Cap Talk

[CrazyCanuck]

I stole these quotes from the Arrington thread cuz I think there are a lot of good points here about the cap:

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 and I believe it to be true...the redskins 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.

I agree with you that the Skins manage the cap very well (which may come as a surprise). We always hear about Danny this and Danny that but at the end of the day we are the ones signing all the free agents every year. You never hear about teams like the 49ers and Titans, until they are actually deep in cap hell. Not to metion all the teams out there who purposely don't even try to reach the cap limit, preferring to stay closer to the cap minimum than the cap maximum. Where's all the press cursing these teams out for shortchanging their fans just so they can pocket an extra few million? Keep in mind the minimum cap this year was about $60M. So if a team chose to only pay the minimum they could pocket up to $20M extra a year. Mr. Snyder owns the most valuable franchise in sports, with an exceptionally loyal fan base. If he was really in it just for the money, I'm sure he could pay the league cap minimum without losing much of the fan base. But he has shown he wants to win, and backs it up with his wallet.

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

Another point is the Skins have a much better idea than we do about the cap raises coming in the future. They see the revenues and can probably get a pretty clear picture of what the cap number will be in coming years. I'm sure they factor this in when making cap decisions.

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

This is a great point and I agree. I would guess the Skins use a "deadcap budget" each year. Meaning they allocate a % of the cap amount to dead money each year. Like FRPLG said, this may sound dumb but actually I think it's quite smart. The deadcap is the only real way to get some cap flexibility. It gives good teams the ability to bring in free agents at good short term cap numbers to make a run at the title, though it might hurt them down the road.

Take 2004 for instance. We had $10M in deadcap. This is more than 10% of our total cap budget. So how can we compete? Because the dead money is offset by "bargains" in the short term. Some of these bargains may include (2004 cap hits):

Portis - $3.7M
Jansen - $2.6M
Coles - $2.4M
Springs - $2.4M
Brunell - $2.2M (I know, I know but it could have been a bargain)
Taylor - $2.2M
Thomas - $2M
Griffin - $1.9M
Washington - $1.7M
Ramsey - $1.6M
Barrow - $1.2M
Harris- $900K
Smoot - $760K
Pierce - $628K
Royal - $415K
Cooley - $400K

We can all argue as to which of these are actual bargains. But if you add up all these cap hits and compare them to the total value provided by the players, I think we'd all agree there is significant savings compared to these players' market value. This is how the deadcap is offset.

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

AGREED. This is a great point. I think our cap "problems" have arisen more because of bad talent choices, not bad cap choices. Compare our moves from the "old days" to our recent moves.

Old Style:
Big Daddy
Bruce
Deion
Trotter
Armstead

New Style:
Coles
Washington
Griffin
Portis

Instead of bringing in high-priced old vets with their best years behind them the Skins are finally bringing in young guys who still have room to improve. This way the acquisitions can become both a short-term and long-term solution, and hopefully result in less dead cap in the future.

Bottom line - I'm pretty confident that Mr. Snyder knows what he's doing.

[Daseal]

Canuck: What are we doing with Wynn? Is it feasable that we can restructure him and keep him around?

[JWsleep]

Great Post, Canuck! Very helpful. I hope your optimism is warranted. I'll take your word for it, because I must admit the system is beyond me.

[FRPLG]

You explain much better than I Canuck

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Canuck: What are we doing with Wynn? Is it feasable that we can restructure him and keep him around?

Right now Wynn stands as our 3rd highest cap hit for 2005 at $4M. Not sure what they'll do with him. They have a lot of options.

- His deadcap is not terrible so they could trade/release him for about a $2M savings on the 2005 cap.

- The bulk of his 2005 cap hit is salary ($3.5M), so he is also a good candidate for restructure.

A $4M cap hit sounds a bit high for Wynn, so I'd be surprised if they just kept him and did nothing. Since I'm a Notre Dame fan, I'm cheering for the restructure. :thumb:

[SmootSmack]

I think the question we all would like to really ask Canuck is...Can you do my taxes this year?

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

You explain much better than I Canuck

Thanks FRPLG but I disagree. You explained just fine. Thanks to you I get to say "I agree" a lot and save a lot of typing.

[Duffman003]

Does the fact that Arrington/Janson being on injured reserve affect the cap room in anyway for the future?

[bedlamVR]

I was just wondering if CC or anyone else with better cap knowledge than me can comment on a couple of things.

2006 is often pointed at as our killer year but is it true that many of the roster bonuses due can actually be converted into siging bonuses at the time they come due spreading the hit over the remainder of the contract. So for example LaVars 6.5mil bonus could be pro-rated over the remaing 4 years of his contract? The biggest issue I feel is Samuels contract becasue it is comming up to the end where the big numbers become due.

Also what kind of a hit would the releasing of Brunell be in 2006? That would be year three and when he was signed it was said that the 7 year contract was really a three or four year deal given his age.

[backrow]

Originally Posted by CrazyCanuck

Since I'm a Notre Dame fan.....

Gee Crazy, everything else seemed to make sense! Now, I have to go back and question all of it! LOL!

I am glad you came in and spoke up. Your mastery of capology is amazing! No, you are not crazy, either! Not for one minute!

Some points made here, about Jansen, Bowen, and Arrington being on IR, possibly not counting I believe may be true! Only Active players count, am I not correct?

Another point, is the Redskin FO seemingly has chart, or program, to project future caps in future years. It is all part of cost estimating, and long term spending projections for your corporation.

In addition, Rookies are all part of a Rookie pool, part of, but not totally counting toward a hard cap?

I believe Matty had a link at one time, for the Cap. It might be time to dust it off, and bring it out again for show & tell!

So many questions, many answers needed!

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by backrow

Some points made here, about Jansen, Bowen, and Arrington being on IR, possibly not counting I believe may be true! Only Active players count, am I not correct?.............
In addition, Rookies are all part of a Rookie pool, part of, but not totally counting toward a hard cap?

No, you are wrong.
Players on injured reserve count against the cap, so do rookies.
The rookie cap is a cap with in the main salary cap. The rookie cap is a just a smart idea the owners came up with to limit what they will pay their rookies. So in negotiations they can tell the rookie and his agent, " Due to the rookie cap this is the most I can pay you period, sorry." It prevents rookie salaries from growing too quickly.

[firstdown]

After all the talk yesterday that start with Washington paying la his 6.5 mil I read a link that he is probably going to drop his grievance for the bonus. If he does for the reason he stated that he only played in four games and did not earn the bonus only shows he is what he says he is. A REDSKINS FOR LIFE AND HE LOVES THIS CITY AND FANS!! Does anyone know the thruth and is this a big factor with the cap room?

[MTK]

Thanks CC for dropping some cap knowledge on us, I don't know what we would do without you!

[MTK]

Originally Posted by CrazyCanuck

Right now Wynn stands as our 3rd highest cap hit for 2005 at $4M. Not sure what they'll do with him. They have a lot of options.

- His deadcap is not terrible so they could trade/release him for about a $2M savings on the 2005 cap.

- The bulk of his 2005 cap hit is salary ($3.5M), so he is also a good candidate for restructure.

A $4M cap hit sounds a bit high for Wynn, so I'd be surprised if they just kept him and did nothing. Since I'm a Notre Dame fan, I'm cheering for the restructure. :thumb:

I'm also hoping Wynn will be back, he was finally healthy for the entire season & it showed. He had a very solid season.

[joecrisp]

Originally Posted by firstdown

After all the talk yesterday that start with Washington paying la his 6.5 mil I read a link that he is probably going to drop his grievance for the bonus. If he does for the reason he stated that he only played in four games and did not earn the bonus only shows he is what he says he is. A REDSKINS FOR LIFE AND HE LOVES THIS CITY AND FANS!! Does anyone know the thruth and is this a big factor with the cap room?

I think LaVar is being earnest in his statements about possibly dropping the grievance. Shortly after the grievance was filed last spring, I had the opportunity to talk to LaVar privately about the situation, and the one thing he emphasized more than anything else was that he is going to be a Redskin for a long time, and that no matter what the outcome of the grievance, he intends to be a part of this team's return to greatness. He wanted to reassure the fans that he would be here for many years to come; that the grievance was strictly a business issue, and would not affect the passion he has for being a Redskin. He really seems to have a deep affection and appreciation for the fans, and he seems to understand the significance of this team and its players to the community.

The impression I got from him is that he was sincerely hurt by what he felt at the time was deceptive behavior on the part of the Redskins' FO. Obviously, he's had a lot of time to reflect on what exactly transpired during those "hurried" negotiations a year ago last December, and I think he senses that, at least from the standpoint of his relationship with the fans, it's in his best interest to put the whole episode behind him. I know it sounds absurd to think that a modern professional athlete would ever walk away from a chance to make more money-- even if he hadn't earned it-- but in the brief interactions I've had with him, I've gotten the distinct impression that LaVar really thrives more on the adulation of the fans more than anything else. He treasures that relationship, and I think he realized that continuing to pursue the grievance, despite its shaky premise, might cause irrevocable harm to his marriage with the fans.

Either that, or LaVar's a damn good actor.

As far as cap room goes, the roster bonus would have a huge effect on the 2006 cap, which is slated to be the most difficult year for the Skins cap-wise, with or without that bonus. Dropping that bonus obviously gives the Skins a little more breathing room, but I don't think they'd ever anticipated that bonus would be a part of the cap total, anyway. The Skins held steadfast to the assertion that the bonus never existed, and I'm inclined to believe them. I think the whole issue arose out of a mistake on the part of the Postons, and LaVar was simply caught in the middle. When I last talked to him, he was very loyal to the Postons, and I think his strong feelings about the team and his agents have really caused a conflict in him that I'm sure he'll be happy to put in the past. His pride may never permit him to admit that it was a mistake, but I think his actions will state as much.