WP: The Numbers Don't Lie (How Snyder Has Handled the Cap)

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Not sure there were 20 teams that would've been even nearly as affected as us. It's one thing for 20 teams to have to cut a few players they don't want to, but the situation in 06 for us was much more dire than that.

But let's suppose you're right & we say that 20 teams are in some form of "cap hell," that leaves 12 teams who are presumably the top third in cap management (at that time). There are 12 teams in the playoffs every year as well.

So to me that says the Skins (again at the time in 06 when the old cba was ending) are one of the worst if not worst in cap management among 20 or so teams that are bad at it.

But it would have only lasted that season (2006) and 2007 would have been an uncapped year without the CBA. So it really wasn't ever that bad.

Edit. I guess what I am trying to say is that Snyder and his braintrust had this all figured out and the team was never going to suffer or be in CAP Hell with long term consequences. He knew that 1 of 2 things was possible. Either the old CBA would expire putting us in cap hell for one season prior to an uncaped season, or the CBA would be renewed with a cap increase included. Either way Danny was in a win win situation.

The consequences of that 1 year of cap hell would not have been that detrimental.

[JWsleep]

Whatever the history, it does seem that we're taking a new approach this year, and that's something. As for the numbers, if you're making the most money as a franchise, you can play money ball. The fact is, it's not a bad model, given the number of teams who spend a lot that have won superbowls. I completely agree that the issue is much more on talent evaluation. I really do wonder where the blame for Arch and Lloyd lies. My guess is it's GW and Gibbs, respectively, and not Vinny. Could be wrong there, but with AA, it certainly seems like a reasonable hypothesis.

Dead cap results when you make bad talent evaluations. Spending money is not bad per se, it just has to be spent in the right place. We'll see! It's on Vinny now, and that's a good thing: he'll either sink or swim and that will be that.

[chrisl4064]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

Whatever the history, it does seem that we're taking a new approach this year, and that's something. As for the numbers, if you're making the most money as a franchise, you can play money ball. The fact is, it's not a bad model, given the number of teams who spend a lot that have won superbowls. I completely agree that the issue is much more on talent evaluation. I really do wonder where the blame for Arch and Lloyd lies. My guess is it's GW and Gibbs, respectively, and not Vinny. Could be wrong there, but with AA, it certainly seems like a reasonable hypothesis.

Dead cap results when you make bad talent evaluations. Spending money is not bad per se, it just has to be spent in the right place. We'll see! It's on Vinny now, and that's a good thing: he'll either sink or swim and that will be that.

I dont know, I have thought about the AA and BL situation for a while now and im just not sure I can believe that GW wanted to bring in AA to fit a system. BL on the other hand maybe, maybe Al thought about bringing him in for some reason. I just have a feeling that Archuletta was Vinny's deal, wanted a name, brought him in on a big... im sorry enormous contract. This mess has been cleaned up for the most part, we are still paying on it though either through money or draft picks and thats what hurts the most. I just hope Zorn has a good eye for talent, hes got plenty of picks this year to work with.

[squrrelco3]

I have a question for our resident capologists Schneed and Canuck ... sort of on this same topic. I have heard a lot of speculation amongst the media that the Union and ownership are so far apart right now that there will probably be at least one year, possibly 2010, that there will be no cap. If that is the case, could the 'skins hold off until then and then use the uncapped year to clear the dead weight off their books from all of these contracts and start over at zero?

If so how would that work?

(Mods feel free to move this question to the Salary Cap Central forum if it is more relevant there.)

[That Guy]

we waste money on bad players. we sign good players too, but the hit/miss percentage is way too high to get ahead with that much money involved... it's been brought up an awful lot, and it's still true, but you can't go back in time now to fix it.

hopefully everyone's learned that wasting money on guys like arch or lloyd is a Bad Idea (R). I mean, if you went to either of those players previous team's message boards, those fans said everything you needed to know. arch had one too many injuries and was shot as far as starting, and lloyd was a cancer and not nearly as good as advertised. the fans said that BEFORE they even landed in DC, go figure they know they're own players (meanwhile, bills fans praised fletcher, indy's GM talked up washington, jet's fans said moss was good when healthy and really fast, but had massive issues with hamstrings).

it's not rocket science, and hopefully the staff that's in place is the one that finally figures it out.