Salary Cap Analysis

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2332991

Another article about why getting under the cap in 06 is different from any other year.

Here's the cap situation for each team in the league

http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/numbers.asp

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2332991

Another article about why getting under the cap in 06 is different from any other year.

Nice link.

The cap rules for '06 are dependent upon whether the CBA gets extended or not. If we go with the assumption that the CBA will not get extended, the Redskins are in serious trouble, along with a number of other teams. But if the CBA does get extended, the Redskins should be able to fit under the cap right nicely.

I'm betting that the CBA gets extended. When push comes to shove, I see free agency getting postponed, and a CBA extension getting signed by mid-March as all interested parties begin to give ground to preserve their best interests.

Matty's link demonstrates that we will not be the only team blowing the bridge if there is no CBA. (How could the awful Raiders be so far over?) I agree with Schneed that a CBA will be worked out although not necessarily by 3/3. Both sides have too much to lose to allow this thing to spiral away.

The interesting thing to watch is how much Snyder, Jones, Kraft et al have to give up on the revenue side before the other owners get serious with the CBA. The worst scenario for the Skins, IMHO, would be broad revenue sharing with a player's percentage at say 60% rather than 64%. If Snyder shares his coffee cake, he should insist on the 64% (or higher). Since the point of the revenue sharing is a level playing field, as much of that shared money should go to the players as possible. To me, it seems silly for clubs to demand more revenue when they are not spending the money they get now for players. From the looks of the list, several teams payroll is below the TV alottment alone.

The interesting thing to watch is how much Snyder, Jones, Kraft et al have to give up on the revenue side before the other owners get serious with the CBA. The worst scenario for the Skins, IMHO, would be broad revenue sharing with a player's percentage at say 60% rather than 64%. If Snyder shares his coffee cake, he should insist on the 64% (or higher). Since the point of the revenue sharing is a level playing field, as much of that shared money should go to the players as possible. To me, it seems silly for clubs to demand more revenue when they are not spending the money they get now for players. From the looks of the list, several teams payroll is below the TV alottment alone.

You make a great point here 70Chip, but raising the 64% max only hurts Snyder at the end of the day - he makes less money. I don't think even he would sacrifice his own money just to stick it to the other owners, then again...

The number Snyder should be concerned about is the 56% min cap not the 64% max cap. Let's say the 64% max cap for 2006 is $95M. That means the min cap would be about $83M. So assuming the Skins max out (which they always do), that means the other teams can pocket an extra $12M. Why would Snyder want to share his money so it can go into the other owners' pockets?

But it brings up an interesting debate. If you're Snyder, do you want a large discrepency between the min cap and the max cap? If the gap is large, Snyder would stand to gain a bigger competitve advantage on the playing field, since many teams would not max out and some would be at the min. But this would also mean that the other teams could pocket more of his money.

And another thing... when they all bash Snyder for his free spending ways, what are they really bashing him for? If you want to curse his choice of coaches, free agents, etc., fine. But they bash him for spending his own money??? The guy maxes out the cap every year, and tries every trick within the rules to gain a competitive advantage - and that's a bad thing??? THAT'S WHAT HE'S SUPPOSED TO DO!

Where are all the articles about the greedy owners who only spend the min cap and pocket an extra $12M every year? Even pocketing a few extra million off the cap is shortchanging the fans imo. It's not like these guys are losing money. Plus they were all rich before they became owners, that's how they can afford to buy an NFL team in the first place.

here's an option: cut brunell

judging by gibbs actions, i think this isn't very likely, but the numbers make a lot of sense.

if brunell is cut post june 1st, there's a cap savings of 5.4mill this year and 1 mill next year (we'd be paying his release fee of 5.7mill on the 2007 cap, but that number is 1$ mill than if he was on the roster). Wynn would also make a lot of sense as a post june 1 cap casualty as would hall and tupa...


post june 1 (release fee hits on 2007 cap, full 2006 savings)

player 2006 savings 2007 savings

brunell $5.433 $1
wynn $3.453 $.971 (save .396 pre j1)
hall $1.82 $1.18
tupa $.939 $.601
jacobs $.841 $.202 (save .117 pre j1, ccvmrc*)

*can't cover vet min replacement cost (might be back next year)


pre june 1 (release fee hits in 2006, contract clears completely for 2007)

player 2006 savings

ramsey $1.688
harris $2
Noble $1.7
bowen $2
raymer $.985


that saves you $20.859mill this year and $3.954mill next year (though you would be paying 10.492mill to 5 players not on the roster, which isn't great, but isn't terrible either (last year coles alone accounted for 9mill in dead money)).

You could get under cap without any restructures at all... if lavar and brunell restructure (and possibly jansen... samuels counts 10mill, but only 1mill base) then brunell could stay, but if the cap trouble is dire ramsey gives you another cheap year and there's still 19.17mill in savings.

I think if the CBA problems continue, and 2006 ends up being the last capped year, cutting Brunell might be on the radar screen. It pains me to say it because I want him to start next year, but if cap troubles get dire, I'd say that makes the decision easy to start the Campbell era.

But Ramsey is gone no matter what.

I think if the CBA problems continue, and 2006 ends up being the last capped year, cutting Brunell might be on the radar screen. It pains me to say it because I want him to start next year, but if cap troubles get dire, I'd say that makes the decision easy to start the Campbell era.

But Ramsey is gone no matter what.

This is why I say it is in the best interest of both sides to come up with a solution. Even if the solution is to just put the whole process back a year. Nobody benefits from a situation where players like Brunell and Wynn have to be cut.

This is why I say it is in the best interest of both sides to come up with a solution. Even if the solution is to just put the whole process back a year. Nobody benefits from a situation where players like Brunell and Wynn have to be cut.

And I think Snyder probably knows that if he ultimately blocks a revenue sharing agreement, he'll have to blow up his team this year. I think he certainly thinks as a businessman and wants to keep a lot of those local revenues. But he also really really wants to put together a winning team, and I think he senses that the Skins are getting close. I think when push comes to shove, he's going to give a bit on some of the revenue sharing issues. He's a money man, but he's also a superfan, and I think he'd be willing to give up some of that future cash flow for a serious shot at a Super Bowl in 2006. I see it all coming together by mid-March.

It looks like the NFLPA is taking an extremely tough line. They haven't been this bellicose since '87. I know they like to talk smack right up to the end, but I am starting to worry.....


Upshaw Schedules Rare Meeting With Agents


by Mark Maske
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 16, 2006; 12:36 PM


NFL Players Association chief Gene Upshaw has not addressed players agents as a group in years, but he's scheduled to do so next week in Indianapolis at the scouting combine. The meeting will come as the agents prepare to begin negotiating contracts for players at a time of great uncertainty, with the union and the league's team owners still significantly apart in their negotiations on an extension of the sport's collective bargaining agreement.

The free-agent market is scheduled to open March 3. There has been talk league-wide of pushing the opening of the market back until April 1 if there's sufficient progress in the labor talks to warrant such a delay. But union officials say that, at this point, there's no need to consider pushing back free agency because there hasn't been progress in the labor negotiations.

The union regards Feb. 24 as the deadline for a labor deal. Union officials say if that deadline passes without a deal, the free-agent market will open as scheduled March 3. Upshaw has said if there's no deal by the time the union's executive board meets March 9, he'll recommend to the players then that they put in motion the process to decertify the union as a tactic to prevent a future lockout by the owners.

The current labor deal runs through the 2007 season. But under the deal, the 2006 season would be the final one with the current salary-cap system in place. The 2007 season would be played without a salary cap.