Warpath  

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




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Cap Question

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-12-2005, 10:11 PM   #1
Impact Rookie
 
Skinsfanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 781
Cap Question

Not that I think that this should or would happen (ok, maybe should), but I have a question. Brunell is scheduled to make 3.4 million this year with a 7.1 million dollar release fee. He is scheduled to make 5.4 million next year. If we were to cut him after June first, wouldn't the release fee be applied to next years cap, resulting in 3.4 million in additional cap space this year while only resulting in 1.7 million in dead space (7.1 cap hit - 5.4 million in salary savings) next year? Is it just me, or does this sound like a good plan to anyone else. After June 1st, drop him like Rod Gardner drops passes. Draft a QB late in the draft to be our 3rd stringer and let Timmy be the backup. Then, we can use the 3.4 million this year to sign some defensive line help after the June 1st cuts.
Skinsfanatic is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 03-12-2005, 10:18 PM   #2
Playmaker
 
sportscurmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,159
Re: Cap Question

Skinsfanatic:

Not a horrible plan of attack at all. Here is the only rub that I see:

Joe Gibbs likes "veteran leadershop" on the field or on the bench. If Brunell was jettisoned and a college guy was drafted/signed to be the #3 guy, that would leave Gibbs with a young QB - Ramesy - and another young and inexperienced QB - Hasselbeck - behind him and a rookie that may not know all 32 teams in the NFL. I just don't see this coach setting up this team with that situation.

But, stranger things have happened. I promise you that if we had done a poll here last Thanksgiving and asked for the 3 most notable Skins who would be gonzo in March 2005, no one would have had Smoot, Pierce and Coles as the trifecta...
__________________
The Sports Curmudgeon
www.sportscurmudgeon.com
But don't get me wrong, I love sports...
sportscurmudgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2005, 11:42 PM   #3
Start RG

 
CrazyCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,902
Re: Cap Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skinsfanatic
Not that I think that this should or would happen (ok, maybe should), but I have a question. Brunell is scheduled to make 3.4 million this year with a 7.1 million dollar release fee. He is scheduled to make 5.4 million next year. If we were to cut him after June first, wouldn't the release fee be applied to next years cap, resulting in 3.4 million in additional cap space this year while only resulting in 1.7 million in dead space (7.1 cap hit - 5.4 million in salary savings) next year? Is it just me, or does this sound like a good plan to anyone else. After June 1st, drop him like Rod Gardner drops passes. Draft a QB late in the draft to be our 3rd stringer and let Timmy be the backup. Then, we can use the 3.4 million this year to sign some defensive line help after the June 1st cuts.
Your numbers are off (unfortunately).

For starters, Brunell restructured recently, so his 2005 cap number is now only $2.433M. This is what would happen if we cut Brunell after June 1, 2005:

- We would eat $1.433M of deadcap for 2005 (the 2005 portion of his signing bonus).
- We would eat $5.733M of deadcap for 2006 (the remaining unallocated signing bonus).
- Our 2005 savings would only be $1M ($2.433M - $1.433M).

So we'd only save $1M this year and take a big deadcap hit in 2006, where we're already in trouble. Plus you still have to pay Brunell's replacement. I don't think it's happening.

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't agree more with your intentions. Unfortunately the "Cut Brunell in 2005" code cannot be broken. Trust me I've (we've) tried.

I think they'll cut him June 1, 2006 and take the bulk of the deadcap hit in 2007.
CrazyCanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2005, 11:43 PM   #4
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,364
Re: Cap Question

Brunell just restructured his deal for 2005. His cap hit is going to be a lot lower than that $3.4 million you're quoting. He's not going anywere this year. Next year at this time we might be having the same conversation though.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2005, 12:08 AM   #5
Start RG

 
CrazyCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,902
Re: Cap Question

By the way, I think I understand how Brunell's restructure works.

He gives back $1M in 2005. In exchange we give him $1M in ULTBE (unlikely to be earned) incentives. We can't give him LTBE (likely to be earned) incentives because these would count against the 2005 cap.

But for Brunell to accept ULTBE doesn't make sense. Like the name says, these incentives are "unlikely to be earned", so there's a good chance he won't see his money. To counter this the Skins give him a bunch of ULTBE incentives (8 I think). So each incentive individually is ULTBE, but because there are 8 of them, the odds are good that at least one will hit. When it does hit Brunell gets his $1M back and it counts against our 2006 cap.

I'm not positive this is how it works, but if so it's another interesting way the Skins have found to get around the cap.

As for Brunell, I think it's a classy move. Granted he probably isn't giving back any money, but he does stand to lose one year of interest on $1M, plus there's a small chance that he might not see that $1M at all. Not that it comes close to making up for his play this year, but it's a start.
CrazyCanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2005, 02:30 AM   #6
Propane and propane accessories
 
JWsleep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Age: 45
Posts: 4,618
Re: Cap Question

Basically, he moved 1 mil from this year to next, I think. That will help if we go after any more FAs right now or after the June 1st cut date. Plus, if the team gets better this year, he's more likely to earn the incentives, so long as he stays on the bench!
__________________
Hail from Houston!
JWsleep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2005, 09:03 AM   #7
Impact Rookie
 
CRT3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Rockville
Age: 51
Posts: 795
Re: Cap Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyCanuck
I think they'll cut him June 1, 2006 and take the bulk of the deadcap hit in 2007.
Crazy why would you say we would cut him after 6/1/06 and have deadcap in 2007? There is no cap in 2007 yet. This is a uncapped year and the way that things have been going between NFLPA and the NFL, an aggreement to the CBA will not happen. Expect no cap for 2007 or if they do agree a change in the cap system. I honestly think the the Redskins are playing their cards for the 2007 season and will break the bank. What is your thought on this?
__________________
16-0 for 2007
CRT3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2005, 10:01 AM   #8
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,364
Re: Cap Question

Canuck, I think it's actually a pretty ingenious way that the Skins got around the cap.

The definition of an "Unlikely To Be Earned" incentive is that it's something they did not achieve the previous year. One of the eight incentives is that the team offense finishes 29th or higher in the league rankings (based on yardage gained). Last year the team finished 30th, so technically this was not achieved last year and thus it's labeled ULTBE. But this is a team incentive, so Brunell can be cheering from the sidelines rooting for Ramsey to take the team to a 29th ranking or higher, which is nearly certain to happen.

The result is the ULTBE incentive does not count against the cap like you mentioned. I'm not sure, but now that I think about it, I don't think it would count against the 2006 cap if the incentive were met. The best part though, this isn't an incentive that is necessarily based on Brunell's personal performance. He can be a cheerleader all season long holding the clipboard and still get his $1 million. I like that. If he's going to bitch about playing time, it's not going to be because of money. His financial motivation is to see the team do well, and not care about himself.

Brilliant contract work in my mind, they've aligned Brunell's financial interests with the concept of putting the team before yourself. Just another step in fostering the kind of attitude we need at Redskins Park.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2005, 01:27 PM   #9
The Starter
 
drew54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: IOWA
Age: 32
Posts: 1,296
Re: Cap Question

Is this the same method the Eagles are using?
drew54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2005, 02:29 PM   #10
Special Teams
 
e16bball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 163
Re: Cap Question

I am somewhat confused by this notion of the uncapped year. I understand it to some extent, but are they going to re-install a cap after 2007? If so, how will they allow for the fact that some teams (Skins, Cowboys, Raiders, etc.) will be spending huge amounts of money in 2007?

I think this uncapped year principle may have been installed brilliantly, as the uncertainty associated with it may well be the incentive necessary for the league to come to a new CBA.
e16bball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2005, 04:51 PM   #11
Start RG

 
CrazyCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,902
Re: Cap Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRT3
Crazy why would you say we would cut him after 6/1/06 and have deadcap in 2007? There is no cap in 2007 yet. This is a uncapped year and the way that things have been going between NFLPA and the NFL, an aggreement to the CBA will not happen. Expect no cap for 2007 or if they do agree a change in the cap system. I honestly think the the Redskins are playing their cards for the 2007 season and will break the bank. What is your thought on this?
Agreed, that's one reason why I think they'll push the money to 2007. Another reason is that we are already in toruble for 2006.

I really hope they renew the CBA and get rid of that uncapped year. First off, what would I do all year? Secondly I've seen how badly baseball is run and I don't ever want to go back to that, even if we'd have the greatest advantage in the new system.
CrazyCanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2005, 04:56 PM   #12
Start RG

 
CrazyCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,902
Re: Cap Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
The definition of an "Unlikely To Be Earned" incentive is that it's something they did not achieve the previous year. One of the eight incentives is that the team offense finishes 29th or higher in the league rankings (based on yardage gained). Last year the team finished 30th, so technically this was not achieved last year and thus it's labeled ULTBE. But this is a team incentive, so Brunell can be cheering from the sidelines rooting for Ramsey to take the team to a 29th ranking or higher, which is nearly certain to happen.
This makes sense. I'm surprised the ULTBE standards aren't a little tougher but i'm not complaining.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
The result is the ULTBE incentive does not count against the cap like you mentioned. I'm not sure, but now that I think about it, I don't think it would count against the 2006 cap if the incentive were met.
You may be right I'm not sure. I was under the impression that if the incentive is met, even if it's unlikely, it will count against the cap the following year.
CrazyCanuck 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 09:41 PM.


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 0.26248 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