P. Ram Restructures!

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought 2006 was to going to our bad salary cap year. If so, then why back load contracts to a year we might have salary cap problems?
Is this another case of Snyder living for today and who cares about tomorrow?
Ramsey is proving to be a great team player.
Regarding Samuels, he better renegotiate. It is not like we have not shown him the money from day one. He was (something like) the 2nd pick in his draft class. His rookie contract was good. The guy needs to step up or we cut him. He is not worth $10M or whatever he is set to count.

Players don't like to restructure because not in all the situations they get the amount of money they would have goten in the original contract. Do you honestly think based on his performance brunnel would get even a quarter of what his original contract? No, he'd take a pay cut.

Don't get me wrong, restructuring does happen alot in the offseason, but those big ticket guys hate restructuring especially if they run the risk of losing they're position, the threat of being cut makes them do it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought 2006 was to going to our bad salary cap year. If so, then why back load contracts to a year we might have salary cap problems?
Is this another case of Snyder living for today and who cares about tomorrow?
Ramsey is proving to be a great team player.
Regarding Samuels, he better renegotiate. It is not like we have not shown him the money from day one. He was (something like) the 2nd pick in his draft class. His rookie contract was good. The guy needs to step up or we cut him. He is not worth $10M or whatever he is set to count.

They hope by that time the media contracts would have brought in more money raising the salary cap, it has to do with negotiations between the players association and the NFL i think also.

This is beautiful. Now I have something to do today (not counting work).

I'll see if I can put some numbers together.

What I don't understand is why would a player NOT want to restructure?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the basics of it is the player gets a bonus up front, which is guaranteed money in the bank in exchange for lowering their base figures for X amount of years.

In a simple restructure, you're right. It's simply guaranteeing as much of a year or two's salary by converting it into signing bonus, and then spreading the burden of that money onto future years. It also reduces the chance of a later release or trade, because there is additional bonus to accelerate.

I think one of the reasons Samuels was reluctant to restructure last year was that he wasn't sure the front office could be trusted with his money. I think we can all agree that the Redskins have made some... (retarded? imbecilic? suicidal?) questionable acquisitions in the past, overpaying for limited talent. He also had to have his questions about the direction of the team, and refusing to restructure kept the amount of accelerated bonus the team would eat lower than if he'd done so - giving him a greater chance of escaping the team if it appeared there wouldn't be the atmosphere he desired. That sounds kind of harsh, but given the instability surrounding the team, I can understand.

What I don't understand is why would a player NOT want to restructure?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the basics of it is the player gets a bonus up front, which is guaranteed money in the bank in exchange for lowering their base figures for X amount of years.

Are they potentially losing any money by doing this?? After all, the only guaranteed money in these contracts are the bonuses, so I would think players would jump at these opportunities.

I'm sure there's a reason players sometimes balk at restructuring, I just understand why.
One reason why a player would not want to restructure is that it often entails an extension of the contract. For example, Samuels' current contract is only through 2006. Thus, even if he were to restructure and convert all of his 2005 salary to bonus, it would still only be spread out over 2005 and 2006. To really get the benefit of a restructuring, we would need to extend his contract. This is something he might not want to do if he thinks his value is not as high now as it would be later.

You are right, though, that in many cases the player should not care about a restructuring. Where the contract is long enough so that it is just a simple conversion of salary to bonus, then the player still gets the same amount of money at the same time (sometimes earlier)--all that changes is the accounting (the bonus is amortized over the life of the contract).

Samuels is a bigger disappointment than Gardner for real. He needs to restructure or get rid of him he is average anyway. and Brunnell if i ever see hime put on the field with a Redskins uniform again, i don't want to see him with a Redskins helmet on. how is he a big time character guy. He knows he is not deserving what he is getting he needs to retire. Joe Gibbs needs to be realistic Brunnell is done. He is the most overpaid player in NFL history damn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gotta disagree on the Samuels-Gardner comparison. Samuels has been to the Pro Bowl and was once a top 5 LT, his game has fallen off a bit but he was pretty solid overall last season and looks like he's on the right path with Bugel coaching him back up.

According to Hail Redskins this is what the link says:

The full post:

Ramsey's new figures:

2005: Base salary dropped from $1.602M to the 4th-year minimum of $455,000
2006: Base salary INCREASED from $1.188M to $1.688M

This could be a couple things:

1. It could be a simple restructuring with his 2005 base salary being reduced from $1.602M to $455,000 with the difference being made up via a signing bonus, with the increase in 2006 due to an escalator (his 2005 base salary recently increased $500,000 from $1.102M to $1.602M because of an escalator, so another $500,000 escalator for 2006 would make sense). In this case, the $1.147M bonus he would receive would be prorated $573,500 for 2005 and 2006. Along with the $620,000 allocation from his 2002 rookie signing bonus and adjusted base salary, his 2005 cap number would be $1.649M, a savings of $573,000 from his previous 2005 cap number of $2.222M.

2. He could have reduced his base salary from $1.602M to $455,000 with SOME of the difference being paid via a signing bonus, and the rest being transferred to his 2006 base salary. In this case, he would have received a $647,000 signing bonus with the remaining $500,000 being pushed to his 2006 base salary. In this case, the $647,000 bonus would be prorated $323,500 for 2005 and 2006. Along with the $620,000 allocation from his rookie signing bonus and adjusted base salary, his 2005 cap number would be $1.399M, a savings of $823,000 from his previous 2005 cap number of $2.222M; this would save $250,000 more from his 2005 cap number than the first scenario, but would cost $250,000 more on his 2006 cap number.

Your scenario definitely sounds feasible.

I'm still trying to figure out the point of Ramsey restructuring without an extension. It seems all we're doing here is moving some money from 2006 to 2005 (which doesn't make sense).

Nevertheless this is a good sign. I hope PR isn't still bitter about the Brunell signing.

Patrick steppin up to the plate, very nice to see guys we didn't expect to restructure take one for the team.

Chris Samuels where are you in all this? Mark Brunell?


HERE, HERE!