Why the Redskins (and everyone else) won't field 30-rookie teams

[BrudLee]

I'm aware of the great proclaimations of pundits and gurus everywhere. "The Redskins coulod cut everyone and be over the cap!" Well, duh. Most teams would be. If the Colts cut Peyton Manning today, they'd accelerate about $30 million in bonuses. That's one guy out of 53.

But say the sky is falling, and we have to cut thirty players. About twenty other teams will be cutting into the double digits as well under that scenario, leaving several hundred formerly well-paid professionals scrambling for three or four TV jobs, and the rest selling cars.

Unless, of course, they'd like to be paid less.

In fact, a great many players would probably take veteran's minimum contracts with the team of their choosing. One thing about veteran's minimum contracts - they count against the cap as rookie minimum. With the potential of an uncapped year looming, many of those players might ingratiate themselves with the only guy crazy enough to stuff his shoes with $50s to look taller. It's a gamble, of course. Perhaps the Redskins see themselves as a desirable free agency location after a playoff run where the players praised the coaching staff, the coaching staff praised the players, the historically meddlesome owner said virtually nothing and the fans went crazy.

Botom line, should 200+ union members find themselves not working because of a hardline stance, you'll see not only talent being underpaid, but changes made because of it.