Wash. Times| Good article on Skins cap

[BigDFan5]

Thanks Adam

 

[superpunk]

Thanks BigD and Adam. So, the Skins can do some of what is written in that article, just not to the extent the article outlines. Also, if they do all those things, they are 13 players short of a full roster, and only 10 mil under the cap. Correct?

 

[DallasInDC]

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.

So is it safe to assume that if the cba is ratified before March, then the skins could convert the roster bonuses to signing bonues and receive the savings indicated? Or does the 30% rule still apply?

 

[DipChit]

I'm sure the Skins will be ok in general. Here in Denver with the Broncos it's pretty much that same song and dance every year too. Millions over the cap, but they work it out.

Like when they cut Griese after just having signed him to huge contract the year before. OMG how can they do that when they had cap issues to begin with. They had to eat it. But yet they still managed to sign Plummer instead who doesnt work for chump change.

And speaking of chump, or I mean Champ.. Bailey, same thing there. Portis wasnt makin much and started whinin about it..so they trade him for Bailey who makes big bucks. Howd they work that out when Portis was slated to make 400K or whatever.

I think true cap hell comes from paying guys (more than one or 2) still in their prime..or close enough to it, to big signing bonus contracts where that money counts come hell or high water. Like Aikman, Smith, Deion when we got him, Arrington in the case of the Skins etc.

Not from signing aging vets like Brunell, Bruce Smith, Deion when he went there and guys like that. Where they dont get huge bonuses and those 3rd and 4th years of a deal that "say" 4 million a year just get torn up. It just "looked" good at the time that it was a 4 year 16 million dollar deal or whatever.

In other words it's all about creativity and not paying too many guys too much real money past their usefullness.

 

[The30YardSlant]

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.

But wait, we arent festering in salary cap hell

 

[AdamJT13]

So is it safe to assume that if the cba is ratified before March, then the skins could convert the roster bonuses to signing bonues and receive the savings indicated? Or does the 30% rule still apply?

If the CBA is extended before March (thus extending the cap), the 30 percent rule won't apply to this season, and they'd be able to do all of the normal renegotiations, etc.

If not, they won't be able to do a lot of those things, and they'll have to do some things differently and for less cap savings. Let's look at some specific players, for example.

The article at Scout.com says the Skins could save $2.4 million with a simple restructuring of Mark Brunell's contract (lowering his base salary to the veteran minimum and giving him the difference as a signing bonus). Normally, they'd be able to take his $4 million base salary, renegotiate it to $770,000 and pay him a $3.23 million bonus, which would be prorated. That would reduce his cap number by $2,422,500. But his $4 million base salary allows his salaries for 2007 through 2010 to go up by $1.2 million per season, which is exactly what they do. If his base salary drops to $770,000 in 2006, his total salaries couldn't go up by more than $231,000 per season. So instead of having a salary of $5.2 million for 2007, it couldn't be higher than $1.001 million. And instead of $6.4 million in 2008, he couldn't make more than $1.232 million. Over the life of his contract, he'd have agree to take a pay cut of $22.61 million! Granted, he'd probably never play through 2010 anyway, but it would be foolish for him even to agree to take a pay cut of more than $4 million for 2007, when he still might be playing.

The ONLY way for the Skins to reduce Brunell's cap hit AT ALL is for Brunell to agree to a pay cut of some sort, although they could convince him to take a pay cut for future years -- when he might not even be playing -- in exchange for more money now. For example, let's say Brunell thinks he'll be able to play at least two more years. Under his current contract, he'd get $4 million in 2006 and $5.2 million in 2007. Of that $9.2 million total, the Skins could prorate no more than $7.429 million, leaving him with base salaries of $770,000 in 2006 and $1.001 million in 2007. The cap savings would be $1,372,750 -- more than $1 million less than the $2,422,500 that could have been saved without the 30 percent rule. And Brunell would still have to accept big pay cuts for 2008 through 2010, which he might not see anyway. So by paying Brunell and extra $4.199 million this season, the Skins could save $1,372,750 of cap room. But to save any more than that, they'll have to convince Brunell to take less money over the next two years, as well as from 2008 through 2010.

The article at Scout.com also says the Skins can save $4.9 million by guaranteeing and prorating LaVar Arrington's $6.5 million roster bonus. Normally, guaranteeing and prorating his bonus would save $4.875 million. But that $6.5 million roster bonus and his $545,000 base salary allow his total "salaries" (not just base salary) from 2007 to 2011 to increase by as much as $2,113,500 per year (30 percent of $7.045 million), and indeed, the increases from 2007 to 2008 and from 2008 to 2009 are $2.1 million apiece. But guaranteeing and prorating the bonus removes it from the 30 percent rule calculation, making his maximum increase a mere $163,500 per season, starting from $545,000 in 2006. His pay cut would be monumental -- more than $39 million, plus incentives.

In order for the Skins to comply with the 30 percent rule without having Arrington agree to accept less money, they couldn't guarantee and prorate more than $2.045 million of his roster bonus. That would save $1,533,750 -- a far cry from the $4.875 million they'd be able to save if the CBA is extended before March. They'd also have to adjust his total salaries for 2007 through 2011, increasing it by $1.4 million for 2007, increasing it by $800,000 for 2008, increasing it by $200,000 for 2009, lowering it by $400,000 for 2010 and lowering it by $500,000 for 2011. That would give him the exact same amount of money, but distributed differently, and it would comply with the 30 percent rule. It would increase his cap numbers for 2007, 2008 and 2009, but in this case, at least 2007 would be uncapped, anyway. And if the cap returns after that, they can go back to prorating money and putting off the cap hits.

So, just in those two examples, unless Brunell and Arrington accept pay cuts, simply restructuring their contracts will save no more than $2,906,500 of cap room -- not anywhere close to the $7,297,500 suggested in the article.

 

[Ashwynn]

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.

Bout friggin time too. they been pushing the bill around for 3 or 4 years now. Bout time someone paid it.

When I heard Gibbs say he likes his 'core group' and that they would not be major players in FA this year, I thought the cap was more a reason behind it then the fact hes became buddies with Lavar all of a sudden.

 

[superpunk]

Dear god, adam. You're a frickin wizard. I can actually understand that. Nice job.

 

[notherbob]

If the CBA is extended before March (thus extending the cap), the 30 percent rule won't apply to this season, and they'd be able to do all of the normal renegotiations, etc.

If not, they won't be able to do a lot of those things, and they'll have to do some things differently and for less cap savings. Let's look at some specific players, for example.

The article at Scout.com says the Skins could save $2.4 million with a simple restructuring of Mark Brunell's contract (lowering his base salary to the veteran minimum and giving him the difference as a signing bonus). Normally, they'd be able to take his $4 million base salary, renegotiate it to $770,000 and pay him a $3.23 million bonus, which would be prorated. That would reduce his cap number by $2,422,500. But his $4 million base salary allows his salaries for 2007 through 2010 to go up by $1.2 million per season, which is exactly what they do. If his base salary drops to $770,000 in 2006, his total salaries couldn't go up by more than $231,000 per season. So instead of having a salary of $5.2 million for 2007, it couldn't be higher than $1.001 million. And instead of $6.4 million in 2008, he couldn't make more than $1.232 million. Over the life of his contract, he'd have agree to take a pay cut of $22.61 million! Granted, he'd probably never play through 2010 anyway, but it would be foolish for him even to agree to take a pay cut of more than $4 million for 2007, when he still might be playing.

The ONLY way for the Skins to reduce Brunell's cap hit AT ALL is for Brunell to agree to a pay cut of some sort, although they could convince him to take a pay cut for future years -- when he might not even be playing -- in exchange for more money now. For example, let's say Brunell thinks he'll be able to play at least two more years. Under his current contract, he'd get $4 million in 2006 and $5.2 million in 2007. Of that $9.2 million total, the Skins could prorate no more than $7.429 million, leaving him with base salaries of $770,000 in 2006 and $1.001 million in 2007. The cap savings would be $1,372,750 -- more than $1 million less than the $2,422,500 that could have been saved without the 30 percent rule. And Brunell would still have to accept big pay cuts for 2008 through 2010, which he might not see anyway. So by paying Brunell and extra $4.199 million this season, the Skins could save $1,372,750 of cap room. But to save any more than that, they'll have to convince Brunell to take less money over the next two years, as well as from 2008 through 2010.

The article at Scout.com also says the Skins can save $4.9 million by guaranteeing and prorating LaVar Arrington's $6.5 million roster bonus. Normally, guaranteeing and prorating his bonus would save $4.875 million. But that $6.5 million roster bonus and his $545,000 base salary allow his total "salaries" (not just base salary) from 2007 to 2011 to increase by as much as $2,113,500 per year (30 percent of $7.045 million), and indeed, the increases from 2007 to 2008 and from 2008 to 2009 are $2.1 million apiece. But guaranteeing and prorating the bonus removes it from the 30 percent rule calculation, making his maximum increase a mere $163,500 per season, starting from $545,000 in 2006. His pay cut would be monumental -- more than $39 million, plus incentives.

In order for the Skins to comply with the 30 percent rule without having Arrington agree to accept less money, they couldn't guarantee and prorate more than $2.045 million of his roster bonus. That would save $1,533,750 -- a far cry from the $4.875 million they'd be able to save if the CBA is extended before March. They'd also have to adjust his total salaries for 2007 through 2011, increasing it by $1.4 million for 2007, increasing it by $800,000 for 2008, increasing it by $200,000 for 2009, lowering it by $400,000 for 2010 and lowering it by $500,000 for 2011. That would give him the exact same amount of money, but distributed differently, and it would comply with the 30 percent rule. It would increase his cap numbers for 2007, 2008 and 2009, but in this case, at least 2007 would be uncapped, anyway. And if the cap returns after that, they can go back to prorating money and putting off the cap hits.

So, just in those two examples, unless Brunell and Arrington accept pay cuts, simply restructuring their contracts will save no more than $2,906,500 of cap room -- not anywhere close to the $7,297,500 suggested in the article.

 

[KINGBRICE_28]

LMAO

This is another example of a writer who doesn't know anything trying to make a quota.....

obviously he didn't write about what we've BEEN doing for the past 3 years.....

maybe some of you should read this....

fully.....

http://dallascowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46709&page=2

 

[The30YardSlant]

LMAO

This is another example of a writer who doesn't know anything trying to make a quota.....

obviously he didn't write about what we've BEEN doing for the past 3 years.....

maybe some of you should read this....

fully.....

http://dallascowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46709&page=2

Let's see:

Trust every sports writer, the NFL front office, andeven the Commanders own writers/reporters

or

A bunch of fans on a amessage board who like to act like they have any clue as to how the salary cap works

I'll take the former and not look back, thanks

 

[KINGBRICE_28]

AdamJT13 you made some good points though......I'm sure we'll both be right on some level.....we'll see......we do it every year so I can't figure out why some people post these threads anymore....heck I don't know why I reply.......

 

[AdamJT13]

maybe some of you should read this....

Maybe you should look four posts above yours.

 

[The30YardSlant]

AdamJT13 you made some good points though......I'm sure we'll both be right on some level.....we'll see......we do it every year so I can't figure out why some people post these threads anymore....heck I don't know why I reply.......

No one is saying that Commanders can't manuver themselves under the cap, but this stuff about them getting 10-12 million under it is utter nonsense

God himself couldnt get the skins to 12 million under the cap

 

[KINGBRICE_28]

Let's see:
A bunch of fans on a amessage board who like to act like they have any clue as to how the salary cap works

I'll take the former and not look back, thanks

I see you trust your friend here.....he's no different than the guy who figured out our cap.....

maybe rather than being so bias to see the negitive side you should actually READ my post....had you done so it wouldn't have dropped to page 3 because you would of apologized for being so incorrect.......

 

[KINGBRICE_28]

Maybe you should look four posts above yours.

huh....isn't that your post.....if so this is what were talking about....I don't get it?

 

[KINGBRICE_28]

No one is saying that Commanders can't manuver themselves under the cap, but this stuff about them getting 10-12 million under it is utter nonsense

God himself couldnt get the skins to 12 million under the cap

no 12 sounds like the best possible scenario....however majority of the players so go along with it.....

to say 4-5 m under is fine......we had what like 3.2 wiggle room last year....we came out ok.....

 

[The30YardSlant]

I see you trust your friend here.....he's no different than the guy who figured out our cap.....

maybe rather than being so bias to see the negitive side you should actually READ my post....had you done so it wouldn't have dropped to page 3 because you would of apologized for being so incorrect.......

I have nothing to apologize for, because you are plain and simply wrong. You are feeding off the garbage Art, Bubba, and all the other self-proclaimed football gurus over on ES. These are men in their mid 40s and older who have such a vast inferiority complex that they feel the need to brag about their "knowledge', even though they spew random crap, hoping something sticks.

Adam, on the other had, answers when asked. He doesnt feel the need to throw around what he knows just to make himself seem smart.

Also add to the fact that Adam has yet to be wrong even once that I can recall on issues regarding the cap, and I have no reason to not believe him. I have every reason to not believe the stats and anaylisis posted on ES because they are constantly wrong, then they ban people who call them out on it.

 

[AdamJT13]

we do it every year so I can't figure out why some people post these threads anymore.

If the cap isn't extended before March, this year won't be anything like every other year. The 30 percent rule will be a big factor in a lot of contracts, prorations will be shorter and there won't be a June 2 escape hatch for inflated contracts. If the NFL goes into the league year with it being the final capped year, the rules of the CBA will make sure that every team is accountable toward the cap as much as possible before it goes away next year. Far less of a player's cap charges will be able to be pushed into future years as teams have done in other years.

If the cap is extended before March, however -- which I think it will be -- then the Skins can go back to putting off the cap hits, as usual.

 

[jterrell]

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.

All very true and basically exactly what I took formt he collaborative of both articles.

Yes the Skins will get below the cap. Every team will.

BUT they will also be hurting to do so and field 22 decent starters. A few no name guys are gonna have to fill in. The lack of young guys because of draft pick giveaways makes that a reallllly tough proposition for them.

The scout.com article assumes all the players are just peachy keen with their current deals and will offer free restructures. LA might go for just what is proposed but also may expect more upfront money to do so. These guys dont give away cash.

If the Skins somehow cut 35 mil off their cap which would be like 10 restructures, 7 or 8 cuts/retirements; they would have 20 mil in cap space. That sounds like a ton til you think they will be about 5 starters short, have a draft class to sign and will be forced into making bad deals even worse for many aging vet players.

How long before the Miami boys Taylor, Portis, Moss want more cash?
What about Washington who has easily been their best defender?