We Aren't in Cap Hell - We're in Cap Heck

[thinker]

If you survey the landscape of the NFL today, obviously there are all of those that annually predict cap hell for the Skins. Those in the know have traditionally used the "cash over cap" theory that says as long as we are willing to re-do contracts and give the players more guaranteed cash, we'll alway be ok. Here are some reasons why I think that is not so much the case any more. In fact although we aren't in the kind of dire circumstance people always put us in - we are in CAP HECK.

I understand that the following list (http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/numbers.asp) of teams' cap numbers are from the end of December but it is important for several reasons.

Obviously the Skins (And other teams) will make many moves to reduce their cap numbers. When all is said and done, though, we will still be among the very bottom with the least amount of cap space to use. And what is the effect of that?

Well, we're seeing that traditionally cheap teams are increasingly franchising players who aren't really superstars. Teams are also increasingly extending their best young players before they reach free agency. What this means is that the number of young stars on the rise to hit free agency is increasingly small. This is happening when virtually every team in the league has more money to throw at those players who are available and can now outbid us.

This isn't a new situation. Last year we couldn't even get inside the room to consider making a competetive bid on Derrick Dockery or any of the other 4-5 really good offensive linemen who were free agents. We just weren't in a position to offer $18-20 million bonuses to guards. Instead we gave up a middle round pick and got a 35 year old guard who was disgruntled with his contract, with bad knees from the jests. Now he played ok last year, but he wasn't Dockery - particularly in the pulling department. AND we still have no long term solution at the position. We also needed a cornerback last year. We didn't have to even bother calling Nate Clement's agent - didn't sf give him a $90 million contract with a $25+ somthing million bonus?

What free agents could we get? Smoot and London. Smoot who was in the bargain bin because of his meltdown on and off the field in Minnesota and London who is older and considered a (GW) system kind of player with size that most teams don't want in their mlb position. Now they both played well for us and I'm happy with them but we got them at a relatively discounted price and they were far from being covetted in the league.

And what position do we need to fill this year? Big possesion wr, pass rushing de and dt, shutdown corner, lb, oline. Do you think Snyderatto can outbid the rest of the league for Assante Samuel? Not any more (if we wanted him). To get a player who is in demand, we will really have to overpay because virtually every other team in the NFL could pay more than we could. With most teams having tons of cap space and a much more limited number of available free agents, what that means is that just "above average" players can now command ridiculous contracts. That just pushes us further down the list of people we can competetively bid for. And let's face it, the Redskins aren't the team that many players will take less to come play for. NE might get Randy Moss for a year at a discount, they might be able to sign Zach Thomas at a discount. But we can't do that. Our ace in the hole was always that we could pay more.

To make things worse we still are saddled with terrible contracts like Lloyd's who we can't even cut because of the cap hit. There has been talk that Jon Jansen is good value with his age and injury profile - tough. We can't cut him - too big of a cap hit.

So we have less flexibility than almost every other team in terms of cutting players and signing new ones. We can't reasonably outbid anybody for a top flight player. So the reality is that we're in CAP HECK.

[Badgerrocks]

So I guess that means we have to do what most on here have been screaming about for years. Use the draft! No bad thing methinks.

[coolbeans]

I agree. There will never be a team in "cap hell" again because cap hell is still being defined as what San Fran and Dallas went through during the first few years of the cap. That will never happen again. The cap has gone up soo much with no end in sight and teams know how to handle the cap and stay out of trouble. The new "cap hell" is exactly what you described. A team that, because of its current cap situation, cannot keep a player they want or don't have the cap room to improve their team in free agency. It may only last 1-2 years instead of taking 3-5 years to fix and no longer involves blowing the entire team up. Whether or not the skins are in this newly defined cap hell is debatable. They have lost some key players but have also added some decent players so its not clear cut as to the skins.

[Snagletooth]

My big fear is lacking the room to use the Franchise Tag ourselves. We can't take the big, single year cap hit, that franchising would cost. And we could lose some young talent as a result. Much like Dockery.

For years most people were in an uproar, panic, when the mediots predicted cap hell. Cash over Cap concepts were repeated time and time again to calm the masses. Now it looks like the masses have been swayed to the other end of the spectrum. With many believing there is, essentially, no cap for the Redskins.

Great post. Cap Heck. Very accurate, right on the mark .

[kappaluvacee]

I'm not sure how many of these CAP Analysis threads are taking into consideration that the owners are about to opt-out of the current CBA. The current CBA gave the owners an out after this upcoming season, and the owners expressed during the super bowl their intent to do so because the current percentage of total revenue being paid to the players (60%) is not a sound economical decision.

Their unity on this issue has currently pushed the issue of revenue sharing to the back burner. Jerry Jones appears to be the owner's chairman as it relates to this issue because he is the one that seems to be doing all the press briefing on the matter.

The way the opt-out has it, 2008 would be under the current system followed by 2009 being an uncapped year, and 2010 being a non-CBA year, thus forcing a new deal or a strike/lock-out to force new CBA that the owners can live with.

With this understanding Snyder could theoretically restructure contracts to have all bonuses or large chunks due in the uncapped year followed by league minimum years to follow. When the new CBA is struck our team could potentially be the lowest under the cap if all our salaries are league min from that point forward. That scenario is extreme, but you get the gist of what the FO will likely do.

There's no CAP Hell or CAP Heck for the Skins or any team willing to use cash. Snyder has demonstrated he is willing to use cash, hence our cash over cap yearly dance.

[voicekiller]

last i looked we were only 4 million over the cap...not bad and we haven't even cut anybody yet, and we still have to restructure CP's contract

[ttr77]

Great post.

Although is there something between 'cap hell' and 'cap heck'? I don't think this is quite 'hell', but it's worse than 'heck'. Like it or not, this team was barely over .500 last year and it took a borderline miraculous run to make it to the #6 seed in the weaker conference. For a team to barely be in the top half of the teams in the league, yet be in a far worse cap situation than the others, is pretty close to 'hell'.

[voicekiller]

and we aren't in the worst cap shape...the Colts have it worse than we do

[ttr77]

and we aren't in the worst cap shape...the Colts have it worse than we do

Weren't they 14-2 last year? And the Super Bowl winner from the year before? Sorry man, they are in MUCH better shape.

[voicekiller]

Weren't they 14-2 last year? And the Super Bowl winner from the year before? Sorry man, they are in MUCH better shape.maybe team wise but cap wise they are much worse than we are strictly based on the cap

[STBonecrusher21]

This thread title made me chuckle.

And I agree with you. I think we'll be alright. Good post!

[ttr77]

maybe team wise but cap wise they are much worse than we are strictly based on the cap

I disagree. They are a much more successful team and have far fewer holes to fill. That means they need less cap room than the Skins do. A 14-2 team is allowed to be in a bad cap situation. Their record justifies it.

[D'Pablo]

So, there's no milk to go with my big cookie?

[JMUGator19]

cap heck? umm, but dont you think that when you cannot afford a player... you arnt faced with cap heck, your faced with... a cap? isnt that the definition? cap hell is purging a roster, cap is not bringing in everyone you like. skins just happened to slightly over pay a few bums and its costing them. when they leave and their consequences (lloyd, brunell, etc) there will be more space...just my thoughts though

[REDALERT]

Good, we need to work with the young talent we have and let them blossom. Eventually, someone with an opportunity will step up and we can start letting our older players go when the time is right.


Right now! we need young hungry players that want an opportunity and not big contracts.

[SB17]

I'm not sure how many of these CAP Analysis threads are taking into consideration that the owners are about to opt-out of the current CBA. The current CBA gave the owners an out after this upcoming season, and the owners expressed during the super bowl their intent to do so because the current percentage of total revenue being paid to the players (60%) is not a sound economical decision.

Their unity on this issue has currently pushed the issue of revenue sharing to the back burner. Jerry Jones appears to be the owner's chairman as it relates to this issue because he is the one that seems to be doing all the press briefing on the matter.

The way the opt-out has it, 2008 would be under the current system followed by 2009 being an uncapped year, and 2010 being a non-CBA year, thus forcing a new deal or a strike/lock-out to force new CBA that the owners can live with.

With this understanding Snyder could theoretically restructure contracts to have all bonuses or large chunks due in the uncapped year followed by league minimum years to follow. When the new CBA is struck our team could potentially be the lowest under the cap if all our salaries are league min from that point forward. That scenario is extreme, but you get the gist of what the FO will likely do.

There's no CAP Hell or CAP Heck for the Skins or any team willing to use cash. Snyder has demonstrated he is willing to use cash, hence our cash over cap yearly dance.Interesting. When would the owners officially "opt-out"? (i.e., when is the deadline?) If 2009 is an uncapped year, I could see our owner going "hog-wild" with free agent signings next year.

[corrupt3d]

HAHAA I actually lol'd out loud when I read the thread title.


The professor is looking at me funny (maybe I shouldn't surf in class?)

[wildbill1952]

Sounds like the perfect reason to trade our number 21 pick for the 2nd and 3rd rounder of any of the 4-11 or 5-12 teams. Second and third round picks demand less money and they're the perfect rounds to pick up the much needed youth we so desperately need on the O-Line. Plus, O-Line drafted in the 2nd and 3rd rounds typically contribute to the team in the second half of the season and stick around for 8 to 10 years with a little incentive from the FO, barring injury.

Plus it gets us past this year's "dead money".

It also contributes to keeping our QB and RB healthy that we pay more for.

[kappaluvacee]

Interesting. When would the owners officially "opt-out"? (i.e., when is the deadline?) If 2009 is an uncapped year, I could see our owner going "hog-wild" with free agent signings next year.

November 2008 is the date when the owners or players can choose to opt out the current deal. Below is one of many links to this impending situation:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/8730-NFL-Owners_want_a_new_deal_but_union_holds_cash_and_ca rds-060208

NFL CBA: Owners Want New Deal, But Union Holds Cash and Cards

Many owners think their current deal with the NFLPA was shoved down their throats in 2006, and it looks like some of them want to regurgitate it and start over.

But they're not going to be able to get that bad taste out of their mouths—because the union won't give them a mint.

It looks like NFL owners and the players' union are going to be sitting down again later this year to hammer out a new collective-bargaining agreement. Or perhaps, just to hammer at each other.

The CBA is set to expire after the 2012 season, but the union or the owners may end the deal in November of this year. If it is terminated early, 2010 would be the final season of the deal and would have no salary cap. That would create a league of haves and have-nots similar to the system that has made major-league baseball so unbalanced.

NFL owners don't want that, but they also don't want to continue to pay 60 percent of their revenues to the players without some other concessions.

It's not just the small-market teams that have issues with it; big-money franchises like the New England Patriots and Denver Broncos are unhappy with it, too, because of the revenue-sharing portion of the deal that requires the top 15 teams to share the most money.

"I don't think it is any secret a number of our owners are concerned with many aspects of the current labor deal," commissioner Roger Goodell told reporters during his state-of-the-league address at the Super Bowl last weekend. "That's something we need to improve, we need to address, and we will do that, directly with the union."

But the owners had better not ask for any of that 60 percent back, union leader Gene Upshaw warned last week. Upshaw is adamant that the players will not surrender their share of the league's gross proceeds, and he already is posturing for a players strike if the owners ask the union to give back some of that money.

Click the link for the entire story

[pjfootballer]

I disagree. They are a much more successful team and have far fewer holes to fill. That means they need less cap room than the Skins do. A 14-2 team is allowed to be in a bad cap situation. Their record justifies it.

I'm glad someone besides me gets it. :applause: 9-7, 8-8 and 20 million over the cap with an aging team is not "in good shape". And who gives a rats butt about 2 lousy playoff appearances. Woo Hoo, big effin whoppee, we played a wild card game and won. Woo hoo, we got knocked out in the first round, but at least we got there. :doh: I love how everyone is just so accepting of the BS that has been this team for the last 16 years.

[pjfootballer]

Lombardi's, consistantly winning over 12 games a year and making the playoffs and actually being the team to beat makes you successful. Not 9-7 and a wild card appearance.

[gbear]

On the plus side reading the article about the possibe uncapped season, our franchise seems to do fairly well in strike seasons, and the article makes it sound like that could follow. :helmet:

[corrupt3d]

You guys realize that no salary cap would be the worst thing for this team ever.

[CallMeGreen]

Very nice post.

If the NFL does go to an uncapped year, it would probably give Mr. Snyder a chance to write-off a lot of dead money off the books. Something he's probably well familiar with, but this would need cooperation from the other owners.

This un-capped year almost happened a couple years ago, but the latest labor agreement prevented that. What's worse than having no wiggle room under the cap (as now), is the potential of a labor stoppage. As football fans, that's bad news for everyone. I'd love to think that having $6 billion on the table would prevent the owners and players association from a strike/lockout, but history tells us otherwise.

Really the one thing that's saved us from the cap hell to this point has been the fact the cap dollars have increased every year by $5-10 million. I think next year it's going up $7 mill, and that's probably going to be very close to the amount of money spent on free agents and rookies this year.

The Skins have taken the calculated risk that the cap will keep increasing; so far they've guessed right. Eventually the growth in every major sport stops growing (see: NASCAR, redneck racers) and then what? If the plan here doesn't change from the current "quick fix" approach, sooner or later cap hell will arrive.

There has been some progress during Gibbs II, but now that he's gone will we continue to go forward, or take a step backwards?

[ttr77]

The Skins have taken the calculated risk that the cap will keep increasing; so far they've guessed right. Eventually the growth in every major sport stops growing (see: NASCAR, redneck racers) and then what? If the plan here doesn't change from the current "quick fix" approach, sooner or later cap hell will arrive.


Agreed. The Skins are like that guy that keeps running up credit card debt, counting on an annual salary increase to pay the monthly minimum. If they don't get that increase, they will be in trouble.

[thinker]

There has been some progress during Gibbs II, but now that he's gone will we continue to go forward, or take a step backwards?

You know, I'm not sure the Gibbs era really accomplished anything. The team supposedly exercised some discipline last year, but actually they had no choice. They didn't have the cap space to make any bigger moves. Gibbs left a roster that is pretty old with a lot of giant contracts and bad cap situation and not a tremendous amount of talent. Don't get me wrong, I think we have some good players and a few great players, but I doubt anyone would say we are one of the top 10 most talented teams. Certainly the gints and the pukes have more young talent than us - just in our division. How do we compare to San Diego? Or Indy or NE or Jacksonville. Far and away our most talented player was murdered. Our oline is older and increasingly injury prone. Our dline is quite ordinary. How many players do we have that most if not all teams in the NFL would want on their team? At this point (considering our injuries), I'd say the only sure bet to be desired by all the other teams would be Landry on defense and Cooley and Samuels on offense (maybe Moss and Portis).

[Peregrine]

London Fletcher is a player other teams didnt want? Hardly. Hes largely been considered a pro-bowler for years(like Fred Taylor), but just hasnt been voted in. Hes a tackling machine. There are very few teams in the NFL who WOULDNT be interested in fletcher.

Also, you're reasoning about cap heck is off by a good bit. Bad teams can afford to overspend for the top FA's. Generally bad teams dont have much in the way of superstars. So using our ability to go after Nate Clements is a bit ridiculous if other good teams couldnt(or didnt) go after him to. He went to the 49ers... Instead of comparing our ability to go after top FA's with those of bad teams, it would be far more prudent to compare it to the really succesful teams in the NFL. How much do the Pats pay per player? The Colts, Jags, Packers, Chargers? Thats a real measure of our cap sitation and ability to build a team with the talent we need.

Last, why would we want to go after the #1 FA available? Obviously the very top is going to demand a premium, while if you just go a little lower you can get a great player who gives you only a slight drop in talent for a greatly reduced price. One hugely overpriced superstar gives you a go-to guy. 4 great players gives you a team. The important question is, can this team go after the teir 2 players that we need to? I believe the answer is yes. No cap heck here.

[No_Pressure]

We're not in cap hell, OR cap heck. We're clearly in cap purgatory.

[kingdaddy]

I watched a replay of Darryl Grant's interception for a TD against Dallas in the 1983 NFC Championship game today. Grant was a 2nd year player from Rice who was converted to D-line from the O-line at some point after he made the Redskins. My point is, maybe relying on the draft instead of the costly free agent who pans out 50 percent of the time isn't such a bad way to go. Develop your own and let them go out and play.

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

It's definitely restricted us. Would love to see us with a surplus some day.

[thinker]

London Fletcher is a player other teams didnt want? Hardly. Hes largely been considered a pro-bowler for years(like Fred Taylor), but just hasnt been voted in. Hes a tackling machine. There are very few teams in the NFL who WOULDNT be interested in fletcher.

Also, you're reasoning about cap heck is off by a good bit. Bad teams can afford to overspend for the top FA's. Generally bad teams dont have much in the way of superstars. So using our ability to go after Nate Clements is a bit ridiculous if other good teams couldnt(or didnt) go after him to. He went to the 49ers... Instead of comparing our ability to go after top FA's with those of bad teams, it would be far more prudent to compare it to the really succesful teams in the NFL. How much do the Pats pay per player? The Colts, Jags, Packers, Chargers? Thats a real measure of our cap sitation and ability to build a team with the talent we need.

Last, why would we want to go after the #1 FA available? Obviously the very top is going to demand a premium, while if you just go a little lower you can get a great player who gives you only a slight drop in talent for a greatly reduced price. One hugely overpriced superstar gives you a go-to guy. 4 great players gives you a team. The important question is, can this team go after the teir 2 players that we need to? I believe the answer is yes. No cap heck here.

My point was not to insult London - he's great for our system. The fact that we didn't have to give him a huge contract is one indicator that for a number of reasons other teams don't really covet him. I agree that, like Fred Taylor, he's undervalued - but he is undervalued. Lots of teams would not be interested in him because of his age and size (particularly his heigth). I don't think many teams that run a 3-4 defense would want him. My point wasn't that he sucks - just that he's not a guy that everybody else just drools over.

If you don't like the Nate Clements to SF argument, how about the Arizona bust LT Leonard Davis who signed a mega-deal with the pukes to play LG? NOBODY would have said he was a 1st tier guy and some people would say he wasn't even a 2nd tier guy. People said the pukes crazily overpaid for him. He was a converted tackle - oh by the way he made the probowl this year. I believed we considered him for a brief moment as a possibility for our LG position until his price got way too high.

As far as what do other teams pay for their players, I heartily agree that teams like the Patriots don't pay alot - that's because players will sign for less to be able to contend for the championship. We don't really get that benefit because people aren't lined up to come here because we're right on the precipice of winning it all. Our tradition, instead, has been that players line up in front of our door for that big payday. It's now malpractice by an agent to not leak that the Redskins are interested in his player to try and drive up the price.

I know that the Colts don't have a single starter that has played for another team (at least last year). The Colts and San Diego don't pay alot because they have drafted amazingly well and have a ton of players on their rookie contracts. Every year Indianapolis lets very good players walk because they believe they have good younger players to fill their slots. San Diego has drafted amazingly well and they've also had the benefit of trading the #1 pick twice for multiple picks (Eli and Vick) that turned into multiple pro-bowl players.

I agree that we don't want to sign the 1st tier free agents at huge prices as well. What has happened though is that the 2nd tier guys are now getting bigger contracts as well as getting extended or tagged. Earlier in the offseason people were saying let's pass on Briggs and go after a lower cost alternative like Arizona's Dansby - Well he got franchised. As did the 2nd tier corner from the Raiders (whose name I won't even try to spell). The cheap *ss Raiders were fine guaranteeing their cb almost $10 million for this year as a franchised cb. Well we couldn't franchise let's say Carlos Rogers if he happened to be a free agent this year and wasn't hurt. We just couldn't spare $10 million in cap space like that.

And comparing us to the "good" teams as opposed to the "bad" teams isn't exactly born out by our record of 58-70 in the regular season since 2000. I'm not sure how that compares to other teams - but I would guess it puts us in the bottom half. So actually we have all of these really high priced players and have gotten one playoff victory in 8 years.

[DexterSackMachine]

On the plus side reading the article about the possibe uncapped season, our franchise seems to do fairly well in strike seasons, and the article makes it sound like that could follow. :helmet:

As much as it would give the Redskins an advantage, I don't want an uncapped league or even an uncapped season. That's the reason I don't like baseball anymore. I like a league with some measure of fairness.

The Redskins do need to manage their cap better. Losing Derrick Dockery is an example of being too close each year and it costing us a player. I know you could argue that he wasn't worth what Buffalo paid him, but if we didn't have so much dead money we could have kept him anyways, and had a better line.

That said, we will never be forced to cut en-masse as other teams (already mentioned) have in the past unless the system drastically changes.

[Warhead36]

I'm at the point where I wish we were in cap hell. The more we force a budget on ourselves and restrain our spending, the better we end up doing. Look at 05 and 07. We make the playoffs both years and spent money wisely and kept draft picks(well we traded future picks in 05 to get a second 1st to draft Campbell but other than that...)whilas in 04 and 06 when we splurge in FA and give draft picks away like old people giving away candy in Halloween we struggle.

Bring on cap hell! Cap hell=successful football when it counts. :)

[elkabong82]

I understand the cap constrains us at times, but it isn't having as bad of an impact as some, not most, think. We couldn't afford Dockery, but at that price who would have been ok with him staying? Dude can't even pull. We do extend young talent, like Betts and Cooley, and earlier Samuels, Jansen was given an extension earlier as well. Some of you may be down on Jansen, but extending a bookend (with the exception of 2 seasons) at RT AND extending your LT who is one of the best in the game now, is a good move. Really the only knocks as of late are not retaining Pierce (one good year doesn't equate to the contract he wanted) and Clark (thank GW, who is now in Jax).

We are only 4-7 million over the cap, and haven't done any releases, and have yet to finish all the restructures. Those of you who are sick and tired of us making big splashes in free agency should be happy we might be limited as to who we can get, simply because of other teams having larger cap space. However, that didn't stop us in '06 from outbidding for certain players.

I'd like it if we did have more cap space each year, but I haven't seen it be a major problem, despite the urging of the mediots.

[moviedude25]

Great thread. I don't agree that having an uncapped year would be a bad thing for us. We have so much dead money that if Snyder were to pay off the debt he owes those players, boot out bad players and get us 20-30 million under the last cap number to make us competitive then that would be a great thing. Too many fans of the Redskins point out the free wheeling spending of 2000 as there justification for saying in an uncapped year we would get every free agent out there. I wonder if these same chicken littles with there sky is falling mentality will still be using that lame arguement in 2010? Yes we made a mistake signing a few players like Lloyd (thanks Gibbs) and Arch Delux (thanks Williams) but we've had more success with our FA's then our failures. Too many fans of the Skins are far to easily interested in pointing out the failures then our successes with FA's.

[skinsince72]

I think the Skins are going to have some growing pains w/ Zorn this year. That being said, I say we use ALL of our draft picks and get some young talent at several positions. I also say stay out of FA this year. (unless we can make an extremely wise deal for our #1 pick)


We should be looking down the road in terms of cap and not focusing so much on the upcoming season. Getting in good shape for the years to come will put us in a prime position when Zorn gets on the right track or when/if Cowher is hired.

[Dick Edds]

Sounds like the perfect reason to trade our number 21 pick for the 2nd and 3rd rounder of any of the 4-11 or 5-12 teams. Second and third round picks demand less money and they're the perfect rounds to pick up the much needed youth we so desperately need on the O-Line. Plus, O-Line drafted in the 2nd and 3rd rounds typically contribute to the team in the second half of the season and stick around for 8 to 10 years with a little incentive from the FO, barring injury.

Plus it gets us past this year's "dead money".

It also contributes to keeping our QB and RB healthy that we pay more for.

this is the most sound logic I have seen on any draft discussion thread on ES. Heck, why take a risk paying a first rounder. If we can make a trade to get a higher second rounder (that/s not too far down) and gain an extra 3rd rounder, that would be an ideal scenario for us.

... it is less risky financially and we can find just as much talent by going a few spots below 21. I hope this happens and we pick up a stud o-lineman or d-lineman!

[thinker]

this is the most sound logic I have seen on any draft discussion thread on ES. Heck, why take a risk paying a first rounder. If we can make a trade to get a higher second rounder (that/s not too far down) and gain an extra 3rd rounder, that would be an ideal scenario for us.

... it is less risky financially and we can find just as much talent by going a few spots below 21. I hope this happens and we pick up a stud o-lineman or d-lineman!

After the top 10 picks the expense of a 1st rounder gets significantly lower. BTW the 21st pick last year was Reggie Nelson of Jacksonville who got a 5 year $13.2 million deal with $7.2 million guaranteed. This is $2.64 mil per year under the cap. Not cheap but not really high risk either.

Also trading the 21 pick for a very high 2nd and 3rd works pretty evenly under the draft pick value chart. You only do that trade, though if you don't have a player rated highly available when you're picking at 21 and someone else needs to get a guy there. That's obviously only a deal that you can do when you're on the clock.

[IronMike]

Excellent post and very good discussion. This is why I subscribe to this board. And ignore the silly rants.
I fear an uncapped year and a non-CBA year. Do we really want another strike? I know, I know, we were successful in the other strike years of the 1980s. But the strike hurt baseball, and it could really hurt NFL. I am being selfish here: I do not want a year without pro-football! Any strike will be long and bloody. Jerry Jones is playing a big game of bluff: does he really want to open his new stadium, then have a strike?
The players will demand either a greater percentage of gross revenues, or guaranteed contracts (like the NBA). The small market, low revenue teams will be hurt, and that will hurt the overall competitive balance of the league. Yes, that might help a free-spending owner/team, but it is good for the overall fiscal health of the players, teams and pro football?

:(

[ttr77]

Too many fans of the Skins are far to easily interested in pointing out the failures then our successes with FA's.

I think even the homerist of fans will agree that the failures under this FO are much easier to point out. What successes have their been? One playoff victory in the last 8 years? After all, that's what counts...winning seasons with long playoff runs. All this talk about free agents and cap management is just filler.

[skinfan31]

If you survey the landscape of the NFL today, obviously there are all of those that annually predict cap hell for the Skins. Those in the know have traditionally used the "cash over cap" theory that says as long as we are willing to re-do contracts and give the players more guaranteed cash, we'll alway be ok. Here are some reasons why I think that is not so much the case any more. In fact although we aren't in the kind of dire circumstance people always put us in - we are in CAP HECK.

I understand that the following list (http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/numbers.asp) of teams' cap numbers are from the end of December but it is important for several reasons.

Obviously the Skins (And other teams) will make many moves to reduce their cap numbers. When all is said and done, though, we will still be among the very bottom with the least amount of cap space to use. And what is the effect of that?

Well, we're seeing that traditionally cheap teams are increasingly franchising players who aren't really superstars. Teams are also increasingly extending their best young players before they reach free agency. What this means is that the number of young stars on the rise to hit free agency is increasingly small. This is happening when virtually every team in the league has more money to throw at those players who are available and can now outbid us.

This isn't a new situation. Last year we couldn't even get inside the room to consider making a competetive bid on Derrick Dockery or any of the other 4-5 really good offensive linemen who were free agents. We just weren't in a position to offer $18-20 million bonuses to guards. Instead we gave up a middle round pick and got a 35 year old guard who was disgruntled with his contract, with bad knees from the jests. Now he played ok last year, but he wasn't Dockery - particularly in the pulling department. AND we still have no long term solution at the position. We also needed a cornerback last year. We didn't have to even bother calling Nate Clement's agent - didn't sf give him a $90 million contract with a $25+ somthing million bonus?

What free agents could we get? Smoot and London. Smoot who was in the bargain bin because of his meltdown on and off the field in Minnesota and London who is older and considered a (GW) system kind of player with size that most teams don't want in their mlb position. Now they both played well for us and I'm happy with them but we got them at a relatively discounted price and they were far from being covetted in the league.

And what position do we need to fill this year? Big possesion wr, pass rushing de and dt, shutdown corner, lb, oline. Do you think Snyderatto can outbid the rest of the league for Assante Samuel? Not any more (if we wanted him). To get a player who is in demand, we will really have to overpay because virtually every other team in the NFL could pay more than we could. With most teams having tons of cap space and a much more limited number of available free agents, what that means is that just "above average" players can now command ridiculous contracts. That just pushes us further down the list of people we can competetively bid for. And let's face it, the Redskins aren't the team that many players will take less to come play for. NE might get Randy Moss for a year at a discount, they might be able to sign Zach Thomas at a discount. But we can't do that. Our ace in the hole was always that we could pay more.

To make things worse we still are saddled with terrible contracts like Lloyd's who we can't even cut because of the cap hit. There has been talk that Jon Jansen is good value with his age and injury profile - tough. We can't cut him - too big of a cap hit.

So we have less flexibility than almost every other team in terms of cutting players and signing new ones. We can't reasonably outbid anybody for a top flight player. So the reality is that we're in CAP HECK.

You can call it anything you want, but it sounds like cap hell to me.:(

[TheLongshot]

Thinker,

This isn't exactly new. Teams have always tried very hard to keep the players that they feel still have value to them and let those guys go who don't. Occasionally, you do have good players who get out there who their teams can't afford to keep anymore.

The Skins actually understand this, which is why there has been so many trades for players, because otherwise those players wouldn't be available on the open market.

I don't think there is nearly the need that you seem to see with competing with the cream of the FA class. Fact is, most of those guys we don't need. We don't need to sign a top-flight CB, because Smoot and Springs can do the job in the short term while Carlos recovers. We don't need Briggs because, depending on Rocky's recovery, we are pretty solid at LB for next season.

Really, when you look at FA, you look at what kind of immediate help do you need, and are there guys who can help there? For me, that seems to be mostly on the D-Line and at WR. (I actually think we need some young depth at OL. I don't think bringing in a FA OL will help with the starters much next season.) I don't think there will be all that much help with D-Line in FA, since teams tend to keep the good ones and leave the mediocre ones to everyone else. There will be WRs available, tho. Whether they will be worth looking at is another question.

Personally, I'm glad that we aren't going to way overpay for a guy who may or may not help us. To be honest, I don't really see any of the top FA this year as being guys who could step in and instantly have more of an impact than the guys we already have. I do see guys who are on the second or third tier, tho, who could contribute as valuable backups and depth.

Jason

[thinker]

If Snyder wanted to yes he can outbid teams for Asante Samuel. The signing bonus wouldn't be a big deal. Heck if last year we could hang on to Springs at 7 million plus Asante with a first year average of 7 million plus and the 15 to 20 million dollar signing bonus is doable though we'd be saying Ciao to Springs.

Contracts for this years free agents can be written where the first year is low and rise the following year where a player like Jansen can be cut or renegotiated.

BTW - Nate Clement got an $80 million contract with $22 million guaranteed LAST year from SF. I'd guess Asante (who has a tatoo that says something like "GET PAID") would take at least as much if not more to sign. Plus you don't save all of the $7 million cap hit by cutting Springs because there is still his prorated bonuses that would be accelerated. Oh and did you see that Jansen just restructured his deal? That will make it even harder to cut him next year when he will be a year older.

Again my point is not that we're in cap hell. Our flexibility is severely limited though, compared to other teams though.

[pjfootballer]

I'm at the point where I wish we were in cap hell. The more we force a budget on ourselves and restrain our spending, the better we end up doing. Look at 05 and 07. We make the playoffs both years and spent money wisely and kept draft picks(well we traded future picks in 05 to get a second 1st to draft Campbell but other than that...)whilas in 04 and 06 when we splurge in FA and give draft picks away like old people giving away candy in Halloween we struggle.

Bring on cap hell! Cap hell=successful football when it counts. :)

I disagree. If you like 9-7 and 1 and done or 10-6 and knocked out in the divisionals, then the expectations for this team by the fans has gone WAY down. Nothing in the last 16 years has been successful. Only thing that will be successful is bringing home another Lombardi trophy to replace the ones rusting in our trophy case.

[thinker]

Check out JLaC's recent piece on the Skins wanting Briggs but league sources saying that Rosenhaus wants a $20 million bonus for him and that this is likely too pricey for the Skins. The blog intimates that SF is the likliest destination for Briggs. Oddly enough, SF has way more cap space than us. So for those that say we aren't hampered by our cap situation, here's another case in point of how we are.

[Lloyds' Mongolian Beef]

Check out JLaC's recent piece on the Skins wanting Briggs but league sources saying that Rosenhaus wants a $20 million bonus for him and that this is likely too pricey for the Skins. The blog intimates that SF is the likliest destination for Briggs. Oddly enough, SF has way more cap space than us. So for those that say we aren't hampered by our cap situation, here's another case in point of how we are.That's just not trre. We will have enough room to give him the same bonus money as SF. That will not be a determining factor in where he goes.

[TheLongshot]

Check out JLaC's recent piece on the Skins wanting Briggs but league sources saying that Rosenhaus wants a $20 million bonus for him and that this is likely too pricey for the Skins. The blog intimates that SF is the likliest destination for Briggs. Oddly enough, SF has way more cap space than us. So for those that say we aren't hampered by our cap situation, here's another case in point of how we are.

Course, JLC says nothing about the Skins wanting Briggs in that blog. He says IF the Redskins want to persue him he won't come cheap That is really only being driven by JLC's assumption that because we wanted to trade for him last year that we'd want to sign him as a FA this year.

Jason

[Seabee1973]

If Snyder wanted to yes he can outbid teams for Asante Samuel. The signing bonus wouldn't be a big deal. Heck if last year we could hang on to Springs at 7 million plus Asante with a first year average of 7 million plus and the 15 to 20 million dollar signing bonus is doable though we'd be saying Ciao to Springs.

Contracts for this years free agents can be written where the first year is low and rise the following year where a player like Jansen can be cut or renegotiated.


Thats how the redskins always do their business sign players to big signing bonuses then low yearly payments for 3 years then the base salary ballons. Its not always good business Someone like asanti is gonna want probably a 25 million dollar signing bonus and around 85 million.

[Seabee1973]

That's just not trre. We will have enough room to give him the same bonus money as SF. That will not be a determining factor in where he goes.


even if it were the same The 9ers could throw in more money in the first 3 years which the skins couldnt match

[BthatRAD09]

they should just get rid of the cap to please redskins fans seriously lol

[Lloyds' Mongolian Beef]

even if it were the same The 9ers could throw in more money in the first 3 years which the skins couldnt matchThat's not true either. In fact, that's not even close to accurate. Why wouldn't we be able to give him the same amount? Are you just making that up in your head to justify other beliefs? It is absolutely not true.

[ThatGuy]

When all is said and done, there isn't one player out there who the Skins couldn't afford. Its more a matter of if they want to pay a 20 million dollar signing bonus out or continue with the more reasonable contracts they've handed out in recent free agent periods.

[thinker]

When all is said and done, there isn't one player out there who the Skins couldn't afford. Its more a matter of if they want to pay a 20 million dollar signing bonus out or continue with the more reasonable contracts they've handed out in recent free agent periods.

Technically that's true, but if we go all out for one guy and get him - we're stuck. We're also not one player away from being a contender. In the current environment it's going to be a lot tougher for us to get a lot better. The talent gap is just too large.

[deejaydana]

Our ace in the hole was always that we could pay more.




What kind of an "ace" is that anyway? It never was an advantage, just a misperception (created by Snyder & accepted by many fans, prima facie). The fact that there is a salary cap negates or at the very least governs crazy over-spending. If you don't think this team is paying the price for bad deals and F.A. overspending just look at our overall lack of depth, age of team, the fact that (once again) we will lose some players because we don't have the $cratch to pay in-house talent to stay and the lack of funds to pursue higher level free agent talent.

Ahhhhh, I laugh every time I read that Snyder is a "master" manipulator of the cap. I'd say he's just a marketing guru who hoodwinks enough fans to avoid being singled out.

Now, if we can show fiscal restraint, keep all our draft picks (unless a sweetheart deal presents itself) and "coach up" the young guys we have, I'll feel better. I'm not holding my breath...

Solid post thinker.

[deejaydana]

Am I alone in thinking that Dockery got waaaaaaaaaaaay too much money. He's not that great.

I completely agree with that sentiment and I think it underscores the fact, a fact lost on Snyder and the lap dog, that you are almost ALWAYS going to pay top dollar and beyond signing free agents. We need to steer away from the FA Market other than to find low priced role players at bargain prices (does that even exist?) and besides we are cash strapped.

[TheLongshot]

What kind of an "ace" is that anyway? It never was an advantage, just a misperception (created by Snyder & accepted by many fans, prima facie). The fact that there is a salary cap negates or at the very least governs crazy over-spending. If you don't think this team is paying the price for bad deals and F.A. overspending just look at our overall lack of depth, age of team, the fact that (once again) we will lose some players because we don't have the $cratch to pay in-house talent to stay and the lack of funds to pursue higher level free agent talent.

Yeah, we were so lacking in depth that we were able to crawl back into the playoff race, including beating the eventually Superbowl champs at their home. :rolleyes:

And I don't call potentially losing Rock a major tragedy. While he's a good player and that I'd like to see him around, he is also very replaceable.

The sign of a good organization is not one who resigns all of their players, but one that knows which players to keep and which ones to let go.

Jason

[thinker]

Am I alone in thinking that Dockery got waaaaaaaaaaaay too much money. He's not that great.

I'm sorry. Why did Dockery get way too much money? Is it your money? At least 6 olinemen got similar money to him last year. Maybe that's what they cost now. The only reason we care about how much he made is because we couldn't afford that price. Otherwise who cares? He cost alot more than Kendall (we had to give up potentially what would have been a 4th pick for him), he still had a relatively high cap number, he's 7-8 years older, has bad knees and in a year or sooner, we won;t have a LG. Dockery played very well with Samuels and Rabach. Some of the really geeky analysts had him as one of the most efficient and effective guards, he had great size and durability, he was getting better every year. I'm pretty sure over 90% of this board would have liked to keep him. Sorry no cap room - simply out of the question. That's what Cap Heck is. We have to settle for a pretty pedestrian third or fourth option - a disgruntled player from another team playing out the string of his career.

[Peregrine]

I'm sorry. Why did Dockery get way too much money? Is it your money? At least 6 olinemen got similar money to him last year. Maybe that's what they cost now. The only reason we care about how much he made is because we couldn't afford that price. Otherwise who cares? He cost alot more than Kendall (we had to give up potentially what would have been a 4th pick for him), he still had a relatively high cap number, he's 7-8 years older, has bad knees and in a year or sooner, we won;t have a LG. Dockery played very well with Samuels and Rabach. Some of the really geeky analysts had him as one of the most efficient and effective guards, he had great size and durability, he was getting better every year. I'm pretty sure over 90% of this board would have liked to keep him. Sorry no cap room - simply out of the question. That's what Cap Heck is. We have to settle for a pretty pedestrian third or fourth option - a disgruntled player from another team playing out the string of his career.

Regardless of a teams cap situation, you should not overplay for a player. It simply is a detriment to the rest of the team. Youre whole argument is bunk. People say Dockery got too much money because they dont think this talent was equal to what he got paid. Whos money it is is irrelevent(what is this, Jerry Springer?). The reason we care how much he got paid is because we would have liked to have kept him, but it just wasn't worth it at that price.

Just because someone overpays for a player doesnt mean we are in cap hell. It means they overpayed for a player. There is a REASON teams like Buffalo and SF can pay so much for players. They dont have any other talent to pay. Bad teams will always have lots of money to spend. You should be comparing our cap situation with good teams, not bad teams.

[TheLongshot]

I'm sorry. Why did Dockery get way too much money? Is it your money? At least 6 olinemen got similar money to him last year. Maybe that's what they cost now. The only reason we care about how much he made is because we couldn't afford that price. Otherwise who cares? He cost alot more than Kendall (we had to give up potentially what would have been a 4th pick for him), he still had a relatively high cap number, he's 7-8 years older, has bad knees and in a year or sooner, we won;t have a LG. Dockery played very well with Samuels and Rabach. Some of the really geeky analysts had him as one of the most efficient and effective guards, he had great size and durability, he was getting better every year. I'm pretty sure over 90% of this board would have liked to keep him. Sorry no cap room - simply out of the question. That's what Cap Heck is. We have to settle for a pretty pedestrian third or fourth option - a disgruntled player from another team playing out the string of his career.

No, it wasn't because we couldn't afford that price, but that it was far more than what we budgeted for him. Fact is, he got a contract worth more than what the team valued him at. Not to mention that a lot of the team's budget is concentrated on the OL already.

BTW, no one paid that much to KEEP a guard on their team. All those guards who got big paydays changed teams.

Jason

[turbodiesel#44]

You should be comparing our cap situation with good teams, not bad teams.OK. The only other team over the cap was Indy. We were at 1100% of their overage. The other 30 teams were under the cap. And yes, I know we have come down from 22M. But we are still over, and have a lot of holes. When it is time to extend one of this years rookies before he sniffs FA, we will still be paying Jansen big $ for a year on the bench and a couple at home. Our approach to the cap has never worked, still not working and never will.

This is how we ended the season compared to other teams.
http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/numbers.asp

And look at our dead cap at the bottom of this page. 12M could buy us a helluva WR or CB.
http://www.thehogs.net/washington-redskins/salary.php?search=TotalCapHitNext

[deejaydana]

Yeah, we were so lacking in depth that we were able to crawl back into the playoff race, including beating the eventually Superbowl champs at their home. :rolleyes:

And I don't call potentially losing Rock a major tragedy. While he's a good player and that I'd like to see him around, he is also very replaceable.

The sign of a good organization is not one who resigns all of their players, but one that knows which players to keep and which ones to let go.

Jason


And a sign of a "great" organization is one that doesn't drastically overpay for alleged/potential talent and leave themselves hamstrung when the offseason comes around. A great organization is one that can assess talent CONSISTENTLY, keep the right people, develop and coach up players, and do more than luck themselves into the playoffs once in awhile. We're not a good organization (at least from a fan perspective which is all I care about) but I'm not about trying to make you feel differently if that's how you feel.

[TheLongshot]

And a sign of a "great" organization is one that doesn't drastically overpay for alleged/potential talent and leave themselves hamstrung when the offseason comes around. A great organization is one that can assess talent CONSISTENTLY, keep the right people, develop and coach up players, and do more than luck themselves into the playoffs once in awhile. We're not a good organization (at least from a fan perspective which is all I care about) but I'm not about trying to make you feel differently if that's how you feel.

The only time we've really been hamstrung was in 2005 when we traded Coles. But, that was a move the team CHOSE to do. Every other year under Snyder the team wasn't prevented from going after the players they wanted. Even this year we are not going to be restricted that much, because the big ticket FA aren't really all THAT attractive to us.

The goal isn't to be able to sign the big FA every year. No team is able to do that, nor should they. The goal is to be able to address the positions on the team with the budget you have. Course, not all positions can be addressed in a given year because the right players might not be there.

Jason

[DirtySkin21]

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d806cb7e7



We arent even the worse team with the biggest problems..

We will be a good bit under the cap after brunell is gone and cartwright is gone.

[thinker]

Just because someone overpays for a player doesnt mean we are in cap hell. It means they overpayed for a player. There is a REASON teams like Buffalo and SF can pay so much for players. They dont have any other talent to pay. Bad teams will always have lots of money to spend. You should be comparing our cap situation with good teams, not bad teams.

Peregrine, you are one of the longest and consistently smartest posters on this board, but I think you're missing the point. You want to compare good and bad teams? The Redskins have a record of 58-70 since 2000. Oddly enough, Buffalo and SF have identical records over the same period of time -- 53-75. In other words, the Redskins only won 5 more games over an 8 year period than these "bad teams" that we shouldn't compare ourselves to. How many more games did Gibbs II win than Buffalo in the same 4 years? TWO. Only two. We consistently are among the highest paying teams, we are among the most hamstrung by cap limitations, yet our record is not really any better than the "bad team" Buffalo that can afford to overpay for a position that we had a huge need at.

[TheLongshot]

Peregrine, you are one of the longest and consistently smartest posters on this board, but I think you're missing the point. You want to compare good and bad teams? The Redskins have a record of 58-70 since 2000. Oddly enough, Buffalo and SF have identical records over the same period of time -- 53-75. In other words, the Redskins only won 5 more games over an 8 year period than these "bad teams" that we shouldn't compare ourselves to. How many more games did Gibbs II win than Buffalo in the same 4 years? TWO. Only two. We consistently are among the highest paying teams, we are among the most hamstrung by cap limitations, yet our record is not really any better than the "bad team" Buffalo that can afford to overpay for a position that we had a huge need at.

But, are we bad because we lack talent? I don't think so. I'd take the talent we have here over what they have in Buffalo any day.

The roster is only part of the equasion. The other part is coaching and getting all of these parts working together as a team. For most of the time Gibbs has been here, that has been a struggle, at least on the offensive side of the ball.

Jason

[rlt2622]

did anyone else see on the nfl channel where we are only over the cap by 102k? the colts and arizona are over as well, but we are not as bad as them. i think the colts were over 5 mil, and arizona was over 250k.

[D-Day]

did anyone else see on the nfl channel where we are only over the cap by 102k? the colts and arizona are over as well, but we are not as bad as them. i think the colts were over 5 mil, and arizona was over 250k.

Yes, the skins gave Godfrey a LTBE bonus last year of 1.8 mil and some change. When it wasn't reached we got a cap credit for that amount.

To the ones holding SF up as proof of a well run team cap wise, they spent a butt load of money last year of FA's and did worse then they did the previous year. They will have one or two more years of cap money to play with. Then those monster contracts they gave up will begin to catch up with them. There are a lot of teams to hold up as proof of a sound franchise cap wise (NY anyone) but not the 49ers.

The purged their team a couple of years ago and they traded all their good talent for picks when their contracts came up. You are seeing the results of this philosophy now. Huge Cap Space + Lackluster talent across the board. I wouldn't want to see the skins in this situation.

As far as the uncapped year, I think this is going to happen and I think the Dan and the FO is planning on it happening. Why else would they restructure JJ and RT and add more years to their contracts. I think they plan on cutting all these contracts in 2010. That will be a very interesting offseason.

[tr1]

Cash creates cap.

Restructure players' contracts by turning salary into bonus...and extend years, and voila! Cap room!

The Skins have tons of cash, btw.

[thinker]

Yes, the skins gave Godfrey a LTBE bonus last year of 1.8 mil and some change. When it wasn't reached we got a cap credit for that amount.

To the ones holding SF up as proof of a well run team cap wise, they spent a butt load of money last year of FA's and did worse then they did the previous year. They will have one or two more years of cap money to play with. Then those monster contracts they gave up will begin to catch up with them. There are a lot of teams to hold up as proof of a sound franchise cap wise (NY anyone) but not the 49ers.

The purged their team a couple of years ago and they traded all their good talent for picks when their contracts came up. You are seeing the results of this philosophy now. Huge Cap Space + Lackluster talent across the board. I wouldn't want to see the skins in this situation.

As far as the uncapped year, I think this is going to happen and I think the Dan and the FO is planning on it happening. Why else would they restructure JJ and RT and add more years to their contracts. I think they plan on cutting all these contracts in 2010. That will be a very interesting offseason.

First, I'm not saying that I want to be just like SF. Their cap situation does give them alot more flexibility than ours gives us though. If they are stupid about it, then it does them no good. Again, we only won five more games than them since 2000, so frankly who's to say?

We on the other hand have little cap space and decent talent - not great talent across the board. At the end of the day, the first measure of success is wins (we haven't done well there), the second measure is talent (i'd say that we're about in the middle of the league in talent), the third measure is flexibility for future moves (we're definitely at the bottom there), and the last is potential (hard to say with an unproven HC putting in a new offense).

As to your point of Snyder planning for an uncapped year. That's a fascinating point and makes sense given the extensions of JJ and RT. That's a pretty scary bet, though, since if there ends up being a deal we're really sc***ed.

[thinker]

did anyone else see on the nfl channel where we are only over the cap by 102k? the colts and arizona are over as well, but we are not as bad as them. i think the colts were over 5 mil, and arizona was over 250k.

That's true about the Colts and Arizona, but it also reflects the fact that the Colts have just re-signed Dallas Clark to a huge deal and one of their FA olinemen too. We haven't made any deals for new players or even resigned the players we want to resign (like Frost, Collins, etc.). Arizona's cap number reflects having franchised their LB Dansby which is a huge hit. If they reach a del with him shortly, then that number goes well down.

[turbodiesel#44]

Cash creates cap.

Restructure players' contracts by turning salary into bonus...and extend years, and voila! Cap room!

The Skins have tons of cash, btw.And keep piling up the dead cap. We are already paying the equivalent of TWO STAR PLAYERS to people who aren't even on the team. Voila. Idiocy.

[D-Day]

First, I'm not saying that I want to be just like SF. Their cap situation does give them alot more flexibility than ours gives us though. If they are stupid about it, then it does them no good. Again, we only won five more games than them since 2000, so frankly who's to say?

We on the other hand have little cap space and decent talent - not great talent across the board. At the end of the day, the first measure of success is wins (we haven't done well there), the second measure is talent (i'd say that we're about in the middle of the league in talent), the third measure is flexibility for future moves (we're definitely at the bottom there), and the last is potential (hard to say with an unproven HC putting in a new offense).

As to your point of Snyder planning for an uncapped year. That's a fascinating point and makes sense given the extensions of JJ and RT. That's a pretty scary bet, though, since if there ends up being a deal we're really sc***ed.

I think a lot of this debate is really hard to say either way. I blame a lot of the issues with this team on poor coaching (Yeah I went there). Indecision and shuffling cost this team a lot on Sundays. We couldn't stick to a plan/method in training camp let alone on Sundays. Bad FA signings happen to every team and it only seems to hurt us more because we live and die with every move this franchise makes. A lot of people take this to the extremes one way or the other and just can't admit when they are wrong.

So I think it is really hard to judge the talent of this team because we couldn't get a steady system in place or decisive direction from the coaching staff. The one thing I do know is that we were plugging in young players all year all over the field and we still made the playoffs. If that doesn't speak to the depth of this team and shoot down the "Lack of Depth" argument then I don't know what can or ever will. Sure with Heyer and Blades and Wilson you can say we got lucky but the fact remains they are good/young/ and cheap, but most importantly we found about a good half dozen players last year that no one expected to perform as they did.

I don't agree that we are in cap hell/heck eventhough there are at least one thread per week trying to convince me otherwise. I know the system and numbers and I can see how we are not. I am not saying I like how it is being done, but I know how it works. I would love to see the skins sign a player and be able to front load a 10 mil bonus into that year. (That btw is the only advantage to having a large amount of cap room).

The skins FO is very good at what they do and I can't see how people who hate us signing big name FA's can look at our limited space (as compared to other teams) and be mad. Although dispite popular opinion WE CAN afford a Briggs or Samual or whomever else you want to throw out there, I just hope we don't go that route.

An uncapped year would be the saving grace of this franchise. Remember when the CBA was struck it was Dan that was widely considered to be the guy that got it pushed through. It just so happens that in that deal the owners got the opportunity to void and have a uncapped year. The rich owners could very well be ready to void the contract, have the uncapped year to clean up the accounting and then set their team up for the next decade cap wise. It would be the ultimate F in of the Ralph Wilsons and those stupid enough to not turn a profit. The rich teams with lots of cash can literally take their cap number down to 30 million if they wanted too when the CBA kicked back in.

Imagine the DAN and other rich owners in the uncapped year cutting and resigning players with up front bonus money, restructuring their deals to vet minimums with tons of LTBE incentives every year. They could sign the FA's with upfront bonus money. It could be bueatiful for fans of the rich teams. Ahh it is fun to dream.

[TheLongshot]

And keep piling up the dead cap. We are already paying the equivalent of TWO STAR PLAYERS to people who aren't even on the team. Voila. Idiocy.

One star player, actually. We have 7m in dead cap, 2m of which is Sean Taylor. So, it isn't nearly as bad as you are making it out to be.

Jason

[dfbovey]

One star player, actually. We have 7m in dead cap, 2m of which is Sean Taylor. So, it isn't nearly as bad as you are making it out to be.

Jason

The Redskins aren't quite done creating dead cap space this offseason. They still have Lloyd to cut and possibly Springs. Who knows who else will be included in that mix once free agency starts.

[turbodiesel#44]

One star player, actually. We have 7m in dead cap, 2m of which is Sean Taylor. So, it isn't nearly as bad as you are making it out to be.

Jason
Archuletta, Adam4,500,000 Taylor, Sean2,054,000 Wynn, Renaldo1,928,000 Patten, David762,000 Hall, John465,000 DeMulling, Rick315,000 Jacobs, Taylor284,000 McAdderly, Jason245,000 White, Manuel213,000 Marshall, Lemar182,000 Sampson, Kevin180,000 Salave'a, Joe173,000 Vincent, Troy167,000 Stoutmire, Omar127,000 Boyd, Cody100,000 Fauria, Christian95,000 Jimoh, Ade50,000 Sartz, Dallas46,000 Bodiford, Shaun42,000 Stoutmire, Omar40,000 Butler, Jerametrius40,000 Farris, Jimmy30,000 Lefotu, Kili23,000 Palmer, Jordan21,000 Simon, Kevin17,000 Mason, Marcus16,765 Broughton, Nehemiah14,000 Johnson, Robert8,000 Eubanks, John7,000 Hawkins, Chris7,000 Havner, Spencer7,000 Lonie, David7,000 Harvey, Jasper7,000 Green, Jamaal7,000 Whitley, Taylor7,000 Armstrong, Calvin7,000 Whittaker, William7,000 Clauss, Jared6,000 Fenner, Derrick3,000 Ortega, Buck3,000 Onyenegecha, Chijioke3,000 Brown, Manaia2,000 Cox, Chip1,000 Total12,218,765

You are claiming these figures are wrong then? And dfbovey is right, we're not done yet.

[D-Day]

Archuletta, Adam4,500,000 Taylor, Sean2,054,000 Wynn, Renaldo1,928,000 Patten, David762,000 Hall, John465,000 DeMulling, Rick315,000 Jacobs, Taylor284,000 McAdderly, Jason245,000 White, Manuel213,000 Marshall, Lemar182,000 Sampson, Kevin180,000 Salave'a, Joe173,000 Vincent, Troy167,000 Stoutmire, Omar127,000 Boyd, Cody100,000 Fauria, Christian95,000 Jimoh, Ade50,000 Sartz, Dallas46,000 Bodiford, Shaun42,000 Stoutmire, Omar40,000 Butler, Jerametrius40,000 Farris, Jimmy30,000 Lefotu, Kili23,000 Palmer, Jordan21,000 Simon, Kevin17,000 Mason, Marcus16,765 Broughton, Nehemiah14,000 Johnson, Robert8,000 Eubanks, John7,000 Hawkins, Chris7,000 Havner, Spencer7,000 Lonie, David7,000 Harvey, Jasper7,000 Green, Jamaal7,000 Whitley, Taylor7,000 Armstrong, Calvin7,000 Whittaker, William7,000 Clauss, Jared6,000 Fenner, Derrick3,000 Ortega, Buck3,000 Onyenegecha, Chijioke3,000 Brown, Manaia2,000 Cox, Chip1,000 Total12,218,765

You are claiming these figures are wrong then? And dfbovey is right, we're not done yet.

You two are talking about two seperate years. Most of that 12 mil went to camp fodder players or players signed to as emergency players.

This year we have 7 mil and yes we aren't done yet.

[TheLongshot]

You are claiming these figures are wrong then? And dfbovey is right, we're not done yet.

That's last year's dead cap figure. This year's is here:

http://www.skinsfans.com/pcinoz/Deadcap%20Chart.htm

Right now, most of it is the remainder of Patten's bonus, Brunell, and Taylor.

Jason

[Lloyds' Mongolian Beef]

You are claiming these figures are wrong then? And dfbovey is right, we're not done yet.Those figures are from last year(2007). Our dead cap is $7.184M + $1.8M for Lloyd. Of course there will be others but there figures will be relatively inconsequential.

[turbodiesel#44]

That's last year's dead cap figure. This year's is here:

http://www.skinsfans.com/pcinoz/Deadcap%20Chart.htm

Right now, most of it is the remainder of Patten's bonus, Brunell, and Taylor.

JasonThanks for the link. It looks like we will be paying a similar amount this year after Lloyd is canned. Again, the equivalent of 2 star players. Even if it is just 1, how can you defend this philosophy. It is the same as shooting two of our own ST's, without the legal ramifications.

[TheLongshot]

Those figures are from last year(2007). Our dead cap is $7.184M + $1.8M for Lloyd. Of course there will be others but there figures will be relatively inconsequential.

It depends if some veterans get cut during camp like last year.

Dead cap space is a reality for many NFL teams, because not every player ends their career with a team when their contract runs out. What you try to avoid is to try not to take too many bad hits. This year is probably going to be relatively minor overall, tho we probably are going to take a big hit next year with Lloyd, if we do release him. I don't expect anyone else major to get cut between now and training camp.

Jason

[dfbovey]

Those figures are from last year(2007). Our dead cap is $7.184M + $1.8M for Lloyd. Of course there will be others but there figures will be relatively inconsequential.

Wouldn't surprise me if our dead cap space this year comes out to be the same, if not more than last year's figure.

Depends on the status of Springs and Marcus Washington, who are possible cuts.

10 million and above on the dead cap is not good and just shows how badly this team misses on free agents they sign.

[turbodiesel#44]

10 million and above on the dead cap is not good and just shows how badly this team misses on free agents they sign.That, and restructuring, which puts guaranteed money beyond the shelf life of some of these guys. It also removes the teams options in the event of injury or underproduction.

[pjfootballer]

And look at our dead cap at the bottom of this page. 12M could buy us a helluva WR or CB.
http://www.thehogs.net/washington-redskins/salary.php?search=TotalCapHitNext


:applause: And that is QFT!

[pjfootballer]

I think the point of the argument that we are in cap hell is not that we are actually in cap hell, but it does hamstring us in flexibility. We have a good roster with some good talent, but part of our problem is, when we do have an injury, we can't afford to get a suitable replacement. Or when we think that maybe 1 or 2 players will put us over the edge at becoming an elite team, it hinders us.

[turbodiesel#44]

I think the point of the argument that we are in cap hell is not that we are actually in cap hell, but it does hamstring us in flexibility. It does. Many here seem to think that because we are not releasing big contracts like the 49ers of yore, we are not affected and somehow Danny has beaten the cap. Simply not true.

[TheLongshot]

Depends on the status of Springs and Marcus Washington, who are possible cuts.

Why would Washington get cut? Who on the roster is going to replace him?

It also seems pretty definite that Springs will likely stay another year, since everyone keeps saying that they want him to be here.


10 million and above on the dead cap is not good and just shows how badly this team misses on free agents they sign.

Not really, if you are replacing those players with cheaper players. It all ends up being a wash, mostly, if not a gain. Think that the 2.5m that would be saved on Lloyd would be put to better use if Lloyd was off the books?

Jason

[turbodiesel#44]

Not really, if you are replacing those players with cheaper players. It all ends up being a wash, mostly, if not a gain. Think that the 2.5m that would be saved on Lloyd would be put to better use if Lloyd was off the books?

JasonReplacing with cheaper players? If the guy proves himself, he is going to want, and deserve, a decent contract. Our money is tied up paying guys on other teams or sitting at home, so we'll lose them. I don't follow the logic.

[D-Day]

I think the point of the argument that we are in cap hell is not that we are actually in cap hell, but it does hamstring us in flexibility. We have a good roster with some good talent, but part of our problem is, when we do have an injury, we can't afford to get a suitable replacement. Or when we think that maybe 1 or 2 players will put us over the edge at becoming an elite team, it hinders us.

This is definitely true to a point. I think we did very well with replacing players who got injured last year. Can we afford a 20 mil contract for a bench player? Of course not, but no team can. We did what most here want and found young players who came in and played well enough to get this team to the playoffs, but still I see people complaining about depth. We have holes on this team (like everyone else) and they will fill them the best they can with the money and picks they have available.

I think what is lost in comparing the available cap space amoung teams is this. If you look at the teams with the most space, there is a direct correlation to the money the franchise takes in. One of the sticking factors of the new CBA was that the bottom third of the league would not clear enough revenue to meet payrolls so they would lose money. Revenue sharing guarantees that those teams will get enough cash to cover the difference between their operating costs and the cap. It does this by taking money from the richer franchises. So basically for those teams the difference in their cap number and their payroll is literally the profit margin of the owners. That is why they don't spend as much as other teams and that is why they use the draft so much and avoid the FA's.

[SonnyJ]

D-Day, when it comes to sober cap analysis, you're right there with the best. :applause:

There are many posters here who I wish would take the time to read and understand your posts, and not just entrench themselves into their narrow-minded thinking. They won't let their contempt for the Redskins be overcome by reality.

[D-Day]

D-Day, when it comes to sober cap analysis, you're right there with the best. :applause:

There are many posters here who I wish would take the time to read and understand your posts, and not just entrench themselves into their narrow-minded thinking. They won't let their contempt for the Redskins be overcome by reality.

Thanks,

I agree with everything you said.

[dfbovey]

Why would Washington get cut? Who on the roster is going to replace him?

As speculation would have it, Lance Briggs. Notice I didn't say he WOULD get cut but there is a strong possibility. Especially if the Briggs projections are true.


It also seems pretty definite that Springs will likely stay another year, since everyone keeps saying that they want him to be here.

Depends on Springs and whether he is willing to restructure his deal. Which he refused to do last year.


Not really, if you are replacing those players with cheaper players. It all ends up being a wash, mostly, if not a gain. Think that the 2.5m that would be saved on Lloyd would be put to better use if Lloyd was off the books?

Jason

That's some really backwards math. And all I can say is that I'm glad that someone who thinks this way doesn't run my personal banking accounts.

And in regard to Lloyd being cut, of course the 2.5 million will be better served elsewhere. The entire contract would have been better served elsewhere. But what I find funny is how you want to posture that comment as a positive. The mistake that was Brandon Lloyd has effected our cap for the past two years because we couldn't cut the guy and will continue to handcuff the Redskins after he is gone not only this year, but next as well. How is this a wash of any kind? Seems like some serious spin to me.

Dead cap is never a positive and we consistently lead the league in this category.

[thinker]

I think the point of the argument that we are in cap hell is not that we are actually in cap hell, but it does hamstring us in flexibility. We have a good roster with some good talent, but part of our problem is, when we do have an injury, we can't afford to get a suitable replacement. Or when we think that maybe 1 or 2 players will put us over the edge at becoming an elite team, it hinders us.

Thank you. That's my point exactly. We aren't in cap hell - we're in cap heck.

[TheLongshot]

As speculation would have it, Lance Briggs. Notice I didn't say he WOULD get cut but there is a strong possibility. Especially if the Briggs projections are true.

Which is all pure speculation on JLC's part. He doesn't even have a source to back him up on that one.


Depends on Springs and whether he is willing to restructure his deal. Which he refused to do last year.

You are assuming the Skins will yet again ask him to take a pay cut. Last year, it made sense since he was injured most of 2006.


That's some really backwards math. And all I can say is that I'm glad that someone who thinks this way doesn't run my personal banking accounts.

Think of it like a stock that performed like a dog. There are some benefits for getting rid of it, from the money you'd get from selling it, but also the credit you get to offset any gains.


Dead cap is never a positive and we consistently lead the league in this category.

I didn't say it was a good thing, just that it is part of dealing with the salary cap. From looking around at other teams, it looks like the average dead money hit is about $7m. Unfortunately, there aren't any uniform lists to judge these things. I did find that Detroit had at least $10m of dead cap space just for three WRs (Mike Williams, Charles Rogers and Corey Bradford) last year.

Jason

[klanko]

I just find it amusing that according to the link, the Cardinals only had 34 players under contract.