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

This is from another WP article....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01963.html

Even with a new CBA, several players faced the possibility of being released, at least in part because of their high salary cap figures. That group includes cornerback Walt Harris, a starter much of last season; safety Matt Bowen; injured defensive lineman Brandon Noble, who is considering retirement; reserve center Cory Raymer; and punter Tom Tupa, who was injured all of last season. Releasing those players would account for about $7.5 million in cap relief, not including the salaries of the players who would replace them.

Place kicker John Hall, whose injuries have put the team in a roster crunch the last two seasons, is another candidate; his release would save $1 million. The Redskins had hoped to get at least a fourth-round draft pick in a trade for backup quarterback Patrick Ramsey, but might end up releasing him to save $1.7 million. Wide receiver James Thrash, with a $1 million base salary, could be gone, too. Former second-round draft pick Taylor Jacobs failed to capitalize on a chance to be a starting wide receiver in 2005, and Pierson Prioleau provided depth in the secondary and excels on special teams, but could save the team $550,000 if cut.

Beyond that, the team may be forced to trim some starters. Cutting starting defensive ends Renaldo Wynn and Phillip Daniels would save a combined $1 million, although Washington is already thin at that position.

If the situation turns dire, the Redskins might have to release Jansen, which would save $800,000, or Thomas, who would provide $2.1 million in savings. They are two of only a few players who could provide significant relief from the salary cap crunch simply by being cut.

The Redskins generally invest heavily in signing and roster bonuses and keep non-guaranteed base salaries low. The bulk of the big earners are in the first year or two of their contracts, meaning that their salary cap figures are generally higher if they are cut rather than retained.

[/b]

Brunell restructured, and hopefully Jansen and Thomas both will as well.

Everyone just settle down! A little league wide clonic may not be a bad thing. Over price duds such as ; Harris, Hall and Jacobs need to go.... Frankly I don't understand why they aren't already...... When all is said and done. the player will put the squeeze on the NFLPA to extend the dealine and continue talks. Look at the situation like this.... Gene Upshaw is serving a giant glass of Metamucil and the owner are guzzling Imodium. In the end, Sh#t happens.......Serenity Now!

Scottskins wrote:Thanks 1nik. That eases my mind a lot. That basically means players with bonuses will not get cut. So we won't be losing any of our core players. We will lose many of our Ryan Clark type guys though. Could be ugly with so many new faces on the team...

Much better than I was anticipating though

This should ease some fears....

from the WT The new deadline to cut players is 6 p.m. tomorrow and free agency starts Monday at 12:01 a.m.
If there is no deal, the 2006 salary cap is $94.5 million. If there is a deal, the salary cap could be anywhere from $105 million to $110 million depending on terms of the agreement. The Redskins started the week with $115 million committed to 2006 salaries.
Rick Smith, Jansen's agent, said yesterday the Redskins contacted him about a week ago and termed the talks "pretty easy."
"They have a plan and they'll get it done," he said. "They weren't desperate. I don't know why there was this big doomsday [outlook] for them. They'll get to where they need to get."
Peter Schaffer, the agent for Wynn, said talks between him the Redskins were seamless.
"There were no negotiations," he said.
If the salary cap is $105 million, the Redskins are likely to still cut veterans Matt Bowen ($2 million savings), Cory Raymer ($985,000), Brandon Noble ($1.7 million), Walt Harris ($2 million), Tom Tupa ($232,000) and possibly Patrick Ramsey ($1.688 million), James Thrash ($750,000) and Taylor Jacobs ($176,000).
Either way, no front-line starters are expected to be released.

I've said all along that Gibbs has a plan. If there is no CBA teams will have trouble signing their first round picks, here's a story you won't see on ESPN Redskins signed their number one pick 1 year in advance of the CBA turmoil

So let me get this right. You are saying that the Skins traded up with Denver last year as to sign their number one pick a year in advance. This is to say that the Skins were looking ahead at the CBA and predicted this is what was going to happen. This would be phenomenal. A stretch, but a stroke of geneous none the less. This is great. Heck even if this isn't what has happened i'm going to spread this around. This is the best news i have heard all off-season. Think about it, Denver is in no shape to sign their number one picks. This is great. I am speechless.Go Skins!!!!

I agree 1niksder! Our FO guys have had both situations in mind and are prepared. I still think that in the next few days these guys will have a new agreement.

Mort said talks broke down again.
deadline is 10pm.

When we wake up tomorrow, our team will have an entirely different look.

Sportscenter just anounced free agency will begin on thurs

SkinnyHog wrote:Sportscenter just anounced free agency will begin on thurs

The new deadline for a new CBA is now Wednesday evening (9 PM I believe).

This has been one heck of a roller coaster ride!

Jesus, I thought they be done fooling around with this nonsense by now. It's obvious they want to extend the CBA, you'd figure they'd figure out how to do it by now.

Maybe this is all for show and they're playing with us to make us sweat and want it more. I wouldn't think that they'd be above that. Like I've said before, they'd be foolish to mess with seccess, so why not just get things done?

On ESPN they were saying that there wont be anymore negotiations between management and the players this week. They said the reason for the extension is because Tagliabue is going to let the owners vote on the players' last offer either on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning.

I hope Joe reins Danny in enough so that the uncapped year doesn't turn into a redux of 2000.

What happened to the sky?? I thought it was supposed to be falling. According to some people here.

The sky did fall AND the bottom fell out. With that combination we missed it.

The owners can't agree on how or if they want to share the money with each other, that's the hold up.

The owners can't agree on how or if they want to share the money with each other, that's the hold up.

That's right on. The argument at this point isn't between the owners and the players, but between the owners themselves. The rift is between the small market teams and the big markert teams such as the Skins, Cowboys, and Texans. This deal is nowhere near done and from all accounts both sides in the owners' rift have enough votes to veto the deal.

Good news is (for those who are paying attention) the deal is in and now the owners only have to decide if there are enough of them to be able to put it into effect. The difference today is that the deal is done and the only thing left is after the deal goes down the owners still get to fight about how to do it.

This is going to be a good fight BUT it has nothing to do with the CBA if they have the votes. This is not about the finer details, that has been done according to both parties - this is Yes or No and then we have a new, increased cap to play with and free agency can begin.

Good news is (for those who are paying attention) the deal is in and now the owners only have to decide if there are enough of them to be able to put it into effect. The difference today is that the deal is done and the only thing left is after the deal goes down the owners still get to fight about how to do it.

This is going to be a good fight BUT it has nothing to do with the CBA if they have the votes. This is not about the finer details, that has been done according to both parties - this is Yes or No and then we have a new, increased cap to play with and free agency can begin.

The problem is that the reports that have come out indicate that both sides have enough votes to veto. 8 votes are enough to veto and according to ESPN there are 9-10 small market teams that are unhappy with the current CBA proposal.

I hate small market teams. They are only 'small markets' because they suck at marketing their business,

You mean to tell me that Ohio can support the largest college football scene in the nation, but the freakin Bengals can't do a naming rights deal for their stadium?

These people suck at life and are typical, corporate tool bags who grew up with Trust Funds and never worked a day of their lives, but want to get rich on someone elses labor.

I hate lazy, corporate dorks.

Yeah, people have some serious mental deficiencies when it comes to talking about greed.

People smash Snyder and say that he is greedy for wanting to actually keep money that he busted his ass to make.

However, real greed is in the form of the owners who don't do jack and then demand what he's got. That's real greed, wanting something that isn't yours.

That's just disgusting behavior and I don't understand why the press takes those owner's side and not Dan Snyder's when he has worked so hard to make the Redskins a money machine.

Good point.

hkHog wrote:Yeah, people have some serious mental deficiencies when it comes to talking about greed.

People smash Snyder and say that he is greedy for wanting to actually keep money that he busted his ass to make.

However, real greed is in the form of the owners who don't do jack and then demand what he's got. That's real greed, wanting something that isn't yours.

That's just disgusting behavior and I don't understand why the press takes those owner's side and not Dan Snyder's when he has worked so hard to make the Redskins a money machine.

When the salary cap was first introduced in 1994 it was $34.6 million. In 2006 it is $94.5 million, with a chance to jump to $105 million. Now, if my stocks appriciated that quickly, you know what I'd do with it? I'd leave it alone.

If you change the face of football because the rich teams are unwilling to share with some of the poorer teams, you are messing with seccess and they'd be fools to do so, and they know it. Otherwise, they'd just get rid of the cap altogther and revenue sharing altogether.

Giants owner Wellington Mara was the one who helped create revenue sharing and which helped teams like Indiannapolis become compeitive. Remember, every market can't be as rick as Washington, Dallas, New England, Houston or New York. The fact that we don't want to share makes *us* greedy and we are in the minority.

I disagree. A team like the Cincinnatti Bengals will not even do a naming rights deal on their stadium. They won't call it the UPS Field or whatever. For their own reasons they are against that. So why does Daniel Snyder have to share more of his hard earned money OFF THE FIELD with owners like that, or the owners of the Cardinals who never spend any money on player salaries and are constant losers. Danny just spent some of his own money hiring coaches. Why? To make the team better. If he was 'greedy' he wouldn't spend money from his own pocket on coaches who only serve the role of improving the team. Danny just bought radio stations with his own money. Why should he have to share those profits with low-revenue owners when they don't contribute anything to his investment.

The reason why those teams suck and are 'low revenue' is because they have been mired in frugality and laziness for so long.

The Cardinals are always way under the cap, and its not because they have character players, it's because they have no players. If the team is a loser then the fans will not want to come out.

Even when the Redskins went 6 years without a playoff appearance recently, the Redskins were still #1 in terms of overall revenue. Danny was willing to spend money to get people to keep their season tickets and buy Redskins apparel.

As much as we would like to attribute that to the size of the DC market, it's just not the case.

The Hogster wrote:I disagree. A team like the Cincinnatti Bengals will not even do a naming rights deal on their stadium. They won't call it the UPS Field or whatever. For their own reasons they are against that. So why does Daniel Snyder have to share more of his hard earned money OFF THE FIELD with owners like that, or the owners of the Cardinals who never spend any money on player salaries and are constant losers. Danny just spent some of his own money hiring coaches. Why? To make the team better. If he was 'greedy' he wouldn't spend money from his own pocket on coaches who only serve the role of improving the team. Danny just bought radio stations with his own money. Why should he have to share those profits with low-revenue owners when they don't contribute anything to his investment.

The reason why those teams suck and are 'low revenue' is because they have been mired in frugality and laziness for so long.

The Cardinals are always way under the cap, and its not because they have character players, it's because they have no players. If the team is a loser then the fans will not want to come out.

Even when the Redskins went 6 years without a playoff appearance recently, the Redskins were still #1 in terms of overall revenue. Danny was willing to spend money to get people to keep their season tickets and buy Redskins apparel.

As much as we would like to attribute that to the size of the DC market, it's just not the case.

*note: it's been a long day, I didn't reread or spell-check this, so sorry for the errors.

My point is that the seccess of NFL football is at an all-time high. One of the reasons is that teams are much more on an even playing field than say, MLB Baseball or European soccar, both of which have teams that spend freely to aquire the talent and in essence "buy" a team. You can't do that with a salary cap and revenue sharing allows cities that don't have tons of people that can spend their money as freely because of a lower average income of the average city.

YOu mentioned perenal losers like Arizona. What about Indianapolis? They are 29th in terms of the team's income and yet with the proper use of managing the team's available finances, they have put together a team that has been consistently and now highly compeitive. I don't think anyone would see Indianapolis, the city, as a market that's capable of drawing in large amounts of revenue.

So, if you take away the revenue sharing, suddenly a team like the Colts would be spending up to 70% of their revenue on their player's saleries which leaves less money for their stadium, advertising scemes, coaches saleries and many other things that allow a team to function properly.

If your team cannot generate income due to a slower market with people who are not as wealthty as the Washintonian area, Philly and so on... they are at a sizable disadvange and beome perenial losers. Casual fans become disinterested when they believe their team has no chance to compete.

With the CAB allowing teams to compete on a move even scale, it allows teams such as Indi and Cinny to build. That makes football more interesting to more fans. Teams will go from Super Bowl winners, to missing the playoffs only to return two years later, such as Tampa Bay. With the CAB as it was, every fan knew that their team, if coached right, if their players executed properly and if the front office did it's job, has a good shot of going to the Super Bowl unlike say, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays in baseball.

To change the rules to benifit ourselves, it's short-sighted and it's greedy. Everyone's making money right now and fans have never been happier... save for the refs.