The 30% Rule

Schneed10 · 01-05-2009, 09:50 PM

As I'm working through potential ways for the Redskins to reduce their cap number in 2009, I'm bumping up against the 30% Rule, and I'm sure Vinny and the gang are too. I'm starting this thread because I need help on the interpretation of the rule. If anyone has access to a copy of the CBA as written today, that would be helpful, or if you just know the answer or can link to other helpful information, I can proceed down the road of crunching numbers and posting a plan here on the site.

The 30% rule states that any contracts signed during the last capped year (2009) that stretch into years thereafter (2010 and beyond) must have base salary increases (defined as salary + roster bonuses, but not signing bonus allocations) no more than 30% from one year to the next. In simpler terms, if a player's base compensation in 2009 is $1 million dollars, his 2010 base compensation cannot be any more than $1.3 million.

This prevents the Redskins from using their standard contract restructuring practice. I've got a way around this, but only if I'm interpreting the 30% rule correctly:

My understanding is the 30% limit on increases only applies when comparing 2009 to 2010 base compensation. I haven't seen anything indicating a team can't give more than 30% when comparing 2010 to 2011. In other words, while $1.3 million may be the max a contract can show in 2010, I know of no reason why a team can't just jack up the base compensation in 2011 to $10 million if they want.

Does anybody know if this is possible? Or does the 30% rule apply to all future years?

Thanks in advance for the info.

Schneed10 · 01-05-2009, 10:08 PM

I got the answer myself. Per the CBA, Article XXIV, Section 8, Part B:

Quote:

(b) No NFL Player Contract entered into in a Capped Year and extending into the Final League Year or beyond may provide for an annual increase in Salary, excluding any amount attributable to a signing bonus as defined in Section 7(b)(iv) above, of more than 30% of the Salary provided for in the Final Capped Year, per year, either in the Final League Year or in any subsequent League Year covered by the Player Contract. For example, without limitation on any other applicable example, a four-year Player Contract signed in the 2011 League Year, assuming that it is Capped, may not provide for an annual increase of more than 30% of the 2011 League Year Salary, excluding amounts treated as a signing bonus, in any of the three additional League Years covered by the Contract.

In other words, the 30% Rule limits teams from increasing base compensation in all out years, not just in 2010. This severely limits the Redskins in their ability to restructure contracts, and in my judgment increases the likelihood that veterans nearing the end of their contracts will be jettisoned to clear cap space.

The Goat · 01-05-2009, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I got the answer myself. Per the CBA, Article XXIV, Section 8, Part B:

In other words, the 30% Rule limits teams from increasing base compensation in all out years, not just in 2010. This severely limits the Redskins in their ability to restructure contracts, and in my judgment increases the likelihood that veterans nearing the end of their contracts will be jettisoned to clear cap space.

Any guesses who is most likely to be shown the door based on your research?

The Goat · 01-05-2009, 11:01 PM

Instead of starting a thread I'll just pose the question here: when can we expect some changes to the roster i.e. guys let go, restructured etc?

How about changes to the coaching staff? I get the feeling coaching changes (if they're coming) can happen anytime. Just saw Green Bay canned like half a dozen. Crazy.

Schneed10 · 01-05-2009, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Goat

Any guesses who is most likely to be shown the door based on your research?

I'd say Marcus Washington is the most likely. Cutting him would save us $4.5 million in cap space.

The Goat · 01-05-2009, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'd say Marcus Washington is the most likely. Cutting him would save us $4.5 million in cap space.

I'm a little bummed but figured that was the story. Have only seen him play live once but I loved his enthusiasm out there. I've heard some suggestions he could be cut then resigned (for the much lower value he's probably worth) when nobody comes knocking. Any insight there?

Also, why Marcus over Springs? I thought cutting Springs would save like $5 mill looking at the cap sheet (other thread).

Schneed10 · 01-05-2009, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Goat

I'm a little bummed but figured that was the story. Have only seen him play live once but I loved his enthusiasm out there. I've heard some suggestions he could be cut then resigned (for the much lower value he's probably worth) when nobody comes knocking. Any insight there?

Also, why Marcus over Springs? I thought cutting Springs would save like $5 mill looking at the cap sheet (other thread).

Yeah cutting Springs would save $6 million. But I'm also going by the behavior of the coaching staff, tendencies we've observed from Vinny, and to some extent inside info from JLC.

Blache started Springs over Rogers coming down the stretch. It's clear the team still thinks he is the top CB on the team. Vinny doesn't seem scared of having old guys around either, after all he traded for Jason Taylor. And everything we hear from JLC seems to indicate the 'Skins coaches seem to feel Springs is viewed as an indispensable member of the defense as he is capable of locking down top WRs like Terrell Owens and catching the ball when he gets a shot at it.

My opinion of him is very high, as well. When healthy he is a top flight CB. The "when healthy" part is certainly the issue though.

I think they bring Springs back with a new 3 year deal or something like that to get his cap number down.

The Goat · 01-05-2009, 11:20 PM

Jeez I really thought w/ Hall in town Springs would be the one "top corner" to get the boot, especially w/ his massive salary. Then do we boot Rogers or retain three extremely talented corners? Add Landry and Horton in that equation and we're insanely talented in the secondary (as 4 of those 5 guys probably just continue to get better at this point in their careers w/ Springs holding more or less steady).

GTripp0012 · 01-06-2009, 06:52 AM

Unless we get blown away with an offer, Rogers will be back next season. That I'm sure of. I remain unconvinced that Rogers would ever leave the team, but I'm not so sure he's getting a long term deal here.

Either way, end of contract, plus a RFA year, and then (theoretically) a franchise tag year, and Rogers is here through 2011, without actually signing a longer deal. I imagine those would be his three best years, so it might actually make sense to not resign him.

Schneed10 · 01-06-2009, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Unless we get blown away with an offer, Rogers will be back next season. That I'm sure of. I remain unconvinced that Rogers would ever leave the team, but I'm not so sure he's getting a long term deal here.

Either way, end of contract, plus a RFA year, and then (theoretically) a franchise tag year, and Rogers is here through 2011, without actually signing a longer deal. I imagine those would be his three best years, so it might actually make sense to not resign him.

I would tend to agree. It will be tough for the Redskins to clear cap space this year, and they can't easily afford to give up the additional $1.5 million in space that would result from trading Rogers. They need to create enough space to resign DeAngelo Hall as they appear intent on, resign the Red Snapper, resign Suisham (or a kicker like him), and make any other free agent moves they intend to make. The math works out in such a way that taking a $1.5 million hit from trading Rogers becomes no insignificant task. I think he stays.

FRPLG · 01-06-2009, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I would tend to agree. It will be tough for the Redskins to clear cap space this year, and they can't easily afford to give up the additional $1.5 million in space that would result from trading Rogers. They need to create enough space to resign DeAngelo Hall as they appear intent on, resign the Red Snapper, resign Suisham (or a kicker like him), and make any other free agent moves they intend to make. The math works out in such a way that taking a $1.5 million hit from trading Rogers becomes no insignificant task. I think he stays.

My thoughts exactly. As well as the thoughts from Tripp. We can tie Rogers up for 3 years and at if he has magically learned to catch in year three we can still work on a long term deal. By then Springs will almost certainly be gone or swapped to safety (at a much cheaper price) and we'll still need a 1 or 2 CB

Hog1 · 01-06-2009, 09:07 AM

Our current action plan towards personnel decisions seems to be meeting with limited postive results. We are constantly bombarded with shrewd rookie picks from other teams and late rounders that are "making history", etc. We have had some good things, but not enough.
That having been said, (in a perfect world) I would REALLY like the team to take a step back and look at a little "spring cleaning" of high priced players that are largely ineffective or beyond their ability to deliver the goods. Get some guys on the field who HAVE the killer instinct and "hopefully" can deliver some of that.........this isn't working as well as we want. After all, we know far to well, it AIN'T about the old superstar.
Maybe a little Bill Parcells type moves or at least consider following his lead

SmootSmack · 01-06-2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yeah cutting Springs would save $6 million. But I'm also going by the behavior of the coaching staff, tendencies we've observed from Vinny, and to some extent inside info from JLC.

Blache started Springs over Rogers coming down the stretch. It's clear the team still thinks he is the top CB on the team. Vinny doesn't seem scared of having old guys around either, after all he traded for Jason Taylor. And everything we hear from JLC seems to indicate the 'Skins coaches seem to feel Springs is viewed as an indispensable member of the defense as he is capable of locking down top WRs like Terrell Owens and catching the ball when he gets a shot at it.

My opinion of him is very high, as well. When healthy he is a top flight CB. The "when healthy" part is certainly the issue though.

I think they bring Springs back with a new 3 year deal or something like that to get his cap number down.

Springs has so many issues outside the football field that may incline him to just stick with the devil he knows and remain with the Redskins. In fact, the Redskins probably have more leverage this year than in year's past to "encourage" him to restructure his deal.

Will he stay? I don't know for sure but I think it's more probable than it was at the beginning of the season. I think Washington is gone. I suspect they'll add two to three linebackers this year through the draft and free agency.

dmek25 · 01-06-2009, 12:17 PM

is Vilma a free agent? i wanted him last year

redskinjim · 01-06-2009, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hog1

Our current action plan towards personnel decisions seems to be meeting with limited postive results. We are constantly bombarded with shrewd rookie picks from other teams and late rounders that are "making history", etc. We have had some good things, but not enough.
That having been said, (in a perfect world) I would REALLY like the team to take a step back and look at a little "spring cleaning" of high priced players that are largely ineffective or beyond their ability to deliver the goods. Get some guys on the field who HAVE the killer instinct and "hopefully" can deliver some of that.........this isn't working as well as we want. After all, we know far to well, it AIN'T about the old superstar.
Maybe a little Bill Parcells type moves or at least consider following his lead

agreed a little bill parcells would go a long way to instill some youth in a team that is old at to many positions.

01-05-2009, 09:50 PM	#1
Schneed10 RG Glee Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 33 Posts: 7,897	The 30% Rule As I'm working through potential ways for the Redskins to reduce their cap number in 2009, I'm bumping up against the 30% Rule, and I'm sure Vinny and the gang are too. I'm starting this thread because I need help on the interpretation of the rule. If anyone has access to a copy of the CBA as written today, that would be helpful, or if you just know the answer or can link to other helpful information, I can proceed down the road of crunching numbers and posting a plan here on the site. The 30% rule states that any contracts signed during the last capped year (2009) that stretch into years thereafter (2010 and beyond) must have base salary increases (defined as salary + roster bonuses, but not signing bonus allocations) no more than 30% from one year to the next. In simpler terms, if a player's base compensation in 2009 is $1 million dollars, his 2010 base compensation cannot be any more than $1.3 million. This prevents the Redskins from using their standard contract restructuring practice. I've got a way around this, but only if I'm interpreting the 30% rule correctly: My understanding is the 30% limit on increases only applies when comparing 2009 to 2010 base compensation. I haven't seen anything indicating a team can't give more than 30% when comparing 2010 to 2011. In other words, while $1.3 million may be the max a contract can show in 2010, I know of no reason why a team can't just jack up the base compensation in 2011 to $10 million if they want. Does anybody know if this is possible? Or does the 30% rule apply to all future years? Thanks in advance for the info. __________________ Skins' Salary Cap Status \| CrazyCanuck's Cap Figures by Player \| Salary Cap 101

01-05-2009, 11:01 PM	#4
The Goat Pro Bowl Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 5,021	Re: The 30% Rule Instead of starting a thread I'll just pose the question here: when can we expect some changes to the roster i.e. guys let go, restructured etc? How about changes to the coaching staff? I get the feeling coaching changes (if they're coming) can happen anytime. Just saw Green Bay canned like half a dozen. Crazy. __________________ Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes he eats you.

01-05-2009, 11:20 PM	#8
The Goat Pro Bowl Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 5,021	Re: The 30% Rule Jeez I really thought w/ Hall in town Springs would be the one "top corner" to get the boot, especially w/ his massive salary. Then do we boot Rogers or retain three extremely talented corners? Add Landry and Horton in that equation and we're insanely talented in the secondary (as 4 of those 5 guys probably just continue to get better at this point in their careers w/ Springs holding more or less steady). __________________ Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes he eats you.

01-06-2009, 06:52 AM	#9
GTripp0012 Living Legend Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Grand Rapids, MI Age: 25 Posts: 15,143	Re: The 30% Rule Unless we get blown away with an offer, Rogers will be back next season. That I'm sure of. I remain unconvinced that Rogers would ever leave the team, but I'm not so sure he's getting a long term deal here. Either way, end of contract, plus a RFA year, and then (theoretically) a franchise tag year, and Rogers is here through 2011, without actually signing a longer deal. I imagine those would be his three best years, so it might actually make sense to not resign him. __________________ Shanahan: “The bad thing is he's [Sav Rocca] probably our best offensive weapon and that’s not good.”

01-06-2009, 09:07 AM	#12
Hog1 Quietly Dominating the East Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Naples, Florida Posts: 8,378	Re: The 30% Rule Our current action plan towards personnel decisions seems to be meeting with limited postive results. We are constantly bombarded with shrewd rookie picks from other teams and late rounders that are "making history", etc. We have had some good things, but not enough. That having been said, (in a perfect world) I would REALLY like the team to take a step back and look at a little "spring cleaning" of high priced players that are largely ineffective or beyond their ability to deliver the goods. Get some guys on the field who HAVE the killer instinct and "hopefully" can deliver some of that.........this isn't working as well as we want. After all, we know far to well, it AIN'T about the old superstar. Maybe a little Bill Parcells type moves or at least consider following his lead __________________ Goodbye Sean..........Vaya Con Dios thankyou Joe....... Win! Always win! By fair means or foul, by soft words and hard deeds... by treachery, by cunning, by malpractice... but always win--Edward Teach

01-06-2009, 12:17 PM	#14
dmek25 MVP Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: lancaster,pa Age: 51 Posts: 10,442	Re: The 30% Rule is Vilma a free agent? i wanted him last year __________________ "It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt." courtesy of 53fan

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

The 30% Rule

Salary Cap Central