NFL taking away Redskins cap space

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Drewsky27

We are still in top half of league with our cap reduced. I can see why some see this as better.. It means more underrated free agent signings like last year that were good pickups... Nobiggy

According to the Kevin and Thom show on ESPN980, we have about 18m to deal with at THIS moment. That puts us on top of the East with Cap money to spend. Regardless of the plan, I am sure they are scrambling they're ass off at Redskins Park. I am equally confident they can get it done.....

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Personally I think it's insulting to CrazyCanuck that you totally disrespect him with your sig...

Good point SS!!

Lol it's all good IRMitchell... but thanks for changing the sig. Not sure if I was insulted but everytime I read one of your posts I did leave with hurt feelings.

Ok sorry for the hijack...back to business.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Hog1

According to the Kevin and Thom show on ESPN980, we have about 18m to deal with at THIS moment. That puts us on top of the East with Cap money to spend. Regardless of the plan, I am sure they are scrambling they're ass off at Redskins Park. I am equally confident they can get it done.....

we're definitely not in "cap hell" by any stretch of the imagination. however, any way you cut it, we have 18MM less to play with than we would have otherwise had. It definitely affects our plans. we now have to be less aggressive in free agency AND/OR restructure contracts to push money into future years, which then limits our flexibility in future years.

Further complicating matters is the fact that the Skins, by all appearances, were blindsided by the penalty. whatever plans the skins were working on for the past several months are no longer valid. in a very compressed timeframe, they need to come up with, and execute a "Plan B." Is it doable? yes. But i'd be alot more comfortable if the skins had known about this contingency, and planned for it, months ago.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

we're definitely not in "cap hell" by any stretch of the imagination. however, any way you cut it, we have 18MM less to play with than we would have otherwise had. It definitely affects our plans. we now have to be less aggressive in free agency AND/OR restructure contracts to push money into future years, which then limits our flexibility in future years.

Further complicating matters is the fact that the Skins, by all appearances, were blindsided by the penalty. whatever plans the skins were working on for the past several months are no longer valid. in a very compressed timeframe, they need to come up with, and execute a "Plan B." Is it doable? yes. But i'd be alot more comfortable if the skins had known about this contingency, and planned for it, months ago.

I regretfully agree with your point. I do think they are not that surprised with the ruling. I believe it is more of a case of.....let's do it and see if what they do? If we get the hammered, we'll go to plan "B".
Listening to 980 in DC right now, the thought is they have known about this for some time and making possible plans to combat it if it could not be defeated.......
Still no good info on the future of this deal....Law suit.....Hitman....Jihad...

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Wouldn't a competitive advantage be if the Redskins and Cowboys had signed big money free agents and fronted all the guaranteed money in that first year...and isn't that what the Bears did with Peppers?

I agree with this. It's not like we used the money to bring in a bunch of free agents in 2010. We just pushed future money to the present on the garbage we had already signed previously.

The Bears on the other hand used 2010 to bring in a brand new FA Peppers. They dumped $35M of his money into the uncapped year. Would they have been able to bring in Peppers without the uncapped year? Maybe but definitely not as easily.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by CrazyCanuck

I agree with this. It's not like we used the money to bring in a bunch of free agents in 2010. We just pushed future money to the present on the garbage we had already signed previously.

The Bears on the other hand used 2010 to bring in a brand new FA Peppers. They dumped $35M of his money into the uncapped year. Would they have been able to bring in Peppers without the uncapped year? Maybe but definitely not as easily.

Our "competitive advantage" is realized now in that we SHOULD have a massive amount of cap space since we were able to accelerate cap monies into 2010 with no consequence. Hence the league's belief (mistaken as it may be) that the removal of said cap space now is a proper rectification of our "infractions". How what the Bears did was any different I am curious to understand the logic. We blatantly moved owed cap space eating monies into 2010. The Bears did not though. They incurred new cap space eating monies in 2010. The distinction is minor and logically I see no difference. The "competitive advantage" is the same.