, but when the season starts, barring major catastrophe, that is just available resources poorly used.

I don't remember much about the college class anymore, (still all math is useful), but one of the basic econ principles is maximizing resources for the best value, I think the Skins FO at this point does that as well as any team. (How many people before FA started felt we would have AH, DD, DH, cut Jansen, HS, and still have cap room for emergencies/additional pickups?).

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

See I look at it more along these lines. The Skins pay top dollar in the players prime years, the players get very good money for the years they play. Good for both sides

Using Jansen and Santana as an example, Jansen was paid at his peak, and deserved a top dollar contract, the contract length was written so the team could pay him what they felt he was worth. I think that is praiseworthy. Santana is still a solid player, and we now give him his money that we feel he is worth, and extend it to make room for the salary cap hit from paying Jansen at his time. I don't think that is short-sighted, I think it is maximizing the full flexibility of the cap. Sure some teams have 36million + in cap room, but when the season starts, barring major catastrophe, that is just available resources poorly used.

I don't remember much about the college class anymore, (still all math is useful), but one of the basic econ principles is maximizing resources for the best value, I think the Skins FO at this point does that as well as any team. (How many people before FA started felt we would have AH, DD, DH, cut Jansen, HS, and still have cap room for emergencies/additional pickups?).

Not a bad way to look at it. I'm obviously gald we use every bit of cap space and don't sit way under like some teams. Nowhere did I suggest we should be way under the cap.

Two seasons ago we gave Jansen a 5 year, $22M extension, and then restructured it, and that's why at 33 years old, we were left with a crappy decision to make as far as cap dollars go with Big Jon. My point was we've now given Moss a contract that will most likely put us in the same situation with him as we just had with Jansen a few years down the road.

You say we're maximizing the full flexibility of the cap. I disagree. I think given the circumstances we're doing what we have to do to make space. I think maximizing the cap would be avoiding all these dead cap hits year in and year out and using that money on players. I'm interested in using the cap to maximize the quality of our roster.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Not a bad way to look at it. I'm obviously gald we use every bit of cap space and don't sit way under like some teams. Nowhere did I suggest we should be way under the cap.

Two seasons ago we gave Jansen a 5 year, $22M extension, and then restructured it, and that's why at 33 years old, we were left with a crappy decision to make as far as cap dollars go with Big Jon. My point was we've now given Moss a contract that will most likely put us in the same situation with him as we just had with Jansen a few years down the road.

You say we're maximizing the full flexibility of the cap. I disagree. I think given the circumstances we're doing what we have to do to make space. I think maximizing the cap would be avoiding all these dead cap hits year in and year out and using that money on players. I'm interested in using the cap to maximize the quality of our roster.

What I don't understand, and I admit I just don't know the math in and out, is how can you use every bit of cap space on current players? Is that what you are saying should happen, or that the dead cap number is simply too high. I know Dallas has a high dead cap number, I would be curious what the league average is, and I am sure its out there if I were more diligent.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

What I don't understand, and I admit I just don't know the math in and out, is how can you use every bit of cap space on current players? Is that what you are saying should happen, or that the dead cap number is simply too high. I know Dallas has a high dead cap number, I would be curious what the league average is, and I am sure its out there if I were more diligent.

Yeah, I don't know the math in and out either. I'm sure most teams aren't using all of their cap space on players who make the 53 man. A times a dead cap hit here and there is inevitable. But as Crazy Canuck points out here, prior to the Moss restructure/extension, 14% of our salary cap was dead cap space. Again, I don't know the numbers on all the teams, but I'm sure 14% is a pretty big number comparatively.