Redskin Insider -- Don't Believe the Hype

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, I wasn't talking about the Redskins, I was talking more about the shared revenue of the entire league, and thusly the salary cap.

What if there isn't a season in 2011, or if the season is strike shortened? That will dry up the cash really fast, I mean, look at baseball. If they choose to keep the cap in football beyond 2010, the league wide profits will dry up at some point. If that's ten years later...then it doesn't really mean anything, as we will be out of the woods by then. But what if between 2009 and 2012, the cap doesn't go up because the league is not earning any more money than it did the prior season?

If the cap doesn't go up, we won't be able to prorate any signing bonuses to get under the cap. We would have to cut players based on contract structure, not merit, and depending on how bad it is, we might not even be able to sign top end amature talent.

I hope that football moves away from a salary cap structure, and more towards what baseball has now. People think that would create some league disparity...and it would to the extent that the Cowboys and Redskins would be around the playoffs every year...but not to the extent that the Yankees and Red Sox are. It certainly would be easier on small-market teams to retain homegrown talent throughout it's useful life, (then it is in baseball) and you would still have the franchise tag if necessary.

But in a non-capped NFL, the only Free Agents that would ever hit the market would be guys in their primes who could provide immediate help to the Cowboys or Redskins, but would begin their decline as soon as they were signed due to age. Derrick Dockery would still be a Skin if that were the case.

Anyway, I think the Redskins are predicting the NFL will head in that direction, because it would have been easy to get away from bad contracts this offseason, but instead, they've restructured and will try to compete again.

A couple things:

A strike in 2011 would certainly cause problems for the Redskins cap situation, which certainly played a part in their decision not to pursue free agents this offseason.

But as for cash drying up in the NFL as a result of a strike, or any other reason for that matter, I think you're off base there. Baseball suffered financially from the '93 strike, but baseball does not have the same intense fan following that the NFL does. The appetite for NFL games is strong enough in most markets to support consistent increases in ticket prices and advertising rates. I know I for one would still pay DirecTV $500 to get access to all of the Skins games on TV each year. Please don't tell them I said that, because I much prefer $200. Major League Baseball's stadium venues aren't selling at max capacity like the NFL is. There is excess demand for the NFL's product, the same can't be said for baseball.

From a selfish standpoint, I wouldn't mind a shift to baseball's financial structure as it would mark the return of the annual dominance of the NFC East and our rivalries would no doubt heat up even further. But for league-wide revenues, it's a terrible idea. Fan interest will only decline within small markets, as fans begin to perceive that winning a championship is an impossibility.

[SmootSmack]

I would venture to guess that JLC understands it (as do many other journalists) but he's choosing to present the information in a different light.

I think a lot of it is in fact personal, and a lot of it is pressure to churn out stories. But, as the Insider, he should be churning out stories like "Lawrence Jackson will be visiting Redskins coaches tomorrow. Sources tell me the Redskins are talking to the Falcons about a trade that would send their 1st and Antwan Randle El to Atlanta for multiple picks, one of which would be spent on Jackson" (I totally made that rumor up).

That's an "Insider"

[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.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

We'd certainly be in trouble if the cap stopped accelerating, but why would it do that? I'm not saying it's impossible, but I don't think it's likely.

[djnemo65]

Yeah, how is this entry not merely rehashing the same things we have heard from him and others for years? And how can one ignore that this year marks a major change in the Redskins' personnel acquisiton philosophy?

He's all over the place in this post and it's hard to determine what his argument even is. If his point is that we are giving older players more than they deserve, I mean, who cares? Is he Snyder's accountant? All that matters is that we are under the cap (which once again we well are, in spite of the doomsday scenarios spewed in the media) and that we are able to implement our personnel philosophy, which again we are.

What are these "tough decisions" we don't want to make. You mean cutting capable players so we can be 20 million under the cap like the Pats and the Eagles? Again, who cares. All that matters is that we are able to field the team we feel best gives us a chance to win a championship.

Our strategy in the past was to value experience over youth; the results were questionable at best, and now we are going in a different direction. If you want to criticize the Redskins past player management fine, but don't sit here and nitpick numbers and act like nothing has changed, because obviously things have...

[hagams]

CP will be fine for a couple more years. I'm really thinking that the WCO is going to help him excel a little more than he has in recent years. I'm really hoping we can throw him the ball a couple more times. "If" his shoulder holds up, he should have a big season.

[GTripp0012]

I do think some fans will do that, but I'm not advocating the elimination of all revenue sharing.

Baseball is actually doing so well right now that all their franchises are making money. Six years ago, the Kansas City Royals had a payroll of 24 million dollars. This year, they are on the hook for 76 million in salary.

90% of football franchises are profitable, but the Bills, Jags, and Bengals are not making money. Five years ago, they were. To me, this signals that the end of the era of prosperity in the NFL is around the corner. Either way, it's going to hit the small market franchises well before it hits the large market ones, and either way, I think it will affect a decision to move away from a salary cap, and more importantly, a salary floor for the small market teams.

NFL teams can still be competitive on a 50 million dollar payroll, whereas baseball teams can not, save the A's of the early decade.