BossHog wrote:Paralis wrote:
Can I ask where you're getting your numbers from? I haven't been able to find a complete breakdown of the contract extension, but reports at the time indicated a $15.5M signing bonus. And while that certainly doesn't comprise all guaranteed money, it's a far sight from the $30M+ you're working with (which would be, to the best of my understanding, *extremely* unusual). FWIW, profootballtalk.com reported in April that the total cap hit taken for releasing Arrington after this season would be around $12M ($5/7M if after june 1st). Onerous, but not impossible.
Yeah but that 15.5M doesn't include any of the money from his original contract... and I can't help it if you read bad info in the media... isn't that what i was trying to say in the first place.

HOWEVER, I did forget to take off the $5M that the Redskins paid in 2005

Sorry... so....
Going into 2005 the Redskins owed lavar $26M in signing bonus money ALONE... due to the little stigma of NOT BEING ALLOWED TO PRO-RATE BONUSES PAST 2009 as per the CBA (in large part due to the as yet uncapped 2007)... that works out to about $5.1 per year by my numbers. They paid that number once in 2005 taking the number down to about $21M. But that doesn't include escalators, or any other bonus money, but I'm not certain as to whether or not ANY of that would be guaranteed... probably not... and he's not likely to have earned any escalators either... but there is still over 25Million in other bonuses in his contract, so who knows?
But STILL... I would think that we're still on the hook for AT LEAST $21 milion in SIGNING BONUS MONEY alone without anything else... and that's a LOT more to account for than splitting up 11M over 2 years... twice as much in fact.
Warpath has approximately the same numbers that I do...
http://redskins.scout.com/3/contractdetails.htmlAND...to save the 6.5M roster bonus in 2006, surely you would have to cut him BEFORE June 1st and put ALL of it on 2006 wouldn't you?
The obvious problem with this discussion is whether or not we can take media numbers for granted. When NFL.com cites Carl Poston when listing length, total value, signing and total bonus figures for a contract extension, it seems like it's worth taking into consideration--primarily because it's in the Postons' best interests not to understate the value of the contract (and, by extension, their services).
Arrington agrees to eight-year deal (NFL.com)
But even if that's not the case--even if the Postons allowed themselves to be used as sources to report incorrect contract figures (contract figures which you seem to suggest are uniformly below what Arrington signed for), the numbers you're working with are still wonky.
Surely we can agree that the date of the contract extension isn't in question. 12/03 was too late to fit new money under the 03 cap, so for allocation purposes, the bonus is split over 6 years--2004-2009. Two of these years have already been accounted for, so what remains is two-thirds of $26M, or about $17.5. Higher than the number I'm working with, sure, but still a far cry from the $30M we need to account for.
And that's the ceiling--assuming there's some odd structure I'm unfamiliar with, whereby the signing bonus from Arrington's rookie contract was prorated only over the years of his rookie deal (expiring at the end of 06, I believe?), then the $17.5M could be lower still.
As long as there's no CBA extension, the June 1 deadline is pretty much meaningless in 06. The only date that matters is whenver the roster bonus is scheduled to fall due (I've read 7/15, but can see fewer agendas competing to ensure accuracy).
I'm still leery of the numbers you linked to, though. First because warpath uses a different contract length and total value figure than initially reported (see the top of my post), but also because in the player bio for Arrington, they seem to still be using the numbers from his rookie deal--this two years later.
But I'm not sure this is worth arguing about. Your numbers not only didn't jibe with what I'd read previously about Arrington's contract situation, but, if true, would surely have started a media revolt. On the other hand, NFL contract numbers (the details, at any rate) aren't a matter of public record, and so there's nothing I can point to that conclusively says I'm right--just reading the wires and playing with the numbers in my head. Maybe you still feel surer than I do, but hopefully, if so, you can explain it better. It's still way ahead of the game, but having a good handle on the numbers makes the offseason a lot more entertaining.[/url]