Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by artmonkforhallofamein07

Looking at the cap spread sheet, we will have to be some where in the neighborhood of 29 mil under the cap this coming up year. We are currently only about 7 mil under the cap and the punishment set out by the league was for us to be 36 mil under the cap between two years, 2012 and 2013. The way it looks now if the penalty stays in place is we will have a cap of around 91mil this year when you take into the account for the penalty that is left over.

I dont know what cap sheet you're looking at. If we are assessed the full 18MM hit, the sheet on this site has us only a couple million under the projected cap for 2013.

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I dont know what cap sheet you're looking at. If we are assessed the full 18MM hit, the sheet on this site has us only a couple million under the projected cap for 2013.

Look at the link that Matty posted. 120,7 mil was the cap for this year for the league last year. Meaning we would only have 102,7 available if we took the full 18m. Our bottom line # was something like 113,9. So we weren't at that 102,7 # that would have split the 36mil over the two seasons.

[los panda]

Originally Posted by artmonkforhallofamein07

Look at the link that Matty posted. 120,7 mil was the cap for this year for the league last year. Meaning we would only have 102,7 available if we took the full 18m. Our bottom line # was something like 113,9. So we weren't at that 102,7 # that would have split the 36mil over the two seasons.

keep in mind that it is not official, and that it was last updated before the regular season started

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by artmonkforhallofamein07

Look at the link that Matty posted. 120,7 mil was the cap for this year for the league last year. Meaning we would only have 102,7 available if we took the full 18m. Our bottom line # was something like 113,9. So we weren't at that 102,7 # that would have split the 36mil over the two seasons.

Are you trying to argue that we didnt take an 18MM cap penalty last year, and as a result, we'll take more than 18MM this year? You are mistaken. The NFL forced us to take the 18MM hit last year. I beleive you are misinterpretting the information on the cap spreadsheet:

The Warpath

Originally Posted by CrazyCanuck

My sheets include an $18M penalty. However we had $13M of unused cap space from last year which helps to offset.

[los panda]

for example, did jammal brown really count $4.5M against our cap?
carriker, the entire $3.9M?
orakpo, the entire $3M?
etc.

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

BHA I may be, and I'll admit it if I am wrong. That is why I asked the question and I was hoping for CC to confirm we took the 18 mil this year.

[MTK]

$18M penalty taken this year, we'll take another $18M next year.

Not sure what the confusion is all about.

[los panda]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

$18M penalty taken this year, we'll take another $18M next year.

Not sure what the confusion is all about.

i don't think it's clearly reflected on the cap summary sheet

[GoSkins!]

Originally Posted by Coff

I'm just going to make an observation here:

For the past thirteen years, the Redskins have consistently been the biggest spender in the off-season. Nearly without exception, they have every year made a giant splash in free-agent signings. And this has been the greatest criticism of a team that has been one of the least successful teams in the NFL over that time period. The Redskins have been mocked for foolishly wasting money and continuing to believe that whatever holes the team has can be quickly and easily filled via free agency.

Then, in 2012, within hours of the beginning of free agency, the Redskins were stripped of the opportunity to engage in the free-agent market as they usually do. Nine months later, the team won its first division title in thirteen seasons, mostly on the backs of unproven, hungry, young talent.

I'm not convinced that allowing the Redskins to go back to their old ways is going to produce results different from those of the past.

I have been thinking this same thing ever since the Giants were watching the Redskins and Cowboys battle for the NFC EAST crown. Mara forced the Redskins to be fiscally conservative and utilize more young, hungry players along with re-signing key team members from the year before.

Kind of ironic huh?

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by GoSkins!

I have been thinking this same thing ever since the Giants were watching the Redskins and Cowboys battle for the NFC EAST crown. Mara forced the Redskins to be fiscally conservative and utilize more young, hungry players along with re-signing key team members from the year before.

Kind of ironic huh?

The skins have been fiscally conservative since Shanahan and Allen took over. It was nothing like it was under the "Snyderatto years." If Mara didn't try to F us over, we wouldnt have spent like crazy. we would have probably signed 2 or 3 talented, but not elite secondary players to reasonable contracts, and perhaps signed someone like Eddie Royal who would have made the roster instead of Brandon Banks. There's not telling what we would have done, but we certainly wouldn't have done anything crazy.

... Except perhaps sign Peyton Manning, if we were truly seriously interested. If we had, i really dont think we would have drafted RGIII. Just seems like overkill. Yeah, we had already traded for the #2 pick, but we easily could have flipped the pick to the browns, used our 1st rounder on Matt Kalil or Morris Claybourne, our 2nd on Janoris Jenkins, and still gotten Kirk Cousins to eventually take over from Manning.

Come to think of it, if that was our plan, then Mara really did screw us over. Not that we could have forseen RGIII getting hurt or Cousins being as good as he appears to be, but that scenario would seem to set our team up for more short and long-term success than what we have now. Oh well, so much for that crazy fantasy.

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

$18M penalty taken this year, we'll take another $18M next year.

Not sure what the confusion is all about.

It isn't taken into account on the spreadsheet you posted that CC does. No worries, but that is where my confusion came from.

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by artmonkforhallofamein07

It isn't taken into account on the spreadsheet you posted that CC does. No worries, but that is where my confusion came from.

Sorry if the sheets are confusing but yes the $18M for 2012 is included.

The penalty is part of "cap credits" at the bottom. We took an $18M penalty but we had $13M of credits from the year before. So works out to ~$5M.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by CrazyCanuck

Sorry if the sheets are confusing but yes the $18M for 2012 is included.

The penalty is part of "cap credits" at the bottom. We took an $18M penalty but we had $13M of credits from the year before. So works out to ~$5M.

Thanks for explaining, I was trying to see it listed, but didn't see it as a singular line item.

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Thanks for explaining, I was trying to see it listed, but didn't see it as a singular line item.

Ya maybe I'll rename it "Cap Penalties & Credits" to make it clearer.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by CrazyCanuck

Ya maybe I'll rename it "Cap Penalties & Credits" to make it clearer.

If you're going to rename things, i think it would be helpful to have three different rows: One called "Cap Penalties," "Cap Credits" and a "Net Penalty/Credit" which shows the net of the two. Maybe another name for the last column would be better, but i can see this being a continuing point of confusion throughout the offseason. If i hadnt read your post in the other thread, i wouldnt have understood what the the factors went into the "credits" calculation.

If thats too complicated, maybe we could just have a footnote or something on the page that explains how the "Cap Penalties & Credits" was calculated.