BenchBledsoe Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Can someone please explain how Washington is doing what they're doing? Randle El, Brandon Lloyd, Fauria, etc. Weren't there reports a week ago that it wasn't possible for them to get under the cap if there wasn't a new CBA reached? Or they'd have to cut an obscene amount of players to do so? Now they're adding players like they were in great cap shape!! Did Arrington and those few pigs they cut really open things up this much? What the heck is going on? How is this possible?
ExWNYer Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Can someone please explain how Washington is doing what they're doing? Randle El, Brandon Lloyd, Fauria, etc. Weren't there reports a week ago that it wasn't possible for them to get under the cap if there wasn't a new CBA reached? Or they'd have to cut an obscene amount of players to do so? Now they're adding players like they were in great cap shape!! Did Arrington and those few pigs they cut really open things up this much? What the heck is going on? How is this possible? 626422[/snapback] Welcome to the world of the high revenue, free-spending clubs. Get used to it, it's only going to get worse as this joke of a CBA progresses in future years. The small markets got bent over once again.
BenchBledsoe Posted March 13, 2006 Author Posted March 13, 2006 Welcome to the world of the high revenue, free-spending clubs. Get used to it, it's only going to get worse as this joke of a CBA progresses in future years. The small markets got bent over once again. 626424[/snapback] Yes, we all know they're high revenue and free spending. But how are they doing this in regards to the cap? There is a hard cap in the NFL, isn't there?
Pyrite Gal Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Yes, we all know they're high revenue and free spending. But how are they doing this in regards to the cap? There is a hard cap in the NFL, isn't there? 626426[/snapback] As best as I can tell the Skins have done several things: 1. They really did make a few painful cap friendly cuts such as LaVarr Arrington. While these cuts actually represent poor investments by the Skins as seen in an increase in their deadspace numbers. The cuts are cap friendly because they already were accounting in their cap # for a large base salary payment ot Arrington. This much the same as why cutting Eric Moulds will be cap friendly for us. 2. The Skins apparently did a furious round and amount of restructuring contracts when it looked like the cap would be much smaller if there was no deal. This move in essence robbed Peter to pay Paul as they converted base salary payments due this year into bonus payments. Their level of high revenue gives them the cash on hand to make these immediate bonus payments, but this year's cap hit went down as they prorated (distributed this bonus cap hit over the 5 years allowed in the CBA or the life of the contract if it is shorter than 5 years They likely are doing the quick signings with cap room they generated doing this in preparation for a tighter cap. 3. This is a classic example of what folks refer to as cash over cap. While the Bills generally try to hold money paid out to the actual level of cap room (except in cases like Takeo Spikes or a first round draft choice to whom we pay a significant bonus upfront though this amount is prorated over several years. The Skins on the other hand have so much cash flowing through their money making machine that they barely seem to notice when they have to layout a huge bonus. This payment of cash upfront is allocated over several cap years and represents the cash they paid out over the cap total. In general, this definitely will come back to bite the Skins at some point. We see this in cuts of players like Arrington, but the impact of this is greatly lessened by the huge growth of the salary cap as NFL revenues increase/ This year ironically will probably see few cuts in the Skins as many players have already been paid by the Skins because their base salary was converted to bonus. In addition, it is clear from cases like Royal that money is not the only thing players want and high revenue teams can lose players they want to the likes of lower revenue (but still massive profit centers) like the Buffalo Bills.
BenchBledsoe Posted March 13, 2006 Author Posted March 13, 2006 As best as I can tell the Skins have done several things: 1. They really did make a few painful cap friendly cuts such as LaVarr Arrington. While these cuts actually represent poor investments by the Skins as seen in an increase in their deadspace numbers. The cuts are cap friendly because they already were accounting in their cap # for a large base salary payment ot Arrington. This much the same as why cutting Eric Moulds will be cap friendly for us. 2. The Skins apparently did a furious round and amount of restructuring contracts when it looked like the cap would be much smaller if there was no deal. This move in essence robbed Peter to pay Paul as they converted base salary payments due this year into bonus payments. Their level of high revenue gives them the cash on hand to make these immediate bonus payments, but this year's cap hit went down as they prorated (distributed this bonus cap hit over the 5 years allowed in the CBA or the life of the contract if it is shorter than 5 years They likely are doing the quick signings with cap room they generated doing this in preparation for a tighter cap. 3. This is a classic example of what folks refer to as cash over cap. While the Bills generally try to hold money paid out to the actual level of cap room (except in cases like Takeo Spikes or a first round draft choice to whom we pay a significant bonus upfront though this amount is prorated over several years. The Skins on the other hand have so much cash flowing through their money making machine that they barely seem to notice when they have to layout a huge bonus. This payment of cash upfront is allocated over several cap years and represents the cash they paid out over the cap total. In general, this definitely will come back to bite the Skins at some point. We see this in cuts of players like Arrington, but the impact of this is greatly lessened by the huge growth of the salary cap as NFL revenues increase/ This year ironically will probably see few cuts in the Skins as many players have already been paid by the Skins because their base salary was converted to bonus. In addition, it is clear from cases like Royal that money is not the only thing players want and high revenue teams can lose players they want to the likes of lower revenue (but still massive profit centers) like the Buffalo Bills. 626436[/snapback] Thank you! That helped me understand, and I'm sure helped others understand too.
Pyrite Gal Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Thank you! That helped me understand, and I'm sure helped others understand too. 626437[/snapback] No prob, It is neat to me because this is some fairly counter-intuitive and high level economics playing out on a level where even us football crazy folks can relate to it. I actually take a little time to try to lay out an explanation as it helps me understand and keep track of it all to explain it. In addition, errors I make in my grasp of the economics are usually quickly (if not harshly also) corrected by the TSW folk and I learn alot.
inkman Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Can someone please explain how Washington is doing what they're doing? Randle El, Brandon Lloyd, Fauria, etc. Weren't there reports a week ago that it wasn't possible for them to get under the cap if there wasn't a new CBA reached? Or they'd have to cut an obscene amount of players to do so? Now they're adding players like they were in great cap shape!! Did Arrington and those few pigs they cut really open things up this much? What the heck is going on? How is this possible? 626422[/snapback] Randle El is the only one making any $, or any good for that matter. BTW, he's not $50 million good.
obie_wan Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Yes, we all know they're high revenue and free spending. But how are they doing this in regards to the cap? There is a hard cap in the NFL, isn't there? 626426[/snapback] not anymore the cash over cap rollover provisions let teams push cap dollars into the future with big signing bonues and actually steal salary cap dollars from future years. now you know why Ralph voted no.
Steven in MD Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 not anymore the cash over cap rollover provisions let teams push cap dollars into the future with big signing bonues and actually steal salary cap dollars from future years. now you know why Ralph voted no. 626541[/snapback] There was always a cap rollover allowing you to amortized signing bonuses. Pyrite Gal said it best..."Robbing Peter to pay Paul." The Skins operating under a system that says, the salary cap will continue to increase every year, so we push the money into those years until we can no longer push it. Again, they might not win the Super Bowl, but it will keep them competitive.
BenchBledsoe Posted March 13, 2006 Author Posted March 13, 2006 Now they've added Archuleta too? Ridiculous! However, there is a silver lining to all this: They HAVEN"T HELPED their team too much, and long-term this will hurt them! Overrated Randle El is only going to be their 3rd WR, and David Patten may now get cut. Archuleta is terrible in coverage, Fauria for Royal is roughly a wash, and they lost Arrington. Lloyd could well be the best addition they've had so far. So, while it looks good on paper, on the field I don't see them improving too much. Remember, they're still trying to squeeze yet another year out of Brunell. He is due to hit the wall. And Jason Campbell is more green than JP!! Bottom line is. . . I'd still root for them against the Cowboys, but hope they fall on their faces in the end.
obie_wan Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 There was always a cap rollover allowing you to amortized signing bonuses. Pyrite Gal said it best..."Robbing Peter to pay Paul." The Skins operating under a system that says, the salary cap will continue to increase every year, so we push the money into those years until we can no longer push it. Again, they might not win the Super Bowl, but it will keep them competitive. 626568[/snapback] They always allowed siging bonuses to be amortized, but you still have to be under the hard cap. Now teams can actually exceed the supposed "cap" and will be penalized by a reduction in a later year under the very mysterious cash over cap rules.
Webster Guy Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 In general, this definitely will come back to bite the Skins at some point. We see this in cuts of players like Arrington, but the impact of this is greatly lessened by the huge growth of the salary cap as NFL revenues increase. 626436[/snapback] But it never seems to bite teams as hard as we think. The Skins seem to find ways to soften the blow. This is like the tax code- Ralph was right.
Lurker Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 This is like the tax code- Ralph was right. 627471[/snapback] More like the federal deficit.
ganesh Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 But it never seems to bite teams as hard as we think. The Skins seem to find ways to soften the blow. This is like the tax code- Ralph was right. 627471[/snapback] They were going to be in Cap hell this year....however the new deal helped them get another 8M of salary cap space to make more signings....I am sure they are going to restructure a few more contracts to get some more cap room.... Remember they are borrowing effectively cap money for future years.... What they have going for them is real cash to burn, something that our beloved bills don't have in excess....All teams can work around the Cap issues, but when it comes to paying the hard extra cash, only a few teams in the top 10 can do that..... Another issue is since there is no hard cap for coaches, the Redskins have been going after coaches and paying thme huge money....The rest of the league is really concered about that...
drnykterstein Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Weren't there reports a week ago that it wasn't possible for them to get under the cap if there wasn't a new CBA reached? Or they'd have to cut an obscene amount of players to do so?they had an infinite amount of cap space626422[/snapback] Yep.
Ramius Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 They always allowed siging bonuses to be amortized, but you still have to be under the hard cap. Now teams can actually exceed the supposed "cap" and will be penalized by a reduction in a later year under the very mysterious cash over cap rules. 626892[/snapback] No, you cant exceed the salary cap. There is a cash over cap limit on how much payroll you can have in an actual year. If you go over that limit, you are mortgaging your future. But you cannot go over the salary cap of 104 million.
scribo Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Yep. Redskins | Team to sign A. Carter Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:05:39 -0800 Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports the Washington Redskins are in the process of signing free agent DE/LB Andre Carter (49ers) to a six-year, approximately $30 million contract. That's a lot of money, again.
drnykterstein Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 at first I thought youmeant peterson. Ok, I don;t care that much about carter. Definately overpaid.
Mike32282 Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 This is insane. Ralph was right, this new deal without revenue sharing is just going to make the Dan Synder's just want to spend even MORE. New Redskins players as of 3/13/06... - WR Brandon Lloyd - WR/PR Antwaan Randle El - TE Christian Fauria - S Adam Archuletta - LB/DL Andre Carter And this is a team that was supposed to be in Cap Hell this year. No wonder Synder wanted to get a new deal done and fast.
Recommended Posts