Redskins 2013 Salary Cap Status

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Effectively yes, because they just dock you league minimum per player drafted until they sign.

So if you had less than 51 players under contract, draft day could put you over the cap, in theory.

well ok, but we have our 51 highest, and I guess my question is, how many rookies from the 3rd thru 7th round will be in the top 51? I wouldn't think any of them, so effectively only our 2nd rounder would possibly be a cap hit of any significance.

For example last years 51st pick, Jerel Worthy for Green Bay, had a cap hit of 717,855.
at number 31 on our roster, but he would knock out AlfMo, so the additional cap hit would only be about 160,000.

I think without the 1st round pick this year our safety cap space is much less than in a normal year. crazy year all around in the skins salary cap world that's for sure.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

well ok, but we have our 51 highest, and I guess my question is, how many rookies from the 3rd thru 7th round will be in the top 51? I wouldn't think any of them, so effectively only our 2nd rounder would possibly be a cap hit of any significance.

For example last years 51st pick, Jerel Worthy for Green Bay, had a cap hit of 717,855.
at number 31 on our roster, but he would knock out AlfMo, so the additional cap hit would only be about 160,000.

I think without the 1st round pick this year our safety cap space is much less than in a normal year. crazy year all around in the skins salary cap world that's for sure.

yeah, our 2nd rounder would knock out whoever's #51 right now, and the difference between him and the guy he replaced would be the actual cap hit.

the skins will be paying out 3.5-4mill to drafted/undrafted rookies, but the actual cap hit will be maybe 400k for our #2 pick.

the draft is SOO much better in terms of value since the new CBA.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

well ok, but we have our 51 highest, and I guess my question is, how many rookies from the 3rd thru 7th round will be in the top 51? I wouldn't think any of them, so effectively only our 2nd rounder would possibly be a cap hit of any significance.

For example last years 51st pick, Jerel Worthy for Green Bay, had a cap hit of 717,855.
at number 31 on our roster, but he would knock out AlfMo, so the additional cap hit would only be about 160,000.

I think without the 1st round pick this year our safety cap space is much less than in a normal year. crazy year all around in the skins salary cap world that's for sure.

You're right. It's negligible.

I mean, once you accept that the Redskins were kind of cornered into a free agency strategy that was probably the best one to take all along, the cap penalty becomes a non issue. It's negative effects are in the past now, and the Redskins can more or less do whatever they want with the remaining free agents, draft, and trades. Getting the money back now would be awesome for cap rollover purposes, but if you look as the penalty as the thing that forced the Redskins to be disciplined in free agency, I think it was overall a net positives.

This is not an endorsement of every move the Redskins made the last two years (Ced Griff, Trueblood were both pointless money dumps), but the tempered approach in free agency has changed our cap/roster talent situation from the worst in the division, to possibly the best.

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

You're right. It's negligible.

I mean, once you accept that the Redskins were kind of cornered into a free agency strategy that was probably the best one to take all along, the cap penalty becomes a non issue. It's negative effects are in the past now, and the Redskins can more or less do whatever they want with the remaining free agents, draft, and trades. Getting the money back now would be awesome for cap rollover purposes, but if you look as the penalty as the thing that forced the Redskins to be disciplined in free agency, I think it was overall a net positives.

This is not an endorsement of every move the Redskins made the last two years (Ced Griff, Trueblood were both pointless money dumps), but the tempered approach in free agency has changed our cap/roster talent situation from the worst in the division, to possibly the best.

I don't agree that the cap penalty was a positive. If the Redskins hadn't had the penalty, I think the FO would have still had a disciplined approach, but the talent level of our FAs would be way higher. The cap penalty forced us to take the mid tier FA approach. Think of the talent we could have picked up if we had had an extra 18 million.

But this is all just:

[That Guy]

or think of the future or front-loading of contracts that money could have gone to...

[CrazyCanuck]

From Tandler:
Redskins over the cap? - Rich Tandler's Real Redskins

He provided this link updated a few times a day:
https://nflplayers.com/reports/RunPu...x?report=top51

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by CrazyCanuck

From Tandler:
Redskins over the cap? - Rich Tandler's Real Redskins

He provided this link updated a few times a day:
https://nflplayers.com/reports/RunPu...x?report=top51

It is really difficult to justify having a Salary Cap to keep things competitive for small market teams when there are perennially losing teams like Cleveland ($33,000,000), Jacksonville ($27,000,000), Tamps Bay ($26,500,000), Cincinnati ($25,000,000) under the cap and refuse to spend. These owner just take the TV money and pocket it. Cheap. It is a disgrace because they do not even try to field a winning team.
Is it not enough that the NFL splits all of the profits evenly among all the owners/teams regardless of how much money generating that team brings to the NFL table? I hear Jacksonville's season ticket holders base is so small it is an embarrassment.

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

5 Largest Salary Cap Hits for the Washington Redskins in 2013 | Bleacher Report

Interesting read.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by artmonkforhallofamein07

5 Largest Salary Cap Hits for the Washington Redskins in 2013 | Bleacher Report

Interesting read.

Cofield's salary is absurd relative to his importance to the defense and performance among DT's league-wide. Can't believe anyone has the gall to bitch about paying Fletcher when Cofield is earning that

Garcon is (still) far too inconsistent a threat to command anywhere near what the FO paid him either. Not just his injury status, which is still a concern, but looking at his overall production in the NFL. Remember, this is a guy who still can't break 1000 yards in a season. Hopefully he rebounds and earns that contract starting this season.

To think we could have paid just a little more this off-season for a guy like Mike Wallace. Argh!

[donofriose]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

It is really difficult to justify having a Salary Cap to keep things competitive for small market teams when there are perennially losing teams like Cleveland ($33,000,000), Jacksonville ($27,000,000), Tamps Bay ($26,500,000), Cincinnati ($25,000,000) under the cap and refuse to spend. These owner just take the TV money and pocket it. Cheap. It is a disgrace because they do not even try to field a winning team.
Is it not enough that the NFL splits all of the profits evenly among all the owners/teams regardless of how much money generating that team brings to the NFL table? I hear Jacksonville's season ticket holders base is so small it is an embarrassment.

The only team I would not put on that list is Cincinnati, they just do not like spending money on players they do not draft.

[donofriose]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Cofield's salary is absurd relative to his importance to the defense and performance among DT's league-wide. Can't believe anyone has the gall to bitch about paying Fletcher when Cofield is earning that

Garcon is (still) far too inconsistent a threat to command anywhere near what the FO paid him either. Not just his injury status, which is still a concern, but looking at his overall production in the NFL. Remember, this is a guy who still can't break 1000 yards in a season. Hopefully he rebounds and earns that contract starting this season.

To think we could have paid just a little more this off-season for a guy like Mike Wallace. Argh!

I do agree that all those players are overpaid except for Trent Williams.

I disagree in trying to sign Mike Wallace. He is not worth 60 million over 5 years.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by donofriose

I do agree that all those players are overpaid except for Trent Williams.

I disagree in trying to sign Mike Wallace. He is not worth 60 million over 5 years.

Definitely not considering he's mostly a one trick pony.

Garçon proved to be a difference maker when he was in the lineup.

[Schneed10]

Garcon was an elite receiver for us when he was on the field. How quickly people forget his role in the 7 game win streak. He and Griffin together spells a pro bowl berth for Garcon sometime in the next few years.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Definitely not considering he's mostly a one trick pony.

Garçon proved to be a difference maker when he was in the lineup.

I would take Garcon over Wallace everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. Garcon is more expensive, but, when he was on the field, we won. He is simply a more versatile receiver than Wallace.

[mbedner3420]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Garcon was an elite receiver for us when he was on the field. How quickly people forget his role in the 7 game win streak. He and Griffin together spells a pro bowl berth for Garcon sometime in the next few years.

I very much agree with this. As long as he remains healthy, he'll no doubt remain productive with RG3...