Warpath  

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




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room > Salary Cap Central


Current Redskins Salary Cap Status - 2009

Salary Cap Central


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-07-2009, 03:19 PM   #31
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 34
Posts: 8,279
Re: Current Redskins Salary Cap Status - 2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII View Post
CBA no CBA. I guess I'm confused even after all the banter about it. I thought if the CBA was going by the way side then we would have only one year, 2010 to worry about. Then in 2011 all teams could spend as much money as they liked due to no CBA anymore. It was my understanding that if we could make it past the 2010 year we would be good.
You've got the concept right, you're just off by a year.

The CBA is set to expire in 2010, which would mean 2010 would have no salary cap at all and we'd be free to have as much salary on the books as we wanted.

But that means 2009 becomes the Final Capped Season, and as such specific rules governing contracts and cap allocation methodology are in effect.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 01-07-2009, 03:28 PM   #32
F the Shannys

 
CrazyCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,873
Re: Current Redskins Salary Cap Status - 2009

Great thread Schneed. My sheets are ok but it's your analysis that really gives them value. Thanks for all the hard work.

My personal view is that:

- Taylor is gone or severly restructured (minimum salary and a very small signing bonus and/or incentives)

- Potential cuts: Washington, Griffin, Rabach, Daniels are all cut candidates. Doubt all would go but if the Skins do commit to some kind of youth movement (stop laughing) they are all candidates.

- Springs - the guy breaks my heart. One of the best corners in the NFL but he just doesn't play enough. I gave him a pass last year on some of the lesser games (Det, etc.) but he's gotta be in that 2nd Dallas game. He is definitely looking for one more significant deal which may explain his propensity for sitting out games. One bad injury and he would never play again. It seems like he plays just enough to show other teams he can still play but not enough to risk injury.

Maybe if we give him a decent deal he will finish his career here and actually play all the games, but it doesn't seem likely. The right move for the future might just be to let him go...
CrazyCanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2009, 03:29 PM   #33
F the Shannys

 
CrazyCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,873
Re: Current Redskins Salary Cap Status - 2009

Also I think Jansen will stay but he would have been a perfect June 1 cut.
CrazyCanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2009, 03:41 PM   #34
Special Teams
 
redskin37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oneida N.Y
Posts: 131
Re: Current Redskins Salary Cap Status - 2009

Thanks for all the cap info. Does anyone know if the players we draft in April effect our cap number for next year ?
redskin37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2009, 03:49 PM   #35
F the Shannys

 
CrazyCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,873
Re: Current Redskins Salary Cap Status - 2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by redskin37 View Post
Thanks for all the cap info. Does anyone know if the players we draft in April effect our cap number for next year ?
Yes. If you look at the "Cap Summary" sheet there is a line at the bottom called "Rookie Pool".

From: http://www.thewarpath.net/salary-cap...cap-101-a.html (The Warpath presents: Salary Cap 101)

"What is the Rookie Pool?
- The rookie pool is the max cap space a team can spend on signing draft picks and undrafted free agents. A team's rookie pool is based on the number and position of draft picks, with teams holding higher picks being allocated more dollars per pick than teams holding lower picks. The rookie pool counts against the salary cap until the players are signed or released."
CrazyCanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2009, 05:50 PM   #36
Special Teams
 
REDSKIN1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ROANOKE, VA
Age: 37
Posts: 109
Re: Current Redskins Salary Cap Status - 2009

Great analysis of the Salary Cap.

Personally I, think that we should definetly cut Griffin, Washington, and Daniels. They are dinosaurs on our team who either can't stay healty or don't produce. Washington and Daniels have not played a full season in about 3 years, and as far as Griffin goes, I just think that position needs a serious up grade.

I would try to restructure Taylor and Springs, but if one has to go it would be Springs. I just have a feeling that Taylor will play with a chip on his shoulder next season, you could see how disappointed he was at him self at the end of the year.

Sign Hall and re-sign Rogers to a long term contract. Youth in the backfield.

Address the other areas of the team via the draft and free agency.

For Goodness sakes get a CAPABLE KICKER!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
"AND YOU KNOW THIS MAN"
REDSKIN1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 09:50 AM   #37
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,587
Re: Current Redskins Salary Cap Status - 2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
Yes. Once they clear cap space, I have them signing the following guys:

DeAngelo Hall ($4.5)
Pete Kendall ($1.5)
Anthony Montgomery ($1.0)
Kedric Golston ($1.0)
Demetric Evans ($1.0)
Reed Doughty ($1.0)
Kicker ($1.0)
Ethan Albright ($0.83)
Rookies ($3.5)
Players Removed from Top 51 $5.3
Total Expected Signings ($10.0)

Put a different way, I think they'll have $10 million in cap room to sign various players. One will need to be a kicker, one will need to be a long snapper, one will need to be a guard if they let Kendall go, they'll need D Linemen if they decide to let Monty, Golston and Evans walk. The one extravagant signing I have in here is Hall. If they decide to let him go they can use that money for somebody else.
Thanks, let me ask you this from a cap standpoint are Carlos Rogers and Santana Moss legitimately tradeable?
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 12:06 PM   #38
Playmaker
 
Trample the Elderly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Three Chopt Virginia
Age: 36
Posts: 2,906
Re: Current Redskins Salary Cap Status - 2009

Thanks for this thread Schneed. I must admist that I haven't been very knowledgable about the salary cap and how it effects the roster. This thread has helped me considerably with everyone's questions.
I'll not post on this again because I prefer to read.
Trample the Elderly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 12:52 PM   #39
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 34
Posts: 8,279
Re: Current Redskins Salary Cap Status - 2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
Thanks, let me ask you this from a cap standpoint are Carlos Rogers and Santana Moss legitimately tradeable?
I would say if the 'Skins really really wanted to get it done, yes they are both tradeable. But doing so would come at a cost.

Moss is easier to move than Rogers. Trading Moss would cost us half a million in cap space. My math in the first post is showing that filling the roster without cutting all three of Springs, Washington, and Taylor is very tight. But to move Moss, you basically need to find another $500K in space somewhere else. You could forego a DeAngelo Hall resigning, you could find a player who will take a paycut, you could get rid of an extra player like Phillip Daniels, or you could decide to let Jason Taylor (or Springs) go along with Marcus Washington. So the short answer is yes, Moss is very tradeable, IF you can get comfortable with the opportunity cost.

With Rogers, the opportunity cost is greater. Sending him away in a trade would cost us $1.5 million in cap space. That of course means finding even more room than you would need for Moss. Is it doable? Absolutely. But again, it means getting rid of veterans who you'd otherwise keep, foregoing DeAngelo Hall or Pete Kendall, or finding someone to take a paycut.

In my opinion, trading either one would make the team worse, because the opportunity cost of doing so outweighs the value they'd bring back in a trade. But if Vinny and company disagreed with me on that point, they could get it done.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 03:05 PM   #40
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,587
Re: Current Redskins Salary Cap Status - 2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
I would say if the 'Skins really really wanted to get it done, yes they are both tradeable. But doing so would come at a cost.

Moss is easier to move than Rogers. Trading Moss would cost us half a million in cap space. My math in the first post is showing that filling the roster without cutting all three of Springs, Washington, and Taylor is very tight. But to move Moss, you basically need to find another $500K in space somewhere else. You could forego a DeAngelo Hall resigning, you could find a player who will take a paycut, you could get rid of an extra player like Phillip Daniels, or you could decide to let Jason Taylor (or Springs) go along with Marcus Washington. So the short answer is yes, Moss is very tradeable, IF you can get comfortable with the opportunity cost.

With Rogers, the opportunity cost is greater. Sending him away in a trade would cost us $1.5 million in cap space. That of course means finding even more room than you would need for Moss. Is it doable? Absolutely. But again, it means getting rid of veterans who you'd otherwise keep, foregoing DeAngelo Hall or Pete Kendall, or finding someone to take a paycut.

In my opinion, trading either one would make the team worse, because the opportunity cost of doing so outweighs the value they'd bring back in a trade. But if Vinny and company disagreed with me on that point, they could get it done.
Thanks. I bring the rumors, you bring the data
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 03:10 PM   #41
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,993
Re: Current Redskins Salary Cap Status - 2009

Moss is interesting, and I WOULD deal him this offseason if I could get a second round pick for him.

For whatever reason, he's one of the few players on the Redskins whose perception around the league exceeds his value to the team. With most players, it tends to be the other way around. So I'd see what's out there. Obviously, don't just trade Moss to get rid of him, but somebody might throw money and a draft pick or two at this problem.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 03:19 PM   #42
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,993
Re: Current Redskins Salary Cap Status - 2009

I've got a question about Rogers contract, which extends through 2011 but is voidable after 2009, and is a virtual certainty to be voided.

Abscent a new CBA, he would still be a Restricted Free Agent after voiding his contract, correct? The option to void his contract doesn't give him a loophole to unrestricted free agency, I assume.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 03:20 PM   #43
Registered User
 
The Goat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,662
Re: Current Redskins Salary Cap Status - 2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
Moss is interesting, and I WOULD deal him this offseason if I could get a second round pick for him.

For whatever reason, he's one of the few players on the Redskins whose perception around the league exceeds his value to the team. With most players, it tends to be the other way around. So I'd see what's out there. Obviously, don't just trade Moss to get rid of him, but somebody might throw money and a draft pick or two at this problem.
Moss trade appears too risky w/ the (limited) knowledge we've got: Thomas and Kelly both would need to make significant progress w/o Moss in the game to provide some kind of receiving threat.

... very risky.
The Goat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 03:24 PM   #44
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,587
Re: Current Redskins Salary Cap Status - 2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
Moss is interesting, and I WOULD deal him this offseason if I could get a second round pick for him.

For whatever reason, he's one of the few players on the Redskins whose perception around the league exceeds his value to the team. With most players, it tends to be the other way around. So I'd see what's out there. Obviously, don't just trade Moss to get rid of him, but somebody might throw money and a draft pick or two at this problem.
I tend to agree. And if the rumors are true, he's much more actively being shopped and likely to be traded than Rogers. Apparently, the Redskins are eyeing three 2nd rounders again.
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2009, 03:46 PM   #45
Franchise Player
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 35
Posts: 9,914
Re: Current Redskins Salary Cap Status - 2009

I'd trade Moss for a 2 but we'd still need a #1WR. Where is that coming from. Thomas looks like a turd in the makin g and while Kelly has serious talent his knees indicate he'll never play 16 a year. Randle El can't even do the #2 job sufficiently. We can get by with Kelly @ #2 to me(cross fingers on his knees).
FRPLG 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 12:32 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 0.48491 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