Why the Redskins (and everyone else) won't field 30-rookie teams

BrudLee · 03-03-2006, 06:38 AM

I'm aware of the great proclaimations of pundits and gurus everywhere. "The Redskins coulod cut everyone and be over the cap!" Well, duh. Most teams would be. If the Colts cut Peyton Manning today, they'd accelerate about $30 million in bonuses. That's one guy out of 53.

But say the sky is falling, and we have to cut thirty players. About twenty other teams will be cutting into the double digits as well under that scenario, leaving several hundred formerly well-paid professionals scrambling for three or four TV jobs, and the rest selling cars.

Unless, of course, they'd like to be paid less.

In fact, a great many players would probably take veteran's minimum contracts with the team of their choosing. One thing about veteran's minimum contracts - they count against the cap as rookie minimum. With the potential of an uncapped year looming, many of those players might ingratiate themselves with the only guy crazy enough to stuff his shoes with $50s to look taller. It's a gamble, of course. Perhaps the Redskins see themselves as a desirable free agency location after a playoff run where the players praised the coaching staff, the coaching staff praised the players, the historically meddlesome owner said virtually nothing and the fans went crazy.

Botom line, should 200+ union members find themselves not working because of a hardline stance, you'll see not only talent being underpaid, but changes made because of it.

That Guy · 03-03-2006, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrudLee

I'm aware of the great proclaimations of pundits and gurus everywhere. "The Redskins coulod cut everyone and be over the cap!" Well, duh. Most teams would be. If the Colts cut Peyton Manning today, they'd accelerate about $30 million in bonuses. That's one guy out of 53.

But say the sky is falling, and we have to cut thirty players. About twenty other teams will be cutting into the double digits as well under that scenario, leaving several hundred formerly well-paid professionals scrambling for three or four TV jobs, and the rest selling cars.

Unless, of course, they'd like to be paid less.

In fact, a great many players would probably take veteran's minimum contracts with the team of their choosing. One thing about veteran's minimum contracts - they count against the cap as rookie minimum. With the potential of an uncapped year looming, many of those players might ingratiate themselves with the only guy crazy enough to stuff his shoes with $50s to look taller. It's a gamble, of course. Perhaps the Redskins see themselves as a desirable free agency location after a playoff run where the players praised the coaching staff, the coaching staff praised the players, the historically meddlesome owner said virtually nothing and the fans went crazy.

Botom line, should 200+ union members find themselves not working because of a hardline stance, you'll see not only talent being underpaid, but changes made because of it.

they count as 460k, not rookie min (235k), so we couldn't afford them.

Sammy Baugh Fan · 03-03-2006, 08:02 AM

Given the fact that 2006 teams would be limited to 2005 cap numbers there would not be enough money paid by teams to employ all the current players. I see trouble for the Player's Association if they don't find a way to make a deal.

Schneed10 · 03-03-2006, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrudLee

I'm aware of the great proclaimations of pundits and gurus everywhere. "The Redskins coulod cut everyone and be over the cap!" Well, duh. Most teams would be. If the Colts cut Peyton Manning today, they'd accelerate about $30 million in bonuses. That's one guy out of 53.

But say the sky is falling, and we have to cut thirty players. About twenty other teams will be cutting into the double digits as well under that scenario, leaving several hundred formerly well-paid professionals scrambling for three or four TV jobs, and the rest selling cars.

Unless, of course, they'd like to be paid less.

In fact, a great many players would probably take veteran's minimum contracts with the team of their choosing. One thing about veteran's minimum contracts - they count against the cap as rookie minimum. With the potential of an uncapped year looming, many of those players might ingratiate themselves with the only guy crazy enough to stuff his shoes with $50s to look taller. It's a gamble, of course. Perhaps the Redskins see themselves as a desirable free agency location after a playoff run where the players praised the coaching staff, the coaching staff praised the players, the historically meddlesome owner said virtually nothing and the fans went crazy.

Botom line, should 200+ union members find themselves not working because of a hardline stance, you'll see not only talent being underpaid, but changes made because of it.

You're right about the laws of supply and demand in this situation, the market will be flooded with free agents which will push the price of every available player down.

The only problem is that there are like 10 teams out there with oodles of cap room next year, and they'll be able to snatch up a ton of these guys. I don't think the Skins would be able to sign many free agents, if any, if the sky does fall.

BUT, the players currently on the roster might decide you know what, I'd rather stay here for the vet minimum this year instead of getting cut. They might be afraid of venturing into a strange free agent market. It could lead to pay cuts.

Who knows, there are so many forces at work in this whole thing. I'm thinking a CBA will get done last minute, we'll see.

Schneed10 · 03-03-2006, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sammy Baugh Fan

Given the fact that 2006 teams would be limited to 2005 cap numbers there would not be enough money paid by teams to employ all the current players. I see trouble for the Player's Association if they don't find a way to make a deal.

The union should be motivated to make a deal, because any increase in pay will pay off for the players. Right now Upshaw is holding out for what amounts to a 15%-20% increase in the salary cap. But don't you think the players would be willing to take a 10% increase instead of nothing at all? Sure, they could suffer through no pay raise this year, deal with all the cuts, and head into the uncapped year in 2007 and make out in the long term. But there are a bunch of vets out there who are getting older and would have a problem with that, they don't look at things in the long term because they only have a few years left in the league. Their incentive is to see a deal done now, whether Upshaw's demand is 100% met or not.

That Guy · 03-03-2006, 09:02 AM

I think only the elite players benefit from a dead cap... the role-players could be offered 100k-200k contracts with no health insurance/401k etc and not get any better offers.

D'BOYZ · 03-03-2006, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That Guy

I think only the elite players benefit from a dead cap... the role-players could be offered 100k-200k contracts with no health insurance/401k etc and not get any better offers.

Exactly the Unions is handleing wrong becasue the ones that have more to lose aren't the star players but the rest of the players taht make the team.

The beauty of the NFL is that this is the only true TEAM SPORT you can get by in basketball with an MJ, Kobe, Lebron and have a good if not great team, you can get by in hockey with a Gretzky, Lemiux, etc, you can get by in soccer with a Beckham, Robinihio,Maradona, pele, etc, you can get by in baseball with a Babe Ruth, Pete Rose, Mark McGwire or a Barry Bonds etc..

But You can't get by and win titles with only a Barry Sanders, Dan Marino, etc... this is a TEAM SPORT not stars sports, also you need 53 player per team that's more then double of any Major Sport.

Peyton Can be Making 100 mill a year in a uncap year if he wants 2 but with out a good line Harrison, Wayne, James, June, Sanders, Freeney, Mathis, His another Richie Manning.

ArtMonkDrillz · 03-03-2006, 12:02 PM

Who is Richie Manning?

I feel like this would have have a negative effect on almost all of this year's lower round draft picks. Why would a team even want to sign some unproven guard from UConn (I have no idea why that position from that school popped into my head) when someone like Will Shields is out there on the free agent market? And actually maybe Shields is a bad example because he will demand such a high contract, but say someone like Dockery. If a younger vet is out there, with real NFL expirence, what team would want to sign a 6th rd pick for vitually the same money?

Monksdown · 03-03-2006, 12:05 PM

Luke, I am your _________.

ArtMonkDrillz · 03-03-2006, 12:06 PM

I could have sworn his name was Archie, but maybe I'm the idiot.

Monksdown · 03-03-2006, 01:02 PM

ah, the closeness and oldness of the two names allowed them to slip past my normally brilliant and analytical mind.

Dantheskinsfan · 03-03-2006, 02:07 PM

Ok, his name was definately NOT RICHIE. Go Cowpies!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by D'BOYZ

Exactly the Unions is handleing wrong becasue the ones that have more to lose aren't the star players but the rest of the players taht make the team.

The beauty of the NFL is that this is the only true TEAM SPORT you can get by in basketball with an MJ, Kobe, Lebron and have a good if not great team, you can get by in hockey with a Gretzky, Lemiux, etc, you can get by in soccer with a Beckham, Robinihio,Maradona, pele, etc, you can get by in baseball with a Babe Ruth, Pete Rose, Mark McGwire or a Barry Bonds etc..

But You can't get by and win titles with only a Barry Sanders, Dan Marino, etc... this is a TEAM SPORT not stars sports, also you need 53 player per team that's more then double of any Major Sport.

Peyton Can be Making 100 mill a year in a uncap year if he wants 2 but with out a good line Harrison, Wayne, James, June, Sanders, Freeney, Mathis, His another Richie Manning.

D'BOYZ · 03-03-2006, 08:03 PM

yep sorry about that is Archie Manning my fault.......

03-03-2006, 06:38 AM	#1
BrudLee Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Rehoboth Beach, DE Posts: 3,494	Why the Redskins (and everyone else) won't field 30-rookie teams I'm aware of the great proclaimations of pundits and gurus everywhere. "The Redskins coulod cut everyone and be over the cap!" Well, duh. Most teams would be. If the Colts cut Peyton Manning today, they'd accelerate about $30 million in bonuses. That's one guy out of 53. But say the sky is falling, and we have to cut thirty players. About twenty other teams will be cutting into the double digits as well under that scenario, leaving several hundred formerly well-paid professionals scrambling for three or four TV jobs, and the rest selling cars. Unless, of course, they'd like to be paid less. In fact, a great many players would probably take veteran's minimum contracts with the team of their choosing. One thing about veteran's minimum contracts - they count against the cap as rookie minimum. With the potential of an uncapped year looming, many of those players might ingratiate themselves with the only guy crazy enough to stuff his shoes with $50s to look taller. It's a gamble, of course. Perhaps the Redskins see themselves as a desirable free agency location after a playoff run where the players praised the coaching staff, the coaching staff praised the players, the historically meddlesome owner said virtually nothing and the fans went crazy. Botom line, should 200+ union members find themselves not working because of a hardline stance, you'll see not only talent being underpaid, but changes made because of it. __________________ There's nowhere to go but up. Or down. I guess we could stay where we are, too.

03-03-2006, 08:02 AM	#3
Sammy Baugh Fan Playmaker Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Northern Virginia, Woodbridge Age: 51 Posts: 2,507	Re: Why the Redskins (and everyone else) won't field 30-rookie teams Given the fact that 2006 teams would be limited to 2005 cap numbers there would not be enough money paid by teams to employ all the current players. I see trouble for the Player's Association if they don't find a way to make a deal. __________________ Check out Mike Hedrick - The Next Food Network Star. Please Click and give me a Thumbs Up and Positive Comment. Thanks

03-03-2006, 09:02 AM	#6
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Springfield, VA Age: 30 Posts: 15,642	Re: Why the Redskins (and everyone else) won't field 30-rookie teams I think only the elite players benefit from a dead cap... the role-players could be offered 100k-200k contracts with no health insurance/401k etc and not get any better offers. __________________ Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!

03-03-2006, 12:02 PM	#8
ArtMonkDrillz Franchise Player Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Columbia, MD Age: 30 Posts: 7,767	Re: Why the Redskins (and everyone else) won't field 30-rookie teams Who is Richie Manning? I feel like this would have have a negative effect on almost all of this year's lower round draft picks. Why would a team even want to sign some unproven guard from UConn (I have no idea why that position from that school popped into my head) when someone like Will Shields is out there on the free agent market? And actually maybe Shields is a bad example because he will demand such a high contract, but say someone like Dockery. If a younger vet is out there, with real NFL expirence, what team would want to sign a 6th rd pick for vitually the same money? __________________ Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

03-03-2006, 12:05 PM	#9
Monksdown Robert Griffin III Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Leesburg, VA Age: 32 Posts: 1,495	Re: Why the Redskins (and everyone else) won't field 30-rookie teams Luke, I am your _________. __________________ Robert Griffin III

03-03-2006, 12:06 PM	#10
ArtMonkDrillz Franchise Player Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Columbia, MD Age: 30 Posts: 7,767	Re: Why the Redskins (and everyone else) won't field 30-rookie teams I could have sworn his name was Archie, but maybe I'm the idiot. __________________ Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

03-03-2006, 01:02 PM	#11
Monksdown Robert Griffin III Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Leesburg, VA Age: 32 Posts: 1,495	Re: Why the Redskins (and everyone else) won't field 30-rookie teams ah, the closeness and oldness of the two names allowed them to slip past my normally brilliant and analytical mind. __________________ Robert Griffin III

03-03-2006, 08:03 PM	#13
D'BOYZ The Starter Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,345	Re: Why the Redskins (and everyone else) won't field 30-rookie teams yep sorry about that is Archie Manning my fault.......

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

Why the Redskins (and everyone else) won't field 30-rookie teams

Redskins Locker Room