Peter King on The Skins - Future Cap Trouble

[#56fanatic]

This is the same stuff we get into every year. I have been singing this song the last couple of seasons with the way we sign contracts and convert salary to bonuses. Every time they restructure the deals, the money is pushed to the future. Eventually it comes time to pay up. I think they should start taking some hits now in places we can and start drafting and making wiser decisions on FA market. I saw this fact also, we are over that much in the cap with only 40+ players signed.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

This is the same stuff we get into every year. I have been singing this song the last couple of seasons with the way we sign contracts and convert salary to bonuses. Every time they restructure the deals, the money is pushed to the future. Eventually it comes time to pay up. I think they should start taking some hits now in places we can and start drafting and making wiser decisions on FA market. I saw this fact also, we are over that much in the cap with only 40+ players signed.

You and I have butted heads on this before, and I'm not going to get into a big thing again. You are right in that the general principle of restructuring players pushes money off into the future. But if you pick and choose which players you do that for, plus occasionally clear a disappointing player off your books, plus take into account the rising cap limit, you can manage your cap number without coming up against the cap hell. It's not smart to restructure ALL of your players, that's too much pushed into the future. It's also not smart to restructure NONE of your players, because then we'd have to cut a bunch of guys this year. The best approach lies in the middle, the Goldilocks syndrome, just right.

Remember, we shed a bunch of money from the awful Archuleta contract, clearing him off our books this year. Remember, the cap limit is going up by about $8 million in 2008. We weren't in dire straits last year like everyone said, and we won't be in 2008 either.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

You and I have butted heads on this before, and I'm not going to get into a big thing again. You are right in that the general principle of restructuring players pushes money off into the future. But if you pick and choose which players you do that for, plus occasionally clear a disappointing player off your books, plus take into account the rising cap limit, you can manage your cap number without coming up against the cap hell. It's not smart to restructure ALL of your players, that's too much pushed into the future. It's also not smart to restructure NONE of your players, because then we'd have to cut a bunch of guys this year. The best approach lies in the middle, the Goldilocks syndrome, just right.

Remember, we shed a bunch of money from the awful Archuleta contract, clearing him off our books this year. Remember, the cap limit is going up by about $8 million in 2008. We weren't in dire straits last year like everyone said, and we won't be in 2008 either.

Here comes the cap hell folks, LOL here we go again

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

You and I have butted heads on this before, and I'm not going to get into a big thing again. You are right in that the general principle of restructuring players pushes money off into the future. But if you pick and choose which players you do that for, plus occasionally clear a disappointing player off your books, plus take into account the rising cap limit, you can manage your cap number without coming up against the cap hell. It's not smart to restructure ALL of your players, that's too much pushed into the future. It's also not smart to restructure NONE of your players, because then we'd have to cut a bunch of guys this year. The best approach lies in the middle, the Goldilocks syndrome, just right.

Remember, we shed a bunch of money from the awful Archuleta contract, clearing him off our books this year. Remember, the cap limit is going up by about $8 million in 2008. We weren't in dire straits last year like everyone said, and we won't be in 2008 either.

i wont get into a lenghty discussion on this either. The way things are done now is the reason we see our roster changes every few years. I hope things change in the near future. I am kind of tired of retooling the roster every few years. The signings of Cooley, Sellers, Betts is in the right direction. Keeping draft picks and using them next year will hopefully stop all the overpaid signings. I do think our FO does a good job of working the cap figures, but the costly signings of Lloyd, Arch, Brunell (money and picks) ect hurt us more in the long run because of dead money. cutting lloyd is like 7 million in dead money next year. Arch has to be costing some money too.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

i wont get into a lenghty discussion on this either. The way things are done now is the reason we see our roster changes every few years. I hope things change in the near future. I am kind of tired of retooling the roster every few years. The signings of Cooley, Sellers, Betts is in the right direction. Keeping draft picks and using them next year will hopefully stop all the overpaid signings. I do think our FO does a good job of working the cap figures, but the costly signings of Lloyd, Arch, Brunell (money and picks) ect hurt us more in the long run because of dead money. cutting lloyd is like 7 million in dead money next year. Arch has to be costing some money too.

Can't argue with any of this, except to correct that Arch is costing us much. We farmed $5 million in Archuleta dead money off to the Bears. In the grand scheme, Arch is barely a blip on our dead-money radar.

I think the team needed to make free agent acquisitions mainly because Spurrier didn't manage to leave the team chock full of talent. The 'Skins had to make some free agent moves and make some trades to get the players they liked. Those 2004 moves were pretty solid, all in all. But they whiffed miserably on the Archuleta, Lloyd, and Duckett moves, which really hurt the team's depth.

From what I've seen, they now are liking the guys they've drafted, which wasn't the case when Gibbs first took over. Now they're managing the team quite a bit better, IMO.

[CrazyCanuck]

God bless Schneed.

[70Chip]

Aren't we in this situation every year? And don't we always fudge through it? Peter King needs to be more careful and do more research the next time an executive from another team puts him on to a "hot tip". This reeks of the Giants FO to me.