Did We Shoot Ourselves In The Foot??

Redskin P, you've got it right. Tahoe Skin, I'm sorry to say, you don't.

Tahoe, you're being too short-sighted. You're considering the 2005 salary cap, which is good, but you're not giving one iota of thought to the 2006 cap situation. Before the Coles trade, the Redskins were projecting to have a salary cap total of $107 million in 2006. After trading him, their 2006 cap situation projects to be $100 million. By the way, the salary cap has been rising at about 6% a year or so, which means the 2006 salary cap will be about $90 million. So you're saying keeping Coles would be a good idea, even though it would have us $17 million over the cap instead of $10 million over it? Not only that, but you're advocating the signing of even more free agents this year, a CB, a DE, and whatever else you wanted.
In other words, if the team were in your hands, you'd run it right into the ground in 2006. You'd have to jettison great guys who want to be here, people like LaVar and Jansen, and forget about resigning Patrick Ramsey.
I'd rather drop a guy who doesn't want to be here now if it means I have a fighting chance at keeping the guys who want to be here in 2006 and beyond. Laveraneus Coles is not worth blowing up the team for in 2006.

It's this kind of short-sighted thinking that has gotten the Redskins into trouble in the Dan Snyder era. It's about time we started looking down the road, do some serious planning, and build something that is meant to last.
From what I understand the salary cap is based on the TV contracts which will end after this season, and it is expected that the new one willraise the salary cap substantially, which may actually bring it to closer to $100 million. If that happens, we should be in good shape.
Also, I'm just going by what I've read from people who seem to know more about it.

From what I understand the salary cap is based on the TV contracts which will end after this season, and it is expected that the new one willraise the salary cap substantially, which may actually bring it to closer to $100 million. If that happens, we should be in good shape.
Also, I'm just going by what I've read from people who seem to know more about it.

That's a pretty big IF there isn't it? Even if it does get up to $100 million, keeping Coles still would have had us well over the limit. Getting rid of his ass now is in the best interests of our team's ability to build a consistently winning program.

The cap IS going to go up substantially in 2007. Probably on the order of 11-15% making it closer to 100-103. That is what is expected by all who know what they are talking about. Teams like the skins have prepared for it already.

The cap IS going to go up substantially in 2007. Probably on the order of 11-15% making it closer to 100-103. That is what is expected by all who know what they are talking about. Teams like the skins have prepared for it already.

Did you mean to say 2006? Because if it gets to $100 million in 2007 that doesn't help us much.

Cutting Coles is just another way of preparing the team for cap-longevity in 2006 and beyond. Someone had to go at some point to make it under the cap, might as well have been a malcontent. That's all I'm sayin.

Before the Coles trade, the Redskins were projecting to have a salary cap total of $107 million in 2006. After trading him, their 2006 cap situation projects to be $100 million. By the way, the salary cap has been rising at about 6% a year or so, which means the 2006 salary cap will be about $90 million. So you're saying keeping Coles would be a good idea, even though it would have us $17 million over the cap instead of $10 million over it?

Funny thing about throwing numbers around. Your numbers seem to be higher than the ones I've seen. But perhaps you have better numbers than the Washington Times, which in today's article flatly disagrees with your assessment in stating:

"The trade of Coles back to the Jets means the Redskins will take a huge salary cap hit next season (Washington also lost a first-round draft pick when they acquired the restricted free agent in 2003)."

http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20050308-120841-3835r.htm

In any case, yes I would rather spread out the Cap hit over several years, rather than have it come crashing down as it has this year.

Don't believe anything regarding the cap in the WT, I have no idea where they get their info but it's usually way off.

we have the space this year, we don't have the space next year... so better now than later.

Don't believe anything regarding the cap in the WT, I have no idea where they get their info but it's usually way off.

Oh, I don't believe anything ANYONE says about Cap figures. Not even statements coming from the Redskins front office.

Calia there is no upside to Borrows

Why is anybody surprised that we may lose Smoot??

Even before the Coles deal went down the likelihood of re-signing Smoot wasn't good.


I agree Matty, most of the fans were pessimistic about the re-signing. But when several CBs were signed and no one took a nibble at Smoot then some hope sprung up that perhaps we could get him back.......