Redskins finally reaching "CAP HELL" ?

[Michael82]

How would you like to be Eric Schaffer, the cap man for the Washington Redskins? Your boss is the combustible Dan Snyder and your cap is a mess, so much so that two cap experts from other teams who looked at it say it's as bad as they have seen.

We pity poor Schaffer, who isn't to blame. It's not his fault Snyder throws money around as if he prints it, snubbing the reality that cap jail will eventually swallow his team whole. "I'm glad I'm not Eric," said one of the cap experts. "That thing is a mess."

According to NFLPA figures, the Redskins have $115.4 million committed in salary for their top 51 players in 2006. The cap is expected to be $92 to $95 million. That means they have to trim $20 million or so. And that's not counting the $2 million or so the team will need to sign its rookies (thankfully, they don't have a first-round pick to pay, or that would be higher).

The Redskins have done a decent job trimming their cap down in recent years, but this time it might not be possible -- certainly not without a new collective bargaining agreement. A new agreement could help relieve some of the cap problems, but even with one, the Redskins face a daunting task.

"If they reduced everybody to a veteran minimum, and that won't happen, they'd still be $4 million over the cap," said one of the cap experts. "That's before cutting anybody."

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9244108

:snicker: It's about time that the salary cap problems affect them. :D

[Michael82]

This is good too.... :snicker2:


Cap-tastrophe?
The Redskins gambled when they signed some of their key players over the past few years. They may be on the verge of losing that gamble and the team could have a decidedly different look in 2006.

Over the weekend, two almost identical articles by Pete Prisco (http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9241944) of CBS Sportsline and Len Pasquarelli (http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2333854) of ESPN.com came to almost identical conclusions in regards to the Redskins salary cap situation. They both claimed to have talked to a trio of cap experts from various places and these experts told them that the Redskins were in a cap situation that was so untenable that they may be forced to make drastic cuts to get under the cap. The Redskins, they say, may be forced to play the 2006 season with 15-20 rookies making the minimum in order to get in compliance with the cap rules. There would have to be an unprecedented bloodbath in regards to the roster.

As those two writers are notorious for their frequent anti-Redskins biases, their pieces were immediately met with derision from all around Redskins nation. “There they go again,” was the common refrain.

Well, this observer, accused of being a homer far more often than he’s called anti-Redskins, is here to tell you that, as painful as it may be to say it, what Pete and Lenny said is by and large true. If there is not extension of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) before the free agency period begins on March 3, the Redskins will officially take up residence in the dreaded cap hell. The Redskins took a gamble and, as of right now, it looks as though they may well lose it.

The gamble they took was to insert roster bonuses into the contracts signed by Marcus Washington (http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=71&p=8&c=1&nid=2377044), Clinton Portis (http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=71&p=8&c=1&nid=2377027), and others. Since these bonuses are not guaranteed, they all count towards the 2006 salary cap, pushing it up to a number that is some $20 million over the limit, which will likely come in at $95 million.

The Redskins had to structure those deals in that way in order to make them acceptable under the current collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the NFL Players Association. The gamble that they took was that the CBA would be extended and revised before the ’06 free agency season began. That would allow them to guarantee the roster bonuses for those players, meaning that they could spread out the impact over the life of the contract. That would, for example, lower Shawn Springs (http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=71&p=8&c=1&nid=2377039)’ cap number by some $2.3 million, Portis’ by $2.25 million. The cap savings by this accounting procedure would total $15 million. The rest of the overage could easily be handled by cutting some fringe players and restructuring some other contracts.

http://redskins.scout.com/2/501221.html

[LifetimeBillsFan]

All "Danny Boy" Snyder has to do is agree with the majority of the rest of the owners in the league who want to extend revenue sharing.

But, he may not want to do that because, if the CBA isn't extended and 2007 is an uncapped year, he can use all of the money that he has to buy himself championships down the road because the Redskins are such a rich franchise. He may figure that whatever players and money he may lose this year, if the other owners aren't more accommodating to what he wants, he will be more than able to replace once the CBA is gone and he can pay his players whatever he wants. What does he care if the rest of the league goes into the toilet so long as he gets a few rings and can boast of having a team that has won a bunch of NFL titles before half of the league goes under?

[don137]

Snyder will just re-negotiate all the contracts and extend them a year so 2007 they are way over the cap. Then he will fight like hell to not have a CBA signed with a cap for next year so he wins by overpaying to keep the players and having the big salary fall during a non-cap year. It's bad for the league but he doesn't care.

[Bill Brasky]

too bad for them. idiots.

[ICE74129]

All I have to say is Call Clump :D:

[Stewie]

Snyder will just re-negotiate all the contracts and extend them a year so 2007 they are way over the cap. Then he will fight like hell to not have a CBA signed with a cap for next year so he wins by overpaying to keep the players and having the big salary fall during a non-cap year. It's bad for the league but he doesn't care.

That's exactly what I'm thinking. No one that earns billion$ before 40 is an idiot. He's trying to put it off one more year, so on March 2, 2007, he can rip up all his contracts, offer everyone a huge roster bonus acceleration on their contract, and presto: agree to the new CBA and start with no future cap issues.

Magic.

Oh and if there's no cap next year, Washington, Dallas and Denver will sign every free agent on the first day. Can you say signing bonus? Tampa could be interested if the player is a felon.

[Michael82]

That's exactly what I'm thinking. No one that earns billion$ before 40 is an idiot. He's trying to put it off one more year, so on March 2, 2007, he can rip up all his contracts, offer everyone a huge roster bonus acceleration on their contract, and presto: agree to the new CBA and start with no future cap issues.

Magic.

Oh and if there's no cap next year, Washington, Dallas and Denver will sign every free agent on the first day. Can you say signing bonus? Tampa could be interested if the player is a felon.
Didn't you know that there are a bunch of limits and stuff set up if we hit the no capped year? Synder or Jones can't just throw money at every player. It wouldnt work.

[Stewie]

Didn't you know that there are a bunch of limits and stuff set up if we hit the no capped year? Synder or Jones can't just throw money at every player. It wouldnt work.

Link for "limits and stuff"?

This is what I understand

from nfl.com:
1. If 2007 is uncapped, then qualifying free agents can be paid as much as can be negotiated. This sounds great for the players, but who are the qualifying free agents?
2. The rules to become a free agent change in an uncapped year. To become free, a player will need six years of service instead of four years and his contract has to be expired.
3. A player with five years of experience who under capped season rules would have been free, will now be a restricted free agent if the club decides to designate him as restricted. Quality players with five years of service will be restricted and not many teams will be willing to surrender high draft picks for them. A player waiting for his big 'free agency' contract with a nice fat signing bonus will probably play for a one-year salary with no signing bonus and risk a career ending injury.
4. The same rules apply to players with four years of service to those players with five years as mentioned in point No. 3. The group of potential free agents will be significantly reduced in 2007 because of the loss of four- and five-year players. The best players from the 2002 and 2003 draft classes will not be moving around too much in 2007.
5. If that isn't bad enough for the players hoping to hit the market, each club will also get an additional 'transition tag' to protect an older veteran. As long as the club offers a player in this category a one-year contract for the average of the top 10 players at his position, the franchise retains his rights unless another club wants to give significant draft compensation. Figure the top 32 veterans (one per club) who was supposed to hit free agency will now be tagged.

A roster bonus currently counts against this years cap. That way teams with cap space protect their future years (Vikings and Antoine Winfield)

What is to stop Dan Snyder from ripping up Clinton Portis' contract on March 3rd, (no cap, means no future cap implications) and giving him a new contract with a roster bonus due on March 4th (as incentive for Clinton to sign it.) The roster bonus is basically guaranteed. At that point, Clinton Portis only has an annual salary. And anytime after a new cap goes into effect, Dan Snyder can cut him with no future cap implications. It's a win-win, the player is prescient enough to buy injury insurance.

The other potential limits I'm aware of are CBA specific and involve the legal transition on March 2nd. Can someone link to this info?

[Dont drink the water]

How would you like to be Eric Schaffer, the cap man for the Washington Redskins? Your boss is the combustible Dan Snyder and your cap is a mess, so much so that two cap experts from other teams who looked at it say it's as bad as they have seen.

:snicker: It's about time that the salary cap problems affect them. :D

Maybe they need to hire two GMs and two cap experts like they have done with coaches. More is better right according the master of greed.

[Bill Cody]

I've been reading these "Redskins in cap hell" predictions for years. Somehow it never turns out to be the case and they sign another half dozen new FA's.

[Novacane]

All that money and they are'nt even good