Current Redskins Salary Cap Status - 2009

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

CBA no CBA. I guess I'm confused even after all the banter about it. I thought if the CBA was going by the way side then we would have only one year, 2010 to worry about. Then in 2011 all teams could spend as much money as they liked due to no CBA anymore. It was my understanding that if we could make it past the 2010 year we would be good.

You've got the concept right, you're just off by a year.

The CBA is set to expire in 2010, which would mean 2010 would have no salary cap at all and we'd be free to have as much salary on the books as we wanted.

But that means 2009 becomes the Final Capped Season, and as such specific rules governing contracts and cap allocation methodology are in effect.

[CrazyCanuck]

Great thread Schneed. My sheets are ok but it's your analysis that really gives them value. Thanks for all the hard work.

My personal view is that:

- Taylor is gone or severly restructured (minimum salary and a very small signing bonus and/or incentives)

- Potential cuts: Washington, Griffin, Rabach, Daniels are all cut candidates. Doubt all would go but if the Skins do commit to some kind of youth movement (stop laughing) they are all candidates.

- Springs - the guy breaks my heart. One of the best corners in the NFL but he just doesn't play enough. I gave him a pass last year on some of the lesser games (Det, etc.) but he's gotta be in that 2nd Dallas game. He is definitely looking for one more significant deal which may explain his propensity for sitting out games. One bad injury and he would never play again. It seems like he plays just enough to show other teams he can still play but not enough to risk injury.

Maybe if we give him a decent deal he will finish his career here and actually play all the games, but it doesn't seem likely. The right move for the future might just be to let him go...

[CrazyCanuck]

Also I think Jansen will stay but he would have been a perfect June 1 cut.

[redskin37]

Thanks for all the cap info. Does anyone know if the players we draft in April effect our cap number for next year ?

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by redskin37

Thanks for all the cap info. Does anyone know if the players we draft in April effect our cap number for next year ?

Yes. If you look at the "Cap Summary" sheet there is a line at the bottom called "Rookie Pool".

From: http://www.thewarpath.net/salary-cap...cap-101-a.html

"What is the Rookie Pool?
- The rookie pool is the max cap space a team can spend on signing draft picks and undrafted free agents. A team's rookie pool is based on the number and position of draft picks, with teams holding higher picks being allocated more dollars per pick than teams holding lower picks. The rookie pool counts against the salary cap until the players are signed or released."

[REDSKIN1]

Great analysis of the Salary Cap.

Personally I, think that we should definetly cut Griffin, Washington, and Daniels. They are dinosaurs on our team who either can't stay healty or don't produce. Washington and Daniels have not played a full season in about 3 years, and as far as Griffin goes, I just think that position needs a serious up grade.

I would try to restructure Taylor and Springs, but if one has to go it would be Springs. I just have a feeling that Taylor will play with a chip on his shoulder next season, you could see how disappointed he was at him self at the end of the year.

Sign Hall and re-sign Rogers to a long term contract. Youth in the backfield.

Address the other areas of the team via the draft and free agency.

For Goodness sakes get a CAPABLE KICKER!!!!!!!!!!!

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yes. Once they clear cap space, I have them signing the following guys:

DeAngelo Hall ($4.5)
Pete Kendall ($1.5)
Anthony Montgomery ($1.0)
Kedric Golston ($1.0)
Demetric Evans ($1.0)
Reed Doughty ($1.0)
Kicker ($1.0)
Ethan Albright ($0.83)
Rookies ($3.5)
Players Removed from Top 51 $5.3
Total Expected Signings ($10.0)

Put a different way, I think they'll have $10 million in cap room to sign various players. One will need to be a kicker, one will need to be a long snapper, one will need to be a guard if they let Kendall go, they'll need D Linemen if they decide to let Monty, Golston and Evans walk. The one extravagant signing I have in here is Hall. If they decide to let him go they can use that money for somebody else.

Thanks, let me ask you this from a cap standpoint are Carlos Rogers and Santana Moss legitimately tradeable?

[Trample the Elderly]

Thanks for this thread Schneed. I must admist that I haven't been very knowledgable about the salary cap and how it effects the roster. This thread has helped me considerably with everyone's questions.
I'll not post on this again because I prefer to read.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Thanks, let me ask you this from a cap standpoint are Carlos Rogers and Santana Moss legitimately tradeable?

I would say if the 'Skins really really wanted to get it done, yes they are both tradeable. But doing so would come at a cost.

Moss is easier to move than Rogers. Trading Moss would cost us half a million in cap space. My math in the first post is showing that filling the roster without cutting all three of Springs, Washington, and Taylor is very tight. But to move Moss, you basically need to find another $500K in space somewhere else. You could forego a DeAngelo Hall resigning, you could find a player who will take a paycut, you could get rid of an extra player like Phillip Daniels, or you could decide to let Jason Taylor (or Springs) go along with Marcus Washington. So the short answer is yes, Moss is very tradeable, IF you can get comfortable with the opportunity cost.

With Rogers, the opportunity cost is greater. Sending him away in a trade would cost us $1.5 million in cap space. That of course means finding even more room than you would need for Moss. Is it doable? Absolutely. But again, it means getting rid of veterans who you'd otherwise keep, foregoing DeAngelo Hall or Pete Kendall, or finding someone to take a paycut.

In my opinion, trading either one would make the team worse, because the opportunity cost of doing so outweighs the value they'd bring back in a trade. But if Vinny and company disagreed with me on that point, they could get it done.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I would say if the 'Skins really really wanted to get it done, yes they are both tradeable. But doing so would come at a cost.

Moss is easier to move than Rogers. Trading Moss would cost us half a million in cap space. My math in the first post is showing that filling the roster without cutting all three of Springs, Washington, and Taylor is very tight. But to move Moss, you basically need to find another $500K in space somewhere else. You could forego a DeAngelo Hall resigning, you could find a player who will take a paycut, you could get rid of an extra player like Phillip Daniels, or you could decide to let Jason Taylor (or Springs) go along with Marcus Washington. So the short answer is yes, Moss is very tradeable, IF you can get comfortable with the opportunity cost.

With Rogers, the opportunity cost is greater. Sending him away in a trade would cost us $1.5 million in cap space. That of course means finding even more room than you would need for Moss. Is it doable? Absolutely. But again, it means getting rid of veterans who you'd otherwise keep, foregoing DeAngelo Hall or Pete Kendall, or finding someone to take a paycut.

In my opinion, trading either one would make the team worse, because the opportunity cost of doing so outweighs the value they'd bring back in a trade. But if Vinny and company disagreed with me on that point, they could get it done.

Thanks. I bring the rumors, you bring the data

[GTripp0012]

Moss is interesting, and I WOULD deal him this offseason if I could get a second round pick for him.

For whatever reason, he's one of the few players on the Redskins whose perception around the league exceeds his value to the team. With most players, it tends to be the other way around. So I'd see what's out there. Obviously, don't just trade Moss to get rid of him, but somebody might throw money and a draft pick or two at this problem.

[GTripp0012]

I've got a question about Rogers contract, which extends through 2011 but is voidable after 2009, and is a virtual certainty to be voided.

Abscent a new CBA, he would still be a Restricted Free Agent after voiding his contract, correct? The option to void his contract doesn't give him a loophole to unrestricted free agency, I assume.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Moss is interesting, and I WOULD deal him this offseason if I could get a second round pick for him.

For whatever reason, he's one of the few players on the Redskins whose perception around the league exceeds his value to the team. With most players, it tends to be the other way around. So I'd see what's out there. Obviously, don't just trade Moss to get rid of him, but somebody might throw money and a draft pick or two at this problem.

Moss trade appears too risky w/ the (limited) knowledge we've got: Thomas and Kelly both would need to make significant progress w/o Moss in the game to provide some kind of receiving threat.

... very risky.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Moss is interesting, and I WOULD deal him this offseason if I could get a second round pick for him.

For whatever reason, he's one of the few players on the Redskins whose perception around the league exceeds his value to the team. With most players, it tends to be the other way around. So I'd see what's out there. Obviously, don't just trade Moss to get rid of him, but somebody might throw money and a draft pick or two at this problem.

I tend to agree. And if the rumors are true, he's much more actively being shopped and likely to be traded than Rogers. Apparently, the Redskins are eyeing three 2nd rounders again.

[FRPLG]

I'd trade Moss for a 2 but we'd still need a #1WR. Where is that coming from. Thomas looks like a turd in the makin g and while Kelly has serious talent his knees indicate he'll never play 16 a year. Randle El can't even do the #2 job sufficiently. We can get by with Kelly @ #2 to me(cross fingers on his knees).