|
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
[ 18]
Schneed10 02-27-2006, 10:00 AM Hey Fellas (and at least 1 lady I recall on the site), I've been reading the threads here over a year & a half, had to finally succumb to posting. Good stuff mainly, maybe I feel like I've been sponging. (Actually, I'd like to make small donations to the site from time to time, does MattyK handle such?)
As for this thread, there's a world to discuss, but has anyone thought of this:
Labor problems = Skins super bowl win!
Of course, this cba situation is vastly different from the 82 & 87 seasons, but the timing parallels are notalble nonetheless, Gibbs won in 82-83, his 2nd yr. & the 1st nfl strike. While this is Gibbs' 3rd year back, I'm hoping for history to repeat.
Also won in 87-88 with what may have been the most overacheiving super bowl team in history (I can't recall any other super bowl winner that had a qb controversy thru the year).
My point? did those teams win out of coincidence? I dont' think so, management & cohesion were hallmarks of Gibbs' teams, and in a strike induced season, teams that returned to the field w/a clear sense of order from the top fared well. While the lack of a cba deal poses great challenges to us now, before it's over don't be surprised if we manage to better a lot of teams that seem to be sitting pretty now. If nothing else, can you imagine this situation if Gibbs hadn't come on board?!!!
Glad you started posting, hope you do it often.
I think Gibbs has an advantage in a strike season because he's such a team builder. During a strike, most players are thinking about their wallets and the labor issues, but Gibbs' players seem to think more about playing together, working hard, and staying together as a team. It's these kinds of situations when "character guys" really pay off.
We still have an uphill battle this year, and we can only go as far as our QB takes us (whether it's Brunell or Campbell). And the labor situation might be resolved in the next few weeks. But you definitely can't count Joe Gibbs out in any season.
Monksdown 02-27-2006, 10:14 AM "It may have already been posted, but, as far as I know, my man Dan ponied up his own jack for land and stadium. That makes him signifigantly more invested than most other owners, as stadiums are mostly funded by cities. I don't know the details of the owners proposal, but all things cannot possibly be equal. It is beyond me how you can apply an equal equation for sharing?"
Im sure that Dan's attornies will see that his handicap is rather large. If you catch my drift. You get to be creative when your franchise is worth over a billion. Say for example, joining the Cowboys with a guaranteed Thanksgiving Game every year. Or local television rights would be a big one.
Schneed10 03-14-2006, 10:31 AM $ Committed to Players in 2006: $116.8 million
Less Rule of 51: ($4.8 million)
Plus Dead Cap: $3.57 million
Increase in Min Base Sal due to CBA: ~ $2 million
Salary Cap Total Before Recent Moves: $117.3 million
NFL Salary Cap Limit: $102 million
Actual Cuts - Cap Savings:
Brandon Noble - $1.7 million
Walt Harris - $2 million
Matt Bowen - $2 million
Corey Raymer - $1 million
Tom Tupa - $600 K
Lavar Arrington - $4.4 million
Total Cap Savings from Cuts: $11.7 million
Salary Cap $ Scheduled in 2006 after Cuts: $105.6 million
Roster Bonuses Restructured - Cap Savings
Sean Taylor: $1.8 million
Clinton Portis: $2.5 million
Casey Rabach: $1.5 million
Shawn Springs: $2.5 million
Cornelius Griffin: $2.0 million
Marcus Washington: $1.9 million
Chris Samuels: $3.7 million
Total Cap Savings from Roster Bonus Restructures: $15.9 million
Salary Cap $ Scheduled in 2006 after Cuts, Trades, Post June 1 Cuts, and Roster Bonus Restructures: $87.7 million
2006 Cap: $102 million
Expected Cap Room before Trading Ramsey: $15.3 million
When we trade Ramsey: $1.7 million
Total Cap Room Available for 2006: $17 million
The tendering of our RFAs and the resigning of Rock Cartwright are not included in these numbers.
This analysis does not include any restructures of base salary which may have occurred. These would create even more cap room. If you know of any, please post them and I will update.
CrazyCanuck 03-14-2006, 01:36 PM $ Committed to Players in 2006: $116.8 million
Less Rule of 51: ($4.8 million)
Plus Dead Cap: $3.57 million
Increase in Min Base Sal due to CBA: ~ $2 million
Salary Cap Total Before Recent Moves: $117.3 million
NFL Salary Cap Limit: $102 million
Actual Cuts - Cap Savings:
Brandon Noble - $1.7 million
Walt Harris - $2 million
Matt Bowen - $2 million
Corey Raymer - $1 million
Tom Tupa - $600 K
Lavar Arrington - $4.4 million
Total Cap Savings from Cuts: $11.7 million
Salary Cap $ Scheduled in 2006 after Cuts: $105.6 million
Roster Bonuses Restructured - Cap Savings
Sean Taylor: $1.8 million
Clinton Portis: $2.5 million
Casey Rabach: $1.5 million
Shawn Springs: $2.5 million
Cornelius Griffin: $2.0 million
Marcus Washington: $1.9 million
Chris Samuels: $3.7 million
Total Cap Savings from Roster Bonus Restructures: $15.9 million
Salary Cap $ Scheduled in 2006 after Cuts, Trades, Post June 1 Cuts, and Roster Bonus Restructures: $87.7 million
2006 Cap: $102 million
Expected Cap Room before Trading Ramsey: $15.3 million
When we trade Ramsey: $1.7 million
Total Cap Room Available for 2006: $17 million
The tendering of our RFAs and the resigning of Rock Cartwright are not included in these numbers.
This analysis does not include any restructures of base salary which may have occurred. These would create even more cap room. If you know of any, please post them and I will update.
Nice post Schneed.
Some other factors:
- salary mins have increased which will reduce the cap room.
- option bonuses due in 2006 can now be prorated 5 years instead of 4 which increases the cap room.
- you added $4.4M in savings for Lavar, but you didn't include his $12M deadcap charge. His net deadcap charge will be around $8M ($12M - $4M).
I'm gonna try to get some new cap sheets up in the next few days even if I have to make a bunch of assumptions.
EDIT: Sorry just realized you did factor in the salary min increases into your calculations.
Schneed10 03-14-2006, 01:44 PM Nice post Schneed.
Some other factors:
- salary mins have increased which will reduce the cap room.
- option bonuses due in 2006 can now be prorated 5 years instead of 4 which increases the cap room.
- you added $4.4M in savings for Lavar, but you didn't include his $12M deadcap charge. His net deadcap charge will be around $8M ($12M - $4M).
I'm gonna try to get some new cap sheets up in the next few days even if I have to make a bunch of assumptions.
EDIT: Sorry just realized you did factor in the salary min increases into your calculations.
I see you noticed the min salary increases included in the top. Arrington's contract was scheduled to count $12.something million in 2006 if he were on the roster, and that got included in the top line of $116.8 million. So his dead money would be wrapped up in the starting number, minus the $4.4 million.
Sorry that was confusing, I should have broken his dead money out after he got cut.
I'm sure you've been trying to come across cap figures for the new contracts, I know I have been and it's pretty much impossible at this point. One thing's certain, we can prorate the signing bonuses over 5 years. And then knowing the Skins, it's probably safe to assume that the base salaries are set at the vet minimum in the early years of the contract.
CrazyCanuck 03-14-2006, 01:53 PM Ok now I see how you handled Lavar.
Ya finding contract info is tough. For the next update I'll have to make some assumptions. Once the dust settles in the next couple weeks, it should be easier to find more accurate numbers.
That Guy 03-14-2006, 07:15 PM generally the contracts are vet min for 2 years, with 2mill a year in SB proration.
arch only gets 5$ in SB, and 1$mill in roster bonuses each year after the first.
probably only spent ~11$ mill so far on players. though after the draft we might move some money forward (from future base salaries).
base salary restructures would only make sense for jansen, brunell, and thomas. brunell is least likely since he'll be cut in the next couple years.
|