Redskins, Cowboys could go “nuclear” over cap mess

FRPLG,

If that CAP space they took in 2011 would have taken up space in future yrs no matter how much it took up then they did exactly what we did. To a lesser extent maybe cause your talking about 18 mill per season with us vs. their 3-4 mill per season. But if it would have been 3 mill spread over 4 yrs now they are not having to worry about atleast 9 mill down the road cause it's getting pushed all into the 2011 yr with that yrs 3mill CAP hit to total 12 mill. The issue is they saved also. They have an advantage also. No matter how slight it is.

No. They actually moved cap expense OUT of this year, probably so they can get Brees handled, and moved it forward into the future. We did the opposite. We took future cap expenses and moved them into an uncapped year which made them disappear cap-wise.

FRPLG,

If that CAP space they took in 2011 would have taken up space in future yrs no matter how much it took up then they did exactly what we did. To a lesser extent maybe cause your talking about 18 mill per season with us vs. their 3-4 mill per season. But if it would have been 3 mill spread over 4 yrs now they are not having to worry about atleast 9 mill down the road cause it's getting pushed all into the 2011 yr with that yrs 3mill CAP hit to total 12 mill. The issue is they saved also. They have an advantage also. No matter how slight it is.

If you don't understand the issue, please stop writing on the subject.

It is absolutely fine under normal circumstances to restructure contracts to shift salary cap hit from one year to the next year, either forward or backwards. If both years involved are capped, there is no unfair advantage to be gained. They can only shift future cap hit into this year as long as they still have space this year. In fact, since unused 2011 cap space can be used in 2012, it makes little difference.

However, shifting a ton of cap hit into an uncapped year has the effect of completely circumventing the cap in future years.

2011 wasn't an uncapped year.

Good catch. Mistyped that, and it doesn't make sense as written. Should read:

"And as someone else wrote, even if there were a $34m cap hit in 2011, it would still be OK because 2011 is a capped year, and they couldn't gain any competitive advantage in future years by shifting tons of money into an uncapped year."

Good catch. Mistyped that, and it doesn't make sense as written. Should read:

"And as someone else wrote, even if there were a $34m cap hit in 2011, it would still be OK because 2011 is a capped year, and they couldn't gain any competitive advantage in future years by shifting tons of money into an uncapped year."
Yeah, but they did gain an unfair advantage in futures years by going so far below the cap floor in the uncapped year that they could make this huge charge to 2011. Reducig the charge in future years.

Yeah, but they did gain an unfair advantage in futures years by going so far below the cap floor in the uncapped year that they could make this huge charge to 2011. Reducing the charge in future years.

Certainly this points to the hypocrisy of the punishment, but unfortunately, hypocrisy and unfairness are not what are being evaluated (most likely). So while we all know that the decision was patently messed up, the overturning of it isn't as clear cut.

Certainly this points to the hypocrisy of the punishment, but unfortunately, hypocrisy and unfairness are not what are being evaluated (most likely). So while we all know that the decision was patently messed up, the overturning of it isn't as clear cut.

Yes... our best moral argument is that we shouldn't be punished for doing something that was not against any documented rules. Arguing that other teams are getting or have gotten away with similar tactics is a losing argument because it is wrong.

I'd like to point out that I strongly believe we've been screwed. I just don't think we were screwed in the manner that some of you seem think we were. The emotional arguments are not going to get us anywhere. Stick to the facts...we did not do anything wrong.

You: "But judge ... everybody else was [cheating on the test, speeding, running a bounty system, circumventing the cap, etc.] it's unfair just to punish me b/c I got caught"

Judge: Oh ... you have a "Life is Fair" card. Great, just bring it up here and show it to me ... What? You don't have one of those? Guilty.

At this point, I've grown tired of the whole thing...whatever happens will happen...'skins will get over it and move on.

Yeah, but they did gain an unfair advantage in futures years by going so far below the cap floor in the uncapped year that they could make this huge charge to 2011. Reducig the charge in future years.

Not sure how going below the cap floor helps in future years - unless your argument is that saving money in 2010 means they have more cash on hand to spend in 2011?

If you're going to give a player $X over Y years, better to have as much cap hit in the uncapped year as possible.

Please explain how teams spending below the cap floor in 2010 gained any competitive advantage by doing so.

Seriously, I think a lot of people need to think a little more critically about our situation and the particulars as compared with other situations. They simply are not the same. It is very easy to see, evaluate and understand the difference between them. I think there is a very large portion of people who refuse to even try and understand the league's (owners) reasoning. I don't agree with the league's reasoning but I can surely see that what the Saints did with Vilma is in no way similar nor could it be construed as gaining any competitive advantage.

Arguing that other teams are being allowed to do "similar" things is a weak argument because it is not happening...and it looks desperate.

Agree that this is well said.