Warpath  

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




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


In a Perfect World: A Look Back at the 'Skins Major Offseason Moves

Redskins Locker Room


View Poll Results: Which would have been better, "my plan" or how things actually worked out?
Ramseyfan's plan (yes I know hindsight is 20/20) 3 9.68%
Dan Snyder/Joe Gibbs' plan (how the offseason actually played out) 28 90.32%
Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-23-2004, 06:39 AM   #46
Impact Rookie
 
Hogskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hartselle, Alabama
Age: 73
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramseyfan
This year I think we'll go far (we'll get kicked out of the first round of the playoffs), but I am skeptical about how this offseason will affect our team over the course of the next 3 years.
Maybe you will be right, but that is a prediction I could NEVER make with Gibbs at the helm. He is definitely not a "lose-in-the-first-round" guy. I hope they do make the playoffs. If so, I would see them making it at least to the NFC Championship.

And as far as the value of their moves 3 years down the road, don't forget a major intangible. Ramsey has some GREAT talents (strong arm, very accurate, extremely tough, great attitude), but has some critical problems that need correcting (very slow footwork, slow decision-making - in general, a slow release). Our opponents learned that very quickly and took advantage of it - look at the huge difference in sacks with Hasselbeck in there. A year or two learning under Brunell with some GREAT coaching will be HUGE in his development, and the best thing that could happen to him right now. So, 2-3 years from now when Patrick is tearing up the NFL, don't forget how important Brunell was to him (and the Redskins).
__________________
John Shaffer
National Fantasy Sports Leagues, Inc.
Home of "The BEST Game In Town" since 1990
Hogskin is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 07-23-2004, 08:58 AM   #47
Franchise Player
 
Sheriff Gonna Getcha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 35
Posts: 8,317
Good post Hogskin. But I think Ramseyís biggest weaknesses are not necessarily his slow footwork or slow release, but his poor short-passing game. He seems to be much more accurate with his 20+ yard throws than he is with passes to WRs running 5 yard screen or 10 yard curl routes. That is a major problem, especially when you are slow footed and need to be able to dump the ball off in the face of a strong pass rush.

In any event, I pray to God that I am wrong about the long haul. In any case, it will be fun to watch us go somewhere this season.
Sheriff Gonna Getcha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2004, 11:39 AM   #48
Playmaker
 
skinsfanthru&thru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 34
Posts: 3,720
anyone know if we will have our franchise tag next year or not? cuz I think if a player who's tagged is signed after march 17th and before july 14th I believe, the franchise tag is gone for however long the contract signed by the franchised player is, but I can't remember if champ signed before march 17th with denver or not.
skinsfanthru&thru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2004, 12:37 PM   #49
Impact Rookie
 
hurrykaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington, D.C.
Age: 41
Posts: 762
How FAs with big contracts affect the team over the next 3 yrs

Another thing to consider, Ramseyfan, is that the cap number increases by atleast 3-4 million every year.

In 2001, it was around 67 million,
In 2002, it was 71.1 million
In 2003, it was 75 million,
and this year it is almost 79 million.

Assuming the same pace keeps up, in 3 yrs, the cap will be close to 93 million - which will give us an extremely decent cushion against deadmoney and backloaded contracts from the current roster. When Gibbs, Cerrato and our cap experts say they have a plan and they're not concerned about the future cap, I assume this is what they're referring to. Plus, it is conceviable that we could get the likes of LC, Samuels, etc. to restructure.

In the next 3 yrs, if we've been to the playoffs and won the superbowl, it will have been worth all the salary cap hell you point to. If in the next 3 yrs we don't achieve squat, surely we can't have done any better through the 2003-04 draft class. Basically, Snyder-Gibbs have placed a huge premium on winning now and to them, the benefits of winning over the next 3 yrs outweigh the costs of salary cap misery in 2007.
hurrykaine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2004, 12:51 PM   #50
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsfanthru&thru
anyone know if we will have our franchise tag next year or not? cuz I think if a player who's tagged is signed after march 17th and before july 14th I believe, the franchise tag is gone for however long the contract signed by the franchised player is, but I can't remember if champ signed before march 17th with denver or not.
He signed on March 2
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2004, 12:52 PM   #51
Franchise Player
 
Sheriff Gonna Getcha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 35
Posts: 8,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by hurrykaine
Another thing to consider, Ramseyfan, is that the cap number increases by atleast 3-4 million every year.

In 2001, it was around 67 million,
In 2002, it was 71.1 million
In 2003, it was 75 million,
and this year it is almost 79 million.
That is true, but that is no reason to sign a player to a deal which you know will result in a $4-6 million cap hit a few years down the road.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hurrykaine
it is conceviable that we could get the likes of LC, Samuels, etc. to restructure.
I am sure that we will continue to restructure deals to put off huge cap numbers, but it will come back to bite you at some point (as the recent Washington Post article re: the cap noted). We had to release Stephen Davis because his cap numbers got too unwieldy (would have been $11 million for 2003 if we had kept him), not just because he didnít fit Spurrierís scheme. Samuels is eating up a ton of cap space right now because we kept restructuring his deal. Iím not saying that teams shouldnít restructure playersí contracts Ė every team does it. I am saying that you cannot disregard the cap and that someday you have to pay the pied piper.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hurrykaine
In the next 3 yrs, if we've been to the playoffs and won the superbowl, it will have been worth all the salary cap hell you point to. If in the next 3 yrs we don't achieve squat, surely we can't have done any better through the 2003-04 draft class. Basically, Snyder-Gibbs have placed a huge premium on winning now and to them, the benefits of winning over the next 3 yrs outweigh the costs of salary cap misery in 2007.
. If this SB run results in a Lombardi trophy, Iíll say that Snyder and Gibbs were right and that I was embarrassingly wrong. However, if they donít get us to the promised land AND they screw up our cap, Iíll be one pissed on fan.

To his credit, Snyder has big rocks and heís aggressive. I prefer that to an owner who tries to spend as little as possible. Iím just afraid Danny is a little too aggressive.
Sheriff Gonna Getcha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2004, 12:55 PM   #52
Impact Rookie
 
Hogskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hartselle, Alabama
Age: 73
Posts: 659
HarryK, yes, and there is one more important factor to add to that argument. The TV contracts will be renegotiated (is it 2006?). That should provide a sudden healthy bump in the cap.

Fan, interesting - I guess I was paying attention to some details and did not notice others just as significant. Had not noticed Ramsey's trouble with the short passes.
__________________
John Shaffer
National Fantasy Sports Leagues, Inc.
Home of "The BEST Game In Town" since 1990
Hogskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2004, 01:07 PM   #53
Impact Rookie
 
Hogskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hartselle, Alabama
Age: 73
Posts: 659
Whoops, sorry for botching your name, Hurrykaine
__________________
John Shaffer
National Fantasy Sports Leagues, Inc.
Home of "The BEST Game In Town" since 1990
Hogskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2004, 01:23 PM   #54
Impact Rookie
 
hurrykaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington, D.C.
Age: 41
Posts: 762
"That is true, but that is no reason to sign a player to a deal which you know will result in a $4-6 million cap hit a few years down the road."

In fact, I would say the opposite - you have to give the likes of Brunell long term backloaded deals since there would be no cap-space in the next two yrs if you didn't. That would affect the signing of other cheap but decent free agents (such as the Kozlowskis, Baxters, & CBs).

As an example, It is cheaper for us (short-term cap-wise) to give Brunell a huge deal over 7-8yrs than to give him a short term deal like say, 15 million over 3 yrs. How would you spread a 3yr 15 million deal in a way that doesn't adversely affect the cap in 2005? What's worse, he would've turned down the short term deal and signed elswhere, and our QB search would've been painful.

I realize you can't play a ponzi type game with the long term cap - stuff adds up and will count against the cap in 2007, but with 93 million as the cap, the extra 13-14 million will more than make up for both Portis and Brunell's back loaded deals.

I'm with you that if this experiment fails, it will be a costly failure, and we will be pissed off fans, but this year more than ever, we have the coaching staff in place to justify Snyder's spending spree.
hurrykaine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2004, 01:28 PM   #55
Impact Rookie
 
hurrykaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington, D.C.
Age: 41
Posts: 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hogskin
Whoops, sorry for botching your name, Hurrykaine
No worries Hogs....you by any chance the same Hogs from the Washington Post forum?
hurrykaine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2004, 02:10 PM   #56
Impact Rookie
 
Hogskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hartselle, Alabama
Age: 73
Posts: 659
No, I use "Hogskins" everywhere I can - started using it in the mid/late 80's when I started playing fantasy football. But I don't believe I have an ID on the Post - if I do, I am inactive.
__________________
John Shaffer
National Fantasy Sports Leagues, Inc.
Home of "The BEST Game In Town" since 1990
Hogskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2004, 02:18 PM   #57
Impact Rookie
 
SkinsRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Crofton, MD
Age: 44
Posts: 907
I don't know if anyone has mentioned anything like this, but consider this:
In this day and age of Free Agency, it doesn't matter if you build with older or younger players. The older players usually get the shorter, but higher $ contracts, but the young guys will also likely be gone in a few years anyway, especially if they perform well and want the big contract. This goes for ALL teams. Nowadays, a team can only keep a core group of maybe 10-15 players for more than a couple years. That's the way it is built to promote parity.
That said, I agree more with the "proven player philosophy", but I'll admit that RF's plan has it's merits too...
SkinsRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2004, 03:43 PM   #58
Playmaker
 
skinsfanthru&thru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 34
Posts: 3,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by smootsmack
He signed on March 2
thanks
skinsfanthru&thru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2004, 06:14 PM   #59
The Starter
 
joecrisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Age: 38
Posts: 1,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by hurrykaine
Another thing to consider, Ramseyfan, is that the cap number increases by atleast 3-4 million every year.

In 2001, it was around 67 million,
In 2002, it was 71.1 million
In 2003, it was 75 million,
and this year it is almost 79 million.

Assuming the same pace keeps up, in 3 yrs, the cap will be close to 93 million - which will give us an extremely decent cushion against deadmoney and backloaded contracts from the current roster. When Gibbs, Cerrato and our cap experts say they have a plan and they're not concerned about the future cap, I assume this is what they're referring to. Plus, it is conceviable that we could get the likes of LC, Samuels, etc. to restructure.
Actually, the cap this year was increased to $80.582 million, due to higher-than-projected league-wide DGR (Defined Gross Revenue). As Hogskin pointed out, and as I have explained repeatedly in the past, the salary cap is projected to see a significant spike in 2005-2006, due to the new TV deal that will have to be consummated in that timeframe.

As a frame of reference, let's look (once again) at the salary cap over the past 10 years:

  • 2004: $80.582 million
  • 2003: $75.007 million
  • 2002: $71.100 million
  • 2001: $67.400 million
  • 2000: $62.172 million
  • 1999: $58.353 million
  • 1998: $52.388 million
  • 1997: $41.450 million
  • 1996: $40.777 million
  • 1995: $37.100 million
  • 1994: $34.600 million

Notice that nearly $11 million spike in 1998? That was a direct product of the last TV deal that was negotiated in January of 1998. It was after this deal was put in place that league-wide DGR really started to swell, and the salary cap surged along with it (as the cap is a pre-determined percentage of DGR).

Considering the booming popularity of the NFL over the past few years, it's not incomprehensible that the cap spike in 2006 could well exceed the one seen in 1998. The cap spike in 1998, which was $10.938 million (or a whopping 26.39% increase over the previous year's cap!) would obviously pale in comparison to the $22.85 million spike the cap would see in 2006 if the cap were to increase by the same percentage as it did in 1998.

However, let's be a little more conservative than that, and assume that the market value increase for the TV deal-- and thus the DGR and salary cap-- begins to level off at some point. Let's say that the percentage increase in the cap in 2006 is only half of what it was in 1998. Even then, you're still looking at a 13.2% increase, which would boost the cap by $11.43 million dollars-- still exceeding the '98 increase by half a million dollars!

Now if you consider that the average annual growth in the salary cap since the 1998 TV deal has been 7.46%, that would give us a projected 2005 salary cap of $86.593 million. Increase that by our conservatively estimated $11.43 million boost brought about by a 2006 TV deal, and that gives you a projected 2006 salary cap of $98.023 million. Again, that's a conservative estimate. It's entirely possible that figure could be in the $105 million to $110 million range.

So yes, Dan Snyder may have paid more than the market value for some of the players he recently acquired, and yes, the backloaded nature of their contracts will indeed rob the team of some cap space at some point-- that's inevitable-- but what isn't so certain is that this franchise will ever actually go to "salary cap hell", or "purgatory" or "jail". I would expect there will be a few cap cuts along the way, and the team will carry its standard amount of dead money around over the next 5-7 years, but what most of the salary cap alarmists fail to recognize in their repeated damning of the Redskins' cap finances is the mollifying impact of the 2006 TV deal.

Yes, the Redskins have a lot of big contract numbers coming up in 2006, but there's going to be a pretty forgiving salary cap in 2006 as well... at least according to the terms of the current CBA, which expires in 2007 (which happens to be an "uncapped" year). Now what happens after that is up to the owners and the NFLPA. More than likely, there will be a new CBA or an extension of the current agreement in place before the 2007 NFL year begins, and that "uncapped year" will never come to fruition. But the 2006 cap allotment (65% of DGR) is set, and you can be darned sure that Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones-- two of the league's biggest revenue generators-- are going to fight to see that their competitive edge in the free agency market (the ability to project greater buying power through the use of large, prorated signing bonuses, and other cap tricks) is not taken away from them in 2007 and beyond.
joecrisp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2004, 09:13 PM   #60
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 16,278
thanks for an informative post, that's kinda what i'd figured... they'd just push it further down the road... it'd give them a disadvantage with dead money vs. other clubs, but as long as the growth continues, they can sustain the creative accounting for a while.

I didn't realize has much the cap has balloned in such a short amount of time though...
That Guy 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 09:45 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 0.34679 seconds with 10 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