Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=CrazyCanuck]I agree that TV revenues drive the cap and we should all be thankful that the sharing of these funds is already in place. While the amounts the owners are arguing about are substantial, they still represent a small part of the total pie. That's why I think they should be able to come up with something that most owners can accept.

The NFL is lucky because they get to negotiate one major tv deal that covers all the clubs. This is why baseball is such a mess in my opinion. The MLB TV market is so fragmented. The Yanks have YES, the Braves have TBS, the Cubs have WGN, etc. The only way to clean up baseball's mess is to merge the tv contracts under one umbrella, so the league can split the revenues evenly.

The only solution I see is to sell the entire MLB package to Fox Sports. They already broadcast the games for many different teams, and they have enough regional networks to cover all the different markets (FSE, FSNW, etc.).

Of course this is a huge pipe dream and I'm not holding my breath. People don't like to share money unless they are forced to. The greater good is of little consequence. That's another reason why the NFL is lucky - they agreed to revenue sharing when there was no revenue.[/QUOTE]



that is it for certain. you will not see snyder and jerry jones giving up money if they can help it

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

Another salary cap discussion, man this is dangerous territory. Everyone keeps going down the restructure road, thats fine for a year or two, but you still have to pay the original signing bonuses too. I know the skins have done a great job of circumventing this cap for a while, I just dont see how they are going to be able to keep doing things this way. They are eventually going to either have to start cutting really good players or bite the cap figures.They are just putting it off by restructuring, plus they keep having roster turnover because they have to cut 10 to 15 people every year. I found this about restructing deals.



If a player decides to renegotiate his contract, how does the bonus money he received in the original contract count against the cap? [b]Answer:[/b]If a player renegotiates his contract and gets a new signing bonus, the new signing bonus is prorated over the remaining years of the original contract AND over the extension. The allocation of the original signing bonus remains unchanged.

For example, Player X is currently in the third year of a four-year deal (2000–2003) that paid him a $1 million signing bonus. In 2002, Player X renegotiates his deal extending his contract to the 2005 season while getting a $2 million signing bonus. The original $1 million signing bonus is allocated at $250,000 per year over 2002 and 2003 just as it would be if there were no renegotiations. However, the new $2 million signing bonus is allocated at $500,000 per year over the remaining two years of the original contract (2002–2003) and the extended two years (2004–2005).

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

ugh here we go again


:insane:

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]Another salary cap discussion, man this is dangerous territory. Everyone keeps going down the restructure road, thats fine for a year or two, but you still have to pay the original signing bonuses too. I know the skins have done a great job of circumventing this cap for a while, I just dont see how they are going to be able to keep doing things this way. They are eventually going to either have to start cutting really good players or bite the cap figures.They are just putting it off by restructuring, plus they keep having roster turnover because they have to cut 10 to 15 people every year. I found this about restructing deals.



If a player decides to renegotiate his contract, how does the bonus money he received in the original contract count against the cap? [b]Answer:[/b]If a player renegotiates his contract and gets a new signing bonus, the new signing bonus is prorated over the remaining years of the original contract AND over the extension. The allocation of the original signing bonus remains unchanged.

For example, Player X is currently in the third year of a four-year deal (2000–2003) that paid him a $1 million signing bonus. In 2002, Player X renegotiates his deal extending his contract to the 2005 season while getting a $2 million signing bonus. The original $1 million signing bonus is allocated at $250,000 per year over 2002 and 2003 just as it would be if there were no renegotiations. However, the new $2 million signing bonus is allocated at $500,000 per year over the remaining two years of the original contract (2002–2003) and the extended two years (2004–2005).[/QUOTE]

You're right about how bonuses are allocating. It's just a matter of how much a team can afford to kick down the road. There's often a little more wiggle room than there appears to be, because the cap limit goes up every year. Last year the limit was $85 million. This year it will be $93 million. The next year it will be near $100 million. The key is not to kick [b]too much[/b] of the bonus down the road.

For example, Portis originally signed for a bonus of $11.6 million over 8 years. This year, he's due a $3 million roster bonus. If you renegotiate that into a signing bonus, here's the bonus allocation:

2004: $1.45 million
2005: $1.45 million
2006: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total
2007: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total
2008: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total
2009: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total
2010: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total
2011: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total

That's adding half a million per year, very manageable. In 2007, he's due another roster bonus in the amount of $1 million. Renegotiating that would add another $0.2 million to each year from 2007 onwards. It's not an extraordinary amount.

You can keep a core group of players together in this manner. We can go through the next five years (assuming the CBA gets resigned) and not have to ditch any of our core 15-20 guys. The problem with running your cap in this manner is that if you try to add a high-priced free agent to the mix, you're talking about having the cap blow up in your face.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

PS - 56fanatic, I don't want to rehash this entire argument again. I think it's great that you have a general understanding of how the salary cap works, but the important thing is to understand how those principles apply to the Redskins. The only way this discussion gets anywhere is if we take a look at the Redskins cap projections. If you want them to stop renegotiating bonuses, you must have an idea of when the cap consequences will come due. When?

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]You're right about how bonuses are allocating. It's just a matter of how much a team can afford to kick down the road. There's often a little more wiggle room than there appears to be, because the cap limit goes up every year. Last year the limit was $85 million. This year it will be $93 million. The next year it will be near $100 million. The key is not to kick [b]too much[/b] of the bonus down the road.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

[QUOTE=Schneed10]For example, Portis originally signed for a bonus of $11.6 million over 8 years. This year, he's due a $3 million roster bonus. If you renegotiate that into a signing bonus, here's the bonus allocation:

2004: $1.45 million
2005: $1.45 million
2006: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total
2007: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total
2008: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total
2009: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total
2010: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total
2011: $1.45 million + $0.5 million = $1.95 million total

That's adding half a million per year, very manageable. In 2007, he's due another roster bonus in the amount of $1 million. Renegotiating that would add another $0.2 million to each year from 2007 onwards. It's not an extraordinary amount.[/QUOTE]

With the current CBA you can only prorate 4 years out for 2006. It used to be a max of 7 years, but has been declining every year as the CBA approaches expiry.

So Portis' $3M bonus would be spread out over the next 4 years at a hit of $750K per year. If a new CBA is signed, I'd assume the max proration would go back to 7 years.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

A few thoughts on the Sportsline article about the cap.

First, it seems to me to be shoddy reportage to rely on other teams' cap people to comment, without giving the Redskins a chance to reply. As usual, these sources are anonymous. Que Cosell's rant about the de plor a bull state of sports jour na lism.

Second, if there is no new CBA, my understanding is that a number of teams will have to make radical cutbacks in 2006-not just the Skins. After 2006 it's Katey bar the door (as Ken Beatrice used to say) and we can spend as much as we like.

Third, if there is a new CBA and I realize the clock is ticking, the overall revenue pool will go up because of the demand from smaller teams to include more revenue streams. In addition, the players share of that overall pie will be higher because this is Upshaw's central demand and he cannot face his members without some victory on this front. Therefore isn't it likely that a renewed CBA means that the cap will spike way up and save the Redskins from the article's hellish scenario? Would this increase the 2006 cap or would the affect/effect be delayed?

I would like to hear from our resident experts, Schneed and Canuck. Their projections are a little more crowd pleasing. Am I right in my basic asessment? No CBA = bad news for us and all other teams over the cap in 2006 and, Renewed CBA = much higher caps bail us out. I know we've been over this but the article makes it seem that we are screwed regardless and I don't see it that way.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

new cba would only spike if lots of new revenue came in (new tv contract etc, a couple luxury boxes aren't the same thing). and post 2006 in a capless NFL you WOULD have limits on getting players and spending if you ever made the playoffs.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=CrazyCanuck]Agreed.

With the current CBA you can only prorate 4 years out for 2006. It used to be a max of 7 years, but has been declining every year as the CBA approaches expiry.

So Portis' $3M bonus would be spread out over the next 4 years at a hit of $750K per year. If a new CBA is signed, I'd assume the max proration would go back to 7 years.[/QUOTE]

True that. I forgot about that. I tend to live in the land of milk and honey, where the beer flows like beer, there are no hephalumps or woozles, and the CBA never has a chance of expiring. It may be a bit utopian and the danger of the CBA expiring is surely real and tangible at this point, but I really don't think either side wants to let it expire. I think they'll get it done at the last minute, even if it takes postponing the March 3 start of free agency.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

You mean where the beer flows like wine and the women instinctively flock like the salmon of Capistrano.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=70Chip]Third, if there is a new CBA and I realize the clock is ticking, the overall revenue pool will go up because of the demand from smaller teams to include more revenue streams. In addition, the players share of that overall pie will be higher because this is Upshaw's central demand and he cannot face his members without some victory on this front. Therefore isn't it likely that a renewed CBA means that the cap will spike way up and save the Redskins from the article's hellish scenario? Would this increase the 2006 cap or would the affect/effect be delayed?

I would like to hear from our resident experts, Schneed and Canuck. Their projections are a little more crowd pleasing. Am I right in my basic asessment? No CBA = bad news for us and all other teams over the cap in 2006 and, Renewed CBA = much higher caps bail us out. I know we've been over this but the article makes it seem that we are screwed regardless and I don't see it that way.[/QUOTE]

I think you're onto something there. Crazy Canuck can help me out and correct me if I'm off base, but here's how I understand things. Upshaw is asking that the revenues be distributed based on Total Football Revenues, which includes all NFL revenues, from TV deals and local revenues. The owners have agreed to that at this point, agreeing that the entire pie of NFL revenues should be eligible for revenue sharing. What they can't agree on is what percentage of that pie should go to the players. Players are asking for 65%, owners are proposing 59%.

In 2006, this is what the current situation looks like:
Players get 64.5% of DGR (Designated Gross Revenues). Included in DGR is TV Revenue, ticket sales etc., but not local revenues like stadium naming revenues. This amounts to $93 million in salary cap space for each team.

But now, owners at this point have agreed to share more than just DGR, they've agreed to share Total Football Revenues (TFR), which amounted to $5.8 billion in 2005. If the two sides settle on a percentage somewhere between the 59% and 65% impasse, here will be the salary cap limits:

65% of TFR: (65% x $5.8 billion) / 32 Teams = $117.8
64% of TFR: (64% x $5.8 billion) / 32 Teams = $116.0
63% of TFR: (63% x $5.8 billion) / 32 Teams = $114.2
62% of TFR: (62% x $5.8 billion) / 32 Teams = $112.4
61% of TFR: (61% x $5.8 billion) / 32 Teams = $110.5
60% of TFR: (60% x $5.8 billion) / 32 Teams = $108.7
59% of TFR: (59% x $5.8 billion) / 32 Teams = $107.0

Now, what I don't know is whether or not those numbers would go into effect for 2006, or if they'd go into effect for 2007. If they don't go into effect until 2007, then the $5.8 billion used in the calculation would be a higher number (because the NFL's total revenue grows each year). That would mean the cap limits would be even higher than what's projected here.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

I need to clarify my last post because I just realized I misread some things. The $5.8 billion actually represents all NFL revenues. The owners have agreed to share all football-related revenues, but that does not necessarily include some of the local business revenues that teams currently bring in. So the owners have not yet agreed how much of the $5.8 billion they're willing to share. Owners like Snyder and Jones want to share less, and these high revenue clubs are holding firm in their belief that local revenues should belong to them.

Sounds like not all of the $5.8 will be eligible for sharing with the players. The projections in my prior post will not likely come out that high. Tough to say what it will look like.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

My understanding is that they're arguing on 2 points:

1. Which revenues should be included in total football revenues, AND what % of these should go to the players.

2. Which revenues should be shared between teams.

While #2 seems more of an internal matter, #1 will have a more direct effect on the cap. I don't see the players agreeing to anything unless they get a real raise in dollar terms. So simply increasing the pie won't be enough. The new % of the new pie will have to represent a raise over the current % of the current pie.

So under this assumption, I'd expect a new CBA to allocate more dollars directly to the players, which in turn would raise the salary cap.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

Celts posted the CBS article in the newswire, figured I'd include it here.

[QUOTE=celts32][url]http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9241944[/url]

By Pete Prisco
CBS SportsLine.com Senior Writer
Tell Pete your opinion!

How would you like to be Eric Schaffer, the cap man for the Washington Redskins? Your boss is the combustible Dan Snyder and your cap is a mess, so much so that two cap experts from other teams who looked at it say it's as bad as they've seen.

We pity poor Schaffer, who isn't to blame. It's not his fault Snyder throws money around as if he prints it, snubbing the reality that cap jail will eventually swallow his team whole.

"I'm glad I'm not Eric," said one of the cap experts. "That thing is a mess."

According to NFLPA figures, the Redskins have $115.4 million committed in salary for their top 51 players in 2006. The cap is expected to be $92 to $95 million. That means they have to trim $20 million or so. And that's not counting the $2 million or so the team will need to sign its rookies (thankfully, they don't have a first-round pick to pay, or that would be higher).

The Redskins have done a decent job trimming their cap down in recent years, but this time it might not be possible -- certainly not without a new collective bargaining agreement. A new agreement could help relieve some of the cap problems, but even with one, the Redskins face a daunting task.

"If they reduced everybody to a veteran minimum, and that won't happen, they'd still be $4 million over the cap," said one of the cap experts. "That's before cutting anybody."

So how did it get this bad? The Redskins have paid out big money deals under Snyder, and some of them have blown up in the team's face, leading to the chase factor. You chase bad deals with more bad deals to compensate.

Thus, they have trouble.

When room got tight in the past, they extended players' deals to create room, spreading bonus amortization out over the years. Eventually, though, it becomes time to pay the piper.

That time is now.

Compare the Redskins' plight to a family that keeps putting off paying the credit card balance by paying minimums.

"All the deals, all the overpaying for years and moving money into future years has caught up to them," said the cap expert. "Last year they had to move $7 million in money into future years. That catches up to you at some point."

One cap expert said the Redskins might be forced to let good players walk, and could be forced to field a team with as many as 20 rookies -- or more.

If there's a new CBA, the Redskins might be able to get out from under the cap troubles a little easier, although it still will be a lot of work.

"Can you imagine the dynamics of what Schaffer is going through?" one cap expert said. "He has to go to Snyder and Joe Gibbs and tell them they have to cut players. That has to be ugly,"

Cap hell. It's as ugly as it gets in the NFL, and it's a jail that's hard to get paroled out of.

Still think the Redskins will be a playoff contender?

Joe Gibbs has his work cut out for him this season. Maybe auto racing never looked so good.[/QUOTE]

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

As for the article, it's pretty much your run-of-the-mill Snyder bashing piece. But it does make some valid points. Without a new CBA we will be in trouble, but we won't be the only ones. If there is a new CBA we should be able to clean up our cap and be ok for 2006 and the future, but the writer doesn't spend much time discussing this.

I guess you can chalk this one up as more anti-Skins rhetoric, with a hint of credibility.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

And if Mr. Schaffer needs some help with his cap sheets, please don't hesitate to ask. Schneed and I can be there by 9am.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

When I first read the article, it concerned me. Then I realized that these outside people don't realize that we have been doing this cap dance every off-season for five years. There are some NFL fans who never have to give this a thought because their owners will never put them over the cap. How boring. And yes, I still think the Redskins will be contenders next year.

Canuck: If I were Snyder, Redskin 1 would be headed for the Great White North post haste.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=CrazyCanuck]As for the article, it's pretty much your run-of-the-mill Snyder bashing piece. But it does make some valid points. Without a new CBA we will be in trouble, but we won't be the only ones. If there is a new CBA we should be able to clean up our cap and be ok for 2006 and the future, but the writer doesn't spend much time discussing this.

I guess you can chalk this one up as more anti-Skins rhetoric, with a hint of credibility.[/QUOTE]

Yeah it struck me as a very narrow-minded piece. He absolutely trashes Snyder's cap management based solely on the assumption that the league will enter 2006 without a new CBA. Typical shoddy writing. Absolutely no foresight to mention the various scenarios that may play out, such as a CBA extension. And as usual, journalists show very little understanding of basic business; negotiations tend to go into the 11th hour for a reason. The writer seems to assume that since the two sides are far apart on CBA negotiations in the here and now, that there will be no CBA extension. It's irresponsible to trash someone based solely on that one possibility, especially when that possibility isn't even the most likely to actually play out.

It's your typical Chicken Little piece. OMG THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=70Chip]When I first read the article, it concerned me. Then I realized that these outside people don't realize that we have been doing this cap dance every off-season for five years. There are some NFL fans who never have to give this a thought because their owners will never put them over the cap. How boring. And yes, I still think the Redskins will be contenders next year.

Canuck: If I were Snyder, Redskin 1 would be headed for the Great White North post haste.[/QUOTE]

This is the final capped year at present and the CBA says that most of the steps in that cap dance teams do every year can't be used. Just about every Skin's contract is written right up against the 30% rule so to change 06's cap hit will require changing every other year of the contract downward and agents and players aren't going to let that happen. My guess is if 3/1 comes without an extension the Skins will cut down to the minimum of 43 players and hope an extension is done after 3/1. Most of the logical cut targets had their cut savings reduced last year when Snyder did a wave of restructures so he could do the Coles/Moss deal so the largest amount the team can save by cutting one player is 2M by axing Bowen or Harris and those amounts are small bites of a 21-23M apple.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Pocono]This is the final capped year at present and the CBA says that most of the steps in that cap dance teams do every year can't be used. Just about every Skin's contract is written right up against the 30% rule so to change 06's cap hit will require changing every other year of the contract downward and agents and players aren't going to let that happen. My guess is if 3/1 comes without an extension the Skins will cut down to the minimum of 43 players and hope an extension is done after 3/1. Most of the logical cut targets had their cut savings reduced last year when Snyder did a wave of restructures so he could do the Coles/Moss deal so the largest amount the team can save by cutting one player is 2M by axing Bowen or Harris and those amounts are small bites of a 21-23M apple.[/QUOTE]

Yes. No deal means drastic measures, beyond the "logical" cuts. I think the owners may want to avoid putting Snyder in this position, though, because they want concessions from him on revenue sharing. This is his hole card.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

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

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

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

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

[url]http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/numbers.asp[/url]

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Pocono][url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2332991"]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2332991[/url]

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

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.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

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.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=70Chip]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

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...

[CODE]
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
[/CODE]

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.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

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.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=70Chip]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[size=2]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.....
[/size]

[b][size=2]Upshaw Schedules Rare Meeting With Agents[/size][/b]


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.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=70Chip][size=2]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.....
[/size]

[b][size=2]Upshaw Schedules Rare Meeting With Agents[/size][/b]


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.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the article, 70 Chip. This is definitely more concerning.

Canuck (or anyone else who knows?), maybe you can help me on this. If we enter 2006 as the final capped season, is there anything stopping Dan Snyder from asking his players to take cuts on their 2006 base salaries & roster bonuses in exchange for raises that would more than make up for that amount in 2007?

Like the $4 million in base salary we owe to Brunell this year. Could Snyder ask him to renegotiate, giving him only $1 million this year, effectively cutting his salary by $3 million. In exchange for that, could Snyder put a $5 million raise in 2007 in his contract? Or does the 30% rule block this?

That would seem to be a good way to get below this year's cap. Because if 2007 is uncapped, Danny Boy probably won't have a problem with paying out the wazoo at that point. But the idea just seems to good to be true, seems like there must be a rule blocking this. Not to mention that a bunch of players wouldn't trust Snyder enough to postpone a payment like that. Just wondering if you knew.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]Canuck (or anyone else who knows?), maybe you can help me on this. If we enter 2006 as the final capped season, is there anything stopping Dan Snyder from asking his players to take cuts on their 2006 base salaries & roster bonuses in exchange for raises that would more than make up for that amount in 2007?[/QUOTE]

Yes, the 30% rule. I believe this is the exact scenario they envisioned when they put the rule in place.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

still, you could have everyone take small cuts...

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

Like I have said since day one when we talked about this subject earlier in the year. They mortgage the future by restructuring deals or reworking deals. Everyone wants to argue that the Redskins have some secret way or dealing with the cap. There is no way around it. They can restructure, rework, cut, release what ever, the fact is they are going to have to pay the price for all this crap since 2000. Whether you people want to believe it or not, its going to happen. And of course the redskins and washington post or who ever gets a little from the Danny is going to say everything is OK, we have planned for this and that. Tell me what organization is going to come out and say, well people, we really screwed up all those previous years. We are going to be in some serious trouble. NO ONE< Enron ring a bell!! All those cap friendly deals that were signed last year, or year before that are going to come up in the next year or two. You think Portis is going to be here, Moss,Washington, all those guys who have the backloaded deals, HELL NO. I hope I am here when all this goes down so I can start my own thread, TOLD YOU SO!!

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]Like I have said since day one when we talked about this subject earlier in the year. They mortgage the future by restructuring deals or reworking deals. Everyone wants to argue that the Redskins have some secret way or dealing with the cap. There is no way around it. They can restructure, rework, cut, release what ever, the fact is they are going to have to pay the price for all this crap since 2000. Whether you people want to believe it or not, its going to happen. And of course the redskins and washington post or who ever gets a little from the Danny is going to say everything is OK, we have planned for this and that. Tell me what organization is going to come out and say, well people, we really screwed up all those previous years. We are going to be in some serious trouble. NO ONE< Enron ring a bell!! All those cap friendly deals that were signed last year, or year before that are going to come up in the next year or two. You think Portis is going to be here, Moss,Washington, all those guys who have the backloaded deals, HELL NO. I hope I am here when all this goes down so I can start my own thread, TOLD YOU SO!![/QUOTE]

Yeah we get it. You're like a parrot. Or a broken record. Or a recording of a parrot playing on a broken record.

You just repeat the same thing every time, but you don't know the numbers. You do realize that guys like Deion, Bruce Smith, Mark Carrier, Brad Johnson, L Coles, C Bailey, and J Trotter are all gone from the books at this point?

Besides, the main issue at hand is the effects of a CBA stalemate. If that happens, it won't be our "big spending" putting us into serious trouble. It will be the rules regarding the final uncapped year. And the same trouble with happen to about 15 other teams in the NFL.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]Yeah we get it. You're like a parrot. Or a broken record. Or a recording of a parrot playing on a broken record.

You just repeat the same thing every time, but you don't know the numbers. You do realize that guys like Deion, Bruce Smith, Mark Carrier, Brad Johnson, L Coles, C Bailey, and J Trotter are all gone from the books at this point?

Besides, the main issue at hand is the effects of a CBA stalemate. If that happens, it won't be our "big spending" putting us into serious trouble. It will be the rules regarding the final uncapped year. And the same trouble with happen to about 15 other teams in the NFL.[/QUOTE]

Why is it when people put a post that states an opinion, or a belief in what other GMs or cap experts say, that I happen to agree with, you blow up. Did I say you have to believe it? I dont think I did. You can believe what ever it is you want. I am just stating that I believe what I hear from people more familiar with the cap and what true state a certain team is in. Does it make you feel like more of a man to call some one names,or say the things you do? If it does, than you can keep on saying them, that is fine. but really, do you think you know more than the GMs and experts out there. I know I dont. And am pretty sure you haven't a clue other than the top layer of it. If you did, you would be working in that field, right? You never answered my question, would a company or an organization come out and say they are going to be in trouble? I have to listen or base my opinion on a nuetral party when it comes to this. thats just what i believe. it doesn't make you sound very mature referring or comparing people to animals.

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

Is being a parrot really that bad?

They're actually pretty smart birds, I'd hire this guy as my cap guru

[img]http://www.exzooberance.com/virtual%20zoo/they%20fly/parrot/Yellow-Naped%20Parrot%20471026.jpg[/img]

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

Heres my question, if 2007 is a potentially uncapped year. Why dont we just resign the entire team to new contracts, have 2006 be a nice easy year financially, and then just dish it out next year?

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Is being a parrot really that bad?

They're actually pretty smart birds, I'd hire this guy as my cap guru

[img]http://www.exzooberance.com/virtual%20zoo/they%20fly/parrot/Yellow-Naped%20Parrot%20471026.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]

that is funny Matty!!! LOL

Re: Salary Cap Analysis
 

[QUOTE=#56fanatic]Why is it when people put a post that states an opinion, or a belief in what other GMs or cap experts say, that I happen to agree with, you blow up. Did I say you have to believe it? I dont think I did. You can believe what ever it is you want. I am just stating that I believe what I hear from people more familiar with the cap and what true state a certain team is in. Does it make you feel like more of a man to call some one names,or say the things you do? If it does, than you can keep on saying them, that is fine. but really, do you think you know more than the GMs and experts out there. I know I dont. And am pretty sure you haven't a clue other than the top layer of it. If you did, you would be working in that field, right? You never answered my question, would a company or an organization come out and say they are going to be in trouble? I have to listen or base my opinion on a nuetral party when it comes to this. thats just what i believe. it doesn't make you sound very mature referring or comparing people to animals.[/QUOTE]

Easy tiger, I was definitely not blowing up, and I'm not crapping on your beliefs. I was just pointing out that you're getting repetitive, and I don't agree with what you're saying. The Redskins are not going to come out and say they're in cap trouble because they're not in cap trouble (unless the CBA doesn't get extended).

I think you and I both have an equal understanding of how the salary cap works. It's just that I don't think you're doing the math as it relates to the Skins. Check this [url="http://www.thewarpath.net/WarpathRedskinsCap.htm"]link[/url] out, and look at the release fee tab. Now assuming that the CBA gets extended, can you point to the contracts that are going to kill our salary cap situation?