Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

OK, I'm getting very frustrated with these cap penalties.

This morning I heard on Yahoo Sports Radio that Jonathan Vilma's lawyer had the Saints restructure his contract for the upcoming season before the known suspension was announced. They reduced his salary and cap number down to the league minimum for the lost 2012 season and paid him a big bonus, so when he would be suspended, he'd lose the least amount of money possible.


Then I open my browser and see this on the news:
Surprising Player Tops NFL Salaries | ThePostGame

Charles Johnson is the highest-paid player in 2011? He was paid $34million of a $72million contract in one season? Sounds exactly like what we were handed a salary cap death sentence for.

I expect the Saints to get punished and piled on for the Vilma contract, but the Panthers will probably be held to a different standard than us and Dallas....just like Chicago, Houston and other teams that did the exact same thing as us.

This selective enforcement is really getting old.

I don't see anything wrong with either of those things.

First, $30m of Johnson's $34m in 2011 was signing bonus. That's prorated over the life of the contract, so his 2011 cap hit is only $9m. ($30m/6yrs + $4m 2011 salary). That's actually less than average.

And as someone else wrote, even if there were a $34m cap hit in 2011, it would still be OK because 2011 is a capped year, and they couldn't gain any competitive advantage in future years by shifting tons of money into an uncapped year.

As for Vilma, nothing wrong with that either. They're moving cap hit into the future (capped) years to do him a favor. They may also be doing it to free up cap space to sign Brees, but there's nothing wrong with moving cap hit from one year's cap to another. Heck, any unused cap space in one year can be rolled over into the next year.

FWIW, that's why the Skins aren't completely destroyed by the $18m penalty - they had around $13m unused cap credit rolled over from last year.

[Monkeydad]

Do you think WE could get away with a move like they did with Vilma.

Lets say Fred Davis or Trent Williams are repeat morons and light up again...facing a year suspension. Do you think we'd get away with slashing his pay for the suspended year to save cap space and minimize his punishment?

I don't think the Saints will get away with it since they're under a microscope and I get Goodell will take this as them diminishing his power...but it seems pretty obvious they're playing with contracts to get around punishments.


Maybe before we were hammered, I would not care about this, but since we were hit hard for cap maneuvering that wasn't even against the rules and were approved by the league...I guess I want to see every other offender punished just as equally.

[FRPLG]

Seriously, I think a lot of people need to think a little more critically about our situation and the particulars as compared with other situations. They simply are not the same. It is very easy to see, evaluate and understand the difference between them. I think there is a very large portion of people who refuse to even try and understand the league's (owners) reasoning. I don't agree with the league's reasoning but I can surely see that what the Saints did with Vilma is in no way similar nor could it be construed as gaining any competitive advantage.

Arguing that other teams are being allowed to do "similar" things is a weak argument because it is not happening...and it looks desperate.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

Do you think WE could get away with a move like they did with Vilma.

Yes. What advantage did they gain?

Lets say Fred Davis or Trent Williams are repeat morons and light up again...facing a year suspension. Do you think we'd get away with slashing his pay for the suspended year to save cap space and minimize his punishment?

As long as it conformed to the cap rules then yeah we could.

I don't think the Saints will get away with it since they're under a microscope and I get Goodell will take this as them diminishing his power...but it seems pretty obvious they're playing with contracts to get around punishments.

Exactly what did they do to "get around a punishment"? They gained no advantage that I can see.

Maybe before we were hammered, I would not care about this, but since we were hit hard for cap maneuvering that wasn't even against the rules and were approved by the league...I guess I want to see every other offender punished just as equally.

You don't like that we were punished for actions that were not in violation of any rule so your response is that everyone else should get punished similarly? I think the high ground usually provide better footing.

[SkinsHulk]

^^^
Good question. I think it's been mentioned before and the team would be S.O.L. I thought that was why the team tagged him and possibly to evaluate his commitment.
Tough decisions at TE. Cooley aging and not a big guy. Davis is one failed test away.
IMO- Cooley gets paid a lot and cant be held beyond this year. Davis should be tagged another year before drafting 1-2 TE's.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Seriously, I think a lot of people need to think a little more critically about our situation and the particulars as compared with other situations. They simply are not the same. It is very easy to see, evaluate and understand the difference between them. I think there is a very large portion of people who refuse to even try and understand the league's (owners) reasoning. I don't agree with the league's reasoning but I can surely see that what the Saints did with Vilma is in no way similar nor could it be construed as gaining any competitive advantage.

Arguing that other teams are being allowed to do "similar" things is a weak argument because it is not happening...and it looks desperate.

Well said.

[SBXVII]

I think at this point my biggest issue is Goodell and the league waiting until the eve of Free Agency in order to enact a punishment. It all could have been avoided had the league simply notified the Skins and Boys their contracts were not falling within the agreed perimaters, or had they issued a punishment right away, or had they issued the punishment back in Sept. or Oct. Clearly the punishment was planned to be dealt at the opportune time so both teams could argue and win and get their CAP space back in time to use it in this yrs FA. Basically the league got what it wanted by force. In reality when the two teams appealed the decisions the whole CAP should have been returned and the teams able to use them. If after the Arbitrator heard the issues he/she felt the league was right then the two team would have had to either pay a heafty fine or find a way to give back their CAP space that was taken.

Then you have Bountygate. I don't have a problem with the coach's being punished and it was timely and it allows them to appeal and gives them time to get back with their teams prior to the season starting if they won. But what I do have a problem with is the league again takes its time and waits until after the draft, then decides to make a punishment that hinders the teams those player play for now and those teams are now unable to make adjustments through the draft to fill those spots until the player are allowed back.

I think its the timing and the blatent attempt to screw the teams over instead of the teams having time to appeal, or adjust to whatever punishment has been decided. As in our case all that needed to have been done was the Exec Committee having told the Skins and Boys what the punishments were going to be and informed them that at the next owners meeting there would be a vote on the issue and after that then the two teams could appeal. No. Goodell nabbed the CAP space and said you can't use it in order to hinder us with out allowing a proper procedure to having all the owners vote on it prior to actually following through and not giving the two teams time for an appeal.

I guess my issue is nothing was done until the last minute and then it couldn't happen fast enough. It had to be done right then and there. No waiting and thinking about it, no looking to see if it should even be done, no vote by the owners. Why? because it would have been too late and would not have mattered. So the league rushed our punishment. Now look at Bountygate; why not rush it, why not hurry with it, because then the teams who have these 4 players on their teams would be able to adjust their drafting in order to fill those spots until those players could come back. So why not wait until after the draft, take their time, then dole out the punishment so the teams miss personel they were counting on this year.

[SBXVII]

FRPLG,

If that CAP space they took in 2011 would have taken up space in future yrs no matter how much it took up then they did exactly what we did. To a lesser extent maybe cause your talking about 18 mill per season with us vs. their 3-4 mill per season. But if it would have been 3 mill spread over 4 yrs now they are not having to worry about atleast 9 mill down the road cause it's getting pushed all into the 2011 yr with that yrs 3mill CAP hit to total 12 mill. The issue is they saved also. They have an advantage also. No matter how slight it is.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Seriously, I think a lot of people need to think a little more critically about our situation and the particulars as compared with other situations. They simply are not the same. It is very easy to see, evaluate and understand the difference between them. I think there is a very large portion of people who refuse to even try and understand the league's (owners) reasoning. I don't agree with the league's reasoning but I can surely see that what the Saints did with Vilma is in no way similar nor could it be construed as gaining any competitive advantage.

Arguing that other teams are being allowed to do "similar" things is a weak argument because it is not happening...and it looks desperate.

yeah disagree, nothing about Skins organization or fan base I would discribe as desperate.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

I don't see anything wrong with either of those things.

First, $30m of Johnson's $34m in 2011 was signing bonus. That's prorated over the life of the contract, so his 2011 cap hit is only $9m. ($30m/6yrs + $4m 2011 salary). That's actually less than average.

And as someone else wrote, even if there were a $34m cap hit in 2011, it would still be OK because 2011 is an uncapped year, and they couldn't gain any competitive advantage in future years by shifting tons of money into an uncapped year.

As for Vilma, nothing wrong with that either. They're moving cap hit into the future (capped) years to do him a favor. They may also be doing it to free up cap space to sign Brees, but there's nothing wrong with moving cap hit from one year's cap to another. Heck, any unused cap space in one year can be rolled over into the next year.

FWIW, that's why the Skins aren't completely destroyed by the $18m penalty - they had around $13m unused cap credit rolled over from last year.

2011 wasn't an uncapped year.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

FRPLG,

If that CAP space they took in 2011 would have taken up space in future yrs no matter how much it took up then they did exactly what we did. To a lesser extent maybe cause your talking about 18 mill per season with us vs. their 3-4 mill per season. But if it would have been 3 mill spread over 4 yrs now they are not having to worry about atleast 9 mill down the road cause it's getting pushed all into the 2011 yr with that yrs 3mill CAP hit to total 12 mill. The issue is they saved also. They have an advantage also. No matter how slight it is.

No. They actually moved cap expense OUT of this year, probably so they can get Brees handled, and moved it forward into the future. We did the opposite. We took future cap expenses and moved them into an uncapped year which made them disappear cap-wise.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

FRPLG,

If that CAP space they took in 2011 would have taken up space in future yrs no matter how much it took up then they did exactly what we did. To a lesser extent maybe cause your talking about 18 mill per season with us vs. their 3-4 mill per season. But if it would have been 3 mill spread over 4 yrs now they are not having to worry about atleast 9 mill down the road cause it's getting pushed all into the 2011 yr with that yrs 3mill CAP hit to total 12 mill. The issue is they saved also. They have an advantage also. No matter how slight it is.

If you don't understand the issue, please stop writing on the subject.

It is absolutely fine under normal circumstances to restructure contracts to shift salary cap hit from one year to the next year, either forward or backwards. If both years involved are capped, there is no unfair advantage to be gained. They can only shift future cap hit into this year as long as they still have space this year. In fact, since unused 2011 cap space can be used in 2012, it makes little difference.

However, shifting a ton of cap hit into an uncapped year has the effect of completely circumventing the cap in future years.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

2011 wasn't an uncapped year.

Good catch. Mistyped that, and it doesn't make sense as written. Should read:

"And as someone else wrote, even if there were a $34m cap hit in 2011, it would still be OK because 2011 is a capped year, and they couldn't gain any competitive advantage in future years by shifting tons of money into an uncapped year."

[T.O.Killa]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

Good catch. Mistyped that, and it doesn't make sense as written. Should read:

"And as someone else wrote, even if there were a $34m cap hit in 2011, it would still be OK because 2011 is a capped year, and they couldn't gain any competitive advantage in future years by shifting tons of money into an uncapped year."

Yeah, but they did gain an unfair advantage in futures years by going so far below the cap floor in the uncapped year that they could make this huge charge to 2011. Reducig the charge in future years.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by T.O.Killa

Yeah, but they did gain an unfair advantage in futures years by going so far below the cap floor in the uncapped year that they could make this huge charge to 2011. Reducing the charge in future years.

Certainly this points to the hypocrisy of the punishment, but unfortunately, hypocrisy and unfairness are not what are being evaluated (most likely). So while we all know that the decision was patently messed up, the overturning of it isn't as clear cut.