Jansen's Future in Doubt?

[Gmanc711]

Maybe I missed somthing, but I saw nothing in that article other than they were going to approach Jansen for a restructure, did I miss somthing?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

Maybe I missed somthing, but I saw nothing in that article other than they were going to approach Jansen for a restructure, did I miss somthing?

I think people are jumping over a litle side note that the guy added to his story abd right now there's nothing to worry about. I'm not sure what Jansen is set to be paid this year but I think its more than his worth as a free agent.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I think people are jumping over a litle side note that the guy added to his story abd right now there's nothing to worry about. I'm not sure what Jansen is set to be paid this year but I think its more than his worth as a free agent.

yeah it's funny how people are already making their post-Jansen plans, writing him off, etc.

I think we just need to calm down a second and wait this out.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

yeah it's funny how people are already making their post-Jansen plans, writing him off, etc.

I think we just need to calm down a second and wait this out.

I agree. But, given the dearth of any news coming out of Redskins Park, we're latching on to anything at this point.

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

Maybe I missed somthing, but I saw nothing in that article other than they were going to approach Jansen for a restructure, did I miss somthing?

My feelings exactly. My guess is that Jansen has been amenable to simple restructures in the past, and he has a big enough contract to make a difference to the cap numbers.

[SmootSmack]

I'm with you Gmanc

[Pocket$ $traight]

Looking at the Redskins Cap, this may sound silly but they are in great shape. They are currently 2.9 over (not counting Thrash's savings). If they didn't restructure one contract (which they will) they could cut Wynn and John Hall and be about 1.4 under. Not to mention, if you look at Canuck's sheet, there are 63 players on there. So the rumor that they will be scrambling to field a team just isn't true. Now, the depth isn't anything to write home about but at least they have some flexibility.

I forget which article it was but the one that said (paraphrasing) "the only reason a big name would go is if they choose to let them go" is spot on. The cap won't be driving that decision.

I love seeing a low dead cap number. It prevents your hands from being tied. I almost hope that if they release Brunell, they do it before March 1st then that 3.1 won't be hanging over them next year (which looks to be a much more challenging year from a cap perspective. I see Portis gone after '07).

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Looking at the Redskins Cap, this may sound silly but they are in great shape. They are currently 2.9 over (not counting Thrash's savings). If they didn't restructure one contract (which they will) they could cut Wynn and John Hall and be about 1.4 under. Not to mention, if you look at Canuck's sheet, there are 63 players on there. So the rumor that they will be scrambling to field a team just isn't true. Now, the depth isn't anything to write home about but at least they have some flexibility.

I forget which article it was but the one that said (paraphrasing) "the only reason a big name would go is if they choose to let them go" is spot on. The cap won't be driving that decision.

I love seeing a low dead cap number. It prevents your hands from being tied. I almost hope that if they release Brunell, they do it before March 1st then that 3.1 won't be hanging over them next year (which looks to be a much more challenging year from a cap perspective. I see Portis gone after '07).

First paragraph I agree with, they're in fine shape with the cap. But Canuck's cap sheet only includes the highest 51 salaries (rule of 51). It doesn't include all 63 players in the bottom line number.

I would like to see the team restructure several of the big contracts and axe Brunell this year, for cap purposes, as well.

I disagree on 2008 being a tough cap year. They'll be in the same boat they are this year. There will be plenty of deals that can be restructured to clear up cap space just as they're doing this year.

The only reason things wouldn't work out with Jansen and Springs is if the team sends the message that they're not valued as highly as they used to be. Otherwise, I don't see why it wouldn't work out.

Let's everyone not jump the gun here, I personally have the strong suspicion that La Canfora doesn't know what he's talking about on the Jansen and Springs situation.

[That Guy]

restructuring is doing the team a favor, so generally, you get more money for helping them out (unless you're really in danger of being cut and losing real money due to your contract and your poor performance).

whether your willing to restructure or not doesn't necessarily have that much to do with wanting to be a redskin. If the FO was more careful in contract valuations and budgeting, they wouldn't need to beg the players to rework their deals every year.

and why wouldn't a player rather get more money up front? cause the backloaded portion makes him much more likely to get cut later, or be subjected to yearly restructures to continually extend the bacloaded year from coming due.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by That Guy

restructuring is doing the team a favor, so generally, you get more money for helping them out (unless you're really in danger of being cut and losing real money due to your contract and your poor performance).

This isn't true. At least not with the 'Skins. All of our restructures last year were simple restructures. The net impact to cash flow was 0. Each player accepted their base salaries up front in a lump sum payment. They didn't get any more $ than their contract called for.

You run into trouble when a player is nearing the end of his contract. If you want to clear salary cap for those players, you need to extend them.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

This isn't true. At least not with the 'Skins. All of our restructures last year were simple restructures. The net impact to cash flow was 0. Each player accepted their base salaries up front in a lump sum payment. They didn't get any more $ than their contract called for.

You run into trouble when a player is nearing the end of his contract. If you want to clear salary cap for those players, you need to extend them.

well, you missed where i said generally, or the post i was responding too. but for example, jansen's restructure added a whole lot more money to the pot for him with the extra years.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by That Guy

well, you missed where i said generally, or the post i was responding too. but for example, jansen's restructure added a whole lot more money to the pot for him with the extra years.

That comment was a while ago, I don't quite remember what we were talking about. But yeah, when a contract is backloaded like ours always are, you have two choices: extend the contract or cut the player. There's always a third option: try to get the player to accept a paycut. That hardly ever goes over well, though.

[Hog1]

He's not going anywhere, unless Joe2 decides to let him go.

[Gmanc711]

For those who still think his future is in doubt...its allegedly being reported on Comcast that Jansen signed a four year extension worth 22 million dollars.

EDIT:

Welcome to Comcast SportsNet

Done deal

[dblanch66]

Jansen is also a LEADER on this team. We need him in the locker room and in the game to fire up the guys. He has been a Redskin his whole career, so I hope this deal keeps him here 'til he retires. The move was made so that we could re sign Dock. Watch...it's coming next. And by the way..
Dallas Sucks.