Redskins 2013 Salary Cap Status

[SkinzWin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I need to inject some happiness into this thread.




My work is done.

I'll see your happiness and raise you hilarity….

[CRedskinsRule]

Would I be raising the spectre of OJ if I were to ask why Morgan Freeman is only wearing one glove? At least it looks like it fits.

[NYCskinfan82]

Originally Posted by SkinzWin

I'll see your happiness and raise you hilarity….

LMFAO.

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by SkinzWin

I'll see your happiness and raise you hilarity….

Lol the freeman face on rg3 reminds me of those sad looking bloodhounds.

[mbedner3420]

Originally Posted by SkinzWin

I'll see your happiness and raise you hilarity….

That is absolutely amazing! Well done.

[MTK]

Josh Wilson takes $2 million reduction | ProFootballTalk

[JoeRedskin]

3M is more commensurate with his worth to the team.

[CrazyCanuck]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Josh Wilson takes $2 million reduction | ProFootballTalk

Have to say I'm loving BA and these pay cuts. I don't think we had a single pay cut in the Vinny regime.

It's like we don't hear a peep for weeks then all of sudden - "Josh Wilson has agreed to take a $2M pay cut."

Really? He just agreed?? Guess BA made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

Quick question for the cap gurus.

Currently we have 2 mil in space enough to sign our picks.

Now that the draft is over and FA is close to done. How will the Skins create some more space? They would probably want to go into the season with 2-4 million at minimum to have the ability to make roster moves if and when they are nessecessary.

With the talk currently regarding wether or not to extend Rak's contract, got me thinking as to where they would clear space.

Now that starting players left on the roster in the secondary have all taken paycuts would it save money to let one go if they feel happy with the rookie and second year players?

If not in the secondary than could a player like Chester or Carricker be in danger of losing their jobs due more in part to money rather than having the adequate roster depth to make the move.

[That Guy]

the draft picks aren't going to cost them any money. when figuring out your salary (for the cap), you only count the top 51 salaries. our rookies (outside of amerson) will be vet minimum and won't affect the cap number at all. amerson will add maybe 100k or so (whatever his salary is - vet min guy at the #51 spot).

[CRedskinsRule]

The easiest way to clear space as I understand it would be TW's contract, Garcon would be a close second. But this FO is loathe to restructure, so I imagine they will go in with a bare minimum, and have 2-3 backup plans if a major restructure became necessary due to injury.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by That Guy

the draft picks aren't going to cost them any money. when figuring out your salary (for the cap), you only count the top 51 salaries. our rookies (outside of amerson) will be vet minimum and won't affect the cap number at all. amerson will add maybe 100k or so (whatever his salary is - vet min guy at the #51 spot).

The rule of 51 only applies in the offseason. Once it gets time to cut down to the 53 man roster, all 53 of them count against the cap. So the rookies will most certainly have to be accounted for under the cap.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

The rule of 51 only applies in the offseason. Once it gets time to cut down to the 53 man roster, all 53 of them count against the cap. So the rookies will most certainly have to be accounted for under the cap.

Yes, but not at any incremental amount beyond what the bottom of the current 51 is counting.

Rookies make less than anybody else. 1st and 2nd round picks are the only exception to that. So when a rookie makes the team it will kick someone out of the cap total who's making more than a rookie.

So we have $3.6M or so to spend on the rookies, but when cut-down day arrives we'll kick $3.6M out of the cap number. Net impact will be minimal.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Yes, but not at any incremental amount beyond what the bottom of the current 51 is counting.

Rookies make less than anybody else. 1st and 2nd round picks are the only exception to that. So when a rookie makes the team it will kick someone out of the cap total who's making more than a rookie.

So we have $3.6M or so to spend on the rookies, but when cut-down day arrives we'll kick $3.6M out of the cap number. Net impact will be minimal.

What does any of that have to do with 51 people are counted against the cap in the offseason, and 53 are counted during the season (actually more than 53 if we have someone put on injured reserve).

While the overall premise may be true, there are exceptions. You are not taking into account that rookie contracts are now guaranteed. If a rookie from this year supplants a rookie from last year, we are still paying both contracts. Given how guarantees come due early, you could actually go up in cap space cutting a younger player on the new 4 year guaranteed contracts. As we get 4 years into the new CBA, meaning all 1st through 4th year players are operating under guaranteed contracts, you could be kicking off a year three or four player, and still be paying both contracts.

Rookies may make less than everyone else, but that doesnt mean paying for 5 guaranteed contracts when you only have 2 of those players remaining on your team has saved you cap space. If any player that we drafted and signed last year is cut, we are still paying for him this year. So adding a 7th rounder and cutting Josh Leribues will actually cost us cap space, not save it.

One other thing, kicking out a vet for a rookie is not instant cap space saving if the vet still has plenty of guaranteed money on a multiple year contract. There are plenty of ways to cut someone for a rookie, yet it cost cap space and not save it.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

What does any of that have to do with 51 people are counted against the cap in the offseason, and 53 are counted during the season (actually more than 53 if we have someone put on injured reserve).

While the overall premise may be true, there are exceptions. You are not taking into account that rookie contracts are now guaranteed. If a rookie from this year supplants a rookie from last year, we are still paying both contracts. Given how guarantees come due early, you could actually go up in cap space cutting a younger player on the new 4 year guaranteed contracts. As we get 4 years into the new CBA, meaning all 1st through 4th year players are operating under guaranteed contracts, you could be kicking off a year three or four player, and still be paying both contracts.

Rookies may make less than everyone else, but that doesnt mean paying for 5 guaranteed contracts when you only have 2 of those players remaining on your team has saved you cap space. If any player that we drafted and signed last year is cut, we are still paying for him this year. So adding a 7th rounder and cutting Josh Leribues will actually cost us cap space, not save it.

One other thing, kicking out a vet for a rookie is not instant cap space saving if the vet still has plenty of guaranteed money on a multiple year contract. There are plenty of ways to cut someone for a rookie, yet it cost cap space and not save it.

» Over the Cap- Washington Redskins 2013 Salary Cap Page

Pretty straight review of the cap situation. Not sure what your point is. The rule of 51 is only during the offseason, true, but unless you cut some guy who has a huge cap hit the effect of keeping a rookie is negligible. According to overthecap, there are 5 players who would be a net cap hit of over 500k if released, Griffin, TW, Kerrigan, Kory Licht, and Garcon. Pretty sure none of those guys are getting released. Plus should any release happen after June 1st, they become Jun1 cuts and some of there cap hit is pushed to next year.

As for IR, I am fairly confident that BA has a restructure lined up for both Garcon and TW that just needs a signature if it came to that. Just holding off unless it becomes imperative.