View Profile
View Forum Posts
View Forum Threads
Show All Albums
View Friends
Help me out.....
If we don't like what were offered for Coles, can't we just force him to play next year?
If he sits out, does he get the full 5-6 mil bonus?
If this is the case doesn't Coles hold all of the cards?
Help me out.....
If we don't like what were offered for Coles, can't we just force him to play next year?
If he sits out, does he get the full 5-6 mil bonus?
If this is the case doesn't Coles hold all of the cards?
The rumors I am hearing at this end of the country (definitely unsubstantiated) is Coles and our 3rd round pick for Abraham.Originally posted by AzSkinsFan63
I look for and even trade. The Jets want Coles. The toe in question would be only reason we don't get a draft pick also not vice versa. That's my opinion anyway.
In no way do we give up a draft pick also. If we do I'll be P'O'd
And we thought this was going to be a relatively quiet offseason.
Is THIS sig small enough?
Maske is the man. I don't think anyone could've explained that more clearly. Let's work out a deal for Coles and get fair value in return.
Abraham was hurt much of the last part of last season. I don't know the specifics but there may be question marks about his health too. I know that some questioned his desire to play in the playoffs.Originally posted by bubba9497
Coles Situation Testing Redskins' Salary Cap
By Mark Maske
Washington Post Staff Writer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
The Redskins probably would want defensive end John Abraham in return. The Jets have designated Abraham their franchise player. But with Coles's diminished value, given the league-wide wariness about the soundness of his foot and the fact that other teams believe the Redskins might release Coles if they can't trade him, it probably would take more than Coles to pry Abraham from the Jets.
I think that depends on what purpose you think proration acceleration serves. If there is no "giveback", and a player is cut or traded, of course the salary cap hit for money already paid needs to be accounted for under the salary cap. Otherwise The Danny would be using it for every player on the team. But I dont think it exists to intentionally restrict the movements of players with large bonuses.Originally posted by Pocono
What he didn't cover is what would the NFL think about him giving back 5M to the Skins and then getting 5M from the new team. It sure sounds like they're trying to circumvent proration acceleration rules.
I really dont see the problem. The player agrees to adjust his contract in order to make himself more tradeable, under the assumption that the player and agent can recoup that money in a renegotiated deal with a new team. Renegotiated deals with new teams are a highly common occurrence, players expect new, larger, long-erm contracts with upfront money all the time. Its just the SB giveback aspect that is peculiar, and if the player is willing to forgo his SB in order to move to another team, then thats his prerogative, is it not?
In any event, I'm sure as an amateur "capologist", you must find this turn of events to be rather interesting.
"UK military spokesman Major Mike Shearer said: "We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area."
Subject for NFL approval?Originally posted by bubba9497
ahhhhh, the loophole Snyder has found, it is allowed to release a player... why not to trade a player?
no rules says you can't
it's in the player's best intrests, so why would they object?Originally posted by Pocono
What he didn't cover is what would the NFL think about him giving back 5M to the Skins and then getting 5M from the new team. It sure sounds like they're trying to circumvent proration acceleration rules.
I hope we can work out a trade quickly with the Jets for Abraham.
...Man it's so nice to read a decent, factual article from a Washington area sports writer. - It's a rare thing these days.
Something else I found interesting, which I mentioned last night to Blade, was the division of SB payments. The Redskins generate crazy amounts of free cash flow. They can easily afford the bonus payments. So why did he split them? Is this something Snyder and crew had in mind all along? At the very least, it seems to offer some protection against the "Deion/Ricky" effect where players jump ship with their entire SB and the team has to litigate over a period of years to get the cash back.
"UK military spokesman Major Mike Shearer said: "We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area."
Originally posted by AzSkinsFan63
Subject for NFL approval?
the NFL can ony squash it if it violates a CBA rule
Where have you been the last 12 years? ..Originally posted by jimster
it's in the player's best intrests, so why would they object?
Originally posted by Zen-like Todd
Something else I found interesting, which I mentioned last night to Blade, was the division of SB payments. The Redskins generate crazy amounts of free cash flow. They can easily afford the bonus payments. So why did he split them? Is this something Snyder and crew had in mind all along? At the very least, it seems to offer some protection against the "Deion/Ricky" effect where players jump ship with their entire SB and the team has to litigate over a period of years to get the cash back.
Bingo, another loophole Snyder uses to full advantage. You can't restructure money already paid.
Last edited by bubba9497; February-22nd-2005 at 11:43 AM.
We will have to give up a draft pick as well I'm sure (Cerrato would insist on it). And then we'd have to sign Abraham to a monster contract.
Sorry, I'm being negative again. On the bright side, our defense with a pure pass rusher is a damn nice thought.
I'm sure there are also tax ramifications for the player. If Coles had gotten the 5 mil up front, he would have paid taxes on it. Negotiating a "giveback" would have been more of a pain in that case. Since he hasn't yet received the 5 mil, he doesnt have that problem. Such a tricky one, that Snyder.
"UK military spokesman Major Mike Shearer said: "We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area."
That as well as some of these players are plain stupid with their money. If they blow their huge signing bonus right aftr they get it, they are effectively getting paid small sums evry year remaining on their contract while their buddies are cashing in with huge signing bonuses. In Snyder's system, they get paid over a few installanments so they can blow their cash over a few years instead of one.Originally posted by Zen-like Todd
Something else I found interesting, which I mentioned last night to Blade, was the division of SB payments. The Redskins generate crazy amounts of free cash flow. They can easily afford the bonus payments. So why did he split them? Is this something Snyder and crew had in mind all along? At the very least, it seems to offer some protection against the "Deion/Ricky" effect where players jump ship with their entire SB and the team has to litigate over a period of years to get the cash back.
The short version: If Coles agrees to forgo $5 mil bonus before 3/2 on a promise of a trade after 3/2 here are the cap implications:
Coles counts $4.28 against our '05 cap.
This is $923,000 more than his current cap hit.
We save $6.857 against the '06 cap.
Because they would be eliminating Coles' big cap hit in '06, the Skins will probably shift every '05 dollar they can to '06 by converting base salaries to bonuses. This will help offset the $923,000 increase hit to the 2005 cap, plus the cost of replacing Coles in 2005.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
