Wash. Times| Good article on Skins cap

[BigDFan5]

http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20060117-115943-8513r.htm



Commanders face tough decisions

By David Elfin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 18, 2006

Cutting lightning rod LaVar Arrington before training camp opens this summer might be psychologically cleansing for the Washington Commanders, but the team won't solve its salary cap problems by releasing its highest-priced player.

To do so, the Commanders likely will have to do a number of things, including reworking the contracts of several players and cutting or trading others who are in the final years of their deals.

The biggest chunk, of course, could come from Arrington's complicated, reworked contract, which has a cap value of $12.046 million for 2006 -- but only if the NFL and the players association can agree on an extension of their collective bargaining agreement during the next six weeks.

Without a new CBA by the start of the free agent signing period March 3, all of Arrington's remaining signing and option bonuses would count $12.166 million against the 2006 cap no matter whether he's on the roster. However, if the CBA is extended and keeps the long-standing June 1 rule in effect, cutting Arrington after that date and before July 15, when he's due a $6.5 million roster bonus, will cost the Commanders $5.001 million this year, with the remaining $7.105 million counting in 2007.

Even if Arrington is cut and counts $5 million this year, the Commanders still would be roughly $15 million over the expected $95 million cap.

Relief will have to come from reworking the contracts of players like Pro Bowl offensive tackle Chris Samuels ($10.218 million cap value), offensive tackle Jon Jansen ($5.604 million), cornerback Shawn Springs ($5.558 million), running back Clinton Portis ($5.476 million), quarterback Mark Brunell ($5.433 million), linebacker Marcus Washington ($5.167 million) and guard Randy Thomas ($4.912 million).

The difficulty is that Brunell, who has a base salary of $4 million, and Thomas ($3.5 million) are the only ones with bases of more than $1.5 million. The other five contracts don't have a lot of leeway to turn salaries into bonuses, which can be prorated for up to five years.

The Commanders could save some money by cutting or trading players in the last years of their contracts, such as reserve safety Matt Bowen ($2 million), injured defensive tackle Brandon Noble ($1.7 million), backup quarterback Patrick Ramsey ($1.688 million), third cornerback Walt Harris ($1.5 million) and reserve center Cory Raymer ($985,000). Adding in oft-injured kicker John Hall ($1.5 million), whose contract expires in 2007, would push those savings past $8 million.

If those six players are subtracted from the roster and the Commanders are able to save $7 million on Arrington and, say, another $5 million by redoing the contracts of Brunell and Thomas, they would have a cap total of roughly $95 million.

So Washington would be at the cap, but that doesn't figure in retaining its free agents: safeties Ryan Clark and Omar Stoutmire; tight end Robert Royal; defensive end Demetric Evans; special teams tackles leader Khary Campbell; snapper Ethan Albright; cornerback Ade Jimoh (restricted); linebackers Chris Clemons (exclusive rights) and Warrick Holdman; defensive tackle Cedric Killings; and running back Rock Cartwright. Only Clark and perhaps Evans figure to be somewhat expensive, but even nine minimum-level contracts are a burden for a cap-strapped team.

All of this doesn't allow for adding any top-line free agents, such as Indianapolis receiver Reggie Wayne; increasing offensive line depth; finding a proven third cornerback; or signing its six draft picks (the first-rounder was dealt to Denver in April for the pick used to select quarterback Jason Campbell).

After all those money-saving moves and without keeping or adding free agents, the Commanders would have just 37 players on the roster, including 11 who barely have played for them if at all. Even if all those neophytes developed, Washington still would need 14 players to fill out the roster, eight more for the practice squad and an insurance fund to allow for signing replacements when players go on injured reserve.

 

[Funxva]

Ouch.. in otherwords.. They are fuskered.

 

[austintodallas]

Music to my ears! :skins:

 

[CrazyCowboy]

Good job for the deadkskins CAPTOLIGIST!

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Danny boy has his work cut out for him this year

 

[superpunk]

I see stuff like this, then I see articles posted by skins fans on another forum that shows reasonable ways to get about 10 mil under for the Skins. I don't know which to believe. Every year I think Danny boy is gonna have to pay for his sins, and every year they find some way around it.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

all I know is that we're going to be making more additions than they are

 

[Paniolo22]

Yeah, he shot his wad on this season and is doomed for the next 2 or 3. :laugh2:

 

[SDogo]

so which is it?

http://Commanders.scout.com/2/490049.html

 

[superpunk]

Someone tell me if I'm correct on this.

The Skins keep pushing contracts and bonus money back, year after year. It helps their current cap situation, but they ultimately pay the player more money long term, correct?

They keep pushing back money for older players, like Brunell, I think they've redone Samuels contract the past three years in a row, so these contracts are getting WAY backloaded.

What happens when these players retire/cut/traded? They can't play forever, and there comes a time when they're not worth these exorbitant salaries anymore. It appears that you can do anything with creative contracts, but the only time you are punished for this is when these players, for one reason or another, don't fulfill these contracts.

If that's all true, the Commanders will only pay minimally, for now. They seem to have a good base in place, but no depth. They have no money to sign depth. But they will only pay BIG TIME when these older players begin to be cut/traded/retired and those bonuses hit the cap as a lump sum.

Does that make sense, or do I just not understand the cap?

 

[marsbennett]

I see stuff like this, then I see articles posted by skins fans on another forum that shows reasonable ways to get about 10 mil under for the Skins. I don't know which to believe. Every year I think Danny boy is gonna have to pay for his sins, and every year they find some way around it.

I agree. I predict there will be no CBA in 6 weeks. In fact, I think the players would love to not have an agreement as the cap would be eliminated in 2007. If Danny Boy can make it to through next year, he'll avoid paying for his sins yet again....still...this time...for this one year....he's in a real pickle.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Someone tell me if I'm correct on this.

The Skins keep pushing contracts and bonus money back, year after year. It helps their current cap situation, but they ultimately pay the player more money long term, correct?

They keep pushing back money for older players, like Brunell, I think they've redone Samuels contract the past three years in a row, so these contracts are getting WAY backloaded.

What happens when these players retire/cut/traded? They can't play forever, and there comes a time when they're not worth these exorbitant salaries anymore. It appears that you can do anything with creative contracts, but the only time you are punished for this is when these players, for one reason or another, don't fulfill these contracts.

If that's all true, the Commanders will only pay minimally, for now. They seem to have a good base in place, but no depth. They have no money to sign depth. But they will only pay BIG TIME when these older players begin to be cut/traded/retired and those bonuses hit the cap as a lump sum.

Does that make sense, or do I just not understand the cap?

makes alot of sense, that's why they're hoping they win a Super Bowl soon

a few, key injuries will kill any season

 

[BigDFan5]

so which is it?

http://Commanders.scout.com/2/490049.html

That article did not take into account the 30% rule.

 

[superpunk]

That article did not take into account the 30% rule.

ELABORATION, BABY!!!!

Please, go on.....

 

[lcharles]

Who cares anything about the skins?

I say we fix our o-line and give them two major ***-kickings next year!

 

[DallasInDC]

That article did not take into account the 30% rule.

What is the 30% rule?

 

[TobiasEagle77]

so which is it?

http://Commanders.scout.com/2/490049.html

Both are technically correct. From the same site as you posted:

http://Commanders.scout.com/3/salary_cap_chart.html

This chart shows them at 113 million (~18 mil over) with 46 players signed.

The article you posted shows how they can get 10 mil under the cap, but only leaves 40 players on the roster (46 - 4 released - 1 trade - 1 retirement).

To get 53 players on their roster, they would have to add 13 players with only 10 million dollars. The article does not address that aspect. 2 of the proposed "releases" are starters, John Hall and Cory Raymer.

2006 cap hell is a reality for the Commanders, no way around it. They can, and will, mitigate the consequences, but there will be consequences. The funny thing is, all the Commanders fans have dreams of signing free agents like Wayne, Randle El, or K Robinson.

 

[BigDFan5]

Ok I am stealing others posts so I dont have to type it out this one is thanks to westbrook36



I think one thing we are all neglecting in regards to the 30 percent rule is how reducing a players salary in 2006 negatively effects 2007 thus making the contract not conforming with NFL mandates. Let me give you an example:

Lets take Mark Brunell for example. He's one of the players that has a $4M base salary for 2006. So Large is suggesting that the Commanders could clear some cap room by converting some of Brunnell's $4M 2006 base salary into a signing bonus.

Here are Brunnell's base salaries on the remaining years of his contract from NFLPA.org:

2007 5200000.00
2008 6400000.00
2009 7600000.00
2010 8800000.00

So we are looking at increases of $1.2M in each year, which is exactly 30 percent of $4M. That means that to comply with the 30 percent rule, Brunell's salary (for 30 per cent rule purposes) can't be reduced below $4M.

If the Commanders convert some of Brunell's $4M to signing bonus then they have reduced his 2006 salary for 30 per cent rule purposes because the 30 per cent rule doesn't include signing bonus in the salary calculation.

Let's also look at Marcus Washington. He has a roster bonus of $2.5M due in 2006. That's one of those roster bonuses that Large is suggesting the Commanders could guarantee so that it becomes prorated like a signing bonus. However, once it is guaranteed doesn't it become "signing bonus as defined in Section 7(b)(iv) above" and therefore outside the 30 percent rule calculation of salary?

Look at Marcus Washington's base salaries:

2006 1500000.00
2007 4000000.00
2008 4425000.00
2009 4500000.00

That's a $2.5M increase from 2006 to 2007. If you take away the roster bonus, then the largest increase that the 30 percent rule permits is $450K.

In regards to Brunnell, let's say the Commanders convert 3M of the 2006 base salary into a prorated bonus, leaving a base salary of 1M and a proration of 750K. 30% of 1.75M is 525K. So in the second year, he would need to have a salary of no more than 1.525M. This means 3.675M of the 2007 salary could be converted into a bonus. Using this math, 4.35M of the 2008 salary could be converted into a bonus. And so on.

Then you start dealing with the "Deion Rule" which specifically states:

"If the total amount of signing bonus prorated over the capped years is greater than the total amount of a player's base salary (P5/Roster bonus/Reporting bonus) during the capped years of the contract, then up to 50 percent of the uncapped years' total prorated signing shall be deducted equally from uncapped years and prorated equally over the capped years covered by the contract."

 

[BigDFan5]

and this post thanks to pocono



Roster bonuses are considered "salary" and if you turn those roster bonuses into signing bonuses then they are not salary and there is not enough salary left in the final capped year to justify the year to year increases later in the contract. Those roster bonuses are in those contracts so the contracts comply with the 30% rule. If you turn them into signing bonuses and prorate them then you have to either add salary in 06 or decrease the year to year increases later in the contracts. Does it make any sense that they would require salary in the final capped year to prevent teams from pushing cap hits from capped years to presently uncapped years only to allow a team to turn that required salary into signing bonus and do exactly what the rule was meant to prevent? You can't cut a player after 6/1 and get a benefit and all incentives are considered LTBE because they don't want them earned and charged against the following uncapped year and guaranteed salary in future years counts in the last capped years. Would it make any sense to do all this and allow teams to simply turn salary[including RB's] into signing bonuses and send the cap effect into future presently uncapped years?

 

[AdamJT13]

ELABORATION, BABY!!!!

Please, go on.....

The 30 percent rule says that, for contacts extending from capped years into uncapped years (2007 and beyond right now), a player's "salary" can't increase from one year into the next uncapped year by more than 30 percent of the "salary" in the final capped year (2006 right now). And in this case, "salary" means virtually everything but the signing bonus, so it includes roster bonuses and even LTBE incentives.

What that means for the Commanders -- if the CBA is not extended before March -- is that they won't simply be able to guarantee and prorate 100 percent of all of their roster bonuses that are due, and they won't be able to renegotiate to lower player's base salaries as much as usual, since they'll have to comply with the 30 percent rule. They'll still be able to do it to a degree, just not as much as is stated in the article at http://Commanders.scout.com/2/490049.html.