Skins Salary Cap Hell in 06 & 07?

[boysfanindc]

Portions of a article for the Washington Times.

Gibbs seems to be deluding himself.

Looks like 06 & 07 could be some rough years.

Gibbs is excited about the Redskins' cap situation, even though danger seems to loom in 2006 and 2007. Washington currently is scheduled to count $81.2 million against this year's projected $85 million cap, but in 2006 the team has $104 million committed to just 37 players and in 2006 $74 million earmarked for only 19 players.

Complimenting owner Dan Snyder on his handling of the books and calling the club's cap cushion "substantial," Gibbs added: "We kind of know where we are. Obviously you project where the cap's going to be. And then [there are things] we can do to free up money in there. We've got a great plan."

Gibbs also sounds emboldened by Washington's performance in free agency and the draft in 2004. Though critics around the NFL point to the centerpiece acquisition of quarterback Mark Brunell, who lost the starting job midseason, Gibbs avidly supports Brunell and points to big pickups such as Pro Bowl linebacker Marcus Washington.

This year's venture into the market won't be nearly as aggressive, Gibbs said. Last spring the Redskins acquired 11 veterans in less than a week at the outset of free agency en route to an NFL-record payroll in the $110 million range. Now the coach is ready for more targeted acquisitions.

"I wouldn't think it would be anything like that," Gibbs said. "I do think it will be an opportunity to add some key [pieces], whether it's a backup position or whatever. But I don't foresee us having that kind of change."

[Yakuza Rich]

It sounds like they may have been banking on the salary cap going to $100 million come 2006 due to the new TV contract. The Colts and Falcons seem to have the same line of thinking.

However, a lot of people believe that it won't go that, probably will be at $90 million instead because they want to preserve parity and that's too high of a jump in such a short notice.

If the cap went to $100 million, it would give the Skins a chance to get a FA, but they'd still be behind the 8 ball compared to other teams who had a better cap number to begin with and now just have more money to spend as well.


Rich...............

[Eddie]

People have been waiting for the Skins to enter Cap Hell for years.

They have their finances in order. Little Danny is smarter than the average internet surfer.

[boysfanindc]

The figures of a $104M in 06 is for 37 players and the figure of $74M in 07 is for 19 players.

You still have to sign draft picks and fill out a roster. Plus they are going to rework Samuels contract which pushes dollars out and the are talking about giving Pierce a pretty good contract this year.

[trickblue]

People have been waiting for the Skins to enter Cap Hell for years.

They have their finances in order. Little Danny is smarter than the average internet surfer.

It's called "under the table" payments... ;)

We have a redskin poster here (his name eludes me at the moment) that says he knows for a fact that Snydely pays off of the books...

[Yakuza Rich]

The figures of a $104M in 06 is for 37 players and the figure of $74M in 07 is for 19 players.

You still have to sign draft picks and fill out a roster. Plus they are going to rework Samuels contract which pushes dollars out and the are talking about giving Pierce a pretty good contract this year.


I’d say that they’d “like to re-work” Samuels’ contract. Doesn’t mean they are going to.

From what I’ve read, Samuels is pretty much in the driver seat either way and he’s going to be a big cap hit for the Skins unless he loses his mind and renegotiates a contract for fish heads and rice.

We’ll have to wait and see, but it looks like they know they have major cap issues. Smoot was supposed to re-sign a long time ago and appears to be a free agent. Samuels was supposed to re-structure his contract and the Skins are supposedly going to be much less active in free agency….a first in the Snyder era.

Not to say that I couldn’t be wrong, but typically guys that are supposed to re-sign (Smoot) and guys that were supposed to restructure (Samuels) much earlier in the season typically don’t if they haven’t by the end of the year.


Rich………………………
remembers people saying that Emmitt and Galloway would re-structure their contracts to retire as Cowboys and that never happened either.

[Henry]

IÍd say that theyÍd ñlike to re-workî SamuelsÍ contract. DoesnÍt mean they are going to.

From what IÍve read, Samuels is pretty much in the driver seat either way and heÍs going to be a big cap hit for the Skins unless he loses his mind and renegotiates a contract for fish heads and rice.

WeÍll have to wait and see, but it looks like they know they have major cap issues. Smoot was supposed to re-sign a long time ago and appears to be a free agent. Samuels was supposed to re-structure his contract and the Skins are supposedly going to be much less active in free agencyƒ.a first in the Snyder era.

Not to say that I couldnÍt be wrong, but typically guys that are supposed to re-sign (Smoot) and guys that were supposed to restructure (Samuels) much earlier in the season typically donÍt if they havenÍt by the end of the year.


Richƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒƒ
remembers people saying that Emmitt and Galloway would re-structure their contracts to retire as Cowboys and that never happened either.

Smoot wants a $14 mil bonus. We want to give him $11 mil. If we were cap-strapped, we couldn't offer him anything. That's not exactly a cap hell issue as much as a player/value issue. The same thing happened last year when Bailey wanted $24 mil in guaranteed money, and we instead chose to spend that on Springs and Portis combined. It's not that the Redskins couldn't afford Bailey, they just didn't think he was worth what he was asking. I tend to agree.

Unless you've suddenly received word that Samuels will not restructure, I don't know upon what you are basing you assumptions. If he's due to make $12 mil this season and we convert that to a SB and extend his contract, he makes the exact same amount of money this year. The problem with restructuring is not generally the player's willingness to restructure, the problem is that when you restructure the contract of an older player, you risk serious decline in play/retirement, after which you'd take a huge hit (such as what happened when Aikman retired.) Samuels is not that old, so that's not a problem. What could be a problem with Samuels is if the Redskins don't really want him back, or Samuels doesn't want to come back, in which case he's either a huge cap hit this year, or a huge cap hit next year. Samuels has not had a great year and neither have the Redskins, so there may be something to that, though I haven't heard anything other than confirmation from Samuels in last week's Post that restructuring talks were taking place, and that Samuels was confident they would get done.

[boysfanindc]

Gibbs has already come out and stated they want Samuels back and they will get it done. I have not heard what Samuels says.

$104M for 37 players in 06 and $74M for 19 players in 07 is a problem and one that is going to cause them to be very constrained the next 2 or 3 years.

[The30YardSlant]

Unless Snyder has a buddy on the books in the league office, Washington is screwed for the next 3-4 years.

[Nerm]

1. I think that huge number in 06 is misleading. They have a ton of roster bonuses due that year. They wrote those contracts to include language that says the team has the option to change those bonuses into signing bonuses. When they do that, the money will be spread out over several years. They can reduce the 06 cap hit without even needing to get the player to agree. The player still gets the money, but the money is pro-rated over the rest of the contract for cap purposes. Money in 06 and 07 will be tighter, but not as bad as some are predicting.

2. Every penny they give a player counts against the cap eventually. They are not doing anything magic.

3. People waiting for "cap hell" are not seeing it when it is there. When Marty came in he cut about a third of their starters (sounds like cap heck at least). That cleared up a lot of the early Snyder cap mistakes. After that they got to see their QB leave and win a super bowl because they didn't "want" to pay him. They got to watch their ex RB help lead a team to the super bowl because he cost too much (a cap mistake?).

Yes they sign a lot of guys, but they also let their best players go. When you watch them in FA, it is easy to forget about the guys they let go and look at the big numbers of those replacing them. This year it might be Sameules or Smoot getting let go... but won't it be exciting to see the new guy in town?! You know the one who will be taking them to the promised land!!! And fans around the country will bang their head against the wall and say "How do they do it? There should be an investigation!"

As a Redskin player, you watch your teammates, even the good ones, get cut for more expensive players who don't out produce those who left. Great way to build a TEAM... right?

If anyone thinks they have it all figured out, you haven't seen them play since 99.

[InmanRoshi]

What Nerm said, and no general manager is going to come out and openly say "We're in cap hell because we've mismanaged our budget".

They're going to say "We let Stephen Davis walk because we're looking for someone younger", or "We let Fred Smoot walk because his asking price is outrageous", or "We let go of Jeremiah Trotter because he didn't fit into the system (not because we needed to sign our draft picks) .. which may hold a degree of truth, but its not like they had much choice in the matter.

I don't see how cutting Brad Johnson because he's supposedly too old and wants too much money, watching him win a Superbowl with another team and then two year's later trading a mid-round draft pick for Mark Brunnell and giving him a $8 million dollar bonus because you need a veteran QB could be seen as prudently playing the cap by anyone's measure.

[Wheat]

I've been waiting for cap hell....it just hasn't happened.....yet.

If it does.....then the front office gets what they deserve. But if it doesn't, then all the hack writers and internet geeks will just put the year back to 08/09, or 2009/2010. Whatever.

The cap keeps going up, the league keeps making record amounts of loot.....and in the end. What is cap hell? Releasing Stephen Davis when he's missed somewhere between 5 and 10 games since leaving town?

How about this......there hasn't been a year since 99 when they haven't made a dumb offseason move that's either costed a big pick or money?

99 they traded 1 of their 1st rounders for Brad Johnson, that pick was used to draft Daunte Culpepper.

2000 they went and got Bruce Smith and Deion Sanders and Jeff George

2001 they let Brad go....and kept Jeff? then signed Tony Banks? what?!?

2002 Shane Mathews, Danny Woeful.....need I say more? Trotter also.

2003 Chad Morton was a dumb move.....you need blocking to return kicks

2004 Brunell.....and then starting him for so long when you need Ramsey to take snaps and either sink or swim.


So, even though they made some good moves in my mind.... like letting Davis go, getting Coles.....letting Champ go and replacing him with a cheaper Springs.

Who knows? Maybe this is all talk from Gibbs to throw people off. Washington needs OL help, to get rid of Rod Gardner and get a real WR....and depth at the DL and Safety spot. Corner also.

I think the smart move would be to keep Smoot and Pierce.....see if you can rework Samuels but don't make that your top priority. The Offense sucked with him....how much more could we suck without him? He's not Jon Jansen.


In closing....... Chris Cooley, Antonio Pierce and James Thrash = Good. Barrow, Morton and Brunell = Bad. Snyder = Silent all of 2004, he hasn't said a word....and Bufford = ready for college hoops and maybe alittle NBA.


Cheers!

[SkinsandTerps]

The Redskins payroll was over 100M this year. Yet are still under the cap.

Those stupid writers dont know nothing.

There is no such thing as cap hell (at least not in DC), unless you keep holding on to the old or useless players and paying them no matter what.

I will explain it more later on if you guys want. I think most of you have a good idea of how it works.

[Tio]

The redskins sacrifice cap hell for good play on the field. THey have a revolving door of a roster and never will be able to get a great player and keep them long enough to make an impact as the learn chemistry with the other players.

[Yakuza Rich]

I'm not waiting for Skins cap hell. I'm just giving an opinion of what I think will happen.

The Cowboys being near $25 million under the cap doesn't mean they'll right the ship. It'll help, but you've still got to have the coaching and essentially get good players that are worth what you are paying them.

Rich.................

[Wheat]

I believe the Titans are around 20mil over the cap right now, and I don't hear anybody screaming about what's happening over there.

There are a lot of right ways and wrong ways to do it. New England is doing it the right way. Washington is not. Sucks for me as a fan, but its the truth. They should just try keeping their guys, get a few cheap backups....and draft what they need.

They won't though. They never do.

[chicago JK]

I believe the Titans are around 20mil over the cap right now, and I don't hear anybody screaming about what's happening over there.

There are a lot of right ways and wrong ways to do it. New England is doing it the right way. Washington is not. Sucks for me as a fan, but its the truth. They should just try keeping their guys, get a few cheap backups....and draft what they need.

They won't though. They never do.
Bufford...off topic here but I think you are a U of M guy. What are your thoughts on Shawn Merriman from MD. Will he be a big time player in the NFL? OLB or DE? Thanks.

[Wheat]

I think he's a stud. I wish he'd fall to the 3rd round so we could draft him. I'd like to see him line up at DE and Lavar behind him at LB. Then have the D shift...with those two guys switching spots. You know that I mean?

Terps struggled this year, but it was because of that crappy crappy QB. He was the Brunell of the college ranks.

[OldButDeadly]

Why do you guys keep rehashing this crap....Stupid thread for a Cowboys Fan Board IMHO.

That horse is one dead piece of meat... :shoot2:

I mean we all know that .... :suxskins:

Kevin

[silverbear]

People have been waiting for the Skins to enter Cap Hell for years.

They have their finances in order. Little Danny is smarter than the average internet surfer.

They already have 104 million committed for the 2006 season, for 37 players, or something like that... there is no way on God's green earth that the cap will be as high as 100 mil... in fact, the Skins as they stand right now are probably already close to 10 million over the cap in 06...

Yeah, that sounds like cap hell racing up to smack the Skins straight in the face... for that matter, if they want to be players in free agency THIS offseason, they're gonna have to jettison some talent to create cap room for themselves...

If you're adroit at manipulating the salary cap, you can play on "borrowed money" for a few years... that's what Danny Boy is doing now, and sooner or later the piper WILL have to be paid... we Cowboys fans didn't want to believe that Jerry was gonna have to pay for those early 90s glory days, but of course he did... so did the Niners...

And before too much longer, so will the Skins... make book on it...

As for Little Danny being smarter than the average internet surfer, I'll just note that he's set the NFL record for highest payroll a couple-three times now, and still hasn't seen his team in the playoffs...

Maybe you're impressed, Eddie, but I'm not... no, the Skins haven't seen cap hell YET, but the only way they've avoided it is by heavy cuts in each offseason... this destroys a little thing called CONTINUITY, and it has been reflected in the Skins' record...

Maybe you think that blowing up the roster year in and year out in order to pursue every pricey free agent out there is good management, but I don't... and it sure as heck hasn't done the Skins any good over these past few years...

I suspect that you're a Skins fan, and I'm here to tell you that your favorite team is headed for a train wreck... if you wanna know how bad it can get, take a close look at the Niners this year...

[silverbear]

Smoot wants a $14 mil bonus. We want to give him $11 mil. If we were cap-strapped, we couldn't offer him anything.

Of course you could-- the exact same way you've been signing players for a coupla years now... large signing bonus, minimum wage type base salary in the first year... but then, of course, the cap hit will escalate in future years, creating problems on down the line...

That's not exactly a cap hell issue as much as a player/value issue. The same thing happened last year when Bailey wanted $24 mil in guaranteed money, and we instead chose to spend that on Springs and Portis combined.

You were FORCED to make that decision, by bad cap decisions in the past...

It's not that the Redskins couldn't afford Bailey, they just didn't think he was worth what he was asking. I tend to agree.

It WAS because they couldn't afford to keep Bailey... not and sign any free agents...

Unless you've suddenly received word that Samuels will not restructure, I don't know upon what you are basing you assumptions. If he's due to make $12 mil this season and we convert that to a SB and extend his contract, he makes the exact same amount of money this year. The problem with restructuring is not generally the player's willingness to restructure, the problem is that when you restructure the contract of an older player, you risk serious decline in play/retirement, after which you'd take a huge hit (such as what happened when Aikman retired.) Samuels is not that old, so that's not a problem.

But his play has dropped off the last coupla years... he's not the same blocker he was not too long ago... so now you're committing major dollars to a player who just might be runnin' on empty... I'd bet the family ranch that the Skins will let Samuels hit the free agent highway if he's not willing to restructure...

[silverbear]

3. People waiting for "cap hell" are not seeing it when it is there. When Marty came in he cut about a third of their starters (sounds like cap heck at least). That cleared up a lot of the early Snyder cap mistakes. After that they got to see their QB leave and win a super bowl because they didn't "want" to pay him. They got to watch their ex RB help lead a team to the super bowl because he cost too much (a cap mistake?).

Yes they sign a lot of guys, but they also let their best players go.

What a solid piece of analysis, Nerm... you are exactly right, the Skins have only been able to sign free agents by cutting their roster heavily the last couple-three years...

If anyone thinks they have it all figured out, you haven't seen them play since 99.

That was just wicked funny, largely because it's TRUE... why Skins fans have such blind faith in the "brilliance" of Danny Boy, when his teams haven't gotten a sniff of the playoffs in the best part of forever, is a mystery for the ages...

[silverbear]

The Redskins payroll was over 100M this year. Yet are still under the cap.

Those stupid writers dont know nothing.

They know HISTORY, hoss... and HISTORY tells us that teams that spend freely on free agents eventually run into a problem... it happened to the Cowboys, and it happened to the Niners, and they were run by a LOT smarter football people than Danny Boy...

There is no such thing as cap hell (at least not in DC), unless you keep holding on to the old or useless players and paying them no matter what.

You mean, like the way the Skins are gonna be forced to carry Brunell on their roster for another year or two or three, even though it's clear to a blind man that Mark has lost his game??

ROTFLMAO...

[Henry]

It WAS because they couldn't afford to keep Bailey... not and sign any free agents...

The thing is, it's not that I think the Redskins are in great cap shape or anything, it's just that when I read criticism like this I tend to think said crtics are talking out of their elbows. Are you telling me, with a straight face, that Bailey's contract was SO big that it eclipsed the contracts of Portis, Springs, Griffin, Barrow, Brunell, Daniels, Washington and Raymer combined? If it was, then we DEFINATELY made the right call in not re-signing him. If it wasn't, well, then Bailey trade is not necessarily evidence of cap hell.

But his play has dropped off the last coupla years... he's not the same blocker he was not too long ago... so now you're committing major dollars to a player who just might be runnin' on empty... I'd bet the family ranch that the Skins will let Samuels hit the free agent highway if he's not willing to restructure...

I agree that if Samuels doesn't restructure we'll probably let him go. He's not worth what he'd make next season, I'll grant you that, though I suspect it's too early to declare a 27 year-old, two-time pro bowler 'running on empty.'

[Henry]

What a solid piece of analysis, Nerm... you are exactly right, the Skins have only been able to sign free agents by cutting their roster heavily the last couple-three years...



That was just wicked funny, largely because it's TRUE... why Skins fans have such blind faith in the "brilliance" of Danny Boy, when his teams haven't gotten a sniff of the playoffs in the best part of forever, is a mystery for the ages...

Yeah, but what's killing us isn't the cap. It's coaching turnover. Coaching turnover always creates player turnover. That's why you keep hearing Redskin fans say they cut this guy or that guy because he didn't fit The System. The System has been constantly changing. We'll see in the next few years if coaching continuity can create player continuity as well. If not, then Nerm's theory is probably pretty close to the mark. But until we can keep a coach around for more than two years, we'll never really know.