PDA

View Full Version : Lavar Contract: Questions


joethefan
10-10-2005, 08:04 AM
Can someone explain to me Lavar's future contract situation? How much is he making and the ramifications around it.

I'm hearing that trading him would screw up our cap for next year? How much money is he due in bonuses next year?

Now before you try to behead me, remember Lavar signed his new deal before Gibbs got here. I wonder if GW's somehow found that he was not gonna work out with this Defense after seeing tapes of him. These guys have tons of tape of these players. During NFL Playbook last week, Shannon Sharp disected two plays in the Chicago game where Lavar did not stay in position and missed two tackles and the Bears got 2 first downs. I thought that was very interesting esp when everyone is questioning why he's not playing. Remember GW and the boys view the practice tapes all the time but if he's not practicing during 11 on 11 drills, he's not getting any looks by the coaches. SO I wonder if they have just written him off or what.

The contract situation is very important. I just hope we think with a rational mind before we think about getting rid of him, if that's in the plan. But hopefully it's not.

dj_stouty
10-10-2005, 08:15 AM
I don't have concrete figures...but I believe Lavar has at least 15 million dollars in signing bonus still "on the books". Cutting him next year would mean 15 million in dead cap counting either 100% to 2006...or spread over 2006 and 2007. Considering we just took a hit from Coles...I'm not sure if they can handle that load.

hail2skins
10-10-2005, 08:18 AM
Another Lavar thread.

The Skinsinator
10-10-2005, 11:58 AM
Something has to give with this dude. We can't let him suck down our cap. Good points on the Bears game and his missing assignments allowing first downs. It is amazing that we have minimal value for him. Other teams have to be taking notice of this. With the cap hit considered, I wonder what we could realisticallly get for him? If he continues to not play, I imagine we will take action on him after the 2006 season.

silverspring
10-10-2005, 12:22 PM
Something has to give with this dude. We can't let him suck down our cap. Good points on the Bears game and his missing assignments allowing first downs. It is amazing that we have minimal value for him. Other teams have to be taking notice of this. With the cap hit considered, I wonder what we could realisticallly get for him? If he continues to not play, I imagine we will take action on him after the 2006 season.

Again we have showed all our cards before we play them...

The Skinsinator
10-10-2005, 12:27 PM
Again we have showed all our cards before we play them...
I don't know. I think many people feel Lavar has plenty of talent and will actually bite at that and his name even moreso. I think his undisciplined play is known, however not well known or though of throughout the league. This really doesn't need to be discussed until we can really do something on him and that's not anytime soon. What needs to be discussed is how to get good play from him. It boggles my mind that we can't figure that at. I'm up for anything as of right now. Throughout all of this, I do believe this is taking it's toll on LA's confidence and ego. I really don't see how it couldn't.

silverspring
10-10-2005, 12:53 PM
I don't know. I think many people feel Lavar has plenty of talent and will actually bite at that and his name even moreso. I think his undisciplined play is known, however not well known or though of throughout the league. This really doesn't need to be discussed until we can really do something on him and that's not anytime soon. What needs to be discussed is how to get good play from him. It boggles my mind that we can't figure that at. I'm up for anything as of right now. Throughout all of this, I do believe this is taking it's toll on LA's confidence and ego. I really don't see how it couldn't.

Well i don't believe that we can't get good play from him, and I won't make that determination until i see him actually play, but we can leave that in the other thread.

It doesn't matter that other teams/people see great value in lavar the problem is that we have shown that we don't see great value in lavar.

The Skinsinator
10-10-2005, 12:58 PM
It doesn't matter that other teams/people see great value in lavar the problem is that we have shown that we don't see great value in lavar.Totally concur. This essentially is the main problem. His talent or not, his play or not, I am frustrated at how is being paid and sucking on that cap like a lollipop but not being effective. What is the problem? There has to be some use for him. Has to. I simply can't believe there is not.

Santheb
10-10-2005, 01:06 PM
I don't want to trade, cut, or in any way get rid of LaVar. I want him to play and I think it would be entirely beneficial to the defense. Warrick Holdman has 10 tackles through 4 games..come on now. Stick him in there. If LaVar was playing like he wanted the job, he could probably have 10 tackles in a half.

hail2skins
10-10-2005, 01:08 PM
It's the fans and media that are creating these trade scenarios. Just because a team doesn't play a player doesn't automatically mean that they are going to trade them.

CarMike
10-10-2005, 01:58 PM
It's the fans and media that are creating these trade scenarios. Just because a team doesn't play a player doesn't automatically mean that they are going to trade them.

AMEN!

greatest2
10-10-2005, 02:35 PM
absolutly great point on the 10 tackles by HOLDMAN...

I'm not going to lie, i thought when holdman came he would be the MIke linebacker, and Marshall would back up Arrington and Washington. well i was wrong..

No problem with marshall in the middle...2 years in the system, he can put people in the right position.

Back to the tackles, Holdman was the second guy that Bell beat on that 4th and 1 TD run...i know we can't put it on one play but 10 TACKLES!! that is pittiful...

LAVAR PLEASE DO WHAT WILLIAMS WANTS, YOU CAN BECOME A ALL-PRO THROUGH HIS SYSTEM...JUST TRUST HIM!!

PA Skins Girl
10-10-2005, 03:36 PM
It's complicated but here goes:

Lavar is due a $6.5 million roster bonus in 2006.
If they decide to keep Lavar and pay him the roster bonus, he would count $12.05 million against the cap in 2006.
However, they can convert the roster bonus to a signing bonus and spread it out over the remainder of his contract (maximum of 5 years). If they decide to do that, he would count "only" $6.85 million in 2006. (MOST LIKELY OPTION).

If they decide to release/trade Lavar before June 1, 2006, he would count $12.85 million against the cap (dead money) in 2006. (This assumes they release/trade him before his bonus is due).

If thet decide to release/trade Lavar after June 1, 2006, he would count $5.10 million (dead money) in 2006 and $7.75 million (dead money) in 2007. (This assumes they pay him the roster bonus, but dont convert it to signing bonus. If they did convert it, it would cost more in dead money).

It's a very interesting situation because of the bonus that is due.

BigPlayJay
10-10-2005, 06:20 PM
I think the $ numbers show that getting rid of Lavar makes as much sense as keeping him. Not even considering the on field stuff.

Even if we have to take a cap hit, we would be out of it and can move on to better cap management in the future with coach Gibbs running things.

redwolf1218
10-10-2005, 06:52 PM
for what it's worth, here are some good links.

salary cap chart, last updated September 30, 2005:
http://redskins.scout.com/3/salary_cap_chart.html

all salary cap info, contract details, cut and trade savings, etc.:
http://redskins.scout.com/3/capinfo.html

2006 dead cap hit if cut after June 1, 2005: 7.723 mil.
2006 cap hit if not cut: 5,476 mil.

so he'll cost more gone than he will if he stays? i think that's true, apparently.

PA Skins Girl
10-10-2005, 07:01 PM
for what it's worth, here are some good links.

salary cap chart, last updated September 30, 2005:
http://redskins.scout.com/3/salary_cap_chart.html

all salary cap info, contract details, cut and trade savings, etc.:
http://redskins.scout.com/3/capinfo.html

2006 dead cap hit if cut after June 1, 2005: 7.723 mil.
2006 cap hit if not cut: 5,476 mil.

so he'll cost more gone than he will if he stays? i think that's true, apparently.
Are you sure you're not looking at Portis's numbers?

btw, this link is pretty slick too cause is shows you how the numbers are derived (salary, signing bonus and other bonus)
http://www.thewarpath.net/WarpathRedskinsCap.htm

ConradCountry
10-10-2005, 07:18 PM
I think it breaks down like this

-Lavar's cap number next year is 12 million.

-Trading Him would cost 12 million.

-Cutting him post June 1st cost 7 million in 06 and 5 million in 07.

The lynch pin to trading him is the new CBA which might be raising the cap to 100 million giving us plenty of room to trade him and make deals.

LaVar should not leave for nothing cap hit or not.

PA Skins Girl
10-10-2005, 07:30 PM
I think it breaks down like this

-Lavar's cap number next year is 12 million.

-Trading Him would cost 12 million.

-Cutting him post June 1st cost 7 million in 06 and 5 million in 07.

The lynch pin to trading him is the new CBA which might be raising the cap to 100 million giving us plenty of room to trade him and make deals.

LaVar should not leave for nothing cap hit or not.
Yes, but what you dont see in the chart is that part of the $12 million that he would count next year is in a $6.5 million roster bonus that can be converted into a signing bonus and spread out over the next 5 years to reduce his number in 2006 to only $6.85 million.

Also, we dont have plenty of room. We are already at $109 million for next year plus $3.5 million in dead cap already for the guys we cut this year. And we have like 16 free agents that arent even figured into that number. We have some serious contract reworking to do and Lavar is one of them. We have like $30 million in roster bonuses due in 2006 that need to be converted to signing bonuses. We should be okay but we dont have plenty of room.

TommySkins3
10-10-2005, 08:18 PM
I've heard it said ALOT that lavar isnt playing cuz he screws up plays by being out of position. I have also heard from numerous mouths that he isnt in greg williams schemes because despite making a big play now and then, "he makes one play, but then is out of postion the next five" that bothers me, because he never seemed to be too much of a screw up to me, and while the people saying these things may be exagerating, i did some rough number crunching and i came up with this...

From Lavars 2nd season witht he skins, until 2004, when he got injured (thats 3 seasons where he played in a total of 46 games - 14, 16, and 16)... I estimate that he played roughly roughly 50 plays per game (I looked at most teams stats thus far, added the pasing attempts and the rushing attempts and divided that by the number of games they've played, and the result was usually between 50 and 80 - the average being 65, i figure lavar took a breather on probly 10 to 15 plays a game). So 50 plays per game for 46 games is 2300 plays. In those plays lavar accomplished the following:

279 tackles,
17.5 sacks,
3 picks,
24 passes defensed
10 forced fumbles,
7 recoveries,
2 td's....

Some of those stats may overlap (sacks and tackles for instance) but if about 1/3 those plays were plays lavar should have been in on, (I would say 2/3 - plays to his side, plays up the middle- but teams gameplanned around lavar, and some plays are designed to iso him, double him, or take him out of the play in another way, he really doesnt have the opportunity to make/screw up the play all that often)... either way, im rambling, and about 710 plays were plays lavar should have been helping on (very demanding, but we pay him enough that he should be influencial)
340 plays in 710, is a little under 1/2. And everytime he doesnt get the sack or make the tackle, pick, forced fumble, etc., that doesnt mean he screws up. I think lavars freelancing is being exagerated to justify holding him out of the game - my gut feeling is to make it impossible to reach the probowl (read: contract incentives). It angers me that hes not in because our team will not continue to win close games with a terrible turnover margin and defense that doesnt make big plays... our offense just isnt that good yet.
feel free to correct anything ive done, im just venting and procrasinating, and there may be no logic to my numbers at all. thanks

CNYSkinFan
10-10-2005, 08:56 PM
The problem with figuring out the Lavar contract is the impending negetiations in the CBA.

Scout.com has a nice (non-subscription) article on it, but I warn you it is complicated as hell. You can read it HERE (http://redskins.scout.com/2/448145.html)

basically you are looking at three scenarios.

Keep him and deal him in 2007

Release him before the roster bonus in Feb.

Or look at a Coles type salary cap hit.

PA Skins Girl
10-10-2005, 09:19 PM
The problem with figuring out the Lavar contract is the impending negetiations in the CBA.

Scout.com has a nice (non-subscription) article on it, but I warn you it is complicated as hell. You can read it HERE (http://redskins.scout.com/2/448145.html)

basically you are looking at three scenarios.

Keep him and deal him in 2007

Release him before the roster bonus in Feb.

Or look at a Coles type salary cap hit.
Good article. Thank you.

NCskinsfanatic
10-10-2005, 09:37 PM
Well hopefully LaVar will man up, put in the extra work and do what is asked/expected of him. He's getting paid whether he's earning it on the field or not, if he wants he's starting job back so badly, with his talent, shouldnt he be able and willing to put in the work to make it happen. I dont think there is a vendetta here, Lewis had a problem with LaVar not wanting to play some DE and sticking to his assignments when he was the DC here as well. IMO Lewis still had to rely on Arrington when he was here because he was the best LB we had, M.Washington is now the best LB on this team. Take for example Patrick Ramsey, Gibbs gave him an opportunity to win this job, and while his problem wasnt freelancing he couldnt do what was asked of him, avoid turnovers, make smart decisions, etc.......so he sits. Infact while many of us cant understand why LaVar isnt on the field and Holdman is, many also couldnt understand why Gibbs favored Brunell over Ramsey. I mean all we saw last year was Brunells supposed lack of arm strength and because Ramsey had a cannon for an arm many thought he should've been on the field despite his penchant for turnovers. To me it's pretty obvious Holdmans not as fast as LaVar or as big a hitter but evidentally just like Brunell possessed the intangibles that Ramsey didnt Holdman must be more technically sound within GW's scheme than LaVar is. The tape doesnt lie and although I didnt see the breakdown that JTF referred to, I feel that this is exactly why LA doesnt start. It probably has much less to do with hitting incentives or holding grudges and more to do with LaVar missing on just as many plays as he makes. He's always been the guy that goes for the big hit and looks for the big play but I've never considered him to be the most technically sound tackler on the team. In the past I've noticed he has always hit hard but he hasnt always wrapped up. He also has a tendency to to think in such a disciplined team oriented scheme that GW doesnt just think, but knows that until LA changes his approach he will do more harm than good to a team that plays pretty well together. If we had a fearsome front four to go along with our secondary maybe we could absorb some of LaVars overzealous tendencies but thats not the case, so we need our LBs to stay home, follow their assignments and be more concerned with blending in than standing out.

PA Skins Girl
10-11-2005, 11:20 AM
The problem with figuring out the Lavar contract is the impending negetiations in the CBA.

Scout.com has a nice (non-subscription) article on it, but I warn you it is complicated as hell. You can read it HERE (http://redskins.scout.com/2/448145.html)

basically you are looking at three scenarios.

Keep him and deal him in 2007

Release him before the roster bonus in Feb.

Or look at a Coles type salary cap hit.
Does anyone understand the following statement that is quoted in the referenced article?:

* During any League Year immediately preceding an Uncapped Year, the provisions relating to acceleration of unamortized signing bonuses applicable on or before June 1 of that League Year shall apply during that League Year after June 1.

The reason I ask is because the Skins have over $30 million in roster bonues for year 2006, including Lavar's $6.5 million. I always scratched my head as to why the put all those bonuses in 2006, rather than 2007 (the uncapped year under the current CBA). I just wonder if the statement above is some sort of loop hole.

PA Skins Girl
10-11-2005, 03:50 PM
Does anyone understand the following statement that is quoted in the referenced article?:

* During any League Year immediately preceding an Uncapped Year, the provisions relating to acceleration of unamortized signing bonuses applicable on or before June 1 of that League Year shall apply during that League Year after June 1.

The reason I ask is because the Skins have over $30 million in roster bonues for year 2006, including Lavar's $6.5 million. I always scratched my head as to why the put all those bonuses in 2006, rather than 2007 (the uncapped year under the current CBA). I just wonder if the statement above is some sort of loop hole.
Nevermind. I realize now what they are saying. Basically, unless there is a new CBA, there will be no "June 1 cuts" in 2006. They are saying in 2006 it doesnt matter whether you release a guy before or after June 1. If you release (or trade) him, you have to take the full cap hit in 2006, regardless of whether he is released before or after June 1. You cant spread it into 2007 like you can normally do when you release him after June 1.

tyrone_rush_fan
10-11-2005, 10:11 PM
The best option may have been delaying Lavar's roster bonus until after June 1st. That way we could trade him for value, not pay the bonus, and split his cap hit between 2006 and 2007. However, that's only possible with a new CBA and cooperation from Lavar. I don't know how likely that's going to be.

That makes the choice pretty simple. We can cut him straight up for a 12.5 mill 2006 cap hit (obviously no value in return). Or, we can just keep him, spread out his roster bonus, for a tolerable 7 mill salary in 2006.

I know we're up against the cap in 2006, but it's hard to say by how much. Because like you said, we have a lot of roster bonuses due, but those can still be spread out (even without a new CBA).

JamieAsherRevisited
10-12-2005, 08:17 AM
What I don't undestand is why we don't just keep LaVar around for two more years and then cut him after 2006, when the cap hit won't be as damaging.

On top of that we'd get an upgrade over Holdman as well.

PA Skins Girl
10-12-2005, 10:49 AM
What I don't undestand is why we don't just keep LaVar around for two more years and then cut him after 2006, when the cap hit won't be as damaging.

On top of that we'd get an upgrade over Holdman as well.
The reason the decision is tough is because of the $6.5 million bonus that is due in 2006 (usually those are due in February, before the March 1 start of FA and the deadline for being under the cap).

If the Skins decide they do not want to invest the $6.5 million bonus into a player who is not playing, they have to release or trade him, which will cost us $12.85 million in dead money in 2006.

If they are not able to absorb that kind of cap hit, they will be forced to pay Lavar the bonus and "guarantee" the money (meaning convert it to signing bonus so it can be spread out over his remaining contract (actually over 4 years max under the current CBA)) thereby getting his cap number down to about $7 million in 2006.

However, by guaranteeing the money, it adds to the amount of guaranteed bonus that he already has on the books, and makes it almost as damaging to release him in 2007 as it does to release him in 2006 (about $11+ million in dead money if released in 2007).

However, 2007 is currently an uncapped year, so if they dont get a new CBA by then, that would be a good time to release him.

I would bet money that he willl be with us for at least 2006 and probably a lot longer than that. Therefore, I would think it would be in our best interest to get him playing.

colkurtz
10-12-2005, 11:03 AM
A $12 million player who does not play is not a situation that can last - past the off season. For whatever reason, LaVar is not fitting into this defense. His continued insistence on airing his complaints in the media is also NOT helping his cause.

Our biggest problem on defense is our DE's. Wynn is getting old and just not getting it done. Daniels is a big disappointment. Both of them are expensive. We've got to work to replace both this off season. LaVar is a luxury we can not afford. LaVar will get us a decent draft pick if he is traded. After a monster hit in the cap area, it will allow the defense to concentrate on it's core problem areas.

RedskinsDave
10-25-2005, 03:55 PM
David Falk was on the John Thompson show today and he said point blank that the contract problems were the fault of LA's agent and that Snyder got dragged through the mud over something that he didn't do.

CNYSkinFan
10-25-2005, 04:58 PM
David Falk was on the John Thompson show today and he said point blank that the contract problems were the fault of LA's agent and that Snyder got dragged through the mud over something that he didn't do.

I agree. The postons are bad news and the claim was ridiculous to begin with. 2 different identical roster bonus' in one year? making an intentional 18 million cap hit? Just plain ridiculous.

jsagan77
10-25-2005, 08:08 PM
Either way Arrington isn't going anywhere but the pro bowl next year...!

nynate
10-25-2005, 08:24 PM
I just can't. I keep trying to read these post, but combined with the 50,000 others all of which are just guesses, none of them are bases in anything other than speculation, and I just can't take them seriously.

None of us know what going to happen. I hope he plays well for the rest of the season, and finishes his career here. If he doesn't, he doesn't, but why can't we worry about the rest of the season before we bury one of our favorite, most valueable players?

Let's root for him, and speculate on his fate when there isn't a division rivals ego-maniac QB that needs his head smashed in this week-end to worry about....

redskin_rich
10-25-2005, 08:34 PM
I just can't. I keep trying to read these post, but combined with the 50,000 others all of which are just guesses, none of them are bases in anything other than speculation, and I just can't take them seriously.

None of us know what going to happen. I hope he plays well for the rest of the season, and finishes his career here. If he doesn't, he doesn't, but why can't we worry about the rest of the season before we bury one of our favorite, most valueable players?

Let's root for him, and speculate on his fate when there isn't a division rivals ego-maniac QB that needs his head smashed in this week-end to worry about....
To be fair Nynate, this was a thread from two weeks ago. Somebody pulled it up to add something. The only recent LaVar talk is in the "Everyone Loves LaVar" thread ;).
Here it is.... http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=29887

tyrone_rush_fan
10-25-2005, 09:15 PM
I agree. The postons are bad news and the claim was ridiculous to begin with. 2 different identical roster bonus' in one year? making an intentional 18 million cap hit? Just plain ridiculous.

Ya, I can see why everyone was so confused with Lavar's contract. How can you ask for the same kind of bonus (thus being awarded twice for making a roster once), due at the same time, for the same amount of money. It seems like too much of a coincidence. Somebody was trying to trick somebody else. My hunch was that the Postons were trying to trick Snyder, but Snyder didn't fall for it, and now the Postons are like- why didn't you fall for our trick? Either way, I think the Postons have learned that when it comes to business, you don't mess with Snyder.

skins111111
10-25-2005, 09:37 PM
LaVar seems to relise that he needs to be disiplined in GWs D.......he also seems to relise that its all about the team worling together for a common goal
and its not the LaVar show like it was in high school. forget the contract and get with the program.....he looked good on Sunday:)

nynate
10-25-2005, 10:19 PM
To be fair Nynate, this was a thread from two weeks ago. Somebody pulled it up to add something. The only recent LaVar talk is in the "Everyone Loves LaVar" thread ;).
Here it is.... http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=29887


Oh I know, I've read almost all of them. I was just really hoping that after this week-end all the "Lavar's outta here cause he's not fitting into GW's system" thoughts were put to rest. Apparently not, and there are so many threads about the off season trades/drops/cuts/killings that are going to take place that I wonder if these people cared to notice that there's a regular season taking place in which we are 4-2 and have 3 huge games coming up that we could focus on rather than if we're going to cut Lavar or not.

I know it's harmless, but I just feel we can better spend our energy than plotting the demise of one of our best players/biggest stars....

RedskinsDave
10-25-2005, 10:22 PM
I brought it up because a very prominent agent said a fellow agent was in the wrong. The Birds of Prey rarely bite at one another.

hail2skins
10-26-2005, 05:01 AM
Oh I know, I've read almost all of them. I was just really hoping that after this week-end all the "Lavar's outta here cause he's not fitting into GW's system" thoughts were put to rest. Apparently not, and there are so many threads about the off season trades/drops/cuts/killings that are going to take place that I wonder if these people cared to notice that there's a regular season taking place in which we are 4-2 and have 3 huge games coming up that we could focus on rather than if we're going to cut Lavar or not.

I know it's harmless, but I just feel we can better spend our energy than plotting the demise of one of our best players/biggest stars....Welcome to being a fan and being a fan on a message board.