Why do fans and analysts care about contracts?

[brianforster]

Something that has always perplexed me about the NFL and its fans/sports writers is the OBSESSION with how much these players are making.

As you probably predicted, the Haynesworth signing prompted this. Of course I think we are probably going to "overpay", but at the end of the day, who cares how much money he is making?

If the Skins willingness to throw money around proves anything, its that with the right people in charge you can work with the salary cap and still spend as much money as you want.

Why does it matter how much money billionaires are paying millionaires? Or am I missing something? Somebody please enlighten me...

[da#1skinsfan]

Nope, you are exactly right.

The salary cap is imaginary. Within the current rules owners can do whatever they want to sign players as long as other players will restructure. Simple as that. The whole "salary cap hell" thing has been a joke for a while, and I for one am happy my owner has an open checkbook to support the players his coaches handpick.

[Hershey Pork]

I see your point, and somewhat agree, in theory. I think that it's possibly because of the fact that some of the money that goes to these billionaires and millionaires is from the rising ticket and merchandise costs.

[skinsfan_1215]

I agree with your point. The only thing I care about is who they sign. If they turn out to be a bust then it's not only embarrassing but a severe detriment to the team, especially if there's a ton of money tied up in that player.

[brianforster]

On that note, I guess one of the reasons could be the potential backlash/embarassment for the owner if the player does not turn out to be worth 100 mill. And lets face it, its going to be extremely hard for Haynesworth to live up to that contract, even though it is certain that he is an upgrade.

[AKM311]

The reason I care is not about the money, but what it does to other positions and building a team.

Exp. Giving Haynesworth $15M a year removes having 3 other players on this team that have more talent than the other 3 cheaper options we were forced to sign.

Football has so many positions and depth to fill, that no player outside of QB deserves that much a year.

[terpskins10]

Because giving a crapload of money to a small group of players handcuffs what you do for the rest of the team.

Sure, you can field a competitive roster with a few huge contract guys and a bunch of street FAs to fill out the rest of the team, while managing to stay under the salary cap, but it gives you absolutely no depth because you spend 60-70 percent of your money on 10-12 guys (probably worse, in the 'Skins case) and have the other 30-40 percent to spread over the other 40.

A good amount of those other 40 guys won't be the type you would want to step in during times of injury trouble, which is why in recent years we've had to start guys like Bernard Holsey, Warrick Holdman, Kenny Wright, Brandon Winey, etc. when we could have better quality depth if we had the money.

That's why I, as a fan, care how much my team spends on players.

That's why you care about contracts.

[gorebd82]

I see your point, and somewhat agree, in theory. I think that it's possibly because of the fact that some of the money that goes to these billionaires and millionaires is from the rising ticket and merchandise costs.

I think that ticket prices, etc. are a major concern with large payrolls, but it should all be relative to the situation of the individual teams. People can criticize the payroll/cap situations of the Cowboys and Redskins, but bottom line is that these are the two most profitable teams in the league.

The Skins are in DC where the average income is going to be higher than the majority of the markets for NFL teams so you should expect higher ticket prices.

If you look at the teams that have tons of cap room, a lot of them are small market teams. They seem to not want to push the limits on the salary cap because they're trying to keep the team expenses low in general.

I'd be a lot more upset with the Skins if we were the most profitable team in the league and sitting on top of $30 million in cap room.

[Pwyl]

Because contract shenanigans lead to lines like this:

http://www.thehogs.net/washington-redskins/salary.php#dead

Dead Cap:
Lloyd, Brandon 5,334,000

And the cap isn't imaginary, the restructuring just borrows against the cap in future years.

[CPortJGibbs89]

The reason I care is not about the money, but what it does to other positions and building a team.

Exp. Giving Haynesworth $15M a year removes having 3 other players on this team that have more talent than the other 3 cheaper options we were forced to sign.

Football has so many positions and depth to fill, that no player outside of QB deserves that much a year.Pretty much sums up my thoughts.

[Dan T.]

The most underpaid guy on any NFL team is probably the Capologist. The value of a good one, who really knows the ins and outs of the cap rules and the complete salary picture of a team, has to be HUGE.

[OWUeagleMD]

Allocation of resources. The salary cap is not "imaginary." It is flexible, and teams will always be able to do certain things to get around facing the proverbial "cap hell," but there are still consequences.

[artmonkforHOF]

Something that has always perplexed me about the NFL and its fans/sports writers is the OBSESSION with how much these players are making.

As you probably predicted, the Haynesworth signing prompted this. Of course I think we are probably going to "overpay", but at the end of the day, who cares how much money he is making?

If the Skins willingness to throw money around proves anything, its that with the right people in charge you can work with the salary cap and still spend as much money as you want.

Why does it matter how much money billionaires are paying millionaires? Or am I missing something? Somebody please enlighten me...

that's what I have a problem with. I dont think we have the right people in charge. If we had the right people in charge, we would have had cap space last year to sign some FA's instead of being forced to sign all of our draft picks just to fill the roster.

If we had the right people in charge, then we wouldn't have to play the "which vet will get cut" game every offseason, and I know all teams do it, but the skins do it more often than any other team. Or how about cutting your starting OLB and still not even have enough $ under the cap to sign a replacement. Even with all the other restructrings, we might not even have enough room under the cap to sign the 4 draft picks we have this year, and if you go O line like everyone wants in the first round, you still have holes at OLB, CB, D line and WR.

Throw Albert and his $15mil/year as it's being reported and the situation gets even worse.

[kuraitengai]

Nope, you are exactly right.

The salary cap is imaginary. Within the current rules owners can do whatever they want to sign players as long as other players will restructure. Simple as that. The whole "salary cap hell" thing has been a joke for a while, and I for one am happy my owner has an open checkbook to support the players his coaches handpick.
but how many of those players are players the coaches handpicked vs players the owner handpicked regardless of what the coach wants?

[Califan007]

the Haynesworth signing
He's signed already? lol...

[pjfootballer]

I guess because as fans, we can no longer just say, "Go get Haynesworth" and not care about how it affects the rest of the roster. You have to think about the overall ramifications of the other 52 players salaries before you can go ahead with a wish list. It has to be more thought out.

[MrJL]

Because contract shenanigans lead to lines like this:

http://www.thehogs.net/washington-redskins/salary.php#dead

Dead Cap:
Lloyd, Brandon 5,334,000

And the cap isn't imaginary, the restructuring just borrows against the cap in future years.

hey, there's only one more year of cap. The Skins have pushed money beyond the uncapped year now, but it's entirely possible that the salary cap in it's current form won't exist that year.

[ouvan59]

I see your point, and somewhat agree, in theory. I think that it's possibly because of the fact that some of the money that goes to these billionaires and millionaires is from the rising ticket and merchandise costs.

That is a fallacy. Ticket prices are not dependent on salaries at all. The owner charges what you will pay. If you will pay $100 for a ticket without throwing your hands up in disgust then that's what he'll charge. If you'll pay $8 for a beer and keep coming back then that's what he'll charge. Now, what he'll pay Albert Haynesworth may be dependent on what you will pay for a ticket.

[Peregrine]

Because in reality, one players contract effects the ability of the team to go after other players. Which is fine as long as that player is filling the need the team actually has. Singing Hanyesworth, for example, to 15 million a year adversely effects the Redskins ability to re-sign Hall, or go after some other free agents.

[Laxpunk2006]

If we didn't have a salary cap I really wouldn't care because it isn't my money. But the fact is there IS a salary cap, and overpaying for one player can be detrimental to putting together the rest of the team.

[da#1skinsfan]

Any "consequences" relative to a salary cap are inconsequential....to me.

Any player a team wants, they can have. It all depends on how much guaranteed bonus money an owner wants to hand out to other players to restructure and make room. Simple as that. The Redskins have done it for years and years with zero zero zero consequences. Cap hell! What do we do? Sign Fletcher, Lloyd, Arch, Randle El, on and on and on. Regardless of how they panned out, we got the guys we wanted at the time with apparently millions over the cap.

The cap is imaginary and the Redskins have proved it for years.

[Romberjo]

Any player a team wants, they can have. It all depends on how much guaranteed bonus money an owner wants to hand out to other players to restructure and make room. Simple as that. The Redskins have done it for years and years with zero zero zero consequences. Cap hell! What do we do? Sign Fletcher, Lloyd, Arch, Randle El, on and on and on. Regardless of how they panned out, we got the guys we wanted at the time with apparently millions over the cap.
This is plainly untrue. If it were, we would sign both Hall and Haynesworth without a second thought -- the expected income to Snyder of having a more successful team would easily outweigh the salary paid.

[HighOnHendrix]

To answer the OP's question, it's a matter of value. If player A is taking up 5% of the team's cap room, but only contributing 2% of the total effort needed to succeed as a team, then that's a bad situation. Some UDFA scrub could come in and do the same job for a quarter the cost. Value.

[da#1skinsfan]

This is plainly untrue. If it were, we would sign both Hall and Haynesworth without a second thought -- the expected income to Snyder of having a more successful team would easily outweigh the salary paid.

If the team wants Hall and Haynesworth, they will sign Hall and Haynesworth. We were in cap hell when we signed Arch and Lloyd too. And Randle El. And when Portis got that big deal? Cap hell. We were never going to be able to resign Samuels, remember, cap hell? And when we traded for Taylors $8M annual salary too, remember, cap hell.

According to media pundits, we are over the cap, code red, just like every year, and shouldnt even be able to sniff these guys in terms of what they are asking, nevermind have serious discussions.

Time will tell.

[da#1skinsfan]

This is plainly untrue. If it were, we would sign both Hall and Haynesworth without a second thought -- the expected income to Snyder of having a more successful team would easily outweigh the salary paid.

ahem....

[WARLORD1863]

Cowboys, Giants, and Eagles fans are having fits over how the skins are able to make these signings. They're literally freaking out. But to make themselves feel better they still think Hall plays the same way he did in Oakland, and they're already shrugging off Haynesworth like its no big deal. It's their only defense weapon to deal with something they can't believe is happening.

[Califan007]

This is plainly untrue. If it were, we would sign both Hall and Haynesworth without a second thought -- the expected income to Snyder of having a more successful team would easily outweigh the salary paid.
LoL...Now that's some good bumpwnage there.

[Pwyl]

hey, there's only one more year of cap. The Skins have pushed money beyond the uncapped year now, but it's entirely possible that the salary cap in it's current form won't exist that year.


That's true now. It wasn't true when we signed bloyd to that ridiculous contract. It effectively lowered our salary cap by 5M this year.

[OWUeagleMD]

Cowboys, Giants, and Eagles fans are having fits over how the skins are able to make these signings. They're literally freaking out. But to make themselves feel better they still think Hall plays the same way he did in Oakland, and they're already shrugging off Haynesworth like its no big deal. It's their only defense weapon to deal with something they can't believe is happening.

I can believe it's happening (I even predicted it to happen in a thread on this very board), I'm literally not freaking out, and I'm not under the belief that Hall will play as he did in Oakland nor am I shrugging off Haynesworth like it's no big deal.

Otherwise, accurate post.

[Big Blue Joe]

Cowboys, Giants, and Eagles fans are having fits over how the skins are able to make these signings. They're literally freaking out. But to make themselves feel better they still think Hall plays the same way he did in Oakland, and they're already shrugging off Haynesworth like its no big deal. It's their only defense weapon to deal with something they can't believe is happening.We are?:whoknows:

[OWUeagleMD]

We are?:whoknows:

We are all LITERALLY losing our minds! All of us!

[pjfootballer]

I wanted Hall back. I wanted Haynesworth, but not at that price. Oh well, no depth.
8-8 here we come again.

[da#1skinsfan]

This is plainly untrue. If it were, we would sign both Hall and Haynesworth without a second thought -- the expected income to Snyder of having a more successful team would easily outweigh the salary paid.

Just wanted to let you know the Skins just inked another $26M deal on top of AH and Hall. I guess "plainly untrue" may have a different meaning where youre from ;)

Sorry had to do it.

[Recent Vintage]

I wanted Hall back. I wanted Haynesworth, but not at that price. Oh well, no depth.
8-8 here we come again.

No depth?


You don't think Haynesworth-Griffin-Monty-Golston is depth?

Hall-Rogers-Smoot is a great trio. We should definitely look for another reserve. If we trade down a bunch in the draft (Meaning 6 picks or more total) I could see us drafting another CB. Tryon/Westbrook aren't exactly great corners yet.


We just got Dockery back, so that solidifies Kendall's old spot.


As far as I'm concerned if between the first three rounds we get any combo of OLB/RT/DE we're golden. Center can be drafted later.

[kobra860]

The reason I care is not about the money, but what it does to other positions and building a team.

Exp. Giving Haynesworth $15M a year removes having 3 other players on this team that have more talent than the other 3 cheaper options we were forced to sign.

Football has so many positions and depth to fill, that no player outside of QB deserves that much a year.

I completely agree. Especially if you had a top 5 defense the previous season even with a mediocre DL.