Bill from NYC Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 This includes a 10 million dollar signing bonus. His deal had 2 years left on it, and he has been nagged by injuries as of late, so the deal seemed pretty good for him. Once again, I think that UFAs are going to receive HUGE contracts this season. Also, while Jansen is good, if Ralph wants to tie up Evans and JP long term (let alone Kelsay), he will soon need to open up his wallet big time.
Nanker Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Bill, I have to admit. I thought your link was going to be this or this. Here's hoping Ralphie and Marv get the message.
The Tomcat Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 How much cap-space could this possibly gain them?
2003Contenders Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Jansen's original base salary was set to be $4.25 M this year. Without knowing the full details of his contract, by spreading the $10 M signing bonus over a five year extension, assuming that his new base is something around the league minimum, that should cut this portion of his cap liability down to less than $3 M this year. Thus, the 'Skins probably saved between $1 M to $1.5 M against the cap in 2007 by doing this. Of course, Jansen has a nasty history of injuries, so you have to wonder how wise this decision was in the long haul.
Marv's Neighbor Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 It seems as though the Redskins NEVER have Cap issues. Must be the Washington Vodoo Economics!
obie_wan Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 Jansen's original base salary was set to be $4.25 M this year. Without knowing the full details of his contract, by spreading the $10 M signing bonus over a five year extension, assuming that his new base is something around the league minimum, that should cut this portion of his cap liability down to less than $3 M this year. Thus, the 'Skins probably saved between $1 M to $1.5 M against the cap in 2007 by doing this. Of course, Jansen has a nasty history of injuries, so you have to wonder how wise this decision was in the long haul. It doesn't matter if he's hurt all the time. The SKins did the right thing by sinking big money into a big name player. This will earn them big brownie points with Pastabelly and the other talking heads.
silvermike Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 It seems as though the Redskins NEVER have Cap issues. Must be the Washington Vodoo Economics! blink.gif How's that working for them?
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 The Salary Cap is pretty much the biggest illusion of the nfl. Anyone can pretty much have cap space if they spread out signing bonus's here or converting roster bonus's to signing bonus's, or simply extending the contract of a player to lower their salary for this season. The Redskins play it perfect. However they just don't draft well to stay succesful over the long term, and with only 1 1st day draft pick this year that won't be changing anytime soon.
2003Contenders Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 It seems as though the Redskins NEVER have Cap issues. Must be the Washington Vodoo Economics! Actually the Redskins were in BIG trouble last year prior to the CBA extension. In fact, it was Lavar Arrington's willingness to return some of his original signing bonus (effectively buying his way off the team) that allowed them to sneak under the cap. This year, even with the large cap ($109 M), which has MOST teams in great shape, the Skins are still having to resort to these kinds of restructures to save face. The bigger problem for them is that they don't get good value for their mis-spent money. Last year Archuleta and Brunell may have been the high paid scout team players in NFL history...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 How much cap-space could this possibly gain them? They have enough already. They can resign anyone.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 7, 2007 Posted February 7, 2007 A lot of teams were in cap trouble last year before the new CBA was signed. That's the reason why the owners took it up the backside from the NFLPA, i.e. so they wouldn't have to cut players left and right. But now they're realizing what a lousy deal it was. Morons.
billybob Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 A lot of teams were in cap trouble last year before the new CBA was signed. That's the reason why the owners took it up the backside from the NFLPA, i.e. so they wouldn't have to cut players left and right. But now they're realizing what a lousy deal it was. Morons. Exactly, that and the fact that revenues have been increasing at a brisk pace- if revenue increases slowed down many teams would be in hot water- which brings me to a question what if a team simply couldn't make enough cuts to get under the cap what would the nfl do? would the nfl let the team buy cap space from other teams for cash or draft picks - or make the team forfeit all their games or levy fines-or raise the cap on all teams what do you think?
ganesh Posted February 8, 2007 Posted February 8, 2007 It seems as though the Redskins NEVER have Cap issues. Must be the Washington Vodoo Economics! Last year they had a very sever Cap Crisis and were something close to 20M over the cap....They were saved by the new CBA which increased the cap from 93M to 107M thereby letting the teams like Redskins avoiding to cut many players on the roster. They will do the same next 4 years and let the next CBA bail them out again. They can do this as long as they have the cash flow to bring in players constantly.
ThreeBillsDrive Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 They have enough already. They can resign anyone. Dan Snyder has owned this team 7 years. How many times has this team made the playoffs over the last 7 years? Once. Exactly one more than the Bills. So the moron drastically outspends the Bills (and most other teams) on free agency, and what do the Redskins have to show for it???
Kuile Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 You can't just spend in football the way you can in baseball. The Jansen move should be seen as one of many aimed at making room for a free agent CB, namely Nate. The 'Skins redoing deals has been in works for a while, but I don't see Nate being their missing part.
Recommended Posts