Redskin Insider -- Don't Believe the Hype

[GTripp0012]

But what if the money dries up?

I think the Skins are banking on the league being uncapped in the future. If 2009 is the final year the NFL ever has a salary cap on, we can push enough money into the future to where we are paying a ton of salary in 2010, and that'll be fine.

Because if that's not the plan, once the cap stops accelerating upward, we won't be able to hold our own roster. I mean, we already can't really add to the team through free agency (although if we want, we should have the cap room for a major move next season).

Actually, the end of the cap would be a wonderful, wonderful thing for the Redskins. Anthony Montgomery, Kedric Golston, Jason Campbell, Carlos Rogers, Reed Doughty, and Rocky McIntosh would all be unrestricted FAs in 2010 if the owners don't back out of the CBA, but if they do, all 6 of those guys would be restricted free agents, and effectively, Redskins through 2011.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

But what if the money dries up?

I think the Skins are banking on the league being uncapped in the future. If 2009 is the final year the NFL ever has a salary cap on, we can push enough money into the future to where we are paying a ton of salary in 2010, and that'll be fine.

Because if that's not the plan, once the cap stops accelerating upward, we won't be able to hold our own roster. I mean, we already can't really add to the team through free agency (although if we want, we should have the cap room for a major move next season).

Actually, the end of the cap would be a wonderful, wonderful thing for the Redskins. Anthony Montgomery, Kedric Golston, Jason Campbell, Carlos Rogers, Reed Doughty, and Rocky McIntosh would all be unrestricted FAs in 2010 if the owners don't back out of the CBA, but if they do, all 6 of those guys would be restricted free agents, and effectively, Redskins through 2011.

as long as we don't sign or trade for any big name guys, then our cap will be fine. If our only major additions in the next couple of years are draft picks, and we start to get rid of the old veterans (like Daniels, Washington, Springs, and Griffin), we will have a lot more smaller contracts.

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by steveo395

as long as we don't sign or trade for any big name guys, then our cap will be fine. If our only major additions in the next couple of years are draft picks, and we start to get rid of the old veterans (like Daniels, Washington, Springs, and Griffin), we will have a lot more smaller contracts.

I hope that greater emphasis is placed on the draft every year, providing a solid pool of very cheap talent if done well. I'm very excited with our prospects for this draft - I can't remember the last time that we held 4 picks in the first 3 rounds.

[Beemnseven]

The history of the NFL is full of flash-in-the-pan running backs who look like dynamite for a season or two, then rapidly fade away. So far, Portis has lasted longer than that. To assume that he is immune to that scenario is shortsighted.

It wouldn't surprise me that if 2008 is less than spectacular, his time here will be shorter than expected.

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

The history of the NFL is full of flash-in-the-pan running backs who look like dynamite for a season or two, then rapidly fade away. So far, Portis has lasted longer than that. To assume that he is immune to that scenario is shortsighted.

It wouldn't surprise me that if 2008 is less than spectacular, his time here will be shorter than expected.

JLC's point is that by giving him big up front money and guaranteeing his salaries in 2008-2009, and a good portion in 2010, the scenario you suggest is not a possibility.

The point is not that Portis is a flash in the pan running back, but rather that running backs typically have short windows of effectiveness in the NFL. Portis has a lot of carries in his first five seasons, is not a particularly big back, and his game is extremely physical. I think he can do it for another three years, but probably won't go much after he turns 30 - but few backs do. I suspect also that is part of the reason why the FO felt comfortable guaranteeing salaries basically until Portis is 29-30. That is typically when elite running backs decline in effectiveness (typically dramatically, see Shaun Alexander - Tiki Barber is an exception, but had fewer carries early in his career).

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

JLC's point is that by giving him big up front money and guaranteeing his salaries in 2008-2009, and a good portion in 2010, the scenario you suggest is not a possibility.

The point is not that Portis is a flash in the pan running back, but rather that running backs typically have short windows of effectiveness in the NFL. Portis has a lot of carries in his first five seasons, is not a particularly big back, and his game is extremely physical. I think he can do it for another three years, but probably won't go much after he turns 30 - but few backs do. I suspect also that is part of the reason why the FO felt comfortable guaranteeing salaries basically until Portis is 29-30. That is typically when elite running backs decline in effectiveness (typically dramatically, see Shaun Alexander - Tiki Barber is an exception, but had fewer carries early in his career).

You are correct about that being his point but I think some of us are saying that his point is just wrong. I think we'll all stipulate that RBs have a short shelf life and CP may indeed even be on the front part of the curve on that but from a financial standpoint that is basically irrelevant taken our current cap strategy.

Our strategy is the pay players MORE now but have them account less against the cap so that we pay them LESS in the future and have them count more against the cap. The only other strategy is basically the ooposite. You cannot mix the two nor can you compare them really. In the end if we pay CP less now and in the recent past during his most productive years and pay him in the future during his declining years we still paid him the same amount of cap space dollars over all. There is no way to get around that. One strategy doesn't create more cap dollars than another. They are financially equivalent. One strategy does though allow for more consistent flexibility because it relies on cash, something completely separate from the cap, to get players as needed. Are there years when there can be less flexibility? Absolutely but these years are planned. I wonder if it has even occured to JLC that what he suggests is an inability to sign free agents because of the cap is actually something planned because they didn't want to sign any free agents this year?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

You are correct about that being his point but I think some of us are saying that his point is just wrong. I think we'll all stipulate that RBs have a short shelf life and CP may indeed even be on the front part of the curve on that but from a financial standpoint that is basically irrelevant taken our current cap strategy.

Our strategy is the pay players MORE now but have them account less against the cap so that we pay them LESS in the future and have them count more against the cap. The only other strategy is basically the ooposite. You cannot mix the two nor can you compare them really. In the end if we pay CP less now and in the recent past during his most productive years and pay him in the future during his declining years we still paid him the same amount of cap space dollars over all. There is no way to get around that. One strategy doesn't create more cap dollars than another. They are financially equivalent. One strategy does though allow for more consistent flexibility because it relies on cash, something completely separate from the cap, to get players as needed. Are there years when there can be less flexibility? Absolutely but these years are planned. I wonder if it has even occured to JLC that what he suggests is an inability to sign free agents because of the cap is actually something planned because they didn't want to sign any free agents this year?

But it's not irrelevant because you still can't put that money somewhere else in the event that CP can't physically perform anymore. I mean, we won't have money to chase maybe more than one significant free agent next year, and we only will have that if we don't give a big deal this year.

In addition, if we renegotiate the CBA, we have to find cap room to sign Campbell, McIntosh, Montgomery, Doughty, Gholston, and Rogers. But if the CBA is backed out of and not renegotiated, all of those guys would remain under team control through 2010, though we will probably pay Campbell anyway to be the face of the franchise.

The point is this: if the NFL continues to have a salary cap, a deal like Portis' is pretty crippling if he can't make our rushing attack league average or better. If you are going to give that kind of money to a running back, Portis is a great guy to give it too, but that doesn't make it an intelligent business move.