We must draft better...

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

On the Warpath's main page you'll see a link to the left hand side of the screen for Salary Cap Info. Click that and you'll get a set of spreadsheets with tabs at the bottom. Click on the cap summary sheet to see the players' cap figures for each season. These sheets are managed by CrazyCanuck.

I'm not saying there are different rules for the Redskins. I'm saying that the Redskins have not put themselves in the precarious situation that you are making them out to be in. When you examine the numbers, you can tell me where the major problems are that will cause us to dismantle our squad. Because I don't see it.

OK, I went throught them this morning and of the contracts listed there are a few that I would say could be problems. COULB BE problems.
1) LaVar, he is 12million next year, then its about 11 million a year there after.
2)Samuels 8 to 9 million everyyear for the 5
3) Brunell - 5.5 next yr,at 36yrs old then goes up about a million each year, with 9 million at age 40 approximately, now obviously I realize he probably doesn't make into 2007, which it will be about 8 million against the cap and spread that out, its about 4 million a year.
Portis jumps to 5.5 next year, then a million each year from there ending at about 8 or 9 million
Springs at 30 years old is 5.5 then 6.5 and around 8 million at like age 34.

those are the ones I think could be problems. 3 or 4 of those guys are key position player if not all, not counting Brunell.
when we get to 2008 We have aproximately 70+ million tied up in only 10 to 11 players. If those guys are released, because they still have multiple years left, your are talking about spreading out there bonuses over 2 year period max, of those players Lavar, samuels, springs, brunell, portis, all have big signing bonuses. Restructure? Still has future implications of some sort.

But overall, 2008 they will have to be reworking, cutting, or what ever. Which again leads to turnover on the roster ofter guys playing a few years together. I dont know what will happen in the 2007, 2008 or beyond. But 70+ million in 11 players is alot of money when you have 53 players to account for. The cap could be as much as 110 million by then, which gives you 40 million for 40 other guys. But we only have 17 guys under contract in 2008. Dont know, but you asked for what I thought would be , or could be problems and thats what I gather.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

But you continue to miss the main point. Go back and read all responses to Beem's posts.

Not again today!! He just said will our limited amount of cap space, we sometimes, SOMETIMES can not afford to keep certain players. I agreed with his statement, how am I missing the point, HOW!! I didn't make a point, I agreed with his!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

OK, I went throught them this morning and of the contracts listed there are a few that I would say could be problems. COULB BE problems.
1) LaVar, he is 12million next year, then its about 11 million a year there after.
2)Samuels 8 to 9 million everyyear for the 5
3) Brunell - 5.5 next yr,at 36yrs old then goes up about a million each year, with 9 million at age 40 approximately, now obviously I realize he probably doesn't make into 2007, which it will be about 8 million against the cap and spread that out, its about 4 million a year.
Portis jumps to 5.5 next year, then a million each year from there ending at about 8 or 9 million
Springs at 30 years old is 5.5 then 6.5 and around 8 million at like age 34.

those are the ones I think could be problems. 3 or 4 of those guys are key position player if not all, not counting Brunell.
when we get to 2008 We have aproximately 70+ million tied up in only 10 to 11 players. If those guys are released, because they still have multiple years left, your are talking about spreading out there bonuses over 2 year period max, of those players Lavar, samuels, springs, brunell, portis, all have big signing bonuses. Restructure? Still has future implications of some sort.

But overall, 2008 they will have to be reworking, cutting, or what ever. Which again leads to turnover on the roster ofter guys playing a few years together. I dont know what will happen in the 2007, 2008 or beyond. But 70+ million in 11 players is alot of money when you have 53 players to account for. The cap could be as much as 110 million by then, which gives you 40 million for 40 other guys. But we only have 17 guys under contract in 2008. Dont know, but you asked for what I thought would be , or could be problems and thats what I gather.

You need to check out the Release Fee tab. It's very revealing. It lists, for each year, the guy's expected cap hit for that year and the "release fee." The release fee represents the cap hit we'd carry for that player if we cut him or traded him that year. So basically, if the release fee is lower than the cap hit in that year, you can SAVE CAP ROOM by getting rid of that player.

With that in mind let's examine Brunell. In 2006, Brunell's cap hit will be $5.4 million if he's on the team, and his release fee would hit our cap with $5.7 million if we cut him. So we wouldn't want to cut him in 2006, because it would cost more to cut him than to keep him. Plus the intention was to have Brunell around as starter for 3 years. Sure enough, in 2007, the release fee would represent a savings over his 2007 cap hit. In 2007 he's scheduled to hit us for $6.6 million, but releasing him would hit us with only $4.3 million in dead money. That's a lot more palatable than something like Coles' $9 million.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. When we do eventually have to eat a hit on these guys, the hits aren't as big. The players signed under Spurrier like Coles and Trotter resulted in crippling blows to our salary cap. But Brunell won't, and that was one of the signings people were complaining about most.

Let's consider the rest of the players Gibbs has signed. Let's say we cut them in 2007. The most dead money we'd carry in 2007 would be for Carlos Rogers or Santana Moss, who would both hit us with $7 million in dead cap money. The rest would be like $4 million or less. Now, can you imagine us cutting Moss or Rogers by 2007? I can't. This is proof positive that we're in great shape. Samuels was a re-sign under Gibbs, he'd represent a big cap hit if we had to cut him. But he's such a rock and always plays hurt, the chance of cutting him seems pretty low.

Nobody has reasonable potential to decimate our salary cap, with the exception of Arrington. Arrington's contract is the one that causes most concern, but mostly because he is now developing a reputation as an injury-prone guy. But if you only have one player on your team that represents a risk of decimating your cap, you're not doing too bad. Again, we're not perfect. But we're in good shape overall.

[JoeRedskin]

Ladies and Gentlemen -

I believe we have found the true meaning of Question 3.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

But overall, 2008 they will have to be reworking, cutting, or what ever. Which again leads to turnover on the roster ofter guys playing a few years together. I dont know what will happen in the 2007, 2008 or beyond. But 70+ million in 11 players is alot of money when you have 53 players to account for. The cap could be as much as 110 million by then, which gives you 40 million for 40 other guys. But we only have 17 guys under contract in 2008. Dont know, but you asked for what I thought would be , or could be problems and thats what I gather.

If you're figuring a 10% rise in the salary cap each year, the 2008 cap will be $113 million. Seems about right given the new TV deals and such, it might even be higher. But I doubt lower than $113 million.

The $70 million that is currently wrapped up in those 11 players is mostly base salary and roster bonuses. That would easily be restructured by then, moving most of the money into the future years. But before you start, please spare me the sermon on delaying the cap hits in this fashion. As long as you don't delay TOO MUCH of it, you stay in great shape.

[MTK]

This thread is pretty much done. Schneed, JoeRedskin, etc., great points and I think the majority of us understand what's going on.

Let's give this thread a proper burial and let it die.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

This thread is pretty much done. Schneed, JoeRedskin, etc., great points and I think the majority of us understand what's going on.

Let's give this thread a proper burial and let it die.

Nice little shot Mattyk72. We all have our opinions. Just because one doesn't agree with you doesn't mean I dont understand what I am talking about. I gave articles supporting my claims as how the cap works. Now if in fact the skins have some how figured out a way of making money disappear from the cap, then I will be mistaken. I just havn't seen anyone make those figures just disappear. Dont say I dont understand whats going on. You have no idea what knowledge I have, or where I get my info. Like I have said before I have had two friends play in the NFL, one actually played for redskins, so I know how things work around Redskin park, and a friend who does alot of the memrobelia things with the players as a business. So I have pretty reliable sources in terms of info.

[MTK]

Sorry dude but you don't understand.

I'm not even sure what your point is anymore. First you were saying the Skins were doomed and headed towards a crash and burn, now you seem to be softening your stance.

Let's agree to disagree and move on. We'll check back in 3-5 years and see how the Skins' cap is then.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

This thread is pretty much done. Schneed, JoeRedskin, etc., great points and I think the majority of us understand what's going on.

Let's give this thread a proper burial and let it die.

Good enough. Thanks for the excellent points all.

56, if it seems like I was getting tense, I was. Your posts seemed to imply that those who did not agree with you were stupid for doing so and incapable of understanding the basics of the salary cap. At the same time, you backed up your points with arguments that seemed (to me anyway) contradictory and supported by vague generalities. To me, the implicit accusations I perceived and faulty arguments were EXTREMELY annoying. If I have misunderstood your methods, points and/or arguments - no problem, water under the bridge. I certainly am not taking any of this personally.

It is a shame the thread morphed into Cap Hell Analysis. The original poster's analysis was an interesting experiment in number crunching. One that lent itself to league wide comparisons (with some tweaking). Perhaps it can be revisited in the off-season.

But for now - WE WANT DALLAAAASSSSS!!!

[Schneed10]

56, the reason you've been so annoying in this thread is because you continue to make the same points over and over and over when nobody is disputing what you are saying. The problem is you're not listening to the points of others, because everyone is trying to explain to you why delaying the cap hits is not a problem. The issue goes beyond general capology written up by some cap expert, the issue is the Redskins' situation and how they're handling it. But you're just not getting it. It's like talking to a brick wall. To have meaningful discussions it would help if you'd try to understand the points others are making.

[#56fanatic]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

56, the reason you've been so annoying in this thread is because you continue to make the same points over and over and over when nobody is disputing what you are saying. The problem is you're not listening to the points of others, because everyone is trying to explain to you why delaying the cap hits is not a problem. The issue goes beyond general capology written up by some cap expert, the issue is the Redskins' situation and how they're handling it. But you're just not getting it. It's like talking to a brick wall. To have meaningful discussions it would help if you'd try to understand the points others are making.

Why are some people just plain rude. Have I attacked you in someway, called you annoying, NO. have beer and relax. We both are trying to get OUR points across, and I guess we have. we obviously dont agree, that we can agree on. This little thread is done, is there way it can be deleted so I will stop looking at it? Its like a bad wreck, you just can't help but to look.

All in all, nice little conversation. Just shows the passion we have about our Boys!! bring on the Cowpukes

[offiss]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

Why are some people just plain rude. Have I attacked you in someway, called you annoying, NO. have beer and relax. We both are trying to get OUR points across, and I guess we have. we obviously dont agree, that we can agree on. This little thread is done, is there way it can be deleted so I will stop looking at it? Its like a bad wreck, you just can't help but to look.

All in all, nice little conversation. Just shows the passion we have about our Boys!! bring on the Cowpukes

Don't piss off certain individuals here with a different point of view 56, they will attack you like a school of perahna's.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

Why are some people just plain rude. Have I attacked you in someway, called you annoying, NO. have beer and relax. We both are trying to get OUR points across, and I guess we have. we obviously dont agree, that we can agree on. This little thread is done, is there way it can be deleted so I will stop looking at it? Its like a bad wreck, you just can't help but to look.

All in all, nice little conversation. Just shows the passion we have about our Boys!! bring on the Cowpukes

I wasn't intending to be rude. I just wanted to let you know that you were frustrating in this thread. I found it difficult to discuss things with you and felt like I couldn't get through because you weren't really listening.

I'm not pissed at you or anything stupid like that. I just don't think you listened to anybody in this thread.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by #56fanatic

Why are some people just plain rude. Have I attacked you in someway, called you annoying, NO. have beer and relax. We both are trying to get OUR points across, and I guess we have. we obviously dont agree, that we can agree on. This little thread is done, is there way it can be deleted so I will stop looking at it? Its like a bad wreck, you just can't help but to look.

All in all, nice little conversation. Just shows the passion we have about our Boys!! bring on the Cowpukes

I guess you should have taken your own advice in this post, you seemed a little stressed.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by offiss

Don't piss off certain individuals here with a different point of view 56, they will attack you like a school of perahna's.

Always a victim, right?