Is there a contingency plan for Brunnell and the money/cap room at the end?
 

Question if Brunnell isn't the answer at qb, then is there an escape plan :Flush:, so that we don't lose anymore money, or cap space. what will happen if we try to get rid of him or bench him? please discuss.

My understanding is this...I think Brunell got like an 8 million dollar bonus which would go onto the skins cap next season if he is cut anytime up until June 2005, and after June 2005 he can be cut with the cap hit deferred until 2006. He could be backup to Ramsey for a couple years since the Redskins have Ramsey on the cheap for a couple more years. However, if Ramsey is not the answer as the starter and they need to spend more cap room to bring in a new starter I think they would be in trouble.

Well, he signed a 7 year $43M deal that included a signing bonus of $8.6M.

His base deal doesn't really start to get out of control until 2006 and 2007 when his base will be over $5M and $6M respectively. If we cut him his signing bonus is all going to come due, approx $1.23M per year.

His deal is basically a 3-4 year deal, so unless he retires at some point we're probably going to eat about $4-5M from his bonus. We've eaten worse deals.

It's not really a bad deal cap wise, but he could be an expensive backup if things play out that way.

how much did the giants pay kurt warner

All I know about Warner's deal is it's only a 1 year contract.

He's auditioning for next year and doing a pretty decent job.

Here's the dead money situation if Brunell is cut/traded prior to:

2005 - $7.167M
2006 - $5.733M
2007 - $4.300M
2008 - $2.867M
2009 - $1.433M
2010 - $0

I be really surprised if Brunell wasn't here in 2005.

One possibility would be to cut him after June 1, 2006 which would leave $1.433M of dead money for 2006, and $4.3M of dead money for 2007.

I agree with Matty that this isn't a terrible cap deal - but then again the way he's playing...

I think most teams end up carrying about 6-8 million dollars in dead cap room per year.

That being said, I'm going to be so sad if his dumb ass is the reason we can't re-sign Smoot. What do you guys think?

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Well, he signed a 7 year $43M deal that included a signing bonus of $8.6M.

His base deal doesn't really start to get out of control until 2006 and 2007 when his base will be over $5M and $6M respectively. If we cut him his signing bonus is all going to come due, approx $1.23M per year.

His deal is basically a 3-4 year deal, so unless he retires at some point we're probably going to eat about $4-5M from his bonus. We've eaten worse deals.

It's not really a bad deal cap wise, but he could be an expensive backup if things play out that way.[/QUOTE]

This is the worst deal I've seen since we signed Big Daddy. If Brunell were 27, 28, 29 I'd be fine, but 34 years old in his first season in a 'Skins uniform. We're going to eat a lot of dead space for a guy who won't be with us after next season. There's no way he'll be around 3-4 years (when he'd be 37 or 38).

I hated the deal before the season began (and LOUDLY made it known) and after 5 weeks, I'm hating a hell of a lot more.

I'd eat the $5 million dead cap money if Brunell brought us to a championship (or even to the brink of one), but does anyone think this is the guy who's going to lead us into a SB? He's leading us somewhere, just not to the SB - to cap hell.

EVERYONE outside of D.C. believes that eventually you have to pay the pied piper if you spend without concern for the salary cap. I tend to agree. Doesn't anyone know that our constant restructuring of deals has left us with the possibility of losing Samuels this offseason? Yes, Samuels. The guy is carrying a monster cap figure and has repeatedly refused to restructure his deal after doing it to his rookie deal twice.

The bottom line is that $5 million in dead space for one player is HUGE. We could go out and get an ALL-PRO Defensive Tackle or End for that amount. If anyone thinks that's insignificant, they'd better think twice.

If Brunell were 27, 28, 29 I'd be fine, but 34 years old in his first season in a 'Skins uniform. There's no way he'll be around 3-4 years (when he'd be 37 or 38).

I hated the deal before the season began (and LOUDLY made it known) and after 5 weeks, I'm hating a hell of a lot more.[/QUOTE]


I agree! It was a bad move. And no one is even mentioning the draft pic we gave up for him.
We could have had Jeff Garcia for free. :cussing:

or warner, or testes even :(

i think warner is a 1-2mill deal for one year... testes is 1mill, both of which are slightly less than over 6mill a year for some horrid QB'ing... I really though garcia would be the best answer, but i don't really think gibbs hired brunell on anything besides personality (grrr)...

49ers are in cap hell cause they wrote awful contracts (50mill a year for their roster vs the normal 80... 30mill in dead room :()

danny's system of beating the cap only works as long as the NFL at a rate faster than the deals he makes (having 100mill a year team works as long as you can defer enough of it until the salary cap hits 105mill or whatever, thats the simple version... there's a lot of tricks too, but thats another topic)

anyways, his money is way way WAY over what he was ever worth, and his money would be enough to get us a 1st string DE instead...

[QUOTE=Drift Reality]I think most teams end up carrying about 6-8 million dollars in dead cap room per year.

That being said, I'm going to be so sad if his dumb ass is the reason we can't re-sign Smoot. What do you guys think?[/QUOTE]

Smoot's not going anywhere. Smoot will become a franchise player. He and Arrington are the spirit of this team and several players will be let go before Smoot.

[QUOTE=SUNRA]Smoot's not going anywhere. Smoot will become a franchise player. He and Arrington are the spirit of this team and several players will be let go before Smoot.[/QUOTE]

Yeah don't worry guys. I'm not going anywhere. Matty's got me locked up through 2006, that's when the accelerator clause in my contract kicks in. He'll have to make some tough decisions then. :D

I don't think the real Smoot is going anywhere either

lol

I think Samuels said he wouldn't restructure last year because he felt he had an off year . He wanted to enter the contract year with great performance behind him giving him serious leverage this year. However if that doesn't happen I think he will restucture this year to help the team if need be.

The big question is how is the Arrington case going to hurt us. Due for arbitration soon isn't it?