Redskins 2011 Salary Cap Status

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Tripp, do you have a link to your source showing that we're at a cap number of $93 million now?

EDIT: Nevermind I see it now.

The link to Tandler, (who is apparently quoting Halsell), indicates that the Redskins current cap number is currently $93 million INCLUSIVE of Haynesworth and McNabb. That means Tandler/Halsell think we have $27 million in space even before jettisoning Haynesworth and McNabb.

Clayton however thinks we are $10 million under, and he surely isn't considering Haynesworth and McNabb gone at this point, so it's not those two bums that explain the big difference.

The only thing I can think of is Clayton is working from Haynesworth's unadjusted contract. But somehow somebody is very wrong, either Tandler/Halsell or Clayton are way off on their numbers.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Halsell estimate is missing a lot of Santana Moss' deadcap total, which is a really significant total based on the Canuck spreadsheet. Same with Portis: we actually gain cap space by cutting Portis, but that's still a lot of deadcap involved. And there's the Atogwe deal as well that's on the LAST CBA, but may or may not be included in the various results.

Still, if you take the Clayton numbers and subtract McNabb's contract, the Redskins have more cap room then they'll actually need this year. The big idea is that, pending any bad FA contracts they may give out, the deadcap comes off the books for 2012, and there's a lot of cap space available to use on good players. Even DHall isn't going to be a cap liability when he's released.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinster

Ok, so I'd like some things clarified. When you say cash bonuses apply to the salary floor, does that include the cash bonuses left of players cut that get paid out? I think examples might help clarify. Like how will Andre Carter, Clinton Portis, Donovan Mcnabb, Albert Haynesworth being cut affect the salary floor and the salary cap respectively.

The bonus has to be paid to count. It can be scheduled, but if it's not guaranteed, and it isn't paid, it's not going to count towards the cash minimum.

Carter and Portis (I believe) will count as zero towards the cash min. But they'll combine for more than $10 million in deadcap in 2011.

McNabb and Haynesworth might end up counting a bit if they get paid for workout bonuses.

The best way to think of it is this: "checks written to players in the 2011 league year will equal no less than 108ish million." But I suppose the kicker is that if the team fails to hold a payroll for 108 million, then Snyder just has to cut a check for the difference. So the INCENTIVE to not spend cash goes away. But the system isn't fundamentally changed.

Hard to see this affecting the Redskins at all, but it will affect how other teams do business.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The bonus has to be paid to count. It can be scheduled, but if it's not guaranteed, and it isn't paid, it's not going to count towards the cash minimum.

Carter and Portis (I believe) will count as zero towards the cash min. But they'll combine for more than $10 million in deadcap in 2011.

McNabb and Haynesworth might end up counting a bit if they get paid for workout bonuses.

The best way to think of it is this: "checks written to players in the 2011 league year will equal no less than 108ish million." But I suppose the kicker is that if the team fails to hold a payroll for 108 million, then Snyder just has to cut a check for the difference. So the INCENTIVE to not spend cash goes away. But the system isn't fundamentally changed.

Hard to see this affecting the Redskins at all, but it will affect how other teams do business.

Just curious where you get you numbers from. I'm not doubting you, but portis's release fee on the warpath salary cap info is 5.5 mil and carters is 10.5. Even their 2012 release fees are still above 10 mil combined.

It seems weird that the cap went down so much this year with contracts going up year after year. I think contracts will still go up due to reports I've heard (i.e asomuaghs possible contract) and the obvious agents demands stemming, but it seems that many owners that want to spend wont be able to, and many owners that don't want to spend will be forced to or just give up their money. Also speaking of which, where does that money go to if a team doesn't meet the salary floor and has to cut a check to make up the difference.

It just seems weird the way this agreement was come to. I don't see it benefitting the owners too much. The ones that want to spend cant and the ones that dont want to have to.

Also, this isn't really that important, but it seems to me that the redskins will not meet the floor due to the amount of dead cap we will have, and have to pay the difference.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinster

Just curious where you get you numbers from. I'm not doubting you, but portis's release fee on the warpath salary cap info is 5.5 mil and carters is 10.5. Even their 2012 release fees are still above 10 mil combined.

It seems weird that the cap went down so much this year with contracts going up year after year. I think contracts will still go up due to reports I've heard (i.e asomuaghs possible contract) and the obvious agents demands stemming, but it seems that many owners that want to spend wont be able to, and many owners that don't want to spend will be forced to or just give up their money. Also speaking of which, where does that money go to if a team doesn't meet the salary floor and has to cut a check to make up the difference.

It just seems weird the way this agreement was come to. I don't see it benefitting the owners too much. The ones that want to spend cant and the ones that dont want to have to.

Also, this isn't really that important, but it seems to me that the redskins will not meet the floor due to the amount of dead cap we will have, and have to pay the difference.

Release fees are a one time thing. Releasing a player creates a deadcap obligation, but it's a one time obligation. Once its paid, then he's off the books.

The ones who want to spend can always spend. Just need to find the right exemption that allows for it.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Per ji halsell, individual teams have no cash minimum. The league has a cash minimum. If the minimum is not met, the cheap teams will be penalized.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Release fees are a one time thing. Releasing a player creates a deadcap obligation, but it's a one time obligation. Once its paid, then he's off the books.

The ones who want to spend can always spend. Just need to find the right exemption that allows for it.

It might be a one time obligation, but with teams that like to spend alot, it causes a chain reaction that affects the future. Like with us in the past, our release fees forced us to push money from the present year into the future, which increased future cap numbers as well as future release fees. Present mass-spending prevents future spending, and causes some players to be necessities to hold on to even if they are desired to be released.

I don't anticipate large contracts to be lowered at all, so lowering the cap and raising the floor just seems to hurt more teams than it helps because of the reasons I said in my last post. It just seems odd for the the owners to agree to.

I'd still like to know how you got your numbers, how they differ from the warpath's numbers, so I can better understand the cap. Also I'd like to know if you know where the check that the owner pays for going under the cap goes to.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by skinster

Just curious where you get you numbers from. I'm not doubting you, but portis's release fee on the warpath salary cap info is 5.5 mil and carters is 10.5. Even their 2012 release fees are still above 10 mil combined.

It seems weird that the cap went down so much this year with contracts going up year after year. I think contracts will still go up due to reports I've heard (i.e asomuaghs possible contract) and the obvious agents demands stemming, but it seems that many owners that want to spend wont be able to, and many owners that don't want to spend will be forced to or just give up their money. Also speaking of which, where does that money go to if a team doesn't meet the salary floor and has to cut a check to make up the difference.

It just seems weird the way this agreement was come to. I don't see it benefitting the owners too much. The ones that want to spend cant and the ones that dont want to have to.

Also, this isn't really that important, but it seems to me that the redskins will not meet the floor due to the amount of dead cap we will have, and have to pay the difference.

You're still struggling to understand. Let me break it down for you:

- Base salary or roster bonuses paid in 2011 count against 2011's cap and 2011's cash total.

- Signing Bonuses paid in 2011 count 100% against 2011's cash total, but 1/n to 2011's cap, where n is the length in years of the contract signed.

- Deadcap is a cap thing only. If we cut McNabb then his release fee for the year hits our 2011 cap. But there is no cash paid to McNabb, hence no money hits the 2011 cash total.

Deadcap is simply the recognition of guaranteed money previously paid out but not yet allocated to the books. As an example:

In 2009, the Redskins sign Schneed10 to be the QB savior of the future. Schneed gets a $20 M signing bonus over the course of a 5 year contract. The $20 M counts against 2009's cash total. But for cap purposes it counts evenly each year over the life of the contract:

2009: $4 M
2010: $4 M
2011: $4 M
2012: $4 M
2013: $4 M
Total: $20 M

Now let's say Schneed plays 2 years and then one day blocks Coach Shanahan as he's trying to speed in the left lane, and Coach Shanahan decides he's had enough and cuts Schneed after those two seasons.

Since Schneed played in 2009 and 2010, $8 M of his signing bonus has already hit the salary cap, $4 M in each year respectively. But now Schneed will no longer be a Redskin, and the remainder of his signing bonus has yet to be recognized on the cap.

Here's the basic rule: Any money actually paid to a player must be recognized on the cap SOMETIME. Since Schneed is not playing with the Skins in 2011, 2012, and 2013, the $4 M in each year has to be recognized on the cap books in 2011. That's the deadcap.

So in 2011 the Redskins would have to carry $12 M in deadcap. Note that Schneed does not get paid $12 M by the 'Skins that year, it's simply the accounting recognition of dollars previously paid.

Ultimately, the Redskins are perfectly capable of staying under the cap, carrying a lot of deadcap, and still meeting the cash floor. How? Sign a number of players to long term deals with high signing bonuses. That big signing bonus hits the 2011 cash total helping to meet the floor, but the cap hit in 2011 is small as the signing bonus spreads over the life of the contract.

Hope that helps.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Per ji halsell, individual teams have no cash minimum. The league has a cash minimum. If the minimum is not met, the cheap teams will be penalized.

He tweeted that much earlier on in the negotiating process but has not since mentioned anything. More updated information has come out from Paolantonio, Schefter and Mortensen indicating it's a team by team floor.

I think the league-wide idea was a fleeting thought that didn't hold up over the course of negotiations.

[MTK]

Nice breakdown S10

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Ultimately, the Redskins are perfectly capable of staying under the cap, carrying a lot of deadcap, and still meeting the cash floor. How? Sign a number of players to long term deals with high signing bonuses. That big signing bonus hits the 2011 cash total helping to meet the floor, but the cap hit in 2011 is small as the signing bonus spreads over the life of the contract.

Hope that helps.

Yes that does help. That makes it a lot easier to understand. Sounds like a dangerous thing though because if those signings don't work then their deadcap space will just replace the deadcap space the Skins got rid of. I hope we can hit right on our signings. For the sake of this season and future seasons. Not a good situation to having to keep signing guys to high signing bonuses and dealing with deadcap all the time.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

Yes that does help. That makes it a lot easier to understand. Sounds like a dangerous thing though because if those signings don't work then their deadcap space will just replace the deadcap space the Skins got rid of. I hope we can hit right on our signings. For the sake of this season and future seasons. Not a good situation to having to keep signing guys to high signing bonuses and dealing with deadcap all the time.

Word, you hit the nail on the head.

If all your big signings are successful, not only are you good to go on the field but you maintain financial flexibility down the road to further build your team.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Now let's say Schneed plays 2 years and then one day blocks Coach Shanahan as he's trying to speed in the left lane, and Coach Shanahan decides he's had enough and cuts Schneed after those two seasons.

That's totally something Shanahan would do -- he's a dictator you know!

Seriously, thanks for the breakdown. That was useful.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinster

It might be a one time obligation, but with teams that like to spend alot, it causes a chain reaction that affects the future. Like with us in the past, our release fees forced us to push money from the present year into the future, which increased future cap numbers as well as future release fees. Present mass-spending prevents future spending, and causes some players to be necessities to hold on to even if they are desired to be released.

I don't anticipate large contracts to be lowered at all, so lowering the cap and raising the floor just seems to hurt more teams than it helps because of the reasons I said in my last post. It just seems odd for the the owners to agree to.

I'd still like to know how you got your numbers, how they differ from the warpath's numbers, so I can better understand the cap. Also I'd like to know if you know where the check that the owner pays for going under the cap goes to.

All my sources in this thread are linked in the OP. The Warpath Cap Sheets are a great resource of mine that were used in this thread. Problem is, they're just not up to date accurate. They still have great info on them, but the bottom line totals are not inclusive of anything that has happened in the last nine months.

The cash minimum and salary cap are just completely different entities. The only way they are related at all is that the cash minimum is determined by a percentage of that year's salary cap. The average cash spent per club is almost certainly going to exceed the salary cap in any given year, because the NFL's accounting methods allow cash bonuses to be deferred to future seasons in cap sheets.

Deadcap is certainly a limiting factor on the cash to cap ratio, but with that said, the total value of signing bonuses in any given offseason is going to exceed the total value of deadcap. That's why the cash minimum isn't much of a hurdle at all: it's just not going to affect the behavior of 75% of NFL franchises who spend x amount of dollars in every season anyway.

[SmootSmack]

Might as well put this here, training camp rosters will be expanded from 80 to 90 players

[NC_Skins]

They should just get rid of dead cap space and make it cash paid counts towards the cap.