Redskins Cap Strategy (1 Viewer)

[Spiderman]

A genius. Everyone keeps saying it will catch up with them and all Snyder does is continue to hand out the largest contracts in NFL history. He runs the team like Madden 2008 and they may not win every year, but do you think he cares? He puts the product on the field and with the names that suit up in Redskins gear, he packs the largest stadium in the NFL week in and week out. There's a reason why the guy's a billionaire by the age of 40. That's why the guy was the youngest CEO of a New York Stock Exchange traded company. He developed Snyder Communications, Inc. into one of the premier marketing companies in the World before selling it off in a merger that made him the primary stockholder of Havas International.

Are you reading that? MARKETING!!! The guy is a salesman. One of the best in the world. Is it any wonder he lands these players one after another? He can sell ice to an eskimo in winter for his mittens and his shoelaces!!!

This is my understanding of what they're doing.....there IS a provision that you can now exceed the salary cap, but you will knock down your future cap by the same amount (proportionally...i.e. overspend the cap by 10%, lose 10% of next year's cap or something)..will have to check on this. (Can someone confirm this ?_

2006: I'm $2 million over the cap.

2007: They knocked 10% off my cap, but look at that, I don't care and now I'm $10 million over...

2008: They knocked 20% off my cap, but again I don't care, so now I'm $20 million over the cap...

2009: Let me guess. 30%? Great, but again I don't care, so now I'm $40 million over...

Do you see what I'm getting at? If they didn't care if they were over the cap to begin with, what would they care about having 10% taken off of next year's cap? There would have to be some draft pick penalties, like in the last CBA, or financial ramifications. Maybe knock the cap 10% in 2007 and take a 2nd rounder away with the promise of taking a 1st next year with a future violation.

Finally, here's the interesting thing about this. Let's say you sign Randle El to a 7 year, $31 million deal, with $10 million up front.

The breakdown could be:

2006: $10 million paid for the signing bonus, $500K for the base (cap figure is $2 million for bonus (can only amortize over 5 years) + $500K = $2.5 million), but Randle El has $10.5 million in his pocket and is smiling.

2007: $1.5 million base, (cap figure is $2M + $1.5M = $3.5M), but Randle El has made $12 million in 2 years ($6M/yr).

2008: $2 million base, (cap figure is $2M + $2M = $4M), but Randle El has made $14 million in 3 years (nearly $5M/yr).

2009: $4 million base, (cap figure jumps to $4M + $2M = $6M), but Randle El now has $18 million in 4 years ($4.5M/yr).

2010: $5 million base, last year with a $2M bonus hit making cap number $7M. The team can cut Randle El and take the $2M cap hit, cut him after June 1st and split the hit to $1M each year in 2010 & 2011, resign him (restructure contract) and convert some base into signing bonus (guaranteed money amortized for 5 more years), or let it ride for one more year.

2011: $8 million base, Antwan never sees these last two years. $18 million is not really part of his deal, but he doesn't care because with the bonus amortized over 5 years, he made $23M over 5 years, or $4.6M/year, which is ultimately about double what the Bears were offering. Works out for both parties...

2012: $10 million base, will never see this in a million years!!!

This is how you see cap numbers around $18 million on some players. Because of back loaded contracts. It also highlights the ability of teams to restructure to convert unrealistic base into guaranteed bonus. For instance, if I owe Brian Urlacher $12 million in base salary in 2009, I will restructure his deal, and give him the $12 million plus another $10 million in bonus ($22 million up front). Then I'll give him another 7 year deal for $60 million, essentially broken down as:

2009: $1M base ($4.4M bonus + $1M base = $5.4M cap figure), but Brian has a check for $23 Million.

2010: $2M base ($4.4M bonus + $2M base = $6.4M cap figure), and Brian has $25M in 2 years ($12.5M/yr).

2011: $4M base ($4.4M bonus + $4M base = $8.4M cap figure), and Brian now has $29M in 3 years (under $10M/yr).

2012: Brian retires, resulting in a $8.8M cap hit or split over two years, $4.4M per year.

Any questions?

Meanwhile, other teams, including the Bears, put out their opinions that they do want to spend like certain teams do (Washington) - giving the impression that they are out of control, but it never seems they suffer the consequences of using their strategy.

So, are the Redskins out of control ?

 

[ExaltedOne]

As long as they keep adding talent like this to the roster and the coaching staff, I could care less where they get the money. I just want to see a winning football team.

No complaints from this Skins fan.

On the other hand, I'd hate to be a Chargers fan right now. $30 million and they've signed one old safety. Don't they need receivers too? Couldn't they use some defensive players? (BTW any chance they are interested in resigning Junior?)

 

[Sidewinder16]

He runs the team like Madden 2008 and they may not win every year, but do you think he cares?

Yes, he does care.If he could care less about whether his player acquisitions could help the team win or not then Gibbs would not have control over personnel.

Gibbs selects the players (I'm sure his staff has significant input, but Gibbs makes the final call), Snyder just writes the checks.

 

[BlueOnion]

This is my understanding of what they're doing.....there IS a provision that you can now exceed the salary cap, but you will knock down your future cap by the same amount (proportionally...i.e. overspend the cap by 10%, lose 10% of next year's cap or something)..will have to check on this. (Can someone confirm this ?_

Well I had to head of town last Wednesday for a death in the family, so I missed this. Do you have a link supporting your statement? It would make the NFL's cap a soft cap instead of the hard cap we have become accustomed too.

 

[Godsbrother]

As long as they keep adding talent like this to the roster and the coaching staff, I could care less where they get the money. I just want to see a winning football team.

No complaints from this Skins fan.

On the other hand, I'd hate to be a Chargers fan right now. $30 million and they've signed one old safety. Don't they need receivers too? Couldn't they use some defensive players? (BTW any chance they are interested in resigning Junior?)

The question really is how great the talent is that he is bringing in verses what they are really worth. Randel El getting more guaranteed $$$ than Edgerrin James? Ridiculous.Moves like this have a nasty habit of biting you in the butt. On the other hand, if they win a Super Bowl this year or the next I guess it will have been worth it. Time will tell.

 

[BlueOnion]

The major problem the Redskins will face, will be actually winning. Mortgaging a team's salary cap future is only dangerous if the team has coveted players; the Redskins mediocre performance of recent years has not made many of their players coveted by other teams.

When a team wins, every player's value on the team goes significantly up. If the Redskins make a conference championship and have a dozen contracts that need to be redone, the players most likely will not settle for just liquidating an annual salary for upfront bonus money; they will most likely ask for more then their expected annual salary in exchange for redoing their contract.

But as long as the Redskins reside as a middle of the road team, their methodology of mortgaging the future to maintain current status quo will not hurt them.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

The major problem the Redskins will face, will be actually winning. Mortgaging a team's salary cap future is only dangerous if the team has coveted players; the Redskins mediocre performance of recent years has not made many of their players coveted by other teams.

When a team wins, every player's value on the team goes significantly up. If the Redskins make a conference championship and have a dozen contracts that need to be redone, the players most likely will not settle for just liquidating an annual salary for upfront bonus money; they will most likely ask for more then their expected annual salary in exchange for redoing their contract.

But as long as the Redskins reside as a middle of the road team, their methodology of mortgaging the future to maintain current status quo will not hurt them.

Everyon's been chirping about how this is genius management by Snyder...it only works because they keep losing.

 

[David Yudkin]

How many titles have the Reskins won since the dawn of the salary cap era? I would wait until they actually won something before annointing anyone as a genius.

 

[dgreen]

The major problem the Redskins will face, will be actually winning. Mortgaging a team's salary cap future is only dangerous if the team has coveted players; the Redskins mediocre performance of recent years has not made many of their players coveted by other teams.

When a team wins, every player's value on the team goes significantly up. If the Redskins make a conference championship and have a dozen contracts that need to be redone, the players most likely will not settle for just liquidating an annual salary for upfront bonus money; they will most likely ask for more then their expected annual salary in exchange for redoing their contract.

But as long as the Redskins reside as a middle of the road team, their methodology of mortgaging the future to maintain current status quo will not hurt them.

Everyon's been chirping about how this is genius management by Snyder...it only works because they keep losing.

So, it works when they lose and doesn't work when they win? Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[-OZ-]

If he doesn't care about the $$, why should anyone else? It is his money.

Now, I'm not going to call him a genius until they win a few Super Bowls. But I'll sure take him as my owner over many others, especially San Diego's right now.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

The major problem the Redskins will face, will be actually winning. Mortgaging a team's salary cap future is only dangerous if the team has coveted players; the Redskins mediocre performance of recent years has not made many of their players coveted by other teams.

When a team wins, every player's value on the team goes significantly up. If the Redskins make a conference championship and have a dozen contracts that need to be redone, the players most likely will not settle for just liquidating an annual salary for upfront bonus money; they will most likely ask for more then their expected annual salary in exchange for redoing their contract.

But as long as the Redskins reside as a middle of the road team, their methodology of mortgaging the future to maintain current status quo will not hurt them.

Everyon's been chirping about how this is genius management by Snyder...it only works because they keep losing.

So, it works when they lose and doesn't work when they win? Yeah, that makes sense.

OK, I'm convinced.

 

[BlueOnion]

The major problem the Redskins will face, will be actually winning.  Mortgaging a team's salary cap future is only dangerous if the team has coveted players; the Redskins mediocre performance of recent years has not made many of their players coveted by other teams.

When a team wins, every player's value on the team goes significantly up.  If the Redskins make a conference championship and have a dozen contracts that need to be redone, the players most likely will not settle for just liquidating an annual salary for upfront bonus money; they will most likely ask for more then their expected annual salary in exchange for redoing their contract.

But as long as the Redskins reside as a middle of the road team, their methodology of mortgaging the future to maintain current status quo will not hurt them.

Everyon's been chirping about how this is genius management by Snyder...it only works because they keep losing.

So, it works when they lose and doesn't work when they win? Yeah, that makes sense.

Like I said above, it comes down to how much other team's covet your players. If you are not winning, your players are not coveted and retaining your player's is somewhat manageable. Once a team starts winning like the 49ers and the Cowboys in the early 90s, Rams post 1999, Vikings post 1998, Titans post 1999, Buccaneers post 2002; there are 31 other teams that are willing to overpay for the winning team's coveted players.Currently, the Redskins have already mortgaged a lot of that money they will need in the future should their players become coveted.

 

[BlueOnion]

A great example on how to manage the cap to win a Super Bowl is the Pittsburgh Steelers. The Steelers have a championship team right now and they currently have the option to mortgage their salary cap future to retain their key players. The reason they have this option is because they didn't mortgage the future to get to where they are today.

 

[dannyboy]

It's a strange little deal they have going on at Redskin Park. Sometimes, fans of the team think that the organization cares more about bringing in new talent rather then caring for their own. Smoot and Pierce are examples, although both left for bigger deals. That's the rub.. we know that Snyder will outbid for targeted FA's, but has shown to let players on the roster test the market and part ways, even though they have been labeled "core redskins"

On the other hand, they took care of Samuels and Jansen to keep them on board and happy.

I think the organization is finally on the right track here. As long as Gibbs is healthy and happy, this team finally has some stability from a leadership standpoint. Something severly lacking before. Remember how Steinbrenner went through managers like they were tic tacs? When did the Yankees finally have unbridled success? When Torre was the MAN, and when there was stability and harmony within the franchise.

I'm not saying the Redskins will be like the Yanks and be perennial favorites and have the championship hardware to prove it. But the team is taking steps to make improvements, after finally having a good year and making some noise in the playoffs. It's been an eternity for Skins fans. It's exciting, and that's what's great about being a fan. Optimism is a good thing, and Snyder gives whatever Gibbs wants. As a fan, can you ask for anything more?

 

[BlueOnion]

I think the organization is finally on the right track here. As long as Gibbs is healthy and happy, this team finally has some stability from a leadership standpoint. Something severly lacking before. Remember how Steinbrenner went through managers like they were tic tacs? When did the Yankees finally have unbridled success? When Torre was the MAN, and when there was stability and harmony within the franchise.

Details are sketchy for me, but I will try to recap the best I can.More specifically, Steinbrenner got into some trouble and was asked to leave the front office for a few years. He left some guidelines for those who were to run the Yankees, one of which was:

Do not sign any big free agents

So in Steinbrenner's absense, the Yankees drafted well and developed players well. When Steinbrenner returned, their core players were winning World Series. As Steinbrenner began to dabble more and more (acquiring big free agents), the team has lost more and more and coincidently have not won a World Series for some time.

 

[dannyboy]

Don't mean to dig into semantics to prove a point, but the Yankees did sign FA's to round out the team and fill holes. Every team will. Yes, the Yankess had guys like Jeter, Posada, Bernie Williams, and Rivera who came up through the farm system.

But then you had key FA's like Clemens, Wells, Knoblauch, O'Neil, Strawberry, etc... who were parts of those championship teams.

My point is, the team will be going into it's third year under Gibbs. Greg Williams decided to stay, and there is more consistency to the organization compared to years past. Will you at least give me that???

 

[BlueOnion]

Don't mean to dig into semantics to prove a point, but the Yankees did sign FA's to round out the team and fill holes. Every team will. Yes, the Yankess had guys like Jeter, Posada, Bernie Williams, and Rivera who came up through the farm system.

But then you had key FA's like Clemens, Wells, Knoblauch, O'Neil, Strawberry, etc... who were parts of those championship teams.

My point is, the team will be going into it's third year under Gibbs. Greg Williams decided to stay, and there is more consistency to the organization compared to years past. Will you at least give me that???

I will. Gibbs and the robust coaching staff they assembled will pay huge dividends. I just question how close they are to their salary cap ceiling and how much wiggle room they will have if they make a conference championship game.

 

[AB in DC]

This is my understanding of what they're doing.....there IS a provision that you can now exceed the salary cap, but you will knock down your future cap by the same amount (proportionally...i.e. overspend the cap by 10%, lose 10% of next year's cap or something)..will have to check on this. (Can someone confirm this ?_

Well I had to head of town last Wednesday for a death in the family, so I missed this. Do you have a link supporting your statement? It would make the NFL's cap a soft cap instead of the hard cap we have become accustomed too.

I'm not positive, but I believe this is a league-wide adjustment (based on TOTAL cash over cap), not a team-specific adjustment. So all that Danny's cash could do is lower the 2007 cap for everyone. But it would be a very small adjustment -- if the league ended up, say, $15 million over the "cash over cap" estimate, that would reduce the 2007 cap number by less than half a million per team.Also, there is only a downward adjustment if the cash over cap total exceeds 2% of revenues. If it's below that, the cap gets adjusted upward.

 

[AB in DC]

It's a strange little deal they have going on at Redskin Park. Sometimes, fans of the team think that the organization cares more about bringing in new talent rather then caring for their own. Smoot and Pierce are examples, although both left for bigger deals. That's the rub.. we know that Snyder will outbid for targeted FA's, but has shown to let players on the roster test the market and part ways, even though they have been labeled "core redskins"

On the other hand, they took care of Samuels and Jansen to keep them on board and happy.

It's pretty simple. If you're a Gibbs guy, you get taken care of. If not, sayonara.

 

[AB in DC]

Don't mean to dig into semantics to prove a point, but the Yankees did sign FA's to round out the team and fill holes. Every team will. Yes, the Yankess had guys like Jeter, Posada, Bernie Williams, and Rivera who came up through the farm system.

But then you had key FA's like Clemens, Wells, Knoblauch, O'Neil, Strawberry, etc... who were parts of those championship teams.

My point is, the team will be going into it's third year under Gibbs. Greg Williams decided to stay, and there is more consistency to the organization compared to years past. Will you at least give me that???

I will. Gibbs and the robust coaching staff they assembled will pay huge dividends. I just question how close they are to their salary cap ceiling and how much wiggle room they will have if they make a conference championship game.

I think the theory is, Gibbs has only three years left, so spend like mad while he's here and make the next coach pay the bill, if necessary.

 

[fatness]

I just question how close they are to their salary cap ceiling and how much wiggle room they will have if they make a conference championship game.

Isn't that customary with every winning team? That their players are over-valued and targeted by other teams? I don't think that has anything more to do with the Redskins than any other team.

 

[Sidewinder16]

I think the theory is, Gibbs has only three years left, so spend like mad while he's here and make the next coach pay the bill, if necessary.

Gregg Williams?I doubt they're trying to set up their future coach for failure.

 

[jsargos]

So many Redskins cap/FA thread to choose from, I guess I will post this here. Here are the notable acquisitions (FA/Trade) during the Dan Snyder era. I'll bold the players likely to be on the 2006 team.

2000 (Turner/Robiskie)

Mark Carrier

Jeff George

Kevin Mitchell

Dieon Sanders

Bruce Smith

2001 (Schottenheimer)

Ki-Jana Carter

Ben coleman

Kevin Lockett

Eric Metcalf

Dave Szott

2002 (Spurrier)

Jessie Armstead

Tre Johnson

Shane Matthews

Jerimiah Trotter

Danny Wuerffel

Renaldo Wynn

2003 (Spurrier)

Matt Bowen

Trung Canidate

Laveranes Coles

Dave Fiore

John Hall

Rob Johnson

Chad Morton

Brandon Noble

Darrell Russell

Randy Thomas

Regan Upshaw

2004 (Gibbs)

Ray Brown

Mark Brunell

Phillip Daniels

Cornelious Griffin

Walt Harris

Kenyatta Jones

Clinton Portis

Cory Raymer

Joe Salave'a

Shawn Springs

James Thrash

Marcus Washington

2005 (Gibbs)

Warrick Holdman

Santana Moss

David Patten

Casey Rabach

2006 (Gibbs)

Adam Archuleta

Andre Carter

Brandon Lloyd

Antwan Randel-El

I think a few things are pretty clearly demonstrated. There is a big turnover when the new coaches come in. Gibbs basically built last year's playoff team in 2004, and they are selectively adding to that group now. There are also many more players being brought in at or about to hit the prime of their careers, as opposed to the over-the-hill gang from the first few seasons.

 

[BlueOnion]

I just question how close they are to their salary cap ceiling and how much wiggle room they will have if they make a conference championship game.

Isn't that customary with every winning team? That their players are over-valued and targeted by other teams? I don't think that has anything more to do with the Redskins than any other team.

Yes. But usually teams begin winning and then try to mortgage the future. Not mortgage the future and then start winning because once you start winning, you cannot mortgage the future a second time.That is why the Redskins overspending has never really hurt them in the past, they have failed to do the 'winning' part, at which point they would have to mortgage the future to maintain their winning.

 

[dj_stouty]

I just question how close they are to their salary cap ceiling and how much wiggle room they will have if they make a conference championship game.

Isn't that customary with every winning team? That their players are over-valued and targeted by other teams? I don't think that has anything more to do with the Redskins than any other team.

Yes. But usually teams begin winning and then try to mortgage the future. Not mortgage the future and then start winning because once you start winning, you cannot mortgage the future a second time.That is why the Redskins overspending has never really hurt them in the past, they have failed to do the 'winning' part, at which point they would have to mortgage the future to maintain their winning.

I guess you forgot that they went to the 2nd round of the playoffs last year. The winning has already started...

 

[BlueOnion]

I just question how close they are to their salary cap ceiling and how much wiggle room they will have if they make a conference championship game.

Isn't that customary with every winning team? That their players are over-valued and targeted by other teams? I don't think that has anything more to do with the Redskins than any other team.

Yes. But usually teams begin winning and then try to mortgage the future. Not mortgage the future and then start winning because once you start winning, you cannot mortgage the future a second time.That is why the Redskins overspending has never really hurt them in the past, they have failed to do the 'winning' part, at which point they would have to mortgage the future to maintain their winning.

I guess you forgot that they went to the 2nd round of the playoffs last year. The winning has already started...

I recall and pointed this out in another Redskin thread. We'll see how it turns out after this season. If they go to the playoffs again in 2006, I suspect there will be a lot of interest in a lot of their players. If so, these players will be less likely to redo their contracts when not redoing them gets them on the free agent market.

 

[redman]

They are as good as anyone at manipulating the cap rules to acquire players. Most teams could take a lesson from them in this regard. It of course helps that they're one of the most profitable sports franchises in the world.

The Redskins' shortcomings have come in talent evaluation and coaching, two things that appear to have been solved in the last two years since Gibbs returned.

 

[Orange Crush]

This is my understanding of what they're doing.....there IS a provision that you can now exceed the salary cap, but you will knock down your future cap by the same amount (proportionally...i.e. overspend the cap by 10%, lose 10% of next year's cap or something)..will have to check on this. (Can someone confirm this ?_

Well I had to head of town last Wednesday for a death in the family, so I missed this. Do you have a link supporting your statement? It would make the NFL's cap a soft cap instead of the hard cap we have become accustomed too.

I'm not positive, but I believe this is a league-wide adjustment (based on TOTAL cash over cap), not a team-specific adjustment. So all that Danny's cash could do is lower the 2007 cap for everyone. But it would be a very small adjustment -- if the league ended up, say, $15 million over the "cash over cap" estimate, that would reduce the 2007 cap number by less than half a million per team.Also, there is only a downward adjustment if the cash over cap total exceeds 2% of revenues. If it's below that, the cap gets adjusted upward.

Finally, someone who knows what they're talking about.

 

[fatness]

I'm not positive, but I believe this is a league-wide adjustment (based on TOTAL cash over cap), not a team-specific adjustment. So all that Danny's cash could do is lower the 2007 cap for everyone. But it would be a very small adjustment -- if the league ended up, say, $15 million over the "cash over cap" estimate, that would reduce the 2007 cap number by less than half a million per team.

Also, there is only a downward adjustment if the cash over cap total exceeds 2% of revenues. If it's below that, the cap gets adjusted upward.

That's my understanding, too, from what Paul Tagliabue said after the revenue sharing agreement was reached and the new CBA was approved.

 

[Texasmouth]

Yes, the Redskins management has a handle on this salary cap thing....

Overpay for average players who won't gel and miss the playoffs.

That strategy has worked for about the last 4 or 5 years, they snuck into the playoffs last year out of sheer luck.....

 

[fatness]

The Cowboys, meanwhile, missed the playoffs on sheer ability.

 

[fatness]

Overpay for average players who won't gel and miss the playoffs.

How many Cowboy veterans have been willing to renegotiate their contracts to free up cap space for the team? More than the Redskins or fewer?Who's gelling and who is not?

 

[jsargos]

Yes, the Redskins management has a handle on this salary cap thing....

Overpay for average players who won't gel and miss the playoffs.

That strategy has worked for about the last 4 or 5 years, they snuck into the playoffs last year out of sheer luck.....

Yeah, winning 5 straight (3 on the road) to close out the season was pure chance. I'll keep taking "average" players like Thomas, Griffin, Washington, Springs, Portis, Moss, Salave'a, Rabach, etc.

 

[redman]

The Cowboys, meanwhile, missed the playoffs on sheer ability.

 

[redman]

Yes, the Redskins management has a handle on this salary cap thing....

Overpay for average players who won't gel and miss the playoffs.

That strategy has worked for about the last 4 or 5 years, they snuck into the playoffs last year out of sheer luck.....

*psst* - in the last five years the Cowboys and Redskins have both made the playoffs one time each. The Cowboys playoff record during that time is 0-1; the Redskins is 1-1.

 

[GregR_2]

This is my understanding of what they're doing.....there IS a provision that you can now exceed the salary cap, but you will knock down your future cap by the same amount (proportionally...i.e. overspend the cap by 10%, lose 10% of next year's cap or something)..will have to check on this. (Can someone confirm this ?_

You've got this very mixed up. Source for what follows is the CBA Extension Terms posted at the NFLPA. (Feel free to confirm, I could have interpreted a part wrong, but it's pretty straightforward looking). The use of capitals is to make sure it's clear which term we're talking about at any given time, and isn't meant as shouting.SALARY CAP figure is an accounting number which is not a team's payroll. PAYROLL is every cent you paid this year. While your CAP Figure would prorate a signing bonus into future years, your PAYROLL includes the full amount, so it may be more than your CAP Figure (and possibly more than the leaguewide SALARY CAP).What the new CBA stipulates is this... if the leaguewide PAYROLL is lower than 59%, then the amount the league is under gets split amongst all the teams, and all teams SALARY CAP goes up by that amount.If however the leaguewide PAYROLL is higher than 59%, then the difference is split only amongst those teams whose PAYROLL was higher than the 59%, and their SALARY CAPS in all remaining years of the CBA are worsened by that amount. OUCH!So here's an example to illustrate it. Let's say the salary cap, which is 59% of total revenues, is $100m even. Let's say that 30 teams spend $99m in PAYROLL - actual checks they have to send to players. The other 2 teams, Dallas and the Skins, pay some free agents enormous signing bonuses, and they both have PAYROLLS of $120m.Every team's SALARY CAP figure is still under the $100m cap (because some of the signing bonuses are prorated to count against the cap in future years). The leaguewide PAYROLL in this example is $10m over the 59% trigger. So as a result, that amount is split up by all teams who have a PAYROLL higher than the cap - which is just Dallas and the Redskins. So in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, the SALARY CAP for those two teams is $5m less than it is for the rest of the league.To summarize it as briefly as possible, if the league doesn't spend 59% in actual salaries in a year, the cap goes up. If the league spends more than 59% in actual salaries in a year, the teams who are over 59% get less cap room for the duration of the CBA than the other teams do.And the 59% increases every couple of years, maxing out at 60%.

 

[fatness]

Thank you for posting that. That's informative. I do have a question, though. Isn't the cap this year set at 57%, and isn't there a 2% buffer allowed since teams are expected overall to exceed the cap by 2%? And isn't the penalty enforced on teams who exceed 57% + 2% (which is where the 59% comes from)?

 

[Texasmouth]

Yes, the Redskins management has a handle on this salary cap thing....

Overpay for average players who won't gel and miss the playoffs.

That strategy has worked for about the last 4 or 5 years, they snuck into the playoffs last year out of sheer luck.....

*psst* - in the last five years the Cowboys and Redskins have both made the playoffs one time each. The Cowboys playoff record during that time is 0-1; the Redskins is 1-1.

Yes, yes, in true Redskins fashion, compare yourself to someone else. I never once said...as compared to the Cowboys. I said exactly what everyone who ISNT a Redskin fan sees as the obvious. Every year the Redskins break the bank over paying guys and then do nothing. Wow, they won a playoff game. Keep patting yourself on the back for making the playoffs and winning a game in a completely down year for the whole conference. Like the Seahawks were really that good....

 

[redman]

Yes, the Redskins management has a handle on this salary cap thing....

Overpay for average players who won't gel and miss the playoffs.

That strategy has worked for about the last 4 or 5 years, they snuck into the playoffs last year out of sheer luck.....

*psst* - in the last five years the Cowboys and Redskins have both made the playoffs one time each. The Cowboys playoff record during that time is 0-1; the Redskins is 1-1.

Yes, yes, in true Redskins fashion, compare yourself to someone else. I never once said...as compared to the Cowboys. I said exactly what everyone who ISNT a Redskin fan sees as the obvious. Every year the Redskins break the bank over paying guys and then do nothing. Wow, they won a playoff game. Keep patting yourself on the back for making the playoffs and winning a game in a completely down year for the whole conference. Like the Seahawks were really that good....

You feel vulnerable. My team's on the rise and yours isn't. That's ok. If it makes you feel better that this year's playoff berth was due to luck, then so be it. I must admit that I felt lucky to have beaten the Cowboys in two of the most humiliating ways possible last year.

 

[fatness]

I said exactly what everyone who ISNT a Redskin fan sees as the obvious.

Actually, if you've noticed, there are quite a few non-Redskin-fans this year noticing how well they manage the cap, and noticing the quality of the team is improving.How's Keyshawn Johnson working out, by the way? Have the Cowboys signed a backup statue for Drew Bledsoe? Are they pinning all their hopes this upcoming season on that rock of stability Terrell Owens?

 

[Texasmouth]

I love how all the idiots just assume if you are a Cowboys fan you aren't allowed to have an opinion on anything else. I pointed out what I saw. The Skins once again overpaying for people. Randle El is not a good receiver. Keep telling yourself he is all you want. He is a fun gadget player guy but nothing more.

Yeah, the Redskins are managing the cap, to the point that they are overpaying everyone. Good for them. Beleive it or not, I like it when the Redskins are good. It makes for good football, it wasn't anything special when the 5-11 Cowboys kicked the crap out of the 4-12 Redskins for like what....a whole decade? I admit, I love beating the Redskins but I also love the fight. I like to see a good Dallas team face off with a good Redskins team.

I am just saying I think the Redskins are over paying these guys and a lot of analysts and other fans have agreed with me.

And Keyshawn worked out just fine for us in my opinion.

 

[fatness]

I like to see a good Dallas team face off with a good Redskins team.

That's the first thing I can agree with you on. Here's to many years of games like that.

 

[Texasmouth]

I like to see a good Dallas team face off with a good Redskins team.

That's the first thing I can agree with you on. Here's to many years of games like that.

 

[redman]

I like to see a good Dallas team face off with a good Redskins team.

That's the first thing I can agree with you on. Here's to many years of games like that.

 

[AB in DC]

GregR, thanks for the info, but this...

So here's an example to illustrate it. Let's say the salary cap, which is 59% of total revenues, is $100m even. Let's say that 30 teams spend $99m in PAYROLL - actual checks they have to send to players. The other 2 teams, Dallas and the Skins, pay some free agents enormous signing bonuses, and they both have PAYROLLS of $120m.

...is a lousy example. Lots of teams are going to be spending well below the $102 million cap. And the cap is 57% of revenue, not 59%. So total payroll has to exceed 32 * $106 million before this clause is triggered. If it does, it won't exceed it by much. And according to the NFLPA document, whatever overage occurs would be prorated over the rest of the CBA.So a better example would be 10 teams at $120 million, 12 teams at $102 million, and 10 teams at $95 million. Total overage would be $30 million. That would be split among the ten high payroll teams ($3 million each) and then prorated over the last five years of the extension ($0.6 million per year for the ten teams).

Also, if total payroll is below 32 * $106m this year, then any future overage would be first offset by the underage(?) from this year before this clause kicks in.

 

[GregR_2]

GregR, thanks for the info, but this...

So here's an example to illustrate it. Let's say the salary cap, which is 59% of total revenues, is $100m even. Let's say that 30 teams spend $99m in PAYROLL - actual checks they have to send to players. The other 2 teams, Dallas and the Skins, pay some free agents enormous signing bonuses, and they both have PAYROLLS of $120m.

...is a lousy example. Lots of teams are going to be spending well below the $102 million cap. And the cap is 57% of revenue, not 59%. So total payroll has to exceed 32 * $106 million before this clause is triggered. If it does, it won't exceed it by much. And according to the NFLPA document, whatever overage occurs would be prorated over the rest of the CBA.So a better example would be 10 teams at $120 million, 12 teams at $102 million, and 10 teams at $95 million. Total overage would be $30 million. That would be split among the ten high payroll teams ($3 million each) and then prorated over the last five years of the extension ($0.6 million per year for the ten teams).

Also, if total payroll is below 32 * $106m this year, then any future overage would be first offset by the underage(?) from this year before this clause kicks in.

You are right that I neglected to say the cap (57%) and the trigger amount (59%) differ by 2% each year, so thanks for catching that.As for the quality of the example, if I was trying to give an example of a realistic distribution of salaries, yeah, that would have been lousy. But the goal was to show the process, i.e. the math, and so simpler is better.

There is plenty left to speculate on how the realistic distribution of salaries in the NFL will make this thing actually play out. When I get some more time I'll try to put some thoughts down.

 

[fatness]

Joe Gibbs on How the Redskins Manage the Salary Cap

"The thing I want to emphasize is this: We haven't done one thing that anybody else can't do," Gibbs said following a news conference to introduce free agent signing Andre Carter. "We have certain rules in the league. Here's the cap, here's the numbers, here's what you can spend, so everybody in the league can do what we're doing, it's just that they choose not to, many of them."

Despite starting the month some $13 million over the $102 million cap that was set following negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement, the Redskins have once again been one of March's busiest teams.

Since Saturday, they have traded for San Francisco receiver Brandon Lloyd and signed five unrestricted free agents: receiver Antwaan Randle El, safety Adam Archuleta, tight end Christian Fauria, backup quarterback Todd Collins and Carter. Randle El and Archuleta alone were given contracts with a combined $21.5 million in guaranteed money.

"Each team's a little different, how they want to build a team. ... Certainly Pittsburgh is a scheme that works, they won a Super Bowl," Gibbs said. "If you watch their team, there are a lot of draft choices, they're real conscious about that. It remains to be seen how we'll end up doing, but we've chosen to be more aggressive in free agency."

The Redskins put themselves under the cap by cutting five expendable players on the eve of free agency, and they also saved $4.4 million in the deal that made linebacker LaVar Arrington a free agent. Since then, they've been cutting cap dollars by renegotiating contracts with returning veterans, giving the players upfront bonuses that can be prorated for salary cap purposes.

Owner Dan Snyder's overspending in 2000 caused then-coach Marty Schottenheimer to make drastic cuts in 2001, but Snyder's strategy since then has been to map out a cap strategy using what Gibbs said were "three- to four-year spreadsheets." The goal is to shift cap money around in a coherent manner that keeps the team from being forced to part with players it wants to keep.

More Gibbs on the Salary Cap

Every offseason, Gibbs said that Redskins personnel officials, led by director of football administration Eric Schaffer, lay out "three- and four-year spreadsheets" that detail player salaries. The team then maps a course for player acquisitions--and how much they can spend--based on that three-year window. For example, the Redskins already know that the 2007 salary cap will be $109 million.

To get under this year's salary cap, the Redskins had to release five veterans on March 10, but none of those players were projected to start in 2006. Then the team worked out an agreement with LaVar Arrington to gain cap space while also granting the Pro Bowl linebacker his release.

The team has also worked to restructure contracts of current players. The Redskins do not typically announce contract restructurings, but Gibbs said the team has had discussions with as many as 11 players during the last two months, some before the approval of a Collective Bargaining Agreement extension on March 8.

Said Gibbs: "What happens is, other teams choose to operate differently. We know some teams, to be truthful, are $30 million under the cap. But that's their option. For many of them, they have been very successful doing it a different way.

 

[redman]

Here's a good write-up from the blog of Rich Tandler, a respected 'Skins free-lance writer:

Did the Redskins Overpay?

Antwaan Randle El By Rich Tandler

Editor-in-Chief

Date: Mar 15, 2006

Tandler's Redskins Blog Ver. 03.15.06--How did the Redskins manage to sign all of those players as though the salary cap does not apply to them? And did they pay too much?

As the Redskins have signed free agent after free agent over the past few days, the questions have kept popping up. How are they pulling this off with their supposed cap problems? And did they overpay for what they got?

The answer to the first one is easy. The Redskins’ cap guru, Eric Schaffer, is simply the best in the business. The organization doesn’t just throw around money; Schaffer crafts out each deal dollar by dollar, year by year to ensure that it fits within the team’s projected cap situation. The way Snyder runs the team generates the cash flow—cash beats cap—but it’s Schaffer who puts it all together.

Without going into details, (I’ve been told that the eyes of most of my readers here glaze over at such information) through the creative manipulation of the cap Schaffer and his team, helped by Snyder’s cash, can fit a six-year, $30 million contract with $10 million guaranteed into cap space of under $2 million in the first year.

And what about the other $28 million? Aren’t they just mortgaging the future, putting it on a big credit card that will come due at some point in the future?

Not really. To continue the credit card analogy, there a plenty of people out there who run up large credit card debts that manage them just fine. The bill for the balance never “comes due” as long as the money is managed properly with an eye towards the future. The debt can be refinanced and restructured as needed. You can keep on making purchases on the card as long as you stay under the limit and keep an eye towards the future. And you figure that as the years go by, you should be making more money, making the debt smaller relative to your income

The salary cap never “comes due”. It’s an ongoing thing. You can push money into future years indefinitely. As long as you don’t push too much into one season, you can keep doing it. Deals can be restructured and money pushed back. And the cap goes up from year to year, devaluing the dollars that you are pushing back.

To be sure, others use such maneuvers, but few do it as frequently and with such careful regard for the implications down the road as Schaffer does. Words like genius and mastermind get thrown around too often, but they apply to Schaffer. Should the team collect another Lombardi trophy in the next few years, Schaffer’s name should be engraved on it.

Perhaps one day the Petes and Lenny’s of the world will learn to praise the Skins’ cap management instead of predicting disaster year after year and then making snide comments about cheating when their forecasts bear no relationship to reality. I guess they’d rather continue to be wrong.

That’s how they paid. Now, did they overpay?

There is nary a Pro Bowl appearance among Adam Archuleta, Andre Carter, Brandon Lloyd and Antwaan Randle El. No league leadership in interceptions, receptions, or sacks among them. There are some highlight-reel moments starring some of these guys, no doubt. But their respective resumes, while better than pedestrian, are hardly the gold standard.

No gold changed hands, but a Brinks truck with some $40 million of guaranteed cash in it backed up to the facility at Redskins Park and dumped it on these four players (actually, Lloyd has not yet signed his deal, but he will get something in the neighborhood of $10 million guaranteed when he does). Did the Redskins pay filet mignon money for ground chuck?

First of all, in the year 2006, that is not filet mignon money. That went to center LeCharles Bentley, who the Browns are paying $36 million over six years with $12 million guaranteed, guard Steve Hutchison who will be paid $49 million over 7 years by either the Vikings or Seahawks, and running back Edgerrin James, who gets over $11 million guaranteed out of a four year, $30 million deal.

One thing that a lot of folks—media and fans alike—don’t seem to grasp is the fact that there is a lot more money to be spent this year than last. You hear a lot that each team’s cap went up $7.5 million due to the CBA extension. What you don’t hear much is that the cap was already slated to go up by $10 million even before the new labor agreement. Multiply that $17.5 million increase from 2005 to 2006 times the 32 NFL teams and you have over half a billion—that’s billion with a “b”—new cap dollars in play. It’s simple economics; when the money supply goes up, so do prices.

Still, it appears that the Redskins were happy to pay these guys more than anyone else was willing to. So, by that definition, they did overpay.

But if you get the player you want, it is really overpaying? Is it better to settle for someone who might save you a million or two but doesn’t quite fit your needs? A $2 million difference in guaranteed money on a six-year deal is $333,333 a season, or just less than the two-year veteran minimum salary. It adds up, no doubt, but it shouldn’t be enough to make you settle for second best.

Time will tell. Ultimately, the only thing that matters, the only way to judge whether or not the Redskins forked over too much money for a player, is results on the field. If the Redskins win and the new players fill their expected roles, it will have been worth every dollar and then some. If the team is not successful, it will be as though they had put a match to a dump truck full of $100 bills.