What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Redskins have a different cap than everyone else? (1 Viewer)

They essentially buy on credit and hope their income (cap) goes up significantly in the next year to cover the payments.

You know, like nearly every citizen in the United States does every year :D

 
PFT has a good anaylsis of this, but damned if Im going to post it.
Click to expand...
I will. The mainstream media sources have had nothing accurate to say about it, and the only good info I've found is on a Redskin fan site and now on PFT.
As the Washington Redskins continue to amass new players days after they supposedly were teetering at the edge of cap hell, plenty of folks around the league are scratching their heads. The 'Skins are spending big again, making a big splash in free agency by reeling in receiver Antwaan Randle El, safety Adam Archuleta, and tight end Christian Fauria. The Redskins also picked up receiver Brandon Lloyd in a trade on Saturday with the 49ers.

Randle El reportedly gets $11.5 million in bonus money, a ridiculously high amount for a guy who'll be No. 3 at best on the depth chart. Then, on Monday, the 'Skins scalped safety Adam Archuleta, formerly of the Rams, on a deal that we're told is worth $30.18 million over six years. We're told that the package includes $10.585 million in guarantees, making it the richest deal ever signed by an NFL safety.

So where are the supposedly cap-poor Redskins coming up with the cap space to get these deals done? They freed up $4.4 million a week ago as part of the deal that made linebacker LaVar Arrington a free agent, and they shed several veterans on the eve of free agency to create more room. Likewise, it was reported that they planned to convert $13.5 million in roster bonus payments into guarantees, which would then be spread over five years. And don't forget about the extra $7.5 million in cap room that popped onto the books as part of the new CBA.

Our guess is that these new deals will leave the 'Skins close to the $102 million ceiling for 2006, and that there will be more tinkering with contracts in order to free up more money for more signings. Eventually, they'll need cap space to sign their incoming rookies.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They essentially buy on credit and hope their income (cap) goes up significantly in the next year to cover the payments.

You know, like nearly every citizen in the United States does every year :D
Click to expand...
:goodposting: In a nutshell, this sums it all.

 
PFT has a good anaylsis of this, but damned if Im going to post it.
Click to expand...
their analysis deals with this year well. I'd like to know about previous years though. I'd swear it's been a few years now that they've restructured deals and pushed off big payments. It should catch up to them eventually but it hasn't. That strikes me as odd.IIRC the Niners signed some guys that gave people a similar "how do they afford them" feeling and then after all that they added Deion. I think it caught up to them and the NFL scolded them. Anyone remember this? My memories hazy with this.

 
bump

2 "explain redskins cap" threads
Click to expand...
:lmao: @ "2". Every thread involving anything Redskins right now is a "explain redskins cap" thread.
PFT has a good anaylsis of this, but damned if Im going to post it.
Click to expand...
their analysis deals with this year well. I'd like to know about previous years though. I'd swear it's been a few years now that they've restructured deals and pushed off big payments. It should catch up to them eventually but it hasn't. That strikes me as odd.IIRC the Niners signed some guys that gave people a similar "how do they afford them" feeling and then after all that they added Deion. I think it caught up to them and the NFL scolded them. Anyone remember this? My memories hazy with this.
Click to expand...
Why is everyone assuming the Redskins are using the same business model the 9ers used to manage their cap?
 
Creative bonus structures, back loaded contracts that make the contracts bigger then they appear, and flexibility to restructure current contracts to free up even more space.

 
I just read that they are now talking with John Abraham. Are they gonna sign every free agent out there?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's actually pretty easy to understand.

First, they give players large signing bonuses. This works out well for the players since they have more cash up front, and it works well for the team since they can spread it over the life of the contract. They then backload the salary portion so that it looks like the player signed a larger contract than they really did. So early in the contract you're basically paying the spread out bonus plus a small salary.

Later in the contract, the team goes to the player and tells them that they'll be willing to convert part of their salary into a guaranteed payment, in return the player lowers their current and future salaries. This allows the team to spread out that payment over the remainder of the contract and gives the player more money when they know they'd just be cut and wouldn't see the future salaries if they didn't restructure.

So the original deal may look like a $30M deal with $10M in guarantees, but ends up being a $20M deal with $14M in guarantees (just numbers pulled out of the air for demonstration).

This works as long as:

1) The salary cap continues to increase each season

2) The owner can cough up the cash in the first year

3) The players are at least servicable (they can't afford to cut them after year 1 or 2)

ETA: If the CBA hadn't been extended, I firmly believe that the Redskins truly would have been up the creek. They couldn't have restructured the contracts in any way to spread out the cap hit since everything was being accelerated.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just read that they are now talking with John Abraham. Are they gonna sign every free agent out there?
Click to expand...
they were talking with Abraham on Sunday and perhaps Monday morning, but once he left town they stopped and decided to sign Carter instead.
 
It's actually pretty easy to understand.

First, they give players large signing bonuses. This works out well for the players since they have more cash up front, and it works well for the team since they can spread it over the life of the contract. They then backload the salary portion so that it looks like the player signed a larger contract than they really did. So early in the contract you're basically paying the spread out bonus plus a small salary.

Later in the contract, the team goes to the player and tells them that they'll be willing to convert part of their salary into a guaranteed payment, in return the player lowers their current and future salaries. This allows the team to spread out that payment over the remainder of the contract and gives the player more money when they know they'd just be cut and wouldn't see the future salaries if they didn't restructure.

So the original deal may look like a $30M deal with $10M in guarantees, but ends up being a $20M deal with $14M in guarantees (just numbers pulled out of the air for demonstration).

This works as long as:

1) The salary cap continues to increase each season

2) The owner can cough up the cash in the first year

3) The players are at least servicable (they can't afford to cut them after year 1 or 2)

ETA: If the CBA hadn't been extended, I firmly believe that the Redskins truly would have been up the creek. They couldn't have restructured the contracts in any way to spread out the cap hit since everything was being accelerated.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: They're just fronting a little more money but, over the long haul, they're not spending any more than anyone else. The good part is that, despite the strategy and the owner's deep pockets, it really hasn't resulted in substantial success since the implementation of the cap, has it? You still gotta evaluate the talent and get it for the right price and I think it very fair to say that the Skins haven't really done very well at this.

Disclaimer: this does not mean that they can't turn it around with the right personnel, just like any other well managed team.

 
:goodposting:

They're just fronting a little more money but, over the long haul, they're not spending any more than anyone else. The good part is that, despite the strategy and the owner's deep pockets, it really hasn't resulted in substantial success since the implementation of the cap, has it?
Click to expand...
Since the implementation of the cap? :no: Since the implementation of Joe Gibbs? :yes:

 
It's actually pretty easy to understand.

First, they give players large signing bonuses. This works out well for the players since they have more cash up front, and it works well for the team since they can spread it over the life of the contract. They then backload the salary portion so that it looks like the player signed a larger contract than they really did. So early in the contract you're basically paying the spread out bonus plus a small salary.

Later in the contract, the team goes to the player and tells them that they'll be willing to convert part of their salary into a guaranteed payment, in return the player lowers their current and future salaries. This allows the team to spread out that payment over the remainder of the contract and gives the player more money when they know they'd just be cut and wouldn't see the future salaries if they didn't restructure.

So the original deal may look like a $30M deal with $10M in guarantees, but ends up being a $20M deal with $14M in guarantees (just numbers pulled out of the air for demonstration).

This works as long as:

1) The salary cap continues to increase each season

2) The owner can cough up the cash in the first year

3) The players are at least servicable (they can't afford to cut them after year 1 or 2)

ETA: If the CBA hadn't been extended, I firmly believe that the Redskins truly would have been up the creek. They couldn't have restructured the contracts in any way to spread out the cap hit since everything was being accelerated.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: They're just fronting a little more money but, over the long haul, they're not spending any more than anyone else. The good part is that, despite the strategy and the owner's deep pockets, it really hasn't resulted in substantial success since the implementation of the cap, has it? You still gotta evaluate the talent and get it for the right price and I think it very fair to say that the Skins haven't really done very well at this.

Disclaimer: this does not mean that they can't turn it around with the right personnel, just like any other well managed team.
Click to expand...
Well, that's not actually true. Over the long haul they ARE spending more money than everyone else so long as the cap continues to increase and the CBA continues to exist in the same basic manner that it has. Their entire spending system absolutely depends on the future caps continuing to increase at some particular rate. I'm sure that they actually have specific numbers that they think the cap will be at each year into the future. Only when they guess wrong and the cap either stagnates or the CBA disappears will their total spending finally be brought in line with everyone else. And when that happens it will be a huge adjustment that they'll be forced to make in order to get down to that line. They would be forced to spend a fraction of every other team for that one season. And that's exactly why the Redskins benefited from the new CBA more than any other team. Yes they would have been able to spend at will after that first season, but they WOULD have been forced to cut a significant number of veterans this season. And if they had too much money in guaranteed money this season, it would indeed have been impossible for them to get under the cap.
 
Actually they were in line to get below the old $94.5 million cap by cutting the same players they have since cut, and by renegotiating the salaries of 13 or 14 veterans. Those renegotiations were already agreed upon, just not signed.

And if there is no new CBA, look beyond the first year when a low cap hits. Look at the following year(s) with no caps. If you think they're spending now, wait until that happens.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's actually pretty easy to understand.

First, they give players large signing bonuses. This works out well for the players since they have more cash up front, and it works well for the team since they can spread it over the life of the contract. They then backload the salary portion so that it looks like the player signed a larger contract than they really did. So early in the contract you're basically paying the spread out bonus plus a small salary.

Later in the contract, the team goes to the player and tells them that they'll be willing to convert part of their salary into a guaranteed payment, in return the player lowers their current and future salaries. This allows the team to spread out that payment over the remainder of the contract and gives the player more money when they know they'd just be cut and wouldn't see the future salaries if they didn't restructure.

So the original deal may look like a $30M deal with $10M in guarantees, but ends up being a $20M deal with $14M in guarantees (just numbers pulled out of the air for demonstration).

This works as long as:

1) The salary cap continues to increase each season

2) The owner can cough up the cash in the first year

3) The players are at least servicable (they can't afford to cut them after year 1 or 2)

ETA: If the CBA hadn't been extended, I firmly believe that the Redskins truly would have been up the creek. They couldn't have restructured the contracts in any way to spread out the cap hit since everything was being accelerated.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: Since the Redskins have a lot of money they can afford to pay huge bonuses that other teams can't. In terms of the salary cap it doesn't really kill them unless the high priced free agents under-perform, which has happened in the past. In that case they end up with a highly paid team that isn't that good.

Getting around the cap is easier for the Redskins since they don't mind the upfront bonuses and eventually convert all the salaries to bonuses. They realized that the cap would eventually go up and that they'd just have to manipulate it for a few years. Without the new CBA they would have been in trouble and had to cut quite a few players and not sign any big free agents.

 
Actually they were in line to get below the old $94.5 million cap by cutting the same players they have since cut, and by renegotiating the salaries of 13 or 14 veterans. Those renegotiations were already agreed upon, just not signed.

And if there is no new CBA, look beyond the first year when a low cap hits. Look at the following year(s) with no caps. If you think they're spending now, wait until that happens.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I don't buy that. They were able to re-negotiate because with a new CBA they were allowed to spread out the money that they converted from roster bonuses to guaranteed money. They would not have been allowed to do that if there was no new CBA. The only way around it would have been for the players to agree to move the roster bonuses to a future year. Good luck on that. And even if the players agreed I'm not sure that the NFL would have allowed it. I think the more likely scenario was that the Redskins were fully ready to completely ignore the cap anyway. What's the worst the league could do to them? Fine them or take away draft picks? I think the Redskins would have been more than willing to pony up a large fine or lose draft picks for a year to be able to go over the cap. And make no mistake, it would have been only one year of draft picks because the union would have de-certified and there would not have been a draft in 2008. And with an uncapped year in 2007 Snyder wouldn't even care about not having draft picks. He could just sign any FA he wanted and not even worry about the draft.

 
Actually they were in line to get below the old $94.5 million cap by cutting the same players they have since cut, and by renegotiating the salaries of 13 or 14 veterans. Those renegotiations were already agreed upon, just not signed.

And if there is no new CBA, look beyond the first year when a low cap hits. Look at the following year(s) with no caps. If you think they're spending now, wait until that happens.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I don't buy that. They were able to re-negotiate because with a new CBA they were allowed to spread out the money that they converted from roster bonuses to guaranteed money. They would not have been allowed to do that if there was no new CBA.
Click to expand...
This is false. They would still have been able to spread them out over four years under the old CBA.
 
Actually they were in line to get below the old $94.5 million cap by cutting the same players they have since cut, and by renegotiating the salaries of 13 or 14 veterans. Those renegotiations were already agreed upon, just not signed.

And if there is no new CBA, look beyond the first year when a low cap hits. Look at the following year(s) with no caps. If you think they're spending now, wait until that happens.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I don't buy that. They were able to re-negotiate because with a new CBA they were allowed to spread out the money that they converted from roster bonuses to guaranteed money. They would not have been allowed to do that if there was no new CBA.
Click to expand...
This is false. They would still have been able to spread them out over four years under the old CBA.
Click to expand...
I know that new contracts could be prorated, but isn't trying to convert roster bonuses to guaranteed money exactly what nailed the Colts with Manning and Harrison? They tried to convert roster bonuses to guaranteed money to pro-rate it and the league denied them?Discussion Link

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Colts' problem was that they would have violated the 30 percent rule (see the bottom of the article you linked to). The Redskins apparently didn't have that problem.

 
The Colts' problem was that they would have violated the 30 percent rule (see the bottom of the article you linked to). The Redskins apparently didn't have that problem.
Click to expand...
Good call, I had overlooked that. It's still unclear to me exactly how that rule applied and if it would have applied to the Redskins anyway, but I'll go ahead and assume that they could have still done that. My guess is that it would have barely gotten them under the cap and that they would have had trouble getting enough room to sign their draft picks. But that would have been a much different scenario than what I had described.
 
I doubt they'd have had any problem with signing draft picks, assuming that the Lavar refund and the Ramsey deal would still take place, but it's all moot now.

 
Actually they were in line to get below the old $94.5 million cap by cutting the same players they have since cut, and by renegotiating the salaries of 13 or 14 veterans. Those renegotiations were already agreed upon, just not signed.

And if there is no new CBA, look beyond the first year when a low cap hits. Look at the following year(s) with no caps. If you think they're spending now, wait until that happens.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I don't buy that. T
Click to expand...
You may not buy that, but it was already done, except for the final signatures on the contracts (which were negotiated with the players with the understanding that the contracts only went into effect if there was no new CBA). The contracts were renegotiated, the players to be cut were already known, and they would have been under the cap. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm giving you information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hankmoody
NFL salary cap discussion
Replies
28
Views
2K
Runkle
Runkle
Scoresman
Trying a slightly new strategy for my auction league
Replies
9
Views
305
Ack88
A
Joe Bryant
  • Poll
If you're Brandon Aiyuk, how much more money per year would you have to make in PIT, CLE or NE to leave SF?
2
Replies
73
Views
1K
habsfan
habsfan

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top