ESPN: Clayton - Skins positively affected by new cap

[AKM311]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=6699864

Teams affected positively:

1. Washington Redskins: Owner Dan Snyder gave defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth and cornerback DeAngelo Hall around $36 million in bonus money in 2010 to free up room to be a big spender in free agency in 2011. Snyder and Mike Shanahan will have to be creative in how they structure contracts, because the $120 million cap would give them only around $10 million of cap room. On the positive side, the Redskins' current payroll is $75.7 million, meaning Snyder would have to spend close to $45 million in cash to meet the potential minimum floor requirements. Imagine a system that forces Snyder to spend.


Click link to see how screwed Cowboys are.

[IONTOP]

OMG CAP HELL!!1111!!!! Haha this officially means we have beaten the system right?

[DC9]

"Your welcome."

-Bruce Allen

[IONTOP]

"You're welcome."

-Bruce Allen

Bruce Allen doesn't make mistakes like that...

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Bruce Allen doesn't make mistakes like that...

:ols:

[terpskins10]

OMG CAP HELL!!1111!!!! Haha this officially means we have beaten the system right?

Considering our lack of money didn't allow us to build quality depth on our roster for the last 8 seasons, I wouldn't say we "beat the system". That being said, it's nice to see we'll be able to sign some good pieces and upgrade our talent level on the roster. Still need to build the guys 23-53 though.

[DC9]

Bruce Allen doesn't make mistakes like that...

Mistakes like setting up the team to be the number 1 most positively affected franchise by the new salary cap?

---------- Post added June-24th-2011 at 03:35 PM ----------


Considering our lack of money didn't allow us to build quality depth on our roster for the last 8 seasons, I wouldn't say we "beat the system". That being said, it's nice to see we'll be able to sign some good pieces and upgrade our talent level on the roster. Still need to build the guys 23-53 though.

Yes, and I feel we drafted a few of them this season and last season. But I would like to address some players in the 1-22 range, particullarly the RG (Davin Joseph please!) and the RT (Ryan Harris, Please!). I don't mind getting this big fella Franklin from the 49ers, but I am satisfied with a rotation involving Bryant and Neild. I think Chris Neild was a big pick up.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I'm not sure I understand where we stand. Clayton writes this:

Snyder and Mike Shanahan will have to be creative in how they structure contracts, because the $120 million cap would give them only around $10 million of cap room. On the positive side, the Redskins' current payroll is $75.7 million, meaning Snyder would have to spend close to $45 million in cash to meet the potential minimum floor requirements. Imagine a system that forces Snyder to spend.

So, do we have only $10M or $45M in cap room?

[IONTOP]

Mistakes like setting up the team to be the number 1 most positively affected franchise by the new salary cap?

Actually was talking about the mixing up of your/you're...

[terpskins10]

I'm not sure I understand where we stand. Clayton writes this:

Snyder and Mike Shanahan will have to be creative in how they structure contracts, because the $120 million cap would give them only around $10 million of cap room. On the positive side, the Redskins' current payroll is $75.7 million, meaning Snyder would have to spend close to $45 million in cash to meet the potential minimum floor requirements. Imagine a system that forces Snyder to spend.

So, do we have only $10M or $45M in cap room?

Minimum payroll is not the same thing as minimum cap number. Remember, you can structure contracts so that a guy could be making more than his cap number (as we've done over the last decade). The minimum payroll means that we have to spend 45 million to meet the payroll requirements but we have to do it with about 10 million dollars of "cap number" space.

[ucfSKINS]

I love the picture at the top of the link!

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Minimum payroll is not the same thing as minimum cap number. Remember, you can structure contracts so that a guy could be making more than his cap number (as we've done over the last decade). The minimum payroll means that we have to spend 45 million to meet the payroll requirements but we have to do it with about 10 million dollars of "cap number" space.

Thank you...that makes perfect sense.

[Destructis]

Yay, this means we can sit Alberts fat ass on the end of the bench all year.

[angel2]

It looks like the Cowboys and Jets are in deep doh-doh!

[Califan007]

Considering our lack of money didn't allow us to build quality depth on our roster for the last 8 seasons, I wouldn't say we "beat the system". That being said, it's nice to see we'll be able to sign some good pieces and upgrade our talent level on the roster. Still need to build the guys 23-53 though.
It was a lack of draft picks and lack of a GM...not a lack of money. Don't get confused there.

[Darth Tater]

I'm not sure I understand where we stand. Clayton writes this:

Snyder and Mike Shanahan will have to be creative in how they structure contracts, because the $120 million cap would give them only around $10 million of cap room. On the positive side, the Redskins' current payroll is $75.7 million, meaning Snyder would have to spend close to $45 million in cash to meet the potential minimum floor requirements. Imagine a system that forces Snyder to spend.

So, do we have only $10M or $45M in cap room?

Payroll and cap are two different concepts. Payroll is how much cash your putting out in any given year while your cap position is an accrual-like dollar figure based on the rules as outlined by the CBA. Of course, what this does say is that we'll have to put around $35 million on the "credit card".

[SonnyandSam]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=6699864

Imagine a system that forces Snyder to spend.

Spending money has never been the issue. The issue is spending the money wisely.

[terpskins10]

It was a lack of draft picks and lack of a GM...not a lack of money. Don't get confused there.

I think it's both, to be honest. Not being able to evaluate talent sure didn't do us any favors, though.

[Califan007]

I think it's both, to be honest. Not being able to evaluate talent sure didn't do us any favors, though.

Depth is usually very affordable, especially for a team that purposefully finds new and creative ways to spend money lol. But as you just pointed out, not being able to evaluate talent means we don't spend the money wisely...and not having enough draft picks means we end up using depth as starters. a lot of our starters over the years would have made great depth if we actually had decent starters in place.

[Destructis]

JKC spent a lot of money on depth. When Bobby B and Gibbs said they wanted to sign a player for depth, JKC wrote the check without hesitation. It's not how much you spend, it's how you spend it.

[Califan007]

JKC spent a lot of money on depth. When Bobby B and Gibbs said they wanted to sign a player for depth, JKC wrote the check without hesitation. It's not how much you spend, it's how you spend it.

It was a bit easier to accumulate depth back when there was no salary cap or real free agency, though.

[Brotherz]

I hate the eagles so much man. How the hell are they positively effected and have that freakin roster? Can they do anything wrong? (Besides of course being completely unable to win a Superbowl that is).

[terpskins10]

I hate the eagles so much man. How the hell are they positively effected and have that freakin roster? Can they do anything wrong? (Besides of course being completely unable to win a Superbowl that is).

Think about how many of their stars are on their cheap, rookie contracts. Jackson and McCoy were both second rounders, Maclin a mid first. Vick is still on a cheap deal (as of right now) as well. They have money to spend but they'll hit some trouble once all those guys look to get paid.

[pjfootballer]

I'm not sure I understand where we stand. Clayton writes this:

Snyder and Mike Shanahan will have to be creative in how they structure contracts, because the $120 million cap would give them only around $10 million of cap room. On the positive side, the Redskins' current payroll is $75.7 million, meaning Snyder would have to spend close to $45 million in cash to meet the potential minimum floor requirements. Imagine a system that forces Snyder to spend.

So, do we have only $10M or $45M in cap room?

I was just as confused as you are.

[Hitman21ST]

Click link to see how screwed Cowboys are.

I lol'd at the Cowboys' situation. After all their talk about how stacked the roster is, they'll have to lose some of the big contracts...

Anyone think they'll lose out on Doug Free?

[texasthunder]

Depth is usually very affordable, especially for a team that purposefully finds new and creative ways to spend money lol. But as you just pointed out, not being able to evaluate talent means we don't spend the money wisely...and not having enough draft picks means we end up using depth as starters. a lot of our starters over the years would have made great depth if we actually had decent starters in place.

The hell with depth, we need some starters.
Or at least some starters with talent.
And in key positions.


I know, give em a couple years and all the young guys we have, will be stars, someday.........................

[Hitman21ST]

As a side note, I like all this salary cap talk because it suggests we're close to free agency and football being back

[Boss_Hogg]

Great job FO!

Nice to be way under the cap

[Califan007]

Great job FO!

Nice to be way under the cap
I think it says we're only $10 million under the cap...

[UK SKINS FAN '74]

I have a hard time believing that article is accurate.

No way we have that much cap space being utilised by past bonuses that have pro-rated into 2011.

[skins2victory]

Right on........... I really hope this gives us some leverage to go get one of the top CB this free agency. If we could land someone like Cromartie we would have a very good secondary sence we already picked up Atogwe. According to the link, the jets are hurting and more than likly arnt going to be able to resign Cromartie. Think about this.......... Hall, Cromartie, Landry, Atogwe

Also, anytime I see that the cowboys are in a bad situation it makes me smile!

[skinfan2k]

Its true that we will have around that much but I think that is taking into consideration if McNabb, Haynesworth are not on the roster

[Darth Tater]

I think it says we're only $10 million under the cap...
Yep, $10M under but must put out about $45M cash meaning we can say that as of now about $35M will have accrue to the cap in out years but ALL that cash must be paid in 2011.

[Darth Tater]

Its true that we will have around that much but I think that is taking into consideration if McNabb, Haynesworth are not on the roster

When we move AH and McNabb, our available cap room will not fall much but our payroll will drop tremendously which means that it may actually be a slight negative cap-wise.

[AKM311]

Yep, $10M under but must put out about $45M cash meaning we can say that as of now about $35M will have accrue to the cap in out years but ALL that cash must be paid in 2011.

It won't be that hard.

If we do contracts like the ones I am expecting.....4-5 year contracts anywhere from 20-35M with SB's between 11-15M guarentueed, you will be able to give $35M in SB's to get you to the "cash" floor and still be under the salary cap.

Ex. Contract player X - 4 yrs/22M/11M SB = 13M in cash (11SB +2M salary) but only $4.9M against the cap (SB spread out over 4 years).

I don't think this takes into account for the release of Haynesworth and McNabb.

---------- Post added June-24th-2011 at 10:10 PM ----------


When we move AH and McNabb, our available cap room will not fall much but our payroll will drop tremendously which means that it may actually be a slight negative cap-wise.

Might not be the case. Not sure exactly how it will all come out, but McNabb has an $11M roster bonus for the start of the year.

If we release/trade him, we lose the same amount of cap space as cash. Roster bonuses hit the cap all at once in that given year vs. a signing bonus. So we will save about $13-$14M in cash and cap.

That will go to the signing bonus of Harris. Which will get his cap number to about $5-6M, but cash number of $17M ($14M in SB and $2M in salary)

[UK SKINS FAN '74]

Yep, $10M under but must put out about $45M cash meaning we can say that as of now about $35M will have accrue to the cap in out years but ALL that cash must be paid in 2011.

Any ideas on how we can have so much 2011 cap space used up already. The way I've read things, We've either dumped contracts during the uncapped year, or we've pushed the big bonuses money like Halls & Haynesworths through the uncapped year.

I can't understand the hugh gulf between apparent cap space & available cash to spend based on 2011 payroll ( ie cash). Don't seem quite right to me.

[AKM311]

Any ideas on how we can have so much 2011 cap space used up already. The way I've read things, We've either dumped contracts during the uncapped year, or we've pushed the big bonuses money like Halls & Haynesworths through the uncapped year.

I can't understand the hugh gulf between apparent cap space & available cash to spend based on 2011 payroll ( ie cash). Don't seem quite right to me.

McNabb is currently holding a large cap number that will help balance things out.

[UK SKINS FAN '74]

McNabb is currently holding a large cap number that will help balance things out.

right, so the $10m in cap space in vastly understated if we don't keep McNabb.

[AKM311]

right, so the $10m in cap space in vastly understated if we don't keep McNabb.

I think so. But not 100% sure until real numbers come out. Clayton is just guessing at what the cap is and what % the cash floor will be.

Also, he is not saying as how he got his numbers and if he is making assumptions on McNabb and factoring all that in.

[UK SKINS FAN '74]

I think so. But not 100% sure until real numbers come out. Clayton is just guessing at what the cap is and what % the cash floor will be.

Also, he is not saying as how he got his numbers and if he is making assumptions on McNabb and factoring all that in.

Yeah, I just can't see how we have a $35m difference between cap number & payroll number.

Thought we negated this issue by cutting Portis, Carter, Dockery etc, whilst pushing the bonus money on Hall & AH through in 2010.

[Darth Tater]

It won't be that hard.

If we do contracts like the ones I am expecting.....4-5 year contracts anywhere from 20-35M with SB's between 11-15M guarentueed, you will be able to give $35M in SB's to get you to the "cash" floor and still be under the salary cap.

Ex. Contract player X - 4 yrs/22M/11M SB = 13M in cash (11SB +2M salary) but only $4.9M against the cap (SB spread out over 4 years).

I don't think this takes into account for the release of Haynesworth and McNabb.

What you are describing is exactly what put us into the cap problems we've had for so long. This is what I meant when I talked about putting it on "the credit card". Now, you've just added 4.9M to the cap in the future but still must meet future payroll. Assuming no upward adjustment of the cap, we'll now only have 5.1M to meet the 2012 payroll (we'll likely also be about 40M short in 2012) without moving even more into the cap out years. Doable? Yes, no question but we would be headed back into the same situation as before only now we wouldn't even have a body.



Might not be the case. Not sure exactly how it will all come out, but McNabb has an $11M roster bonus for the start of the year.

If we release/trade him, we lose the same amount of cap space as cash. Roster bonuses hit the cap all at once in that given year vs. a signing bonus. So we will save about $13-$14M in cash and cap.


Do NOT want to save money on payroll since that is a FLOOR. Using your numbers, moving McNabb increases our spending requirements by 13-14M but would only save us about 2-3M on the cap (as pointed out above, this is a NEGATIVE cap move). Any money going to Harris has got nothing to do with this. Again, we can absorb the difference here but only via a negative cap move.

---------- Post added June-24th-2011 at 04:55 PM ----------


right, so the $10m in cap space in vastly understated if we don't keep McNabb.
Payroll is even more vastly overstated if we don't keep McNabb. Assuming an 10M bonus on a 5 year extension and a 1M salary, he'd cost about 3M on the cap in 2011 and about 11M on payroll. If we move him, we'd now be about 13M under but need to spend about 56M. This means, we will be adding about 43M to cap accrual as opposed to 35M. Now, there are other reasons we'll be moving McNabb.

[Blue Collar Skins]

I LOVE this tidbit:

"Owner Jerry Jones made sure his team wouldn't be ripped apart during tough labor times. He's always aggressive in re-signing his top players. But the Cowboys are currently a minimum of $18.9 million over the salary cap, which could spell doom for right tackle Marc Colombo, wide receiver Roy Williams and others. Jones also has to come up with some room to re-sign left tackle Doug Free and others."

[Rypien1191]

Shouldn't it be "affected positively", not "positively affected"?

:)

---------- Post added June-24th-2011 at 10:31 PM ----------

Anyways, I'm hoping this means 5 good free agents, not 1 or 2 crazy expensive free agents.

[Hitman21ST]

Right on........... I really hope this gives us some leverage to go get one of the top CB this free agency. If we could land someone like Cromartie we would have a very good secondary sence we already picked up Atogwe. According to the link, the jets are hurting and more than likly arnt going to be able to resign Cromartie. Think about this.......... Hall, Cromartie, Landry, Atogwe

Also, anytime I see that the cowboys are in a bad situation it makes me smile!

Not sold on Cromartie...he's a good talent, but I'm concerned about his off-field issues

[SpacePenguin]

Not sold on Cromartie...he's a good talent, but I'm concerned about his off-field issues

Character issues aside, I'm not sure he'd be a good fit in a zone blitz scheme with Hall opposite.

Would much rather go after a cheaper, hard working off the radar zone cb, who plays solid and doesn't take chances, to balance out Hall's gambles.

[Hitman21ST]

Character issues aside, I'm not sure he'd be a good fit in a zone blitz scheme with Hall opposite.

Would much rather go after a cheaper, hard working off the radar zone cb, who plays solid and doesn't take chances, to balance out Hall's gambles.

Agreed. I'm actually hoping that Barnes and Gomes (who I think will end up as the nickle guy before too long) become that guy.

[DeadExField]

Yay, this means we can sit Alberts fat ass on the end of the bench all year.

what if we made it to the Superbowl, and then made AH inactive for the game lol

[kyousukeneko]

gomes is an a Saftey but three safety D are becoming a fad

[UK SKINS FAN '74]

Payroll is even more vastly overstated if we don't keep McNabb. Assuming an 10M bonus on a 5 year extension and a 1M salary, he'd cost about 3M on the cap in 2011 and about 11M on payroll. If we move him, we'd now be about 13M under but need to spend about 56M. This means, we will be adding about 43M to cap accrual as opposed to 35M. Now, there are other reasons we'll be moving McNabb.

Wouldn't suprise me if his full $10m bonus has been fully asssigned to 2011 based on how that bouns has been defined in his contract. But, that is just a guess :ols:

At least we know that Bruce knows how to master the numbers game. Based on these payroll numbers, I'd expect to see someone like Landry extended & done so in a manner that helps use up some on this 'payroll' space for example.

Still not buying the big difference between cap at $110m & payroll at $75m. It was reported the team absorbed about $30m in dead cap through releasing Smoot, Rock, Griffin, Betts, Randy Thomas, ARE, Collins etc etc in the uncapped year. Plus you can now add Portis, Dock, and Carter to the list. Thank God for the uncapped year.

Unless I am missing something obvious, I can't think how our existing contracts could use up so much additional cap space over & above actual payroll for 2011.

[wilco_holland]

And that´s why Dan Snyder is our owner....he knows his ways with money.

[Spade]

what if we made it to the Superbowl, and then made AH inactive for the game lol

His fat ass will still get a ring

[GoDannyBoy]

His fat ass will still get a ring

Cut him before the game starts and leave him in the parking lot!

[Pedro]

And that´s why Dan Snyder is our owner....he knows his ways with money.

Not NFL money he doesn't. Our spending was the reason we had no depth and let our own guys go.

Bruce does know NFL money though.

[Bonez3]

Well, one thing I am damn near convinced with the Snyder Redsins is that they always were Cap experts. Player talent eval is another story...

[worstSeat]

Still need to build the guys 23-53 though.

1-22 would be nice too.

Ah, the uncapped year. Hid lots of Fat Al's salary and was a great time to dump lots of if not mistakes, then at least older and underperforming players, dollar for dollar.

Better lucky than good.

[Hitman21ST]

gomes is an a Saftey but three safety D are becoming a fad

Gomes played everything in college, FS, SS, CB, and LB.

Seeing as we have Landry and Atogwe, Gomes will get playing time at nickleback, and when Atogwe needs a breather. Once OJ retires, we move Gomes to FS for the long haul

[Cope]

I fundamentally disagree with Clayton. We are in the scenario where we need pay at least $45mm in bonuses but only consume $10mm in cap space. This is nothing new for the Skins, but what is different is that every other club is now going to have spend at the levels we have in the past. In other words, there is more cash that has to spent this year with no change to the number of players. Our $s will be spent in a more competitive environment.

Expect massive inflation either in the shape of crazy signing bonuses from clubs with no cap space or chunkier longer term deals for the clubs with more cap space.

[HailGreen28]

And that´s why Dan Snyder is our owner....he knows his ways with money.If he would only let the football people run things, he would be a truly SUCCESSFUL owner. *fingers crossed* However much $ he's making now, he'd make even more with a winning franchise.

[ADF]

Extending Landry would cut a huge chunk out of that $45 million. He's also young enough to sign to a long term contract and thus his bonus can be spread out to lessen the cap hit.

[SpacePenguin]

Extending Landry would cut a huge chunk out of that $45 million. He's also young enough to sign to a long term contract and thus his bonus can be spread out to lessen the cap hit.

Resigning Landry should be the first priority going forward. I think he has more of an impact than any player on our roster in this Defense.

I'm sure he'll be resigned though, as the coaching staff speaks well of him.

[Wheat]

Would much rather go after a cheaper, hard working off the radar zone cb, who plays solid and doesn't take chances, to balance out Hall's gambles.

Ike Taylor?

[Hitman21ST]

Ike Taylor?

If he comes at a reasonable price, definitely.

[Dukes and Skins]

If he comes at a reasonable price, definitely.

Age is a factor with him though, young CB I want is Jonathan Joseph from Cincy would be a good compliment to Hall as Joseph yes does take chances but also shuts down his men

[Hitman21ST]

Age is a factor with him though, young CB I want is Jonathan Joseph from Cincy would be a good compliment to Hall as Joseph yes does take chances but also shuts down his men

For sure. I wasn't counting out Joesph, just answering about Ike Taylor. Does the proposed 4 year unrestricted add any other CBs to the market?

[DC9]

Actually was talking about the mixing up of your/you're...

lol. Oh, well through me a softball next time.

[Coolio47]

lol. Oh, well through me a softball next time.

http://i592.photobucket.com/albums/tt2/WallaMalla/Batman%20Collection/NotSureIfSerious.jpg?t=1245809150

[AKM311]

What you are describing is exactly what put us into the cap problems we've had for so long. This is what I meant when I talked about putting it on "the credit card". Now, you've just added 4.9M to the cap in the future but still must meet future payroll. Assuming no upward adjustment of the cap, we'll now only have 5.1M to meet the 2012 payroll (we'll likely also be about 40M short in 2012) without moving even more into the cap out years. Doable? Yes, no question but we would be headed back into the same situation as before only now we wouldn't even have a body.



Do NOT want to save money on payroll since that is a FLOOR. Using your numbers, moving McNabb increases our spending requirements by 13-14M but would only save us about 2-3M on the cap (as pointed out above, this is a NEGATIVE cap move). Any money going to Harris has got nothing to do with this. Again, we can absorb the difference here but only via a negative cap move.


Every team will be in a similar situation. Again, we do not know numbers, so my examples could be way off. However, the idea still stays the same.

What got us before, was not this issue. The issue was spending the money badly. Working the cap was fine. Every team does it. The key is to have the players play out 70% of the contract. Not the AH issue.

D-Halls contract is the same setup, however, he won't hurt us as long as he keeps playing the way he does for us. He will play out his contract. As did Santana Moss and others. The killer is if we trade draft picks for vets that bust. If that keeps happening, roster spots 23-52 will never get better.

With the new floor, every team is going to have to be creative and actually spend money. The difference for the Skins, they have been doing this already where most teams haven't. This new floor won't hurt the Skins at all.

[UK SKINS FAN '74]

D-Halls contract is the same setup.

Halls contract was set-up in a manner that allowed full allocation in the uncapped year of his $15m 2010 bonus. There is very little future cap charge against Hall at the moment.

[Dukes and Skins]

For sure. I wasn't counting out Joesph, just answering about Ike Taylor. Does the proposed 4 year unrestricted add any other CBs to the market?

Couldn't tell you off the top of my head but I'll do some digging around to see

[AKM311]

Halls contract was set-up in a manner that allowed full allocation in the uncapped year of his $15m 2010 bonus. There is very little future cap charge against Hall at the moment.

Correct, as was Haynsworth. Which is what I stated.

My point was signing players that we know will play out 70% of the contract. Then the contract doesn't look bad and set the team back. The issue in the past was not of bad contracts only, it was bad contracts to bad players. Setting up contracts as I stated is not an issue at all as long as the player is performing up to 70% of that contract.

It is the exact reason why, Washington, Griffin, Portis, Springs, DHall, Moss, and others never hurt the cap. Spend the money, just spend it wisely. I have confident this FO is doing just that. Now trades is another issue. But, just alone on the contracts, I think we finally have a smart man in BA in the building.

[terpskins10]

Couldn't tell you off the top of my head but I'll do some digging around to see

One guy who is an outstanding player that gets NO love is Brent Grimes. I'd love to have him on our team. Richard Marshall would also be a solid signing.

[UK SKINS FAN '74]

Correct, as was Haynsworth. Which is what I stated.

Fair enough - just didn't read it that way from your post for some reason.


It is the exact reason why, Washington, Griffin, Portis, Springs, DHall, Moss, and others never hurt the cap. Spend the money, just spend it wisely. I have confident this FO is doing just that.

I am confident too.

But, the uncapped year has helped clear some of the crap up. That is why the Portis contract never hurt the cap, for example.

[DC9]

gomes is an a Saftey but three safety D are becoming a fad

He played a lot of nickel in college and Shanny already said he may get to play some nickel this year.

---------- Post added June-28th-2011 at 08:02 AM ----------


Couldn't tell you off the top of my head but I'll do some digging around to see


I would like to go after Brandon Carr from the Ravens. He may be out there looking for a reasonable deal.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I lol'd at the Cowboys' situation. After all their talk about how stacked the roster is, they'll have to lose some of the big contracts...

Anyone think they'll lose out on Doug Free?

The Cowboy's situation is not nearly as bad as it is being made out to be IMO. Dallas has not restructured any contracts to this point. They have a lot of room under restructure. What I think you will see is a few contracts reworked and extended. Romo is coming up on a contract so I expect the Cowboys will get that out of the way and simply ease the cap. Nobody really knows what the CBA is going to say so all of this is speculation but we can kinda get an idea I think. Romo's cap number in 2011 is over 9 million. I expect they will rework his contract, sign for a longer period of time and push a lot of that money into a signing bonus in order to get him much closer to the vet minimum. Ware and Miles are due 6.7 and 8.54 Million this year respectively. There contracts will also be reworked and funds pushed into Bonus structure to get the cap number down. If you just do those three players, which is a reasonable assumption cause none of those guys are going anywhere any time soon, you can probably save 17.5 Million in cap space.

You figure that Brookings (2.5 Million), Colombo (2 Mil), Olshansky (4.5 Mil), Barber (4.25 Mil), Kris Brown (2.5 Mil) and there is a possability that Newman (8 Mil) could be gone.

We could also see a guy like Kitna get traded to a team like Miami, Minnesota or Cincy as well. He is scheduled to make (2.6 Mil) this season and while he is very valuable, he represents a very expensive luxury and has trade value. If McGee shows improvement, we could very easily see that kind of move happen.

All of these are very realistic cap moves that we could see happen. If the Cowboys wanted to create space, they could easily do it. Lots of guys that could be sent packing and none of them would be players that impact a lot, based on production.

Next year, if the Cowboys wanted to, they could get out from under Roy Williams and Bigg's contracts next year, which would create even more cap.

At this point, it's all a guessing game but I don't think we will see the Cowboys in to terrible a cap situation this year.

[Destructis]

I hope the Cowboys do all of this. It will put them in cap hell later. What saved the Skins from going into cap hell was the uncapped year. If the CBA is a 10 year agreement like I am hearing, what you are talking about will hurt the cowgirls in the future.

[Hitman#21]

I just want FA to begin already! Looks like July 15th is a realstic estimate, but with all this greed..who knows honestly.

[SouthCarolinaSkins]

Actually was talking about the mixing up of your/you're...

That is quickly becoming a pet peeve. I see it more often these days on message boards. I think some people are just becoming lazy and do not wanna type "you're," while others just do not know the difference between the two. I actually saw a guy driving down the road, promoting his personal business, about a week ago. The door sized magnet read something like (paraphrasing), "Your gonna be satisfied."

Carry on....

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I hope the Cowboys do all of this. It will put them in cap hell later. What saved the Skins from going into cap hell was the uncapped year. If the CBA is a 10 year agreement like I am hearing, what you are talking about will hurt the cowgirls in the future.

You can't really say that unless you concede that the Redskins were hurt by doing the same things for almost a decade.

[Destructis]

I do concede that. If it wasn't for the uncapped year, it would have killed us eventually.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I do concede that. If it wasn't for the uncapped year, it would have killed us eventually.

Oh OK...I still think we were in some sort of "cap Hell" in that we didn't have the resources to acquire the type of depth we needed to be a truly good team while Gibbs was here. It wasn't true cap Hell where we had to release 18 players, but we were limited even with the "get out of jail free" card the uncapped year provided.

[Destructis]

We were robbing Peter to pay Paul. We would renegoiate contracts to sign that one big, aging, past their prime free agent.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I hope the Cowboys do all of this. It will put them in cap hell later. What saved the Skins from going into cap hell was the uncapped year. If the CBA is a 10 year agreement like I am hearing, what you are talking about will hurt the cowgirls in the future.


I don't think it will put them in cap hell. The cuts I mention will save money and we are out of them in a season. The restructured deals are with players that will likely play there careers out in Dallas or be very close to it. I don't see this happening but I guess anything is possible.

As far as dead cap money, I wouldn't be too sure about that. I don't think that the agreement is going to allow dead cap to just be tossed away in the uncapped year. I think that it might be applied in the new capped year once this is all said and done with. I guess we'll see.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

We were robbing Peter to pay Paul. We would renegoiate contracts to sign that one big, aging, past their prime free agent.

Right...that was the problem. We'd renegotiate the contracts of some players which locked us into longer contracts with them and made them uncuttable. We were stuck with a very large percentage of our roster and that money was allocated. That's why we didn't have the luxury of cutting players to clear space. We had 30-somethings with 3-5 years still on their renegotiated contracts.

[pjfootballer]

The Cowboy's situation is not nearly as bad as it is being made out to be IMO. Dallas has not restructured any contracts to this point. They have a lot of room under restructure. What I think you will see is a few contracts reworked and extended. Romo is coming up on a contract so I expect the Cowboys will get that out of the way and simply ease the cap. Nobody really knows what the CBA is going to say so all of this is speculation but we can kinda get an idea I think. Romo's cap number in 2011 is over 9 million. I expect they will rework his contract, sign for a longer period of time and push a lot of that money into a signing bonus in order to get him much closer to the vet minimum. Ware and Miles are due 6.7 and 8.54 Million this year respectively. There contracts will also be reworked and funds pushed into Bonus structure to get the cap number down. If you just do those three players, which is a reasonable assumption cause none of those guys are going anywhere any time soon, you can probably save 17.5 Million in cap space.

You figure that Brookings (2.5 Million), Colombo (2 Mil), Olshansky (4.5 Mil), Barber (4.25 Mil), Kris Brown (2.5 Mil) and there is a possability that Newman (8 Mil) could be gone.

We could also see a guy like Kitna get traded to a team like Miami, Minnesota or Cincy as well. He is scheduled to make (2.6 Mil) this season and while he is very valuable, he represents a very expensive luxury and has trade value. If McGee shows improvement, we could very easily see that kind of move happen.

All of these are very realistic cap moves that we could see happen. If the Cowboys wanted to create space, they could easily do it. Lots of guys that could be sent packing and none of them would be players that impact a lot, based on production.

Next year, if the Cowboys wanted to, they could get out from under Roy Williams and Bigg's contracts next year, which would create even more cap.

At this point, it's all a guessing game but I don't think we will see the Cowboys in to terrible a cap situation this year.

I see what you are saying, but when you restructure base salary into cap, it is spread out over future years, which is what always got us into trouble. That kind of manuvering is not good in the long run for the team's cap. We've lived it. It will catch up with you. We got a "get out of jail free" card with the uncapped year last year.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I see what you are saying, but when you restructure base salary into cap, it is spread out over future years, which is what always got us into trouble. That kind of manuvering is not good in the long run for the team's cap. We've lived it. It will catch up with you. We got a "get out of jail free" card with the uncapped year last year.

Yes, but that typically has a negative effect only when you do this with players that do not play out their contracts. In the case of the three players I mentioned earlier, Romo, Ware and Austin, I suspect that all three will be with the team for some time. Romo is a natural for this because, unlike Ware and Austin, he is coming up on a contract. Romo will be a top priority for the team to resign. When that happens, and I think it will be this year, we are going to take that 9 million cap number, create a situation where we negotiate a deal that allows us to push a lot of that money into bonus (basically guarantee it) and reduce the cap hit. Because we will resign him for multiple years anyway, we will probably front load that contract and give ourselves cap relief with option years at the end of the contract in order to get out of it if Romo is not performing in say year 11 or 12 or whatever. With Ware and Miles, it's a little different but I don't honestly see either of those guys going anywhere anytime soon. We will spread the bonus across multiple years and plan our cap that way. Now, if one or multiple of these guys were to fall off the map and stop performing, then we would indeed be in the situation the Skinz have found themselves in, in the past, so yeah there is a bit of a gamble there. However, if all three produce for the majority of their contracts, I think the Cowboys will be fine.

[Pedro]

Are we now in a a position where we may rework deals to bring money forward, rather than push it back?

Also at what point in the season would the % spend need to be hit? Re-signing the likes of Landry would be a good way to go IMO, along with new deals for cheap guys who perform well (like Armstrong now and any number of guys during the season who may show they belong long term).

I'd much rather be known as a team that pays players who over perform their contract with us than a team that overpays for other team's talent. This would fit in with the Mike Shanahan 'play well on teams, get a chance on O or D' that we saw last season, most notably for me (maybe due my ignorance/low expectations) with Byron Westbrook. He looked good as a NB when he got a chance at the end of the season iirc, dude was reading and reacting fast enough to be in on the tackle over a wide area about him. Maybe it was just me though.

[wwSEANd]

You figure that Brookings (2.5 Million), Colombo (2 Mil), Olshansky (4.5 Mil), Barber (4.25 Mil), Kris Brown (2.5 Mil) and there is a possability that Newman (8 Mil) could be gone.

We could also see a guy like Kitna get traded to a team like Miami, Minnesota or Cincy as well. He is scheduled to make (2.6 Mil) this season and while he is very valuable, he represents a very expensive luxury and has trade value. If McGee shows improvement, we could very easily see that kind of move happen.

...

Next year, if the Cowboys wanted to, they could get out from under Roy Williams and Bigg's contracts next year, which would create even more cap.


all of those moves make sense. the restructuring ones especially, and you're right about those guys being pretty safe bets to stick around, which makes them logical targets for restructuring. i do see one potential problem, though: dead cap space.

i don't know what brookings/colombo/olshansky/barber/brown/newman/williams/biggs contracts look like, but often cutting expensive players is MORE expensive (that year) than keeping them; you do it because it saves you money in future years. same situation with trading kitna. do all of those guys have contracts that save money *this* year by cutting them?

i really don't know, so maybe you could help out with the numbers. if that's not the case, and Dallas is already so far over the cap, then it could be a very sticky situation - one very much like the Skins were in before the cap magically disappeared and saved our butts.


Are we now in a a position where we may rework deals to bring money forward, rather than push it back?

Also at what point in the season would the % spend need to be hit? Re-signing the likes of Landry would be a good way to go IMO, along with new deals for cheap guys who perform well (like Armstrong now and any number of guys during the season who may show they belong long term).

I'd much rather be known as a team that pays players who over perform their contract with us than a team that overpays for other team's talent. This would fit in with the Mike Shanahan 'play well on teams, get a chance on O or D' that we saw last season, most notably for me (maybe due my ignorance/low expectations) with Byron Westbrook. He looked good as a NB when he got a chance at the end of the season iirc, dude was reading and reacting fast enough to be in on the tackle over a wide area about him. Maybe it was just me though.

that's actually... i hadn't thought about it exactly that way, but YES! get proactive on rewarding productivity! in the past, we could do that with playing time, but we were hamstrung by our cap situation and couldn't financially reward our overachievers. now we can show guys that the extra effort is worth it for MANY reasons. that can only be a good thing.