Draft Trade/ Cap Reason?

dougrm3 · Post by **dougrm3** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 8:58 pm

I was wondering if the trade to Denver was made due to the large cap hit the skins will take next year? It sounds as if they are going to be short on funds to pay draft picks next year. This way they will have fewer picks to pay and a year to evaluate the number 1 they picked up.

This is my first post so please bear with me. Great board that I have been reading for awhile. Thought I would jump in.

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:05 pm

Welcome to the Board!!

I think you may be right, but Gibbs has a history of trading his #1 pick and developing talent from within the Redskins.

Under the History Tab on this page, there is a history of the Redskins Drafts...this is not a new thing for Gibbs unless there is a player there that he loves...i.e. Darrell Green.

vife · Post by **vife** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:09 pm

Are you saying he loves Campbell?

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:19 pm

I remember seeing a report recently that said that either next year or the eyar after we will have more cap room than we previously thought due to changes in either the TV contract or the merchandising contract. I can't remember what the changes came from but I DO remember that the cap is raised for all the teams in the next year or two. So I don't think its entirely a cap reason.

Who knows it might be. That just might make the most sense yet other than the guy who said we're drafting Campbell b/c we'll get rid of Ramsey after this year or next and we want to have a QB ready to play who has a few years in the system.

We might be looking to unload Brunell this June 1 along with Barrow and his contract he hasn't earned either.

Jake · Post by **Jake** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:21 pm

Welcome to the board, dougrm3. You'll love it here.

I didn't understand the move until I saw The Hogster posting about Gibbs' tendency to relinquish 1st round picks. I didn't realize he had a history of doing that.

I thought the trade was pretty horrible and very one-sided but Gibbs does everything for a reason.

I'm pretty sure the move wasn't cap related because the cap will probably go up again next year.

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:30 pm

vife wrote:Are you saying he loves Campbell?

Im not guaranteeing that he loves the guy..but he felt compelled to do everything in his power to be in a position to draft him. He also visited he and Rogers at Auburn. Just about everyone else came in to visit us.

I think he really likes the guy, and since he is the guy who has dissected hours of Campbell's film, I'd like to see how this thing happens...it could be major.

Hog Heaven · Post by **Hog Heaven** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:30 am

thaiphoon wrote:I remember seeing a report recently that said that either next year or the eyar after we will have more cap room than we previously thought due to changes in either the TV contract or the merchandising contract. I can't remember what the changes came from but I DO remember that the cap is raised for all the teams in the next year or two. So I don't think its entirely a cap reason.

Who knows it might be. That just might make the most sense yet other than the guy who said we're drafting Campbell b/c we'll get rid of Ramsey after this year or next and we want to have a QB ready to play who has a few years in the system.

We might be looking to unload Brunell this June 1 along with Barrow and his contract he hasn't earned either.

The cap goes up pretty constantly because of increased revenue. Also, we will have a "little" wiggle room with the cap next year because part of our problem this year is we are paying off about 9 million of Coles' bonus money this year even though he isn't on the team. Next year, he will no longer burden us. As for cutting Brunell or Barrow, because of the hefty bonus' they recieved, we can not cut them. It would cost us money this year to do that, and we have none to spare. WHen you cut or release a player, you have to immediately pay off the rest of their bonus money on your salery cap if I am no mistaken.

SkinsFan4Life · Post by **SkinsFan4Life** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:04 pm

dougrm3 wrote:I was wondering if the trade to Denver was made due to the large cap hit the skins will take next year? It sounds as if they are going to be short on funds to pay draft picks next year. This way they will have fewer picks to pay and a year to evaluate the number 1 they picked up.

This is my first post so please bear with me. Great board that I have been reading for awhile. Thought I would jump in.

I don't think this is the reason we made the trade. We have to pay Campbell next year too !! His SB will be pro-rated out to the length of his contract.

From the cap perspective, the only benefit I see is we don't pay the salary and SB for next year's 4th. This is a minimal savings.

Welcome, dougrm3

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:31 pm

Welcome to the board. No, the draft choices are not related to the cap, as others have pointed out before me.

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 3:39 pm

The cap goes up pretty constantly because of increased revenue.

I know that, I was referrign to a story I read which stated that either next year or the year after its a bigger jump than usual.

Also, we will have a "little" wiggle room with the cap next year because part of our problem this year is we are paying off about 9 million of Coles' bonus money this year even though he isn't on the team. Next year, he will no longer burden us.

Knew that too ... its one reason we weren't able to go after some free agents this offseason

As for cutting Brunell or Barrow, because of the hefty bonus' they recieved, we can not cut them. It would cost us money this year to do that, and we have none to spare. WHen you cut or release a player, you have to immediately pay off the rest of their bonus money on your salery cap if I am no mistaken.

I know that the pro-rated bonuses will be accelerated and come due when you cut them. But if you cut them after June 1rst the biggest part of the cap hit is taken in the next year. And if the salary cap jumps enough next year to allow us to cut one or both after this coming up June 1rst I say we go for it. I'm tired of paying a ton of money for players who aren't on the field.

fredp45 · Post by **fredp45** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:59 pm

I think Gibbs knows that he has to cut Brunnel June 2, 2006 (next year). Knowing how he is with rookie QBs, he wanted to get our backup (or starter) now so he'd have a year under his belt. If Ramsey stinks, gets hurt, leaves for more money, Gibbs has a QB who has some seasoning. I think it's as simple as that.

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 6:09 pm

I think Gibbs knows that he has to cut Brunnel June 2, 2006 (next year). Knowing how he is with rookie QBs, he wanted to get our backup (or starter) now so he'd have a year under his belt. If Ramsey stinks, gets hurt, leaves for more money, Gibbs has a QB who has some seasoning. I think it's as simple as that.

Yeah, thats why I said that I think you've given the best explanation for drafting a QB now. I just still wish we hadn't given up so much for him.

fredp45 · Post by **fredp45** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 6:37 pm

I don't think we gave up too much for that pick. To get a 1st rounder this year you must give up more than just a 1st rounder next year. If you look at the draft value chart below...we got a pick worth 700 points (25th pick in the 1st round) but we gave up around 600 (assuming we end up in the middle of the pack next year - hopefully, we're not that bad, but I'll be a pessimist).

1) 16th pick in the 2nd round = 385 (remember, a 1st rounder next year = a 2nd rounder this year). PLUS
2) 9th pick in the 3rd round pick = 200. PLUS
3) 16th pick in the 5th round = 33 (4th rounder next year = 5th rounder this year)

TOTAL 385+200+33 = 618

http://www.profootballdraft.com/draftchart.php

I think we got fair value in the trade.

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:02 pm

I don't subscribe to the practice of discounting a next years pick by one round. Expecially not if its a 1rst rounder. And especially not when the draft is weak. That gave the Broncos a great reason to stockpile a pick next year and avoid taking a chance on a player in the 1rst round of a weak draft. The only way the trade works in our favor IMHO is if we make it to the second round of the playoffs this year. We have to finish in the top 8 teams for the trade of 1rst rounders to be at least equal or to benefit us. If we don't and we finish in the bottom 10 again, we gave the Broncos a huge gift.

fredp45 · Post by **fredp45** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:07 pm

Would you feel that way if had picked Heath Miller or a DE or a WR?

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:12 pm

Would you feel that way if had picked Heath Miller or a DE or a WR?

Yes... I didn't think we needed Heath since we already have Cool

ey. Most of the really good DE's were gone by #25 and trading that much for a WR is too much to pay.

Hog Heaven · Post by **Hog Heaven** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 12:48 am

thaiphoon wrote:I don't subscribe to the practice of discounting a next years pick by one round. Expecially not if its a 1rst rounder. And especially not when the draft is weak. That gave the Broncos a great reason to stockpile a pick next year and avoid taking a chance on a player in the 1rst round of a weak draft. The only way the trade works in our favor IMHO is if we make it to the second round of the playoffs this year. We have to finish in the top 8 teams for the trade of 1rst rounders to be at least equal or to benefit us. If we don't and we finish in the bottom 10 again, we gave the Broncos a huge gift.

I totally agree

thaiphoon · Post by **thaiphoon** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:33 am

Hey Hog Heaven, I noticed your avatar ...you go to JMU ??

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Draft Trade/ Cap Reason?

Draft Trade/ Cap Reason?

Re: Draft Trade/ Cap Reason?