Arrington on the way out?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by illdefined

we should focus on getting rid of guys who haven't produced or don't have the ability like Gardner or Raymer.

This is a novel idea!

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by irish

Boss, what exactly has LA done off the field that represents the team with such loyality? The contract screw-up, the bonus money flap, the not allowing the use of his name and likeness on redskin merchandise? Just wondering.

The issue with his name was a dispute with Players Inc and NFLPA not with the skins.

[BossHog]

Originally Posted by irish

Boss, what exactly has LA done off the field that represents the team with such loyality? The contract screw-up, the bonus money flap, the not allowing the use of his name and likeness on redskin merchandise? Just wondering.

Alright. Alright. He signed my jersey and my hat and my ball and my poster and my book and my picture and...

You can find Arrington stuff in the Redskins stores and on NFLShop.com now. He's no longer just #56 on Madden. He just took a stand for players to get a larger slice of the player-merchandise revenue pie. You heard him yourself. The bonus money flop was not going to be an issue when the season started. And through all of those instances, he remained a lovable guy. Sigh.

[memphisskin]

This is a discussion board so I guess anything is up for discussion. And the defense did excel this season, mostly without Lavar. But if we add him in the mix, doesn't that make the defense that much better?

If we're going to trade anyone I'd say trade Vinny Cerrato to the 49ers for their first round pick, or Dan Snyder to the Cardinals for Larry Fitzgerald and cash. These offers make about as much sense to me as trading a Pro Bowl linebacker just about to enter his prime.

[Riggo44]

Originally Posted by illdefined

LaVar is a strength, not a weakness. im surprised at how 'what have you done for me lately' you guys are. he's a massive lockerroom presence, not to mention the ferocity he brings onto the field. like Ramsey, he's had to suffer along being a Redskin for so many disappointing and tumultous seasons, but UNLIKE Champ or now Smoot, he's always stayed optimistic and enthusiastic about the club.

if Arrington played this season, we would have the number one defense this season instead of number three. alot of those 'oh so close' to getting the QB (vinny) situations would have been certain sacks. probably would have gotten a couple more fumbles too.

[illdefined]

Originally Posted by Riggo44

and. whats your argument

[BossHog]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Actually no...like I said above any bonus already paid to a player counts only against the team that paid it. Looking at Arringtons bonus numbers...it looks like he was supposed to get a 4.5 RB next seaon...not sure if the 6.5 counts that or what. Lets simply eliminate that and look at the plain ole signing bonus which isprorated out oevr the rest on the contract(not four years but the entire length of the contract up to 7 years I believe). It adds up to somewhere in the nighborhood of 10 mil. This ahs laready been paid to lavar so it counts against us only. It would excelarte foward to whatever year we traded him in. IE:he aint going nowhere. Not even for Randy Moss and Daunte Culpepper.

I'm with you here, believe it or not. I didn't mean to lure anyone to thinking that the signing bonus is 'traded'. I only said the bonus is guaranteed and the contract term (money not guaranteed) is traded. The players' union and the NFL agreed that signing bonuses can not be spread over four years, simply because players don't want to wait forever. The term of the contract is what makes the the salary seem so high. Many of these new age contracts have incentives and escalators. It gets really tricky after renegotiang because essentially the team gives a player 'contract term' money up front (as if a bonus). Here's an example. And guys i don't claim to be a genius. It's just that i'm an aries.

(Example: Player A signs 73 million dollar contract with a 18 million dollar signing bonus over 5 years whereas only 18 mil is guaranteed and paid within 4 years. $73 contract-$18 bonus=$55 non guaranteed. $55/5 years=$11 a year contract terms. $18 bonus/4 years spread= $4.5 bonus per four first years. So with this very simple example, Player A will be paid 15.5 per year for the first four years and 11.5 his final year).

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by firstdown

We would have been 14 and 2

Now just look at that and tell me we need to trade any of our stars...

[BossHog]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Actually no again sorta...there is a specific part of the Salary Cap designated to the rookies. It is part of the cap and not something extra. You don't have to use it all and the money isn't designated for rookies only. It is there to simply limit the amounts of money rookies can get.

In other words you agree with me, but just for the sake of arguing you'll reword it? Whatever works for you.

[EEich]

Yes, Arrington is a strength... but we may have too many strengths on defense and not enough strengths on offense. The difference between having the #1 or #3 defense doesn't mean all that much when your offense is second from the bottom.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by BossHog

In other words you agree with me, but just for the sake of arguing you'll reword it? Whatever works for you.

There is a cap within the cap. He didn't re-word it; he added more detail.

[FRPLG]

I think we are all getting a little to pissy here...lets sing Kumbaya and be friends again.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I am not the resident cap expert in in these here parts (that would good ole Canuck) but I do believe I have a rather sound grasp of the way the cap works and how teams get around it. I have written in the past about this adn I believe it to be true...the redksins manage the cap better than anyone in the league. In fact they probably blaze the trail on just about every good way to avoid cap difficulties. They have for years been discussed as going into cap hell next year or the year after or whenever and they never end up getting blown up like the 49ers. I actually think they'll be fine in 2006 but there will clearly be some reworking which I am hoping is a bad thing in that we were successful in '05 and making changes after that would be difficult.

The three year window is the they way I believe Joe Mendes adn Cerrato divised the handle the cap when Mendes was the cap expert for Danny Boy. Mendes was regarded as the best cap manager int he game and realized that you could basically float money around and put it off over and oevr again for long periods of time. It's akin to getting 2 credit cards and passing the balance back and forth to avoid finance charges and having to ever really pay the bill.

What they do is attempt to move as much money into the future as possible. Ideally the cap blows up in the projected 4th year from what I can tell. Then every year they do various restructurings and post-june cuts to fix any upcoming problems. Inevitably they'll end up with some high priced guys that get cut based on performance which always fixes the cap for the future. It looks to me like they build in dead money now. This may seem stupid to give up cap space ever year but when you think about it it is actually ingenius. They figure they can get a better and more talented roster by signing free agents which require big contracts that are usually back loaded in terms of the cap. This allows them to get a lot of talent in the follwoing year for less money on the cap than it really costs. The dead money is just the price you pay but you end up with more talent. There problem has not been in managing the cap but in eveluating talent.

Arrington is not going anywhere because it is not time for them to do anything about his contract. It would cost a ridiculous amount of money to do anything with him now. Trading him is no better than cutting him since all bonus money alrady paid excelerates foward onto the current year's cap. Without looking at his cap numbers I am guessing he would cost us somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 mil on 2005 if we cut him or traded him. He aint going nowhere for 10 mil.

Your point that managing the cap has not been the problem evaluating the talent has been the problem. Hit the nail right on the head. This is what has haunted us for the past several years and I feel that gibbs will stop this trend. He made his one bad call with brunell and I am coffident he will not repeat this error.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Indeed... no need in getting out of joint over something like this.

Now if someone who was in a position of power to actually DO something about it, that might be a different story, but it's all speculation.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

It's only January, but who else is ready for Fall again?