Current Redskins Salary Cap Status - 2009

[redsk1]

Originally Posted by The Goat

The FO was just really smart to keep all our picks for next year...like you said we're gonna need em.

That's like saying I don't beat my kids so I'm a good person. You don't get credit for that. I mean we should have most picks every year. Good teams realize this. Just b/c we have all or most of them once or twice in a six or seven year span doesn't make it smart.

Also, we tried to give away some for Cutler and trade away some for Sanchez.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by redsk1

That's like saying I don't beat my kids so I'm a good person. You don't get credit for that. I mean we should have most picks every year. Good teams realize this. Just b/c we have all or most of them once or twice in a six or seven year span doesn't make it smart.

Also, we tried to give away some for Cutler and trade away some for Sanchez.

Well our FO doesn't get any credit by the sports media or the fans when they do something good. So at least this is a start.

Do I wish that our FO would emulate some of the FO of successful teams? Yes. But I am not going to praise other FOs by mindlessly bashing our team's FO.

Last time I check, teams like Oakland and Detroit also have had a lot of their picks, yet they wish they had a record like ours in the past 5 years.

[bedlamVR]

Originally Posted by CrazyCanuck

Thanks for the link steveo.

After adding in the rookie pool, I have us at $5.37M of cap space.

CC is that the cap space with the rookie cap subtracted ? So in effect we really have nigh on $9 mill in space ?

What are the possibilities of extending McIntosh and or Rogers?

[SBXVII]

would we have room for....

Cowboys plan to release or trade DE Ellis after 11 seasons together

with him being pissed at the Cowboys he might help us. lol.

[CrazyCanuck]

After Jansen's release and most of the signings (not including draft picks) I have us at $2.071M of cap room.

The draft picks are already accounted for in the cap with the rookie pool, and the remaining signings will likely all be at the league min so they won't affect the cap situation cuz of the rule of 51.

[CrazyCanuck]

PS - The Skins are up to $17.7M of deadcap for 2009, or 14% of our total cap limit. Feels about right.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by CrazyCanuck

PS - The Skins are up to $17.7M of deadcap for 2009, or 14% of our total cap limit. Feels about right.

LOL. Took the words right out of my mouth. It's what we do. Overpay, restructure, release, repeat.

[steveo395]

Are your Santana Moss numbers right?

ProFootballTalk.com - New Santana Moss Deal Offsets Jansen Cap Charge

[skinsfan69]

I don't even pay attention to the cap anymore. It's almost useless. For the most part we sign anyone we want and never go into cap hell.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by GMScud

LOL. Took the words right out of my mouth. It's what we do. Overpay, restructure, release, repeat.

Not to quote my self, but....

We restructure a 30 year old with a new deal that will run until he's into his mid-30's, and I suspect a year or two before said deal is up we'll probably be talking about whether or not we should cut him (especially if Thomas and Kelly come around), he's lost a step, etc etc etc.

Although I guess if we don't have a salary cap moving forward it won't matter.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I don't even pay attention to the cap anymore. It's almost useless. For the most part we sign anyone we want and never go into cap hell.

In many ways though, we have been in cap hell for the last three years. The veteran purge in 2006 that Peter King spoke of never, ever came to reality, but that doesn't mean the cap hasn't helped shape our refocus on the draft.

It seems though, that the cap affects the Redskins much more subtlety than anyone would have thought. The cap this year ultimately didn't prevent us from getting Haynesworth, chasing Cutler, or releasing Jansen, but we went almost exclusively defense in the draft because we created a majority of our cap room by parting ways with Springs, Washington, Evans, and Taylor, and at least three of those players would still be on the team if 2009 were uncapped.

It's also led to poor planning. If I told you we could keep Washington simply by keeping Jansen, you'd obviously take that. But we released Washington figuring we'd need that cap room in some way. Turns out, we didn't need it, so we used it to eat Jansen's cap hit. So now, we're down two veterans: one half cap casulty half personnel decision, and one personnel decision. We probably would have been better off with Marcus though.

Plus, we haven't been able to offer market value extensions to young talent on our roster like McIntosh and Rogers because of cap constraints, not to mention that Montgomery could have easily gotten away if another team had been daring enough to offer him a competitive contract. We would have gotten a 5th rounder in compensation for a 25 year old nose.

The thing is, if we continue to draft will, the salary cap is not designed to prevent us from competing. If we draft poorly, the free agency structure isn't sufficient to save us from the bottom of the barrel. It's just life in the NFL; our hand is often forced by cap constraints. Just not so overtly.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Not to quote my self, but....

We restructure a 30 year old with a new deal that will run until he's into his mid-30's, and I suspect a year or two before said deal is up we'll probably be talking about whether or not we should cut him (especially if Thomas and Kelly come around), he's lost a step, etc etc etc.

Although I guess if we don't have a salary cap moving forward it won't matter.

To the Redskins credit, they do budget a part of their cap every year to deadcap in order to remain competitive. I deem this the CrazyCanuck Principle in honor of the man who first observed this trend.

Recently, the Redskins have been really, really obvious about this. Starting with Brunell, and adding in Moss, Griffin, Carter, and Randle El, the Redskins have been writing automatic voids into contracts, essentially picking a date at which the deadcap will accelerate. So it's a calculated approach to wasted cap space, if that makes sense.

It's like saying, "yeah, we're going to waste a bunch of cap space on players not on our roster, but we're going to go about it responsibly, goddamn it!"

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

To the Redskins credit, they do budget a part of their cap every year to deadcap in order to remain competitive. I deem this the CrazyCanuck Principle in honor of the man who first observed this trend.

Recently, the Redskins have been really, really obvious about this. Starting with Brunell, and adding in Moss, Griffin, Carter, and Randle El, the Redskins have been writing automatic voids into contracts, essentially picking a date at which the deadcap will accelerate. So it's a calculated approach to wasted cap space, if that makes sense.

It's like saying, "yeah, we're going to waste a bunch of cap space on players not on our roster, but we're going to go about it responsibly, goddamn it!"

Yeah, I can live with it. It just kind of makes me shake my head and sort of sarcastically laugh every time I see it happen. Like I said, it's what we do. Then again, we could just stop putting ourselves in situations like this and we wouldn't have to piss away a chunk of our cap on guys not on the roster year in and year out.

You say we portion out X amount of space each year for deadcap in order to remain competitive. Gotta wonder how much more competitive we'd be if X amount of deadcap space actually went to a player(s) of that worth....

"So it's a calculated approach to wasted cap space, if that makes sense." That's got signature written all over it.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Yeah, I can live with it. It just kind of makes me shake my head and sort of sarcastically laugh every time I see it happen. Like I said, it's what we do.
Then again, we could just stop putting ourselves in situations like this and we wouldn't have to piss away a chunk of our cap on guys not on the roster year in and year out.

You say we portion out X amount of space each year for deadcap in order to remain competitive. Gotta wonder how much more competitive we'd be if X amount of deadcap space actually went to a player of that worth....

"So it's a calculated approach to wasted cap space, if that makes sense." That's got signature written all over it.

I think a lot of the media is going to be eating their words when the Redskins are 5-2 and offering $70 million to Jason Campbell by Halloween, in that, it will look like the Redskins bought their way to unsustainable success. But that's only part of the story.

The Redskins have a remarkably team-friendly contract with the best defensive player in football, with only one caveat: the Haynesworth contract comes with a simply unfathomable amount of risk to the team. As of right now, before any restructure, the amount of money the Redskins can go after should Haynesworth get himself suspended is a whopping: not one dime.

Out of the $41 million guarenteed figure, or otherwise put, the combined total of money owed to Albert Haynesworth for his first three seasons here, not one cent is paid out in a signing bonus, or a non-guarenteed salary. About $22 million of that is subject to be restructured next offseason, which would give the team the ability to reclaim that if Haynesworth does something stupid. But Haynesworth will stay a Redskin through 2011 no matter how many games he's actually healthy enough to play.

But in exchange for that risk, the Redskins get the best defensive player in football at relatively cap-friendly prices for the remainder of the prime of his career. Taking the risk was necessary to get Haynesworth in with a reasonable cap number, but ultimately, this gamble will be the reason the team will win in the near future.

There's no other team in football who would have taken a risk like that. Any argument for Snyder being a great owner has to start with the Haynesworth contract.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Yeah, I can live with it. It just kind of makes me shake my head and sort of sarcastically laugh every time I see it happen. Like I said, it's what we do. Then again, we could just stop putting ourselves in situations like this and we wouldn't have to piss away a chunk of our cap on guys not on the roster year in and year out.

You say we portion out X amount of space each year for deadcap in order to remain competitive. Gotta wonder how much more competitive we'd be if X amount of deadcap space actually went to a player(s) of that worth....

"So it's a calculated approach to wasted cap space, if that makes sense." That's got signature written all over it.

We would probably be the same because we are always pushing money into future years which evens out the deadcap. So we get to spend money that we don't even have yet basically. Since the cap goes up every year we can sustain this as long as we don't go too crazy with it.

We cut somebody which accelerates the cap hit, but then we extend or restructure somebody else. So on this, from a cap perspective, we took money from Moss this year to give to Jansen, but then we gave the money that was owed to Jansen later to Moss.