Core group to be competitive-Worst case

MTK · 03-01-2006, 10:31 AM

Tomorrow is going to be really ugly

TheMalcolmConnection · 03-01-2006, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Tomorrow is going to be really ugly

Just stare at this and let your problems drift away...

TheMalcolmConnection · 03-01-2006, 10:40 AM

This about sums up the CBA talks.

That Guy · 03-01-2006, 10:42 AM

hey, here's a problem... there's 13 uncuttable players. releasing everyone (EVERYONE) saves about 29,823k. Signing 40 players to complete the roster at 235k each costs 9,400k.

29,823k - 9,400k = 20,423k total savings with 40 1st year rookies.

Not to alarm anyone, but here's our cap situation:
2006 total cap cost (dead money + 2006 salaries) - $116,793k
2006 cap - $95,000k

116,793k - 95,000k = 21,793k.

since we can save a maximum of 20.4mill and we need to cut 21.8mill, this is a fool's erand. with restructures it simply can't be done.

40 rookies and we'll still be 1.4mill in the hole... we're totally hosed.

Schneed10 · 03-01-2006, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

hey, here's a problem... there's 13 uncuttable players. releasing everyone (EVERYONE) saves about 29,823k. Signing 40 players to complete the roster at 235k each costs 9,400k.

29,823k - 9,400k = 20,423k total savings with 40 1st year rookies.

Not to alarm anyone, but here's our cap situation:
2006 total cap cost (dead money + 2006 salaries) - $116,793k
2006 cap - $95,000k

116,793k - 95,000k = 21,793k.

since we can save a maximum of 20.4mill and we need to cut 21.8mill, this is a fool's erand. with restructures it simply can't be done.

Yep. We're going to lose at least a couple very valuable Redskins in the next few days. Prepare yourselves to shed some tears.

RedskinPete · 03-01-2006, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paintrain

With the CBA mess going on and the rumors that we may have as many as 20 rookies on the roster to get under the cap (which seems absolutely ridiculous to me), who are the players that we HAVE to keep around in order to at least compete in '06? My list (without doing cap calculations, someone smarter than me can tell me if it works) is:
QB-Brunell, Campbell
RB-Portis, Nemo
FB/HB-Cooley, Sellers
TE-?
LT-Samuels
LG-Wilson
C-Rabach
RG-Thomas
RT-Jansen
WR-Moss, Patten
P-Frost
K-?
DE-Daniels
DT-Griffin
DT-Saleva'a
DE-Evans
LB-Clemons
LB-Marshall
LB-Washington
CB-Springs
FS-Taylor
SS-Stoutmire
CB-Rogers
PR/KR-Brown

That's 25 players and with a 45 man roster that assumes the rest would be rookies.. That leaves us with NO veteran depth.. Additions/subtractions/other options?

Is cutting Burnell a better thing for the cap and keeping Ramsey? If so it seems like a better idea so maybe we could keep others!

That Guy · 03-01-2006, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yep. We're going to lose at least a couple very valuable Redskins in the next few days. Prepare yourselves to shed some tears.

some? we're going to lose all but 13, and even then there's not enough sasvings to be under the cap.

Schneed10 · 03-01-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

some? we're going to lose all but 13, and even then there's not enough sasvings to be under the cap.

That's assuming NOBODY restructures.

That Guy · 03-01-2006, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedskinPete

Is cutting Burnell a better thing for the cap and keeping Ramsey? If so it seems like a better idea so maybe we could keep others!

sixteenth time, no, cutting brunell costs 300k more than keeping him and keeping ramsey costs almost 1.7mill more than dumping him. if we got a new CBA then it'd be flipped. but right now we don't, so that's nto an option.

Schneed10 · 03-01-2006, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedskinPete

Is cutting Burnell a better thing for the cap and keeping Ramsey? If so it seems like a better idea so maybe we could keep others!

Can't cut Brunell. It would cost us more to cut him than to keep him. Have to let Ramsey go.

RedskinPete · 03-01-2006, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huddle

It would probably be a mistake to try to be competitive.

I think you'd have to look at it as sacrificing the 2006 season and lop off top-salaried vets who are on the downside of their careers: Brunell, Samuels, Springs, Daniels...keep as much young talent as possible.

hate to say it but I think you are right! Keep the young talent and we will have to let go the older players! Worest case is here so deal with it!

MTK · 03-01-2006, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

sixteenth time, no, cutting brunell costs 300k more than keeping him and keeping ramsey costs almost 1.7mill more than dumping him. if we got a new CBA then it'd be flipped. but right now we don't, so that's nto an option.

But we should cut Brunell right?

RedskinPete · 03-01-2006, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

sixteenth time, no, cutting brunell costs 300k more than keeping him and keeping ramsey costs almost 1.7mill more than dumping him. if we got a new CBA then it'd be flipped. but right now we don't, so that's nto an option.

Thanks so he[Burnell] is sitting pretty!!! Well lets say that this happens and all these players have to be cut. Wouldn't you say the best way to look at this is not what we can get out of the 06 season but what will be left to rebuild in 07. So keep young talent and pass on guys that will be too old! So looking at the bottom line is not the only thing to look at!

That Guy · 03-01-2006, 11:06 AM

we won't have a choice, we'll have to let just about everyone go.

springs, griffin, lavar will be forced to stay due to their contracts.

Paintrain · 03-01-2006, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

But we should cut Brunell right?

I'm sure it was part of Lord Gibbs evil master plan to rid the Redskins of Ramsey by structuring the deal that way since he knew the CBA wouldn't be extended.. (insert maniacal laughter and a Monty Burns-esque 'Excellent' here)

03-01-2006, 10:31 AM	#16
MTK ‎\m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 43 Posts: 87,984	Re: Core group to be competitive-Worst case Tomorrow is going to be really ugly __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

03-01-2006, 10:40 AM	#18
TheMalcolmConnection I like big (_\|_)s. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Lexington, Virginia Age: 34 Posts: 18,143	Re: Core group to be competitive-Worst case This about sums up the CBA talks. __________________ Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.

03-01-2006, 10:42 AM	#19
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Springfield, VA Age: 33 Posts: 17,210	Re: Core group to be competitive-Worst case hey, here's a problem... there's 13 uncuttable players. releasing everyone (EVERYONE) saves about 29,823k. Signing 40 players to complete the roster at 235k each costs 9,400k. 29,823k - 9,400k = 20,423k total savings with 40 1st year rookies. Not to alarm anyone, but here's our cap situation: 2006 total cap cost (dead money + 2006 salaries) - $116,793k 2006 cap - $95,000k 116,793k - 95,000k = 21,793k. since we can save a maximum of 20.4mill and we need to cut 21.8mill, this is a fool's erand. with restructures it simply can't be done. 40 rookies and we'll still be 1.4mill in the hole... we're totally hosed. __________________ Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!

03-01-2006, 11:06 AM	#29
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Springfield, VA Age: 33 Posts: 17,210	Re: Core group to be competitive-Worst case we won't have a choice, we'll have to let just about everyone go. springs, griffin, lavar will be forced to stay due to their contracts. __________________ Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Core group to be competitive-Worst case

Redskins Locker Room