Salary Cap Analysis

[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.

[CrazyCanuck]

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!!!

[MTK]

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

http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/numbers.asp

[That Guy]

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...

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

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.

[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.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[70Chip]

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.....


Upshaw Schedules Rare Meeting With Agents


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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

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.....


Upshaw Schedules Rare Meeting With Agents


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.

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.

[#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!!

[That Guy]

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

[MTK]

Is being a parrot really that bad?

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

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Is being a parrot really that bad?

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

that is funny Matty!!! LOL

[Gmanc711]

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?