Spending Money

[PA Skins Girl]

The following is my best estimate as to how much money we will have to spend on outside free agents after all the contract work is complete, and leaving enough to sign our own free agents and draft picks. I want to stress that this is an estimate, because no one outside the front office knows exactly what the numbers are, how the contracts are currently constructed, or what they plan to do with certain contracts and/or players. This is simply to give a rough idea of how much money we can potentially have to play with in the free agent market.


Current Cap Number $111.8 (includes top 51 signed players only)
Dead Cap $3.6
Total $115.4

Convert roster bonuses -$15.2
to signing bonuses
(Everybody Except Arrington)

Convert Arrington's -$4.8
Roster Bonus to Signing
Bonus

Convert salaries to signing -$3.9
bonuses (Thomas and Jansen)

Cap Credit for 2005 LTBE -$1.2
incentives not reached
(Cartwright)

Cap Hit for 2005 UTBE +$0.5
incentives which were
reached (assumption)

Contract Extensions -$1.3
(Bowen and Harris)

Retire or Release -$2.1
(Noble and Raymer)

Convert some of Brunell's -$2.3
salary to incentive and/or
signing bonus (assumption)

Sign our own FA's +$4.6
and Draft Picks

Subtotal $89.7
Min Cap Room $5.3

Additional Potential Savings
Trade Ramsey -$1.9

Release Arrington
instead of converting bonus -$2.1
(after June 1 and assumming
a new CBA)

Subtotal $85.7
Max Cap room $9.3

SAY $5.0 - $9.0 million available "Spending Money" for Free Agency

[hail2skins]

You are something else PA, nice work. It'll be interesting to see how close or far away you are from the real numbers.

[CNYSkinFan]

That is assuming a 95 million cap and not a 110 million cap as is rumored. Also you could gain an extra 3 million by releasing both Harris and Bowen insterad of restructuring them.

[C-7]

Great work! You should talk to Snyder about a job.

[PA Skins Girl]

That is assuming a 95 million cap and not a 110 million cap as is rumored. Also you could gain an extra 3 million by releasing both Harris and Bowen insterad of restructuring them.
Yes, I thought the $110 million rumor was for 2007.

And yes, I took a conservative approach to who would be released. Additional savings could also be achieved with Hall and Tupa, but I didnt include them either.

[RedskinRyan]

That is assuming a 95 million cap and not a 110 million cap as is rumored. Also you could gain an extra 3 million by releasing both Harris and Bowen insterad of restructuring them.

im all for that. but some of that money will also need to be used to resign our players.

[vbskins]

This just shows that we will not be in the runnning for someone in waynes caliber or more realistically his asking price(i am not as high on him as some around here).

what did we give Moss about 13 mill signing. Even considering you can spread that around. Even if we could work Wayne in it would severly limit signing any other mid level FA.

Even if the cap goes to 110.
, we would be affecting future player aquisition.

I do not think Hall or Tupa are going anywhere. Hall has many good years left and is a great kicker who had a rough year by his standards(still better than half the kickers in the league

[CNYSkinFan]

Yes, I thought the $110 million rumor was for 2007.

And yes, I took a conservative approach to who would be released. Additional savings could also be achieved with Hall and Tupa, but I didnt include them either.

You are right about Hall and Tupa. I think it is 50/50 on whether they will be around next year. And if they are gone we will have to spend the savings replacing them.

Bowen is an odd man out and I think gone, Harris could restructure but I do think he will be cut.

Lavar could restructure which would save even more money.

[PA Skins Girl]

This just shows that we will not be in the runnning for someone in waynes caliber or more realistically his asking price(i am not as high on him as some around here).

what did we give Moss about 13 mill signing. Even considering you can spread that around. Even if we could work Wayne in it would severly limit signing any other mid level FA.

Even if the cap goes to 110.
, we would be affecting future player aquisition.

I do not think Hall or Tupa are going anywhere. Hall has many good years left and is a great kicker who had a rough year by his standards(still better than half the kickers in the league
Actually, we could very easily add Wayne, IMO. Santana's deal only counted $1.14 million against the cap in 2005. He had a $3 million signing bonus in 2005 and has a $7 million signing bonus and a $910K roster bonus in 2006.

You can structure contracts to be pretty cheap in the first year, if you want to.

[CNYSkinFan]

Actually, we could very easily add Wayne, IMO. Santana's deal only counted $1.14 million against the cap in 2005. He had a $3 million signing bonus in 2005 and has a $7 million signing bonus and a $910K roster bonus in 2006.

You can structure contracts to be pretty cheap in the first year, if you want to.

Yeah I agree I think we will end up with about 7-8 million in FA room after our draft picks and our FA resignings. THis will allow a big name acquisition, a mid tier acqusition, and one or two vet minimum acquisition and still stay under the cap. I like Wayne or Randle El at WR in the top spot, a nickle corner like Will Allen in the mid spot, and a couple of OL in the vet minimum spots.

[Battle Cat]

Nice, best explanation of our cap situation I have seen. I am wondering about Halls injury and how much it was still effecting him. He barely got kickoffs to the 15 yard line. Now if this was due to injury and the coachs think it will turn around then keep him. If this is how he is going to be then he makes to much to kick 45 and in and give up good field position on kickoffs. And also if we go for a FA wide reciever like I think we will and even possibly another in the draft like one of the Auburn guys then either Thrash or Patten need to restructure or get cut, even though they are good guys. With one extra number 2 reciever either Thrash or Patten will be making to much to be a number 4 reciever in a system that hardly uses it, but this is assuming allot, again good job.

[becky]

Great work! You should talk to Snyder about a job.


Seriously! Thanks for breaking it down for us PASG.

I also think we could get Wayne, but I'm not sure we will. I don't see him leaving the Colts, but I could very well be wrong. I'm not one of those who thinks we need him, but I wouldn't be opposed if they brought him in.

[Spence]

To quote one of my favorite HR members: Who says chicks don't know football?

[ConradCountry]

I think that if we have that money we should lock some guys on the team already up to long term deals.

Dockery
Cooley
Evans

[bgforever]

Thanks again PASkinsGirl! Now I see this on the horizon. $105 miillion negotiated, instead of the 110. That is because those with less amounts to work with, and smaller budgets tend to scream the loudest at the owners meeting. If they had their way, 95 would be obscene.

[SkinsASchamps]

This is really great stuff. Thanks for knowledge.

[BraveSkin76]

At least a 6 million budget of Free Agency would please me. All things considered, that would be a blessing considering our "cap hell". My only concern is with converting all those roster bonuses to signing bonuses, does it back-end a lot of salary cap hits for 2007-2010?

[CNYSkinFan]

At least a 6 million budget of Free Agency would please me. All things considered, that would be a blessing considering our "cap hell". My only concern is with converting all those roster bonuses to signing bonuses, does it back-end a lot of salary cap hits for 2007-2010?
It may but the Salary Cap will rise each year and they are talking about bringing it to 160 million by 2010.

[PA Skins Girl]

It may but the Salary Cap will rise each year and they are talking about bringing it to 160 million by 2010.
Right. The whole idea of these bonus conversions is to spead the money over time. Just like a morgage, but the beauty is, it's interest free!

I expect, when it all shakes out, we'll be close to the $110 million projected cap number for 2007. But next year, there will be more wiggle room with contracts.

The way you go into cap hell is by releasing players or having them retire unexpectedly (Deion!). If they stay on the roster, you can just keep pushing the money back. Hopefully, the player stays long enough that the cap hit is fairly small when they do actually retire/get released.

[Battle Cat]

PA SKins Girl could you please explain to me in short terms of course you are probably at work like me. The amount of cap space difference if we keep Lavar or cut him? I would like to keep him but i know his salary is something outrageous.

[PA Skins Girl]

PA SKins Girl could you please explain to me in short terms of course you are probably at work like me. The amount of cap space difference if we keep Lavar or cut him? I would like to keep him but i know his salary is something outrageous.
I pulled one of my old posts which hopefully explains it:

The numbers:
Right now, today, and until his bonus is due in July, Lavar counts $5.641 million against the cap.
$5.096 million of that is his 2006 prorated bonus from his original contract and the restructured contract of 2003.
$0.545 is his 2006 salary.
The Total remaining signing bonus from the original and the restructured contract is $12.846 million. That is the amount that will count against the cap if we cut or trade him before June 1.
We can spread that hit out over two years if cut or traded after June 1 (assuming we get a new CBA); $5.096 would count in 2006 and $7.750 would count in 2007.
If we dont get a new CBA, we cant spread the hit over two years.
Lavar is owed a roster bonus of $6.405 million on July 15.
If we dont convert the roster bonus to signing bonus, he would count $5.641+$6.405=$12.046 million in 2006.
If we do convert it to signing bonus, we can spread the $6.405 over 4 years and he would count $5.641+$1.601=$7.242 million in 2006.
So, in short:
Keep him and convert his bonus = $12.046 - $7.241 = $4.8 million savings
Release him after June 1 (assuming new CBA) = $12.046 - $5.096 = $6.95 million savings

[CNYSkinFan]

I pulled one of my old posts which hopefully explains it:


So, in short:
Keep him and convert his bonus = $12.046 - $7.241 = $4.8 million savings
Release him after June 1 (assuming new CBA) = $12.046 - $5.096 = $6.95 million savings
It should be pointed out that cutting him after June 1, 2006 will mean his FULL cap number will be on the books until then. So signing free agents, draftees, and our own FA may be hindered. And there will be a 7+ million cap charge in 2007 about equal to what his cap number would be for keeping him as well.

Cutting Lavar post 6-1-06 will only free up 5+million to sign Free agents after the June 1 cut (not many nowadays) or our draftees. And the same cap number will exist in 2007, just without Lavar on the roster. The savings will come in 2008-2011.

[whistleandthumb]

PA Skins Girl - NICE WORK!! I just get headaches when I try to figure out cap stuff, so I'm sure glad you know how to do it!!

So, conservatively speaking, we should have at least 5 mil, but if the cap is as high as some reports have it, we could be sittin' REAL purdy. I'm ready to go shopping!!

[BurgundyNGold]

You are something else PA, nice work. It'll be interesting to see how close or far away you are from the real numbers.
I was thinking the exact same thing. The FO could definitely use your skills, PASG. :awesomewo

[Battle Cat]

Thanks.

[PA Skins Girl]

It should be pointed out that cutting him after June 1, 2006 will mean his FULL cap number will be on the books until then. So signing free agents, draftees, and our own FA may be hindered. And there will be a 7+ million cap charge in 2007 about equal to what his cap number would be for keeping him as well.

Cutting Lavar post 6-1-06 will only free up 5+million to sign Free agents after the June 1 cut (not many nowadays) or our draftees. And the same cap number will exist in 2007, just without Lavar on the roster. The savings will come in 2008-2011.
One thing I'm not sure about is, at what point in time do the roster bonuses count against the cap? Lavar's is not due until July 15. I dont know if it counts against the cap now, or if it only counts when it becomes due. If the latter is true, waiting until after June 1 doesnt hurt us.

[PA Skins Girl]

I was thinking the exact same thing. The FO could definitely use your skills, PASG. :awesomewo
Thanks all. I cant help it, I love the numbers!

[Slobberknocker]

I like Wayne or Randle El at WR in the top spot, a nickle corner like Will Allen in the mid spot, and a couple of OL in the vet minimum spots.

I'm almost hoping the Steelers lose the Super Bowl and El has an off game, just so his perceived market value might fall and we have a better chance of landing him...

After reading Casey Husband's article on El at Redskins.com, I'm more convinced than ever that he's the guy to go for. If he's as smart as he sounds, he'll realize the Redskins have something great cooking her and want to be a part of it.

Land El, grab Mercedes Lewis or Byrd in the draft, shore up the O line back ups and add some speed to the rush so we don't always have to blitz like mad... not too tough a task with these budget projections.

And thank God we don't have the TO headache to worry about! Way to go FO for stressing yet again that character counts as much as talent!!!

[CNYSkinFan]

One thing I'm not sure about is, at what point in time do the roster bonuses count against the cap? Lavar's is not due until July 15. I dont know if it counts against the cap now, or if it only counts when it becomes due. If the latter is true, waiting until after June 1 doesnt hurt us.

I believe roster bonus' are considered LTBE incentives and count against the cap until the player is released. Rich Tandler wrote about this a few weeks back in relation to his premise that a LAvar rework or release will be done the weeks surrounding then superbowl.

[dj_stouty]

Thanks all. I cant help it, I love the numbers!

Great job as usual. Thanks for the great info...

[PA Skins Girl]

I believe roster bonus' are considered LTBE incentives and count against the cap until the player is released. Rich Tandler wrote about this a few weeks back in relation to his premise that a LAvar rework or release will be done the weeks surrounding then superbowl.
Yeah, I saw that too.

[LadyNRedskinsfan]

To quote one of my favorite HR members: Who says chicks don't know football?
;) whoever said that was a genius!

PASG, you really need to consider writing a capology for dummies book. great work as usual.

[PA Skins Girl]

I believe roster bonus' are considered LTBE incentives and count against the cap until the player is released. Rich Tandler wrote about this a few weeks back in relation to his premise that a LAvar rework or release will be done the weeks surrounding then superbowl.
I found this provision in the CBA:

* For purposes of the Salary Cap and Entering Player Pool, any roster or reporting bonus which is earned or paid before the start of the Club’s pre-season training camp shall be treated as a signing bonus.

To me, this reads that if a roster bonus is paid before the start of training camp, it is automatically considered a signing bonus. If that is the case, assuming all the roster bonueses are due before training camp, we shouldn't actually have to "convert" anything*. And, our cap number should already reflect the bonuses as being prorated.

Do you read it the same way?

http://www.nflpa.org/Members/main.asp?subPage=CBA+Complete#art24
Page 103

*Edit: I should say, we shouldn't have to convert any roster bonuses. We would still need to convert salaries and do extensions.

[redwolf1218]

if the timing of it gives them a choice between 2 terms, one being "roster" that counts all at once, and one being "signing" that counts over time...then i hope they just choose the timing that lets them use the word "signing". it seems like a silly loop hole of semantics but i'm sure our number-crunchers will take advantage of it.

[PA Skins Girl]

if the timing of it gives them a choice between 2 terms, one being "roster" that counts all at once, and one being "signing" that counts over time...then i hope they just choose the timing that lets them use the word "signing". it seems like a silly loop hole of semantics but i'm sure our number-crunchers will take advantage of it.
I agree it seems silly. It could explain why there doesnt seem to be a huge sense of urgency at Redskins Park with re-doing contracts. I think most everyone has left for vacation.

[ChiefPowhatan17]

That's some really good info. I still don't think LaVar is going anywhere, but I guess you're right that he would be released after June 1st.

[PA Skins Girl]

That's some really good info. I still don't think LaVar is going anywhere, but I guess you're right that he would be released after June 1st.
Only if we get a new CBA. Otherwise, I think we will be with us for another 2 or 3 years at least. For better or for worse.

[redskin_rich]

Only if we get a new CBA. Otherwise, I think we will be with us for another 2 or 3 years at least. For better or for worse.
Yeah, if the CBA doesn't get renewed, we are going to be handcuffed this year. Not only will we not be able to spend in free agency but we might have to make cuts, since we won't be able to do the restructures that are planned.

[skin4life]

WAY TO GO PA SKIN! nice job, i'm actually printing it out to make copies for the guys at my work.:)

[EberKain]

Yeah, if the CBA doesn't get renewed, we are going to be handcuffed this year. Not only will we not be able to spend in free agency but we might have to make cuts, since we won't be able to do the restructures that are planned.

Well, im confused.

[PA Skins Girl]

Yeah, if the CBA doesn't get renewed, we are going to be handcuffed this year. Not only will we not be able to spend in free agency but we might have to make cuts, since we won't be able to do the restructures that are planned.
Actually, I think we will be okay either way.

The numbers I ran for the roster bonus and salary conversions are assuming the CBA does NOT get renewed (that is, prorating the conversions over 4 years or through the end of the players current contract, if less than 4 years remain).

However, the CBA extension does have a significant affect on what we do with Arrington.

If it DOES get extended, we will have the OPTION to release him after June 1, thereby spreading the cap hit over two years.

If it DOESN'T get extended, I dont think we will release him because I doubt we will want to take the entire cap hit in one year. Therefore, I assume we will convert his roster bonus to a signing bonus. By doing that, we've just made another big investment in him, and he will likely be around another 2 or 3 years after that.

[redskin_rich]

Actually, I think we will be okay either way.

The numbers I ran for the roster bonus and salary conversions are assuming the CBA does NOT get renewed (that is, prorating the conversions over 4 years or through the end of the players current contract, if less than 4 years remain).

However, the CBA extension does have a significant affect on what we do with Arrington.

If it DOES get extended, we will have the OPTION to release him after June 1, thereby spreading the cap hit over two years.

If it DOESN'T get extended, I dont think we will release him because I doubt we will want to take the entire cap hit in one year. Therefore, I assume we will convert his roster bonus to a signing bonus. By doing that, we've just made another big investment in him, and he will likely be around another 2 or 3 years after that.

I thought if the CBA doesn't get renewed that signing bonuses, roster bonuses, etc, won't matter anymore because you won't be allowed to spread out the money like we have done before. My understanding is the contracts have to be much simpler, with no more than a 20% increase every year.

[PA Skins Girl]

I thought if the CBA doesn't get renewed that signing bonuses, roster bonuses, etc, won't matter anymore because you won't be allowed to spread out the money like we have done before. My understanding is the contracts have to be much simpler, with no more than a 20% increase every year.
I dont think so. Signing bonuses agreed to this year can be spread over 4 years. Here's the provision from the CBA:

(b) Signing Bonuses.

(i) Proration. The total amount of any signing bonus shall be prorated over the term of the Player Contract in determining Team and Player Salary, except that:

(1) Signing bonuses agreed to in a Capped Year may not be prorated more than three years beyond the Final Capped Year (notwithstanding the foregoing, signing bonuses agreed to in Player Contracts approved by the Commissioner on or after agreement by the parties with respect to transition rules for proration in the 1998 League Year, but prior to court approval, and in no event earlier than June 30, 1998, may not be prorated more than six years, and signing bonuses agreed to in the 1999 or 2000 League Years may not be prorated more than seven years).


I think what you are referring to relates to the Uncapped Year (2007) and only applies to the final 8 teams of 2006.

ARTICLE XXI

FINAL EIGHT PLAN

Section 1. Application: The provisions of this Article shall apply only in any League Year during the term of this Agreement in which no Salary Cap is in effect.
Section 2. Top Four Teams: Each of the four Clubs that participated in the NFC and AFC Championship games the Prior League Year shall not be permitted to negotiate and sign any Unrestricted Free Agent to a Player Contract, except: (a) any Unrestricted Free Agent who acquired that status as a result of the NFL waiver system; (b) any Unrestricted Free Agent who was under contract to such Club on the last date of the last League Year of the player’s most recent Player Contract; and (c) any Unrestricted Free Agent signed pursuant to Section 4 below.

Section 3. Next Four Teams: Each of the four playoff Clubs that lost in the immediately preceding playoff games to the four Clubs that participated in the NFC and AFC Championship games the Prior League Year shall not be permitted to negotiate and sign any Unrestricted Free Agent to a Player contract, except: (a) any Unrestricted Free Agent who acquired that status as a result of the NFL waiver system; (b) any Unrestricted Free Agent who was under contract to such Club on the last date of the last League Year of the player’s most recent Player contract; (c) any Unrestricted Free Agent signed pursuant to Section 4 below; and (d) any Unrestricted Free Agent as follows:

(i) One such player for a Player Contract that has a first year Salary of $1,500,000 or more; and

(ii) Any number of such players for a Player Contract that has a first year Salary of no more than $1,000,000 and an annual increase in any future contract years of no more than 30% of the first contract year Salary, not including any amount attributed to any signing bonus. In addition, each such Club and each such player entering into a Player Contract pursuant to this subsection may not renegotiate to increase the amount of Salary to be paid during the term of the Player Contract for a period of one year after the signing date of such contract.

Section 4. Replacement of Free Agents Signed by Other Club: Each of the eight Clubs subject to the provisions of this Article shall be permitted to negotiate and sign one Unrestricted Free Agent to a Player Contract (“New Player”) for each Unrestricted Free Agent who was under contract to such Club on the last date of the prior League Year, who has signed with another Club (“Previous Player”), so long as the Player Contract for the New Player shall have a first year Salary of no more than the first year Salary of the Player Contract signed by the Previous Player with the New

Page 81

Club, and an annual increase in any future contract years of no more than 30% of the first contract year Salary, excluding any amounts attributable to any signing bonus. In addition, each such Club and each such player entering into a Player Contract pursuant to this subsection may not renegotiate to increase the amount of Salary to be paid during the term of the Player Contract for a period of one year after the signing date of such contract.

Page 83

[redskin_rich]

I dont think so. Signing bonuses agreed to this year can be spread over 4 years. Here's the provision from the CBA:




I think what you are referring to relates to the Uncapped Year (2007) and only applies to the final 8 teams of 2006.
Maybe I'm mixing up information. May I have the link to the CBA rules you quoted?

[PA Skins Girl]

Maybe I'm mixing up information. May I have the link to the CBA rules you quoted?
Sure, sorry.

http://www.nflpa.org/Members/main.asp?subPage=CBA+Complete#art24

[PA Skins Girl]

FYI, Here are some links to the NFLPA website that show the proration period per year and also the answer to the FAQ, "Why is the last season of the CBA Uncapped?"

http://www.nflpa.org/Members/main.asp?subPage=CBA+Extension+Features

http://www.nflpa.org/Members/main.asp?faq=WHY+IS+THE+LAST+SEASON+OF+THE+CBA+UNC APPED&subPage=FAQ&x=8&y=8

[PA Skins Girl]

I thought if the CBA doesn't get renewed that signing bonuses, roster bonuses, etc, won't matter anymore because you won't be allowed to spread out the money like we have done before. My understanding is the contracts have to be much simpler, with no more than a 20% increase every year.
I have a better understanding of this rule now. Under the current CBA, for contracts agreed to in 2006, salaries can only increase by a maximum of 30% per year.

So, in our free agent shopping, we wont be able to back load contracts with high salaries in the latter years like we usually do. But this applies to SALARIES only. We can still give signing bonuses that will prorate over 4 years. And we can do a contract with low annual salaries and a moderate signing bonus (to keep the first year costs low), with subsequent roster bonuses.

[silverspring]

i just saw this thread it is real awesome, thanks.

Snyder will have to work some magic.

[helimech24]

With the 5 mil of playing room in your conservative look PSG, how much will be needed for signing draft picks? I know you cannot give exact numbers, I was just wondering if there is a ballpark figure that we can expect.

[PA Skins Girl]

With the 5 mil of playing room in your conservative look PSG, how much will be needed for signing draft picks? I know you cannot give exact numbers, I was just wondering if there is a ballpark figure that we can expect.
The $5 million is what is left over after signing our own FA's and leaving enough for our draft picks.

Without a #1 pick, I only assumed $1.0 million to sign our draft picks. I know that sounds low, but the thing you have to remember is, with each player added to the roster, another player drops out of the top 51 (only the top 51 players count against the cap in the off-season). So, the 5th, 6th and 7th rounders wont actually add anything to our number - they just take the place of another low end player (a 310K/year guy). Only the 2nd and 3rd rounders should actually add to our cap number when we sign them.

I believe the way the rookie pool works though, is the NFL assigns a number to your cap value, based on your picks, that counts against your cap until you actually sign the rookies.

[helimech24]

The $5 million is what is left over after signing our own FA's and leaving enough for our draft picks.

Without a #1 pick, I only assumed $1.0 million to sign our draft picks. I know that sounds low, but the thing you have to remember is, with each player added to the roster, another player drops out of the top 51 (only the top 51 players count against the cap in the off-season). So, the 5th, 6th and 7th rounders wont actually add anything to our number - they just take the place of another low end player (a 310K/year guy). Only the 2nd and 3rd rounders should actually add to our cap number when we sign them.

I believe the way the rookie pool works though, is the NFL assigns a number to your cap value, based on your picks, that counts against your cap until you actually sign the rookies.OIC, thanks for the great info, I have been wondering that throughout the whole salary cap issues.

[danny's stogie]

This is coming from the same guy who currently ranks the Skins as 16th on his power rankings, thinks julius jones will be better than Emmitt, and I believe picked the Raiders to win the super bowl this past year, but I thought I should share this anyways.

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9241944

Redskins Close to Tipping From Cap

How would you like to be Eric Schaffer, the cap man for the Washington Redskins? Your boss is the combustible Dan Snyder and your cap is a mess, so much so that two cap experts from other teams who looked at it say it's as bad as they've seen.

We pity poor Schaffer, who isn't to blame. It's not his fault Snyder throws money around as if he prints it, snubbing the reality that cap jail will eventually swallow his team whole.

"I'm glad I'm not Eric," said one of the cap experts. "That thing is a mess."

According to NFLPA figures, the Redskins have $115.4 million committed in salary for their top 51 players in 2006. The cap is expected to be $92 to $95 million. That means they have to trim $20 million or so. And that's not counting the $2 million or so the team will need to sign its rookies (thankfully, they don't have a first-round pick to pay, or that would be higher).

The Redskins have done a decent job trimming their cap down in recent years, but this time it might not be possible -- certainly not without a new collective bargaining agreement. A new agreement could help relieve some of the cap problems, but even with one, the Redskins face a daunting task.

"If they reduced everybody to a veteran minimum, and that won't happen, they'd still be $4 million over the cap," said one of the cap experts. "That's before cutting anybody."

So how did it get this bad? The Redskins have paid out big money deals under Snyder, and some of them have blown up in the team's face, leading to the chase factor. You chase bad deals with more bad deals to compensate.

Thus, they have trouble.

When room got tight in the past, they extended players' deals to create room, spreading bonus amortization out over the years. Eventually, though, it becomes time to pay the piper.

That time is now.

Compare the Redskins' plight to a family that keeps putting off paying the credit card balance by paying minimums.

"All the deals, all the overpaying for years and moving money into future years has caught up to them," said the cap expert. "Last year they had to move $7 million in money into future years. That catches up to you at some point."

One cap expert said the Redskins might be forced to let good players walk, and could be forced to field a team with as many as 20 rookies -- or more.

If there's a new CBA, the Redskins might be able to get out from under the cap troubles a little easier, although it still will be a lot of work.

"Can you imagine the dynamics of what Schaffer is going through?" one cap expert said. "He has to go to Snyder and Joe Gibbs and tell them they have to cut players. That has to be ugly,"

Cap hell. It's as ugly as it gets in the NFL, and it's a jail that's hard to get paroled out of.

Still think the Redskins will be a playoff contender?

Joe Gibbs has his work cut out for him this season. Maybe auto racing never looked so good.

[LadyNRedskinsfan]

This is coming from the same guy who currently ranks the Skins as 16th on his power rankings, thinks julius jones will be better than Emmitt, and I believe picked the Raiders to win the super bowl this past year, but I thought I should share this anyways.

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9241944
OMG. i read that BS late last night and i couldnt help but think we had a hater in the house.

[PA Skins Girl]

I'm glad the two experts he references arent running the team. We're okay. Yes, work needs to be done to about a dozen or more contracts, but we wont be making major cuts to get under the cap.

I prefer to think of our practices not as making minimum payments to credit cards, but more as getting an interest free loan.

[chrisbcbu]

OMG. i read that BS late last night and i couldnt help but think we had a hater in the house.

The guy is an idiot. We are not even close to releasing any good players, except maybe lavar and it wouldnt be becuase of cap reasons. They would have been better off doing the article on Denver since they are even worse off than we are and they will definately have to release some players.

We just have to do some weird stuff with the contract restructering to make sure it doesnt effect the 30%rule. And im more than confident that Gibbs&Co. are more than aware of the situation and have some contingency plans in place.

[LadyNRedskinsfan]

The guy is an idiot. We are not even close to releasing any good players, except maybe lavar and it wouldnt be becuase of cap reasons. They would have been better off doing the article on Denver since they are even worse off than we are and they will definately have to release some players.

We just have to do some weird stuff with the contract restructering to make sure it doesnt effect the 30%rule. And im more than confident that Gibbs&Co. are more than aware of the situation and have some contingency plans in place.
denver, oakland, kansas city, the jets. there are other teams that are worse off than we are, why pick on washington? plus, like you said, we wont be letting any big names or core players go unless something doesnt get worked out with lavar.

[danny's stogie]

denver, oakland, kansas city, the jets. there are other teams that are worse off than we are, why pick on washington? plus, like you said, we wont be letting any big names or core players go unless something doesnt get worked out with lavar.

Seriously. The Jets already have plans to release Ty Law and are trying to get Pennington to take a huge pay cut. Denver has a lot of cap work to do and even our resident HR bronco fans have admitted their need to cut several players. Who know with Oakland...they could cut the whole team and still have a better season than this past one.

[ConradCountry]

This is the same article that appears every year and by September it has not come true. I agree some changes have to be made on the roster, but what kind of arguement references blind sources and who makes a cap arguement without any real numbers in it.

This is poorly argued and poorly backed up, and now it is ignored.

[Red Bear]

provided the CBA is extended and their are no uncapped years, i think eventually the cap will catch up with us, leading to us cutting multiple star players and starting out with a young team

[whitskins]

20 Rookies??? LOL!!

Even the Washington Post wrote an article this year about how with some work we'll be around 10 mil under the salary cap. Prisco and his band of idiots can go join Pasquarelli at the buffet table. This is exactly what we've heard every year since Snyder took over. It never happens.

[HanburgerBum]

This is pretty impressive, PASG. I am not sure I even understand all the calculations. I have a good friend who is a Philly fan. He keeps taunting me about how the Skins are in cap hell while his Eagles are 20 million under the cap . Next time he brings up the subject, I will show him your thread.

[whitskins]

This is pretty impressive, PASG. I am not sure I even understand all the calculations. I have a good friend who is a Philly fan. He keeps taunting me about how the Skins are in cap hell while his Eagles are 20 million under the cap . Next time he brings up the subject, I will show him your thread.

I love how Philly fans keep talking about their cap situation as if it's something to be proud of. That team is 20 million under every year because they're too cheap to spend the money. They're not gonna do anything with that extra cash, they're just gonna sit on it again. They might as well be in the same cap situation as we are.

The only thing that 20 mil is doing for them is dividing their lockerroom when the rest of the team turns on McNabb for being the only player on the team who gets a massive contract extension. Oh wait, that's already happened! Hahahaha....

[joethefan]

WOW If we had you around the year the resigned Lavar...maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.... I say Hire YOU and FIRE the Capologist.

[redwolf1218]

I love how Philly fans keep talking about their cap situation as if it's something to be proud of. That team is 20 million under every year because they're too cheap to spend the money. They're not gonna do anything with that extra cash, they're just gonna sit on it again. They might as well be in the same cap situation as we are.

The only thing that 20 mil is doing for them is dividing their lockerroom when the rest of the team turns on McNabb for being the only player on the team who gets a massive contract extension. Oh wait, that's already happened! Hahahaha....
this explanation right here is one reason why i have so much respect for Andy Reid. he does more with less than anyone except maybe Bill Cowher.

[chrisbcbu]

WOW If we had you around the year the resigned Lavar...maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.... I say Hire YOU and FIRE the Capologist.

Sorry but we probably have the best Capologist in the business. He is the reason we havent had to release multiple players for cap reasons.

[akhhorus]

20 Rookies??? LOL!!

Even the Washington Post wrote an article this year about how with some work we'll be around 10 mil under the salary cap. Prisco and his band of idiots can go join Pasquarelli at the buffet table. This is exactly what we've heard every year since Snyder took over. It never happens.

The skins article on this brought up what the Skins were thinking of doing: cutting Bowen, Harris, Raymer-dealing Ramsey-restructuring Springs, Portis, Washington, Griffin and Thomas(all by making roster bonuses into signing bonus, which lessens their cap number for 3-4 years and makes it a lock that they ain't leaving for that same time period). And even without doing anything to Lavar's contract, the skins would be 8-10 million under the cap. I suspect that these moves would preface Lavar being traded/cut so they would have the money from his contract to afford the restructures.

[redskin_rich]

Sorry but we probably have the best Capologist in the business. He is the reason we havent had to release multiple players for cap reasons.
Who are you talking about? Schaefer just took over last year, before that, it was Mendez.


I don't like that we keep pushing money to the future, I know the cap goes up but so do the salaries. I think we should start taking some of our medicine, starting with LaVar. Cut or trade him and deal with it now. Samuels is another, I want to keep him but his salary is ridiculous and at some point, we are going to have to make a tough decision. I give him 2 more years here, tops.

[akhhorus]

Who are you talking about? Schaefer just took over last year, before that, it was Mendez.

You're right. It was last June, because I had this classic post about it:
http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=497930&postcount=11

But Schaffer was Mendez's right hand before he was hired.

I don't like that we keep pushing money to the future, I know the cap goes up but so do the salaries. I think we should start taking some of our medicine, starting with LaVar. Cut or trade him and deal with it now. Samuels is another, I want to keep him but his salary is ridiculous and at some point, we are going to have to make a tough decision. I give him 2 more years here, tops.

It usually isn't good, but if the Skins can keep clearing out big contracts(Coles last year, Lavar this year) they can afford to keep doing this. Clearing out Lavar this year and Brunell after 06 means that all these delays will end up not hurting the Skins at all.

[ConradCountry]

LaVar is gone not beacsue we can't afford him, but because his deal will be an issue evry year and will handicap us.

[Red Bear]

i still say we need to keep lavar, imagine what he could do with a full healthy year in this defense. when lavar took over the starting role last year he did pretty damn well for a guy coming off a serious injury, i think the skins were smart not to rush him back and not to let him rush himself back. so if we can work it out with the salary cap i think we should keep him

[akhhorus]

i still say we need to keep lavar, imagine what he could do with a full healthy year in this defense. when lavar took over the starting role last year he did pretty damn well for a guy coming off a serious injury, i think the skins were smart not to rush him back and not to let him rush himself back. so if we can work it out with the salary cap i think we should keep him

Lavar didn't have a serious injury. He had a minor knee scope that's taken him almost 18 months to "recover" from, when everyone else takes 4-6 weeks. As I ask everyone who brings this excuse up: Lavar said-well, whined publically-that he wasn't going on the field until he was 100% because he felt he was rushed back onto the field in 04, so was Lavar lying and he went back before he was healthy or is Lavar just finished? If Lavar needs another offseason to recover from his "knee injury", then he's finished and the Skins shouldn't even bother trying to trade him and just cut him. This wasn't a major injury and he had it cleaned out before 05. There is no way this is a valid excuse for Lavar's poor play.

[DCGreys]

The following is my best estimate as to how much money we will have to spend on outside free agents after all the contract work is complete, and leaving enough to sign our own free agents and draft picks. I want to stress that this is an estimate, because no one outside the front office knows exactly what the numbers are, how the contracts are currently constructed, or what they plan to do with certain contracts and/or players. This is simply to give a rough idea of how much money we can potentially have to play with in the free agent market.


Current Cap Number $111.8 (includes top 51 signed players only)
Dead Cap $3.6
Total $115.4

Convert roster bonuses -$15.2
to signing bonuses
(Everybody Except Arrington)

Convert Arrington's -$4.8
Roster Bonus to Signing
Bonus

Convert salaries to signing -$3.9
bonuses (Thomas and Jansen)

Cap Credit for 2005 LTBE -$1.2
incentives not reached
(Cartwright)

Cap Hit for 2005 UTBE +$0.5
incentives which were
reached (assumption)

Contract Extensions -$1.3
(Bowen and Harris)

Retire or Release -$2.1
(Noble and Raymer)

Convert some of Brunell's -$2.3
salary to incentive and/or
signing bonus (assumption)

Sign our own FA's +$4.6
and Draft Picks

Subtotal $89.7
Min Cap Room $5.3

Additional Potential Savings
Trade Ramsey -$1.9

Release Arrington
instead of converting bonus -$2.1
(after June 1 and assumming
a new CBA)

Subtotal $85.7
Max Cap room $9.3

SAY $5.0 - $9.0 million available "Spending Money" for Free Agency


You are obviously a serious genius. Contrast your work to the slapdash anti-DC reporting done by cbssportsline: http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9244108


Good work!

[bgforever]

WOW If we had you around the year the resigned Lavar...maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.... I say Hire YOU and FIRE the Capologist.

I said the same thing. Some people come into their own and it appears so effortless. What makes her even more unique is making the complications fit so well!

[bgforever]

Lavar didn't have a serious injury. He had a minor knee scope that's taken him almost 18 months to "recover" from, when everyone else takes 4-6 weeks. As I ask everyone who brings this excuse up: Lavar said-well, whined publically-that he wasn't going on the field until he was 100% because he felt he was rushed back onto the field in 04, so was Lavar lying and he went back before he was healthy or is Lavar just finished? If Lavar needs another offseason to recover from his "knee injury", then he's finished and the Skins shouldn't even bother trying to trade him and just cut him. This wasn't a major injury and he had it cleaned out before 05. There is no way this is a valid excuse for Lavar's poor play.

I am saying this and will probably need medical attention when LaVar gets his hands on me. He layed back on the laurels of the relaxing life during rehab and most of it is natural, not calling lazy, but he layed back too much and thus he dragged on his recovery. However, when the storming of the Bastile occured (5-6 game run at the playoff hunt - he became anxious, but the once assailing big brick that brought the house down on tackles, was now a lumbering KFC tummy filled bowling ball for a bit and the lax life, extra time in the sheets, caught up with him. Ok I am done now

MEDIC!!!!!

[PA Skins Girl]

Thanks for the accolades guys. I'm no genious, I just like the numbers. And Chris is right; we do have the best in the business when it comes to the cap. That's why we dont have to release players to get under the cap. The Skins have orchestrated the contracts so that we can keep our players. In fact, after we convert those roster bonuses to signing bonuses this year, we will be sitting pretty for the next 3 or 4 years.

[danny's stogie]

Thanks for the accolades guys. I'm no genious, I just like the numbers. And Chris is right; we do have the best in the business when it comes to the cap. That's why we dont have to release players to get under the cap. The Skins have orchestrated the contracts so that we can keep our players. In fact, after we convert those roster bonuses to signing bonuses this year, we will be sitting pretty for the next 3 or 4 years.

This is what I love to hear. Do you mind going into more detail? Do the Skins need to cut Lavar to sustain financial flexibility down the road? Will they actually start out an offseason under the cap for once? Does this take into account needed extensions to guys like ST and Cooley?

[skinfanjon]

Thanks for the accolades guys. I'm no genious, I just like the numbers. And Chris is right; we do have the best in the business when it comes to the cap. That's why we dont have to release players to get under the cap. The Skins have orchestrated the contracts so that we can keep our players. In fact, after we convert those roster bonuses to signing bonuses this year, we will be sitting pretty for the next 3 or 4 years.

You should teach the writers at cbssportsline about credible journalism, i.e. meaningful research. Great job!

[HanburgerBum]

I love how Philly fans keep talking about their cap situation as if it's something to be proud of. That team is 20 million under every year because they're too cheap to spend the money. They're not gonna do anything with that extra cash, they're just gonna sit on it again. They might as well be in the same cap situation as we are.

The only thing that 20 mil is doing for them is dividing their lockerroom when the rest of the team turns on McNabb for being the only player on the team who gets a massive contract extension. Oh wait, that's already happened! Hahahaha....


Great point, Whitskins. There is no way players are happy about an owner who is perpetually under the cap by huge amounts, since that probably means a bunch of them are not getting properly paid. It seems to me that Eagles players should be especially upset because Philly is a large market and generates considerable local revenue. I can see why Dan Snyder would look good to a lot of FAs, and that could be the difference when a FA has a close call to make between two teams.

The next time my Eagles friend gloats about the cap situation, I will let him know what you said.

[HanburgerBum]

Who are you talking about? Schaefer just took over last year, before that, it was Mendez.


I don't like that we keep pushing money to the future, I know the cap goes up but so do the salaries. I think we should start taking some of our medicine, starting with LaVar. Cut or trade him and deal with it now. Samuels is another, I want to keep him but his salary is ridiculous and at some point, we are going to have to make a tough decision. I give him 2 more years here, tops.


You and Red Bear are concerned about having to cut "core" star players down the road when current contracts are constantly restructured to delay their cap impact. Sure, there is a danger of that (although the Redskins capologist seems to have done a great job guarding against that). But, even if that were so, I think it is still the way to go.

The strategy used here by the Skins (and in many other cities too) is geared to keeping a group of "core", key players together for a certainly number of years (say 4-5) to make a couple of runs at the SB. It is much better to do that then being perpetually conservative, never mortgage the future, and always stay well-under the cap. That way of doing business probably means that a team would hardly, if ever, have to purge itself from cap hell and start totally over with a season or two of 3-4 wins. But, it also probably means that the team would be doomed to continued mediocrity (always with 7-10 wins, and an occasional playoff berth with no playoff success). I would rather go for broke and shoot for gold than winning the bronze forever.

[redskin_rich]

You and Red Bear are concerned about having to cut "core" star players down the road when current contracts are constantly restructured to delay their cap impact. Sure, there is a danger of that (although the Redskins capologist seems to have done a great job guarding against that). But, even if that were so, I think it is still the way to go.

The strategy used here by the Skins (and in many other cities too) is geared to keeping a group of "core", key players together for a certainly number of years (say 4-5) to make a couple of runs at the SB. It is much better to do that then being perpetually conservative, never mortgage the future, and always stay well-under the cap. That way of doing business probably means that a team would hardly, if ever, have to purge itself from cap hell and start totally over with a season or two of 3-4 wins. But, it also probably means that the team would be doomed to continued mediocrity (always with 7-10 wins, and an occasional playoff berth with no playoff success). I would rather go for broke and shoot for gold than winning the bronze forever.
I'm not a fan of not using all the available cap room, like Philly for instance. On the contrary, I like that we use as much as possible every year. What I don't like is mortgaging the future like we have so many times in the past. Too much backloading and restructuring and eventually you are left with no other choice than to release a player. This is whats happening with LaVar now and will happen with Brunell, Wynn, Samuels and some others.
Ideally for me, we would spend all of our allocation every year but always enter the next year with a little room instead of having to use a cut here, a restructure there, to get under the cap.
And I would rather build a strong team that can be kept together for close to a decade, than load up for a SB run. We tried that and failed. Remember the year 2000?

[colkurtz]

PA Skins girl - great cap post as always.

I've got to say that I'm sick of the annual articles from the so-called "experts" who regularly forecast the doom and demise for the Redskins organization due to the theoretical "Cap Hell". In fact, I refuse to read an article that uses cap hell and Redskins in the same sentence. These writers forecast massive cuts in Redskin players due to the cap, every year - then when it inevitablity is all worked out; they talk about how bad it will be NEXT season.

***yawn***

Dan Snyder created a true "cap hell" in 2000. That was 6 years and three coaches ago. He and the Gibbs staff will not make that mistake again. Frankly, Snyder has evolved in to somewhat of a cap master - that's the REAL story here..... As the team casts off the mega-high contracts of Coles and LaVar, I see the team getting to a better keel on this non-issue.

[Davey]

Here's the link to Jason La Canfora's article that was mentioned in the thread about the Prisco article that had already been posted here. Sorry if it's already been posted. It basically says exactly PASkinsGirl said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011802276_pf.html

[Dept_of_Defense]

I believe roster bonus' are considered LTBE incentives and count against the cap until the player is released. Rich Tandler wrote about this a few weeks back in relation to his premise that a LAvar rework or release will be done the weeks surrounding then superbowl.
I really hope that they rework LaVar's contract. I KNOW that it will come back to bite us if we release him and he signs with someone else. Hopefully LaVar is willing to rework his contract....

[oldskinfan]

Nice work PASG. Hope the Redskin's capalogist can measure up and has a similar plan.

[HanburgerBum]

I'm not a fan of not using all the available cap room, like Philly for instance. On the contrary, I like that we use as much as possible every year. What I don't like is mortgaging the future like we have so many times in the past. Too much backloading and restructuring and eventually you are left with no other choice than to release a player. This is whats happening with LaVar now and will happen with Brunell, Wynn, Samuels and some others.
Ideally for me, we would spend all of our allocation every year but always enter the next year with a little room instead of having to use a cut here, a restructure there, to get under the cap.
And I would rather build a strong team that can be kept together for close to a decade, than load up for a SB run. We tried that and failed. Remember the year 2000?


Trying to keep a "core" group for a decade in today's NFL is virtually impossible. If a team can get 5 years out of a "core" group for a SB run, it would be fortunate indeed.

The situation you describe where Washington bumps up against the cap annually but does not mortgage any future cap room may be ideal, but it is rarely attainable. With these present players, I expect that the Skins will have a nice run from now until about 2010. At that point, most of the "core" players will have gotten old. Releasing them then will not prove to be difficult. Would the team be facing a couple of down years at that time? Probably. But, hopefully the Skins will have added two SBs in the meantime.

[nmskin]

Redskins and some other clubs in increasing streams of unshared local revenues has led to a fractious internal debate in which the less-prosperous franchises are seeking to have more of those revenues shared.

"There's a lot of infighting on their side," Upshaw said. "They don't believe they're going to have to do this, but that's the only way the low-revenue clubs can afford their commitment to us. My understanding is that there's a group of nine [wealthy teams] that's saying, 'If you force us into more revenue sharing, we'll sue you.' "



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6021801300.html

My guess as to who they are:

Redskins
Cowboys
Patriots

Bears
Miami
San Francisco

Giants
Raiders
Denver

[nmskin]

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9241944
Notebook: Redskins close to tipping from cap
By Pete Prisco

How would you like to be Eric Schaffer, the cap man for the Washington Redskins? Your boss is the combustible Dan Snyder and your cap is a mess, so much so that two cap experts from other teams who looked at it say it's as bad as they've seen.We pity poor Schaffer, who isn't to blame. It's not his fault Snyder throws money around as if he prints it, snubbing the reality that cap jail will eventually swallow his team whole.

"I'm glad I'm not Eric," said one of the cap experts. "That thing is a mess."

According to NFLPA figures, the Redskins have $115.4 million committed in salary for their top 51 players in 2006. The cap is expected to be $92 to $95 million. That means they have to trim $20 million or so. And that's not counting the $2 million or so the team will need to sign its rookies (thankfully, they don't have a first-round pick to pay, or that would be higher).The Redskins have done a decent job trimming their cap down in recent years, but this time it might not be possible -- certainly not without a new collective bargaining agreement. A new agreement could help relieve some of the cap problems, but even with one, the Redskins face a daunting task.

"If they reduced everybody to a veteran minimum, and that won't happen, they'd still be $4 million over the cap," said one of the cap experts. "That's before cutting anybody."

So how did it get this bad? The Redskins have paid out big money deals under Snyder, and some of them have blown up in the team's face, leading to the chase factor. You chase bad deals with more bad deals to compensate.

Thus, they have trouble.

When room got tight in the past, they extended players' deals to create room, spreading bonus amortization out over the years. Eventually, though, it becomes time to pay the piper.

That time is now.

Compare the Redskins' plight to a family that keeps putting off paying the credit card balance by paying minimums."All the deals, all the overpaying for years and moving money into future years has caught up to them," said the cap expert. "Last year they had to move $7 million in money into future years. That catches up to you at some point."One cap expert said the Redskins might be forced to let good players walk, and could be forced to field a team with as many as 20 rookies -- or more.

If there's a new CBA, the Redskins might be able to get out from under the cap troubles a little easier, although it still will be a lot of work.

"Can you imagine the dynamics of what Schaffer is going through?" one cap expert said. "He has to go to Snyder and Joe Gibbs and tell them they have to cut players. That has to be ugly,"

Cap hell. It's as ugly as it gets in the NFL, and it's a jail that's hard to get paroled out of.

Still think the Redskins will be a playoff contender?

Joe Gibbs has his work cut out for him this season. Maybe auto racing never looked so good.

[PA Skins Girl]

This is what I love to hear. Do you mind going into more detail? Do the Skins need to cut Lavar to sustain financial flexibility down the road? Will they actually start out an offseason under the cap for once? Does this take into account needed extensions to guys like ST and Cooley?
We'll probably be around $115 million going into 2007 with the ability to get that down significantly. But what I mean by sitting pretty for the next 3 or 4 years is, having our core guys locked in for that duration.

As far as Lavar goes, 2006 is a decision year for him. If the Skins decide to invest the additional $6.5 million in him this year, then he will be with us for another 2 or 3 years at least. Cooley and ST will be RFAs going into 2007 and I expect they will be offered long term deals. My guess is they will both be with us for the long haul as well.

[HanburgerBum]

Redskins and some other clubs in increasing streams of unshared local revenues has led to a fractious internal debate in which the less-prosperous franchises are seeking to have more of those revenues shared.

"There's a lot of infighting on their side," Upshaw said. "They don't believe they're going to have to do this, but that's the only way the low-revenue clubs can afford their commitment to us. My understanding is that there's a group of nine [wealthy teams] that's saying, 'If you force us into more revenue sharing, we'll sue you.' "



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6021801300.html

My guess as to who they are:

Redskins
Cowboys
Patriots

Bears
Miami
San Francisco

Giants
Raiders
Denver


Good projections. The only team that I think you may have left out is Philly. Not only are the Eagles in a large market, they just had a new stadium built recently. My guess would be Philly instead of Oakland or Miami. The Raiders are in the poor section of the Bay Area. Can't imagine a second team from the same neighborhood would be in the wealthy gang of 9.

[chrisbcbu]

Cooley and ST will be RFAs going into 2007 and I expect they will be offered long term deals. My guess is they will both be with us for the long haul as well.

ST=Sean Taylor? Cause if it is then ST is locked up until 2010, so he still has a while left on his current contract. You are correct about Cooley tho, he will be a RFA in 2007.

[PA Skins Girl]

ST=Sean Taylor? Cause if it is then ST is locked up until 2010, so he still has a while left on his current contract. You are correct about Cooley tho, he will be a RFA in 2007.
I stand corrected. I was confused about the RFA because I know Derrick Dockery signed a 4 year deal, yet he is a restricted FA after his 3rd year (this year). That led me to believe that players became RFAs after their third year if they met certain playing time requirements, regardless of their contract length. I now realize this is not true. Looks like Dockery's deal had a voidable 4th year based on playing time from the onset.

Therefore, I think Cooley is good through 2007 and ST (Sean Taylor) is good through 2010, as you stated.