We're Not Leading the League in Dead Money!
 

[url]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=1820043[/url]

Wow! San Fran has $27 million in dead money and San Diego has $22 million in dead money. The Skins have about $6 million in dead money.

We will be in a couplel of years, just wait.

Don't sweat the "couple years" from now that some of the journalists keep harping on. They were saying the EXACT same thing 3-4 years ago when we signed Deion, Bruce and the others. It seems that one thing Snyder's front office team knows how to do VERY well is manage the cap. They know how to play the game. It is extremely unlikely we will get into SF's type of trouble. The Redskins will renegotiate some contracts and make one or two KEY trades each year starting 2 years from now. (Trades similar to the Bailey/Portis deal). Then the cap hits get shoved back a couple more years (again). This works, and some writers have not figured it out yet.

Oh yeah - and don't forget the TV contracts are going to be renegotiated (I think for 2006). Expectations are for a big revenue increase. This will, in turn, drive the cap up quite a bit. Nobody ever seems to mention that when they write about the 2006 demise of the Redskins. Joe Prisco of Sportsline is notorious for calling for the Redskin collapse in 2006. He also dissed the Patriots all through the season last year. Facts don't bother some of these guys.

Excellent post HogSkin. The credit is all yours for pointing out the TV contract-salary cap link. Here's what ESPN reported awhile back.


"NFL officials confirmed Friday evening that the league will not reopen the $17.6 billion contract with its various television partners, which means the rights fees are set now through the expiration of the eight-year pact after the 2005 season.

Under the contract, negotiated in 1998, the NFL retained the option to essentially void the final three years of the deal and reopen negotiations with the networks. The deadline for such a move is Feb. 15, but that date will pass without the league exercising its option."

If I remember right, in addition to the new TV contract, the Redskins themselves have a lot of corporate sponsorships that were set to expire at the end of this season. With Gibbs back in the fold FedEx now more than ever is the place to be in the DC area. So the Redskins can definitely drive up the fees for new sponsorships, whether with the current companies or new ones. That money can then be used for signing bonuses.

But regardless, I agree with Hogskins. I don't know what the benefit is of worrying about two years from now. Let's say the Skins win the Super Bowl this season, would we all be sitting around moping that "yeah we spent the money and got the title but what will it matter in two years" or if we spent conservatively and finished 8-8 would we all be sitting around saying "well at least we won't be in cap hell in two years. To paraphrase Herman Edwards "You spend to win the game"

I wont care about two years from now for two years. When im watching the games this year all that will be going through my mind is win win win. I wont be sitting there thinking "this season doesnt matter because we are playing for two years from now." In this league its season to season, with free agency teams get broken up all the time which is why coachign is so important. I feel, as do most of you, we have the best coach in the league, and enough talent to go with it so lets freakign win this year. Yea we dont have a dline, but name a team that won a superbowl in the last 30 years that didtn have a weak spot in the begining of the season.

It will take some creative work by Danny-boy and co., a decent cap increase (which is going to happen; it's just a question of how much), and the restructuring or release of several important players, but I believe they'll be fine when it all comes down after 2006. Injuries are the real wild card, but everyone has that problem. I do think Danny is pretty into the cap stuff, and that he's not a bad business man when it comes to that sort of thing. Also, Gibbs claims it's a long-term plan, and he is not known to lie. But we'll see!

For a while, I was fairly pessimistic about the situation 2 years from now; but one thing that Snyder has been fairly good at, is the business side of the NFL.

I have a feeling he will find a way to retain much of the young talent and renegotiate some of the larger contracts with the veterans.

That being said, I do think that at some point, we're going to probably be looking at Samuels or Arrington being cut or traded due to their respective salary situations.

snyder is a very intelligent man. He has increased the value of the redskins by at least 200 million dollars since his purchase of the team. Do not doubt his buisness skills and intelligence, he knows the cap system very well i have no doubt

SNyder is one of the best owners in the NFL, in my opinion. He's willing to acquire talent and work hard with agents to get deals done. As everyone else has said he's a business guru and understands how to work things.

However, I'd rather worry about the future now, unlike some of you. I want a new Headcoach in grooming, along with some young guys ready to play. I don't want to piss PR of and be without a QB in two years, when his contract comes up. Things like that which we CAN control we should.

[QUOTE=Daseal]However, I'd rather worry about the future now, unlike some of you. I want a new Headcoach in grooming, along with some young guys ready to play. I don't want to piss PR of and be without a QB in two years, when his contract comes up. Things like that which we CAN control we should.[/QUOTE]

Fortunately, Snyder and Gibbs are not running the team based on doing whatever it takes to "not piss Patrick Ramsey off". As we already saw, that is pretty much impossible, anyway. I'm sure they will continue to do everything they can to keep him in a good frame of mind, but you can not make your personnel decisions based on the whims of one prima donna. You do what is best for the team in the short term AND long term. They seem to be doing that. If they were trying not to piss off Ramsey, we would not have Brunell.

Don't know if I'd call Ramsey a prima donna. If the Dallas game last year showed anything, it was that he is one of the toughest s.o.b's in the league.

I think he wasn't complaining about bringing in someone to compete for the job so much as he was complaining about not being given a fair chance to earn the job.

As soon as Gibbs made it an open competition, he shut his mouth.

I hope Ramsey wins out and starts because I think he has the potential to be a top 5 guy in the NFL.

I'm also glad that if he goes down, we would have someone who could come in and run the offense.

Maybe the FO knows a little bit more about managing the cap then some of us want to give them credit for?

Well, maybe prima donna was a bit strong, but that term certainly does not imply that he is not TOUGH. I agree he is. It referred to his reaction to the Brunell situation. My recollection of that is different than yours. I remember it going on for a couple weeks, even after repeated statements that it was open competition. My impression also was that the only thing that quieted him down was a combination of the absolute statements that he was NOT going to be traded, and the massive negative feedback his comments were generating. I am concerned that there may be a renewed round of negativism if he does not win the job.

Matty, yes. I believe they are among the best in the NFL in that department.

start ramsey please

Big C: The way it works is, the best man will win the job. Teams that play favorites instead of this approach are not successful. I agree he did an excellent job of hanging in there in tough situations. But he will need to improve his decision making, his footwork, and quickness of release to win the job over Brunell. I will be thrilled if he can do all of that in such a short time, but the expectation is that it may take another year or two of tutelage. He has a great opportunity to become an elite NFL QB, but his chances of that are actually a lot better if he can spend at least one year learning behind someone like Brunell.

Great post Hogskin, and I agree that the Skins are doing a fine job managing the cap.

90% of the writers out there who talk about the cap and curse out Snyder don't even understand the cap in the first place.

Here's the question - what does it even mean when someone says that a team is in "cap trouble"?

Does it mean having a lot of dead money? Well the Skins have over $9M this year, but that didn't stop us from getting just about every guy we wanted/needed.

And what about the teams that don't even use the full cap? In fact I'm sure there are a few teams who only use the minimum cap (75% of real cap), then shove the extra $20M in their pockets.

There are so many intricacies of managing the cap that to simply say a team is in "cap trouble" makes no sense.

Personally I think Snyder is the best owner in the league. We should all be grateful we have an owner that actually wants to win and will do whatever it takes to win, regardless of how much money it costs him. He's made some mistakes and I'm sure he'll make a few others but at least his intentions are good.

[QUOTE=Hogskin]Big C: The way it works is, the best man will win the job. Teams that play favorites instead of this approach are not successful. I agree he did an excellent job of hanging in there in tough situations. But he will need to improve his decision making, his footwork, and quickness of release to win the job over Brunell. I will be thrilled if he can do all of that in such a short time, but the expectation is that it may take another year or two of tutelage. He has a great opportunity to become an elite NFL QB, but his chances of that are actually a lot better if he can spend at least one year learning behind someone like Brunell.[/QUOTE]

Hogskin
I could not agree with you more. A little competition at every position is good for the team. It raises everyones talent level and tests who can succeed under pressure.
I don't think either QB should be given the QB job on a silver platter.
They should battle for it in training camp and exhibition season.
People shouldn't say in one breath 'the Redskins are giving the starting QB job to Brunnell', but in the next breath say 'Ramsey should get the QB job because he can take a hit'. Seems a little hypocritical.

[QUOTE=skins009]We will be in a couplel of years, just wait.[/QUOTE] That's what I've heard for a few years now. I am still waiting for it to happen! :httr:

seems like u guys think i like him cuz he can take a hit. never sed that at all, dont jump to conclusions. He has a stronger arm, more upside, and u cannot judge him from a lone season whre he had no protection and no running game. he is more than someone who can take a hit, do not think that is why i want him to start. Id like to believe that there is an open audition for starter, but i dont think its true.

Ramsey is also still very raw in terms of experience and his accuracy isn't there just yet.

He's a quick learner though and I wouldn't be surprised to see him push Brunell very hard this summer.

Gibbs will start the guy who's best suited to lead the team. Unless Ramsey is head and shoulders above Brunell then Gibbs will go with Brunell and his experience, can we really blame him?

Ramsey has the gun and a great future, but Gibbs main goal is to win and win now.

When the Skins initially brought in Brunell I didn't really like the move because I felt they had other needs that were priorities. But for the most part they've filled the other needs and when I think back on what happened to the Jets and Falcons last year when they're QBs went down in the summer I'm relieved to know we have two QBs capable of starting now.

It should be an exciting battle over the summer but I think Brunell will win out and start game 1. Doesn't mean he'll start game 16 though

[QUOTE=CrazyCanuck]Here's the question - what does it even mean when someone says that a team is in "cap trouble"?[/QUOTE]

That's a good question. "Cap trouble" is really in the eye of the beholder I guess. Sure everyone has the same cap but some owners can afford to pay higher bonuses than others and if Snyder can he shouldn't have to apologize for it. It's like when people say that Michael Jordan has a gambling problem because he bets upwards of $10,000 a hand. Maybe he does have a problem but as he said "$10,000 may be a big deal to others but it's like $5 for me" Comes across as a bit condescending but it's the truth.

I'd be curious to see what the reaction of Skins fans would be if Snyder had hired Gibbs, showed that the team is the most profitable franchise but then decided he's not going to invest in the team because "these players might cost us some serious money in a couple of years" So they just act conservatively and keep losing on the field, but it doesn't matter so long as they keep making a profit. You know who operates that way, the Clippers? Is that what we want to be...the Clippers?

Cap trouble is when you've got this blue thing on yolur helmet and everyone is laughing at ya...j/k

Cap trouble is when you can't re-sign players you need for your team because you don't have the cap space, or you can't pick up people in the free agent market that are crucial for taking your team to the next level. That has NOT occurred yet to Danny's skins. The only real loss was Champ, and I thought his price was just too high for a CB. Then they managed to get Portis out of the whole thing instead of cutting or franchising him.

So we'll see in 2-3 years. If we have to part with a player that we clearly would rather keep, or if we can't get the guy we really want in FA, then I take it we'll be in cap trouble. Given the truly bone-headed George, Deon, etc., moves, that we aren't in cap hell yet, and we don't lead the league in dead money is to Danny and Cerratos (the front office worker formerly known as "monkey boy" on this site) credit.