We must draft better...

#56, i can find you other capologists that say its not a big problem, just cause one person agrees with you doesn't make it true.

as far as the original topic, look at the bengals, when i went over their roster, 30+ players have been around over 3 years and there's a ton of draft picks in there too. most importantly, their high picks (CP, CJ) have been absolute slam dunks, and the lower round guys make up very cheap depth on their roster.

I love how people just can't let go of Desmond Howard. One draft bust and it's tainted Gibbs ability to "judge talent" for the rest of his life. Give me a break.

ARRRGGHHHH. Don't you see? It was the housecleaning that was supposed to send us into cap hell. AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Supposedly, when we cut Carrier, Deion, Bruce Smith and George it was going to cause such a large cap hit because their prorated bonuses would be accelerated. In turn, the accelerated bonuses would cause such a big cap hit that we would be forced to make wholesale cuts to get under the cap. HOW MANY PLAYERS WERE CUT B/C OF THE "CAP HELL" CAUSED BY DEION, CARRIER AND SMITH???

Do you even understand the articles you posted??? Could you at least try for some consistency in your arguments? I know that seems to be asking for a lot, but others in this thread seem to manage it.

i just read this today, so sorry for not getting back to you yesterday. The accelerated portions were spread over the two year period since it was after June 1. so the cap hits were not as big as a 1 year hit, obviously. Cutting people is what saves money on the cap. If a player is due 10 million on the cap, they generally cut him because they can spread what ever portion of the signing is left over that year and next,again depending on when he is cut. Deion screwed us by retiring, but the other guys were able to be spread over two years. Dont sound so rude, its just a discussion. You sound a little too stressed out. relax.

"Cap Hell" may not be what everybody perceives it to be -- everyone uses San Fransisco as the ultimate example. They had to purge their roster, now look at them.

While the Skins haven't fallen to that point, our version of Cap Hell might be less debilitating, but still negates our ability to keep the players once they become free agents -- Smoot and Pierce are the most recent examples. Can you imagine how retaining those players could have helped us out now?

Thank you!! I have been trying to say this. That we cant keep certain players around because we dont manage the cap very well in the terms of allowing core players leave because of a million here or there. You can not build a chemisty with a team when every 3 years or 4 years you are adding new talent at key positions. I hope we can keep Washington, Arrington, Taylor, Rogers, Giffin for more than just 4 years. Those guys could be awesome together, especially after they play together for several years. How bad to we need smoot right now. Look how many years Tampa was dominant on D with Lynch, brooks, Barber, Sapp.

Thank you!! I have been trying to say this. That we cant keep certain players around because we dont manage the cap very well in the terms of allowing core players leave because of a million here or there. You can not build a chemisty with a team when every 3 years or 4 years you are adding new talent at key positions. I hope we can keep Washington, Arrington, Taylor, Rogers, Giffin for more than just 4 years. Those guys could be awesome together, especially after they play together for several years. How bad to we need smoot right now. Look how many years Tampa was dominant on D with Lynch, brooks, Barber, Sapp.

But you continue to miss the main point. Go back and read all responses to Beem's posts.

On the Warpath's main page you'll see a link to the left hand side of the screen for Salary Cap Info. Click that and you'll get a set of spreadsheets with tabs at the bottom. Click on the cap summary sheet to see the players' cap figures for each season. These sheets are managed by CrazyCanuck.

I'm not saying there are different rules for the Redskins. I'm saying that the Redskins have not put themselves in the precarious situation that you are making them out to be in. When you examine the numbers, you can tell me where the major problems are that will cause us to dismantle our squad. Because I don't see it.


OK, I went throught them this morning and of the contracts listed there are a few that I would say could be problems. COULB BE problems.
1) LaVar, he is 12million next year, then its about 11 million a year there after.
2)Samuels 8 to 9 million everyyear for the 5
3) Brunell - 5.5 next yr,at 36yrs old then goes up about a million each year, with 9 million at age 40 approximately, now obviously I realize he probably doesn't make into 2007, which it will be about 8 million against the cap and spread that out, its about 4 million a year.
Portis jumps to 5.5 next year, then a million each year from there ending at about 8 or 9 million
Springs at 30 years old is 5.5 then 6.5 and around 8 million at like age 34.

those are the ones I think could be problems. 3 or 4 of those guys are key position player if not all, not counting Brunell.
when we get to 2008 We have aproximately 70+ million tied up in only 10 to 11 players. If those guys are released, because they still have multiple years left, your are talking about spreading out there bonuses over 2 year period max, of those players Lavar, samuels, springs, brunell, portis, all have big signing bonuses. Restructure? Still has future implications of some sort.

But overall, 2008 they will have to be reworking, cutting, or what ever. Which again leads to turnover on the roster ofter guys playing a few years together. I dont know what will happen in the 2007, 2008 or beyond. But 70+ million in 11 players is alot of money when you have 53 players to account for. The cap could be as much as 110 million by then, which gives you 40 million for 40 other guys. But we only have 17 guys under contract in 2008. Dont know, but you asked for what I thought would be , or could be problems and thats what I gather.

But you continue to miss the main point. Go back and read all responses to Beem's posts.

Not again today!! He just said will our limited amount of cap space, we sometimes, SOMETIMES can not afford to keep certain players. I agreed with his statement, how am I missing the point, HOW!! I didn't make a point, I agreed with his!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, I went throught them this morning and of the contracts listed there are a few that I would say could be problems. COULB BE problems.
1) LaVar, he is 12million next year, then its about 11 million a year there after.
2)Samuels 8 to 9 million everyyear for the 5
3) Brunell - 5.5 next yr,at 36yrs old then goes up about a million each year, with 9 million at age 40 approximately, now obviously I realize he probably doesn't make into 2007, which it will be about 8 million against the cap and spread that out, its about 4 million a year.
Portis jumps to 5.5 next year, then a million each year from there ending at about 8 or 9 million
Springs at 30 years old is 5.5 then 6.5 and around 8 million at like age 34.

those are the ones I think could be problems. 3 or 4 of those guys are key position player if not all, not counting Brunell.
when we get to 2008 We have aproximately 70+ million tied up in only 10 to 11 players. If those guys are released, because they still have multiple years left, your are talking about spreading out there bonuses over 2 year period max, of those players Lavar, samuels, springs, brunell, portis, all have big signing bonuses. Restructure? Still has future implications of some sort.

But overall, 2008 they will have to be reworking, cutting, or what ever. Which again leads to turnover on the roster ofter guys playing a few years together. I dont know what will happen in the 2007, 2008 or beyond. But 70+ million in 11 players is alot of money when you have 53 players to account for. The cap could be as much as 110 million by then, which gives you 40 million for 40 other guys. But we only have 17 guys under contract in 2008. Dont know, but you asked for what I thought would be , or could be problems and thats what I gather.

You need to check out the Release Fee tab. It's very revealing. It lists, for each year, the guy's expected cap hit for that year and the "release fee." The release fee represents the cap hit we'd carry for that player if we cut him or traded him that year. So basically, if the release fee is lower than the cap hit in that year, you can SAVE CAP ROOM by getting rid of that player.

With that in mind let's examine Brunell. In 2006, Brunell's cap hit will be $5.4 million if he's on the team, and his release fee would hit our cap with $5.7 million if we cut him. So we wouldn't want to cut him in 2006, because it would cost more to cut him than to keep him. Plus the intention was to have Brunell around as starter for 3 years. Sure enough, in 2007, the release fee would represent a savings over his 2007 cap hit. In 2007 he's scheduled to hit us for $6.6 million, but releasing him would hit us with only $4.3 million in dead money. That's a lot more palatable than something like Coles' $9 million.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. When we do eventually have to eat a hit on these guys, the hits aren't as big. The players signed under Spurrier like Coles and Trotter resulted in crippling blows to our salary cap. But Brunell won't, and that was one of the signings people were complaining about most.

Let's consider the rest of the players Gibbs has signed. Let's say we cut them in 2007. The most dead money we'd carry in 2007 would be for Carlos Rogers or Santana Moss, who would both hit us with $7 million in dead cap money. The rest would be like $4 million or less. Now, can you imagine us cutting Moss or Rogers by 2007? I can't. This is proof positive that we're in great shape. Samuels was a re-sign under Gibbs, he'd represent a big cap hit if we had to cut him. But he's such a rock and always plays hurt, the chance of cutting him seems pretty low.

Nobody has reasonable potential to decimate our salary cap, with the exception of Arrington. Arrington's contract is the one that causes most concern, but mostly because he is now developing a reputation as an injury-prone guy. But if you only have one player on your team that represents a risk of decimating your cap, you're not doing too bad. Again, we're not perfect. But we're in good shape overall.

Ladies and Gentlemen -

I believe we have found the true meaning of Question 3.

But overall, 2008 they will have to be reworking, cutting, or what ever. Which again leads to turnover on the roster ofter guys playing a few years together. I dont know what will happen in the 2007, 2008 or beyond. But 70+ million in 11 players is alot of money when you have 53 players to account for. The cap could be as much as 110 million by then, which gives you 40 million for 40 other guys. But we only have 17 guys under contract in 2008. Dont know, but you asked for what I thought would be , or could be problems and thats what I gather.

If you're figuring a 10% rise in the salary cap each year, the 2008 cap will be $113 million. Seems about right given the new TV deals and such, it might even be higher. But I doubt lower than $113 million.

The $70 million that is currently wrapped up in those 11 players is mostly base salary and roster bonuses. That would easily be restructured by then, moving most of the money into the future years. But before you start, please spare me the sermon on delaying the cap hits in this fashion. As long as you don't delay TOO MUCH of it, you stay in great shape.