[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Thank you for the clarification, Joe Mendes, but I think that most of the people on the site (including me) understand why the team restructures and extends. Of course restructuring the current deal has nothing to do with this scenario and your hypothetical restructuring would be an idiotic move as it would leave the Redskins without a right tackle and with a 4.6 million dollar dead cap hit for '08. "Duhhh!!"

My original comment was that Jansen took a pay cut (meaning he took less money to help out the team). That is a fairly open ended statement so I can understand why Schneed would disagree. Here is the scenario from my perspective:

Jansen was scheduled to make $5.85 MM and $6.35 MM respectively in 2007 and 2008 (if they kept him). Obviously, the team felt that those salaries are too high.

...

Is he getting more than he did in his old deal? Yes. Is it less than 5.85 and 6.35? Obviously. Is that a "pay cut". I would say that a difference of 2.98MM and 3.48MM respectively is but I can also see what Schneed is looking at as well. At the end of the day if he signs a deal that lets them pay him the veteran minimum in '07 and '08 that is a huge help to the team with the cap moving higher and higher over time.

As schneed has pointed out, you're looking at cash flow - not salary (which seems to me to contradict your statement that you get the purpose of restructuring). As for the everyone getting it - so sorry, didn't mean to intrude upon your brilliance. It just seemed to me that you were indicating that Jansen was somehow taking less money under the new deal than with the extension which simply does not follow. No need to get belligerent.