Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Article: 2007 and the Cap

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-19-2006, 09:09 PM   #16
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 34
Posts: 8,279
Re: Article: 2007 and the Cap

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmek25 View Post
what happens to brunells salary if he retires?
It'd be the same as if we cut him in the offseason. If he retires before June 1, we take the dead cap hit in 2007. If he waits until after June 1, we delay most of the hit until 2008.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 12-19-2006, 09:19 PM   #17
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 34
Posts: 8,279
Re: Article: 2007 and the Cap

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill B View Post
Schneed - wouldn't it be better to cut Brunnel before June 1st so we don't take AA and Brunell dead hits in 2008?
Cutting Brunell before June 1 would create $2.3 million in cap space in 2007. Cutting him after June 1 would create $3.7 million in cap space in 2007, but we'd have to carry about $2.8 million in deadcap for him in 2008. Since Gibbs still loves him so much, I'm guessing they'll keep him even if they can't get him to take a paycut. But they'll probably try to get him to take the paycut.

As for Archuleta, if we cut him before June 1, he'll count $9 million against our cap. He's scheduled to count $2.5 million in 2007 as it stands now, so going from there to $9 million would represent a $6.5 million jump. I don't think the team would take that approach, it's too limiting in 2007.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2006, 09:37 PM   #18
Impact Rookie
 
Bill B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 721
Re: Article: 2007 and the Cap

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
Cutting Brunell before June 1 would create $2.3 million in cap space in 2007. Cutting him after June 1 would create $3.7 million in cap space in 2007, but we'd have to carry about $2.8 million in deadcap for him in 2008. Since Gibbs still loves him so much, I'm guessing they'll keep him even if they can't get him to take a paycut. But they'll probably try to get him to take the paycut.

As for Archuleta, if we cut him before June 1, he'll count $9 million against our cap. He's scheduled to count $2.5 million in 2007 as it stands now, so going from there to $9 million would represent a $6.5 million jump. I don't think the team would take that approach, it's too limiting in 2007.
Well it looks like the Redskins will once again be the leaders in dead cap space. At least the cap rises to $116 million in 2008 so that will help some.
Bill B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2006, 10:29 PM   #19
F the Shannys

 
CrazyCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,876
Re: Article: 2007 and the Cap

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
I'd look for the following moves:

Cut: John Hall, Christian Fauria, Mike Rumph (save $3.5 million)

Cut: Adam Archuleta as a Post June 1 move, (save $600K in 2007, absorb a $7 million deadcap hit in 2008)

Forced Paycuts: Mark Brunell and Reynaldo Wynn, if they don't accept, cut them to save $4.8 million in FY 2007 between the two of them)

Restructured Contracts (no pay reduction, just restructure): Jon Jansen, Randy Thomas, Shawn Springs, Cornelius Griffin, Marcus Washington, Clinton Portis, Casey Rabach. This could generate $10-15 million in cap space.

Resign: Derrick Dockery to a long term deal

They'll have the flexibility to keep it all together and make another free agency run, if they want to.
Great stuff. I agree with all of this.
CrazyCanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2006, 03:52 PM   #20
Special Teams
 
Citizens for 81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Age: 40
Posts: 410
Re: Article: 2007 and the Cap

I'm worried that Sean Taylor will want to renegotiate his contract.

At least on paper it looks like he doesnt make that much, but I don't know much about any incentives that he might be getting.

I know he's been injured a lot, but David Patten's contract is ridiculous.
__________________
"At night there is no such thing as an ugly woman."

Ovid (43 B.C.- A.D. 17)
Citizens for 81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2006, 08:46 AM   #21
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 34
Posts: 8,279
Re: Article: 2007 and the Cap

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizens for 81 View Post
I'm worried that Sean Taylor will want to renegotiate his contract.

At least on paper it looks like he doesnt make that much, but I don't know much about any incentives that he might be getting.

I know he's been injured a lot, but David Patten's contract is ridiculous.
On Taylor, I actually hope they go ahead and take the opportunity to extend his contract. He hasn't made a pro bowl yet so nobody in the market is going to pay him tip top dollar. Now would be a good time to lock him up. Trouble is, since Archuleta is on this team, he might ask for more than Arch got.

On Patten, the Redskins just don't have leverage. If they cut him he'd cost us $5.2 million in deadcap in 2007. If he were on the roster he'd only cost us $3.0 million in cap space. And his base salary in 2007 is only $1.1 million, so it's not like you can come down much from there. They're just not in a position to get a paycut out of him. He's just a guy we have to live with for one more season. We could try a post June 1 cut, but the benefit would only be about $1.4 million or so in 2007. We're likely just stuck with him.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2006, 11:46 AM   #22
Special Teams
 
Citizens for 81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Age: 40
Posts: 410
Re: Article: 2007 and the Cap

Is Drew Rosenhaus still Taylor's agent?

Dosen't Rosenhaus have a good relationship with Snyder and the Skins?
__________________
"At night there is no such thing as an ugly woman."

Ovid (43 B.C.- A.D. 17)
Citizens for 81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2006, 11:55 AM   #23
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 80,672
Re: Article: 2007 and the Cap

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
I'd look for the following moves:

Cut: John Hall, Christian Fauria, Mike Rumph (save $3.5 million)

Cut: Adam Archuleta as a Post June 1 move, (save $600K in 2007, absorb a $7 million deadcap hit in 2008)

Forced Paycuts: Mark Brunell and Reynaldo Wynn, if they don't accept, cut them to save $4.8 million in FY 2007 between the two of them)

Restructured Contracts (no pay reduction, just restructure): Jon Jansen, Randy Thomas, Shawn Springs, Cornelius Griffin, Marcus Washington, Clinton Portis, Casey Rabach. This could generate $10-15 million in cap space.

Resign: Derrick Dockery to a long term deal

They'll have the flexibility to keep it all together and make another free agency run, if they want to.
Nice breakdown, I think you're pretty much dead on with what will probably happen for real.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2006, 02:46 PM   #24
Impact Rookie
 
Bill B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 721
Re: Article: 2007 and the Cap

How would you all think about the following changes to the NFL salary cap rules:

1.) Implementing like the NBA a Larry Bird exemption and thus creating a hard cap and soft cap. This would cut down on the constant players cuts and keep teams together longer and in my opinion improve play. As players stay together longer they build better continuity and as fans we see 2 well oiled machines playing against eachother instead of a new collection of players trying to get familar with one another.
The NFL should allow teams to use the Larry Bird Rule on restricted and unrestricted free agents that weren't cut. This would eliminate the balloon bonus payments that teams have been using in order to circumvent the cap. So the small market teams could still compete with the likes of Synder and Jerry Jones.
2.) In addition why not allow teams to trade players by allowing in the soft portion of the cap an exemption as long as the salaries are within 10 percent of each other? Why should teams incur cap penalties for simply swapping players? If the Redskins have lets say 3 really good running backs and another team has extra CB's why not allow the teams to make a trade without having to destroy their cap situation.
Bill B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2006, 02:52 PM   #25
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 34
Posts: 8,279
Re: Article: 2007 and the Cap

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill B View Post
How would you all think about the following changes to the NFL salary cap rules:

1.) Implementing like the NBA a Larry Bird exemption and thus creating a hard cap and soft cap. This would cut down on the constant players cuts and keep teams together longer and in my opinion improve play. As players stay together longer they build better continuity and as fans we see 2 well oiled machines playing against eachother instead of a new collection of players trying to get familar with one another.
The NFL should allow teams to use the Larry Bird Rule on restricted and unrestricted free agents that weren't cut. This would eliminate the balloon bonus payments that teams have been using in order to circumvent the cap. So the small market teams could still compete with the likes of Synder and Jerry Jones.
2.) In addition why not allow teams to trade players by allowing in the soft portion of the cap an exemption as long as the salaries are within 10 percent of each other? Why should teams incur cap penalties for simply swapping players? If the Redskins have lets say 3 really good running backs and another team has extra CB's why not allow the teams to make a trade without having to destroy their cap situation.
I'm having a tough time figuring out what this post means. But I do like the current system a lot. Teams do have the ability to keep players together if they want.

I like the NFL's system because contracts aren't guaranteed. You don't play up to your ability, the team isn't stuck with you.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2006, 03:04 PM   #26
Impact Rookie
 
Bill B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 721
Re: Article: 2007 and the Cap

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
I'm having a tough time figuring out what this post means. But I do like the current system a lot. Teams do have the ability to keep players together if they want.

I like the NFL's system because contracts aren't guaranteed. You don't play up to your ability, the team isn't stuck with you.
Sorry for the confusion - I guess what I am getting at is having a hard cap like the NFL currently has at $107 million or so, and than having a soft cap that allows teams to resign their own players and go over the hard cap. The soft cap would have a luxury tax similar to what NBA teams pay - which is 100% for every dollar over.
So looking at the future when Chris Cooley's contract expires next year the Redskins could resign him at any rate they seem fit without regard to whether it would push them over the hard cap number (which I believe in that year will be $116 million). Now with the Redskins doing this they would have to pay whatever amount over the $116 in a luxury tax to a league wide pool which I assume would be distributed to smaller market teams.

I completely agree with you on keeping contracts non-guranteed. So if you sign someone to a long term deal and the contract is backloaded than you can still cut him and not be on the hook for anything. I would leave the bonus penalty as they are so yu would cut players before or after June 1st to comply with the cap.

Also, if you could find players with similar salaries the second part would allow you to trade them and get an exemption. Right now most trades are really hard because teams can afford to take both the cap hit of the player they are trading and the cap hit of the player they have coming in.
Bill B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2006, 05:35 PM   #27
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 40
Posts: 5,293
Re: Article: 2007 and the Cap

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
On Patten, the Redskins just don't have leverage. If they cut him he'd cost us $5.2 million in deadcap in 2007. If he were on the roster he'd only cost us $3.0 million in cap space. And his base salary in 2007 is only $1.1 million, so it's not like you can come down much from there. They're just not in a position to get a paycut out of him. He's just a guy we have to live with for one more season. We could try a post June 1 cut, but the benefit would only be about $1.4 million or so in 2007. We're likely just stuck with him.
Take a look at these numbers:

Patten in '05 (remember he spent a good portion of the year on IR)

22 catches, 217 yards.

Lloyd in '06 (playing in every single game, and being a starter for most the year)

23 catches 365 yards.

Obviously Lloyd is more of a deep threat, and Patten has been banged up this year a lot, but not that big a difference in terms of overall production.

Sure would be nice to have those 3rd and 4th round picks though.
Beemnseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2006, 09:20 AM   #28
Playmaker
 
SouperMeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Leesburg, VA
Age: 49
Posts: 3,069
Re: Article: 2007 and the Cap

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
I'd look for the following moves:

Cut: John Hall, Christian Fauria, Mike Rumph (save $3.5 million)

Cut: Adam Archuleta as a Post June 1 move, (save $600K in 2007, absorb a $7 million deadcap hit in 2008)

Forced Paycuts: Mark Brunell and Reynaldo Wynn, if they don't accept, cut them to save $4.8 million in FY 2007 between the two of them)

Restructured Contracts (no pay reduction, just restructure): Jon Jansen, Randy Thomas, Shawn Springs, Cornelius Griffin, Marcus Washington, Clinton Portis, Casey Rabach. This could generate $10-15 million in cap space.

Resign: Derrick Dockery to a long term deal

They'll have the flexibility to keep it all together and make another free agency run, if they want to.
I frankly don't want to see another big free agency spree. For once, let's show a little restraint and use cap relief gained through restructuring to resign core Redskins coming to the end of current contracts (Dockery this season, Cooley and Sellers next season). Perhaps target one key free agent to help the D and use the first round pick on Defense as well. I believe the pieces are already in place for the offense to be scary good if Campbell continues to progress. I love that he put the ball downfield at least a half dozen times last week. That was a months worth of deep balls for Brunell, and will keep opposing safeties from crowding the line to stop Portis/Betts.
SouperMeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2006, 09:42 AM   #29
Special Teams
 
Citizens for 81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Age: 40
Posts: 410
Re: Article: 2007 and the Cap

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven View Post
Take a look at these numbers:

Patten in '05 (remember he spent a good portion of the year on IR)

22 catches, 217 yards.

Lloyd in '06 (playing in every single game, and being a starter for most the year)

23 catches 365 yards.

Obviously Lloyd is more of a deep threat, and Patten has been banged up this year a lot, but not that big a difference in terms of overall production.

Sure would be nice to have those 3rd and 4th round picks though.

I don't think you can compare these two.

Patten is in his 11th year Lloyd is in his 4th.

LLoyd can block and go deep. Patten is the 5th reciever on this team.

And Patten by the way is going to make more next year than Lloyd.
__________________
"At night there is no such thing as an ugly woman."

Ovid (43 B.C.- A.D. 17)
Citizens for 81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2006, 10:24 AM   #30
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 34
Posts: 8,279
Re: Article: 2007 and the Cap

Quote:
Originally Posted by SouperMeister View Post
I frankly don't want to see another big free agency spree. For once, let's show a little restraint and use cap relief gained through restructuring to resign core Redskins coming to the end of current contracts (Dockery this season, Cooley and Sellers next season). Perhaps target one key free agent to help the D and use the first round pick on Defense as well. I believe the pieces are already in place for the offense to be scary good if Campbell continues to progress. I love that he put the ball downfield at least a half dozen times last week. That was a months worth of deep balls for Brunell, and will keep opposing safeties from crowding the line to stop Portis/Betts.
I would agree with taking the opportunity to extend the contracts of some of our key players. The three you mentioned are key components for us.

I don't want to see us going out and getting a shopping cart full of free agents either. A key guy here or there is what we really need. We need to break the cycle of continually bringing in multiple new free agent starters. They require such a learning curve. The offseason preceding our 10-6 2005 season was pretty quiet if you'll all remember. We traded Coles for Moss and signed David Patten, and that was pretty much it. The continuity lended itself very well to a successful season. Moss came in and immediately injected the team with a big-play threat.

I'd think along the same way for this season, except I'd focus on D. One big DT up front like Alan Branch in the draft, and one player in the secondary (CB or SS, I don't care). If you get Nate Clements at CB, maybe you can move Springs to SS. If you get a Michael Lewis at SS, you can keep Springs at CB.

But that's it. I wouldn't touch the LBs for continuity's sake. And if they have big DTs in front of them, they'll look better. I wouldn't touch the DEs because I think they're coming on and player better now. And on offense, I'd keep everything the same, because right now we're 5th in the league in rushing offense, and Campbell has the weapons to keep developing Saunders' passing game.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.36311 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25