Its official ..Its panic time

[hkHog]

However, I hate to say it, but Fat Len is right, if the CBA doesn't get renegotiated you're looking at us cutting key starters and having 10-15 rookies (primarily undrafed rookies at that) on our roster next year. It would be an unmitigated disaster. Anyone who believes otherwise does not understand the CBA at all.

Only thing you've proven is that you don't know what you're talking about. Will it suck if we don't have an agreement in place? HELL YES, it will hurt us for the uncapped year.
Does that mean you have to take it to the blathering and whiny extreme and agree with Lenny that we will have to release 15 guys from our roster? HELL NO.

You are equating journalism with reality without looking at the facts for yourself. We will likely not be able to acquire any high quality FA's, but we will not have 15 rookies on our roster...anyone who believes that is uninformed.


Uh, I suggest you read the CBA. I have read it...I interned at a sports management firm before enrolling in law school.

If the deal is not in place in time there may be ONE UNCAPPED YEAR....a new agreement will be reached thereafter. I doubt there will be a strike and no the NFL will not cease to exist.

You people sound ridiculous, someone please sticky this thread so these people have to eat their words when this all pans out.

Alright, look at this scenario. It is done by some Redskin homers showing how we can get under the cap if the CBA isn't extended.

[size==18]Cap Crunching--The Plan [/size]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Large
WarpathInsiders.com Feb 22, 2006

Earlier this week, we talked about the fix that the Redskins would be in if there is not new labor agreement by the end of this week. Today, our resident capologist looks at how they could get out of it.


One thing to keep in mind when reading this article is that a number of NFL team officials and NFLPA representatives have stated that if a new CBA agreement is not in place by the time the 2006 league year opens, 2007 will be an uncapped year regardless of an agreement being made after that date. The reason? The rules and limitations outlined below would already be in place for 2006 and would disadvantage teams and players if changed midstream.

Firstly the main limitations on teams when entering the final capped year, then the uncapped year, of the current CBA. They can be best summarised as follows:

1. The 30 percent rules

All non-signing bonus amounts in a players contract that has a tenure greater than 2006 (and all new contracts entered into in 2006) cannot increase by more than 30 percent each year for the remaining life of the contract using 2006 (the final capped year) as the base from which this starts. The parts of the contract included in the 30 percent rule are base salary, roster bonuses, reporting bonuses, LTBE incentives and option bonuses payable in 2006 or in future years even though they are evenly spread like signing bonuses. Signing bonus amounts have no restrictions.

Termination and buyout clauses are also heavily scrutinised under this rule, and any such clauses in contracts in an attempt to circumvent the 30% rules would result in all signing bonus monies allocated to future years or any buyout compensation counting in 2006.

2. UTBE incentives

For unlikely to be earned incentives, any amounts achieved in 2006 during the season automatically hit the salary cap in 2006 when they are earned, and cannot be nudged into 2007. Thus, teams using incentives for players as a way around the 30 percent rule could find themselves having to dump players later in the year as certain incentives are reached.

3. Free Agency Restrictions

Any player with five years of experience who under normal capped season rules would have been an unrestricted free agent in 2007, will now be a restricted free agent in 2007 if the club decides to designate those players as restricted.

4. Final Eight Plan

The teams that finish in the top 4 places in each conference after the 2006 playoffs are restricted in the free agents they can sign outside their own free agents in 2007. Each of the eight teams will be permitted to sign one UFA from another team for each of their own UFA’s that have signed with another team.

5. Additional Transition Tag Designation

In the last league year of a CBA teams are able to use an additional transition tag on a player.

The two areas that affect the Skins the most right now are the 30 percent rules and the free agency restrictions in 2007.

Compliance Scenario

The Redskins are currently sitting at a 2006 salary cap figure of $115.5m - $20.5m over the estimated $95m NFL cap and these leaves the Skins at real risk being in breach of the cap come March 3. Cutting of high cost players will net only minimal savings. So that brings us to the first option the Skins have to get under the cap--to cut as many non-necessity players that save money as possible, redo some contracts.

First, the players that could be released. Here’s a list of 11 players with their 2006 cap savings if released in brackets:

Walt Harris ($2m)
Matt Bowen ($2m)
Brandon Noble ($1.7m)
Patrick Ramsey ($1.7m)
Cory Raymer ($1.0m)
John Hall ($1.0m)
James Thrash ([BODY].9m)
Tom Tupa ([BODY].6m)
Antonio Brown ([BODY].5m)
Jimmy Farris ($.5m)
Karon Riley ([BODY].5m)


That’s $9.3m saved against the cap (when also figuring in the 12 players who would replace these guys under the Rule of 51)



Note: The Skins could re-sign a couple of the cut players at vet minimum contracts that would be at a similar level of compensation to the player as their 2006 money under the now terminated contract, but at a much lower cap value to the team.



Secondly, contract tinkering to fit the 30 percent rules. Here’s a list of players who’s contracts we could massage to make some savings with some basic restructuring:



Chris Samuels –
Scrap the 3.5m LTBE incentive in 2006 and the 3.0m roster bonus due in 2007,
Give him an option bonus of $6m, adding another year to his contract (2012),
Make his base salaries $1.5m (2006), $2.4m (2007), $3.3m (2008), $4m (2009), $6.4m (2010), $7.3m (2011) and $8.2m (2012).
Base salaries from 2006-2009 would be guaranteed.

This would save $1.500m in 2006.

Jon Jansen:
Give him an option bonus of $5m, adding another year to his contract (2009),
Make his base salaries $1.420m (2006), $2.2m (2007), $3.0m (2008) and $3.8m (2009).
All base salaries would be guaranteed.

This would save $1.350m in 2006.

Randy Thomas –
Give him an option bonus of $5m, adding another year to his contract (2010),
Make his base salaries $1.2m (2006), $1.9m (2007), $2.6m (2008), $3.3m (2009) and $5.2m (2010).
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed.

This would save $1.050m in 2006.

Marcus Washington –
Scrap the $2.5m roster bonus in 2006
Give him an option bonus of $4m, adding another year to his contract (2010),
Make his base salaries $1.5m (2006), $2.250m (2007), $3.0m (2008), $3.750m (2009) and $5.5m (2010).
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed.

This would save $1.500m in 2006.

David Patten –
Scrap the [BODY].6m LTBE incentive in 2006, and his roster bonuses in 2007/8/9
Increase his already existing option bonus in 2006 to $4m, triggering the 2009 year
Make his base salaries [BODY].670m (2006), $1.170m (2007), $1.8m (2008), and $2.0m (2009)
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed.

This would save [BODY].327m in 2006.

Cornelius Griffin –
Scrap the $2.5m roster bonus in 2006,
Give him an option bonus of $4m, adding another year to his contract (2011),
Make his base salaries $1.5m (2006), $2.250m (2007), $3.0m (2008), $3.750m (2009), $5.5m (2010) and $6.250m (2011).
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed.

This would save $1.000m in 2006.



Shawn Springs –
Scrap his $3.1m roster bonus in 2006
Give him an option bonus of $6m, adding another year to his contract (2010),
Make his base salaries $1.5m (2006), $2.4m (2007), $3.3m (2008), $4.2m (2009) and $6.6m (2010).
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed.

This would save [BODY].850m in 2006.



Clinton Portis –
Scrap his $3.0m roster bonus in 2006, $1.0m roster bonus in 2008 and [BODY].515m incentive in 2009
Give him an option bonus of $6m, adding another year to his contract (2012),
Make his base salaries $1.5m (2006), $2.4m (2007), $3.3m (2008), $4.2m (2009), $6.6m (2010), $7.5m (2011) and $8.0m (2012).
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed.

This would save [BODY].545m in 2006.



Casey Rabach –
Scrap the $1.6m LTBE incentive in 2006
increase his already existing option bonus in 2006 to $5m, triggering the 2010 year
make his base salaries [BODY].545m (2006), $1.050m (2007), $1.555m (2008), $2.060m (2009) and $3.8m (2010)
base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed.

This would save [BODY].850m in 2006.



Mark Brunell –
Scrap UTBE incentive from 2006
Give him an option bonus of $4m, adding another year to his contract (2011),
Make his base salaries $2m (2006), $2.9m (2007), $3.8m (2008), $4.7m (2009), $6.6 (2010) and $7m (2011).
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed.

This would save $1.000m in 2006.



LaVar Arrington –
Reduce his roster bonuses in 2006, 08 and 09 down to $2.785m, $3.0m and $3.0m
Scrap all roster bonuses from 2010 onwards
Give him a restructure bonus of $6m,
Make his base salaries [BODY].545m (2006), $2.275m (2007), $2.350m (2008), $3.377m (2009), $7.4m (2010) and $8.4m (2011).
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed.

This would save $2.215m in 2006.

That’s a further $12.1m in savings against the cap.

There’s $21.4m of savings, which would result in the Skins being nearly $1m under a $95m.

Refer to table for details (highlighted players are those that have restructured).

Another possibility concerning Brunell and Arrington is if each are prepared to take a decent, but what would be fair pay cut, including terminating the years on their contracts post 2009 and then reducing their base salaries and/or roster bonuses down to levels commensurate with their performance and/or age, it would give the Skins more breathing space and the ability to keep some of the players we listed to be released earlier.

Skins Impact – Free Agency Restrictions in 2007

Only two prominent Redskin players will qualify to be RFA’s in 2007 under the final league year rules after having more than 3 years NFL experience – QB Patrick Ramsey and RB Ladell Betts.

This would allow the Skins to keep both through 2006 and not risk losing them to unrestricted free agency (which would happen if the CBA is extended).

Given the restrictions on player movements in the final league year of a CBA, both of these players could become quite valuable trade commodities in 2007 as teams search for talent in a restricted market.

http://redskins.scout.com/2/501659.html

By their calculations, we have to cut ELEVEN players and renegotiate the contracts of eleven more and then we'll be less than $1 million under. The ONLY way to fill those 11 roster spots with less than $1 million of cap space is to sign a bunch of rookies.

This doesn't even take into consideration our FAs that need to be resigned! We have THIRTEEN of those!!!! In addition, Ray Brown is retiring! Therefore, in reality we must find a way to replace 25 roster spots with $1 million!!! THAT IS HALF OUR TEAM!!! Just how are we going to do that!?!?! You clealry do not understand just how serious this problme is.

Additionally, this is a best case scenario that assumes that all the vets mentioned are willing to renegotiate their contracts. If that doesn't happen things could be a lot worse.

Please Hogster, if you know so much about the CBA please grace us with your own compliance scenario that doesn't involve cutting 10-15 vets and having to sign 10-15 rookies. That would add more to the coversation than just saying that the rest of us don't know what we're talking about.

The bottome line is, if there is no CBA this year we're screwed. It doesn't mean the NFL will cease to exist or anything like that but it will utterly decimate our roster. If a new CBA is agreed on we should be in great shape but without one we're screwed.

[MEZZSKIN]

Thank you HK....this by far the most logical post out of this entire thread...Nobody is whining and nobody needs to eat crow...the facts are the facts...we need to cut players, ALOT of players which will decimate our depth charts..anyone you debates this is very ignorant....lets hope it never copmes to pass....with a new CBA gibbs and co. will figure things out accordingly

[The Hogster]

First, some of the 11 players mentioned above are likely to be released anyway just as in any normal year, collective agreement or not. What will hurt is we will be hindered in replacing them with veterans, however, if there is no deal in place Free Agents for this year will get a lot less money in Free Agency which means we can't be sure what kind of acquisitions we will be able to make.

Brandon Noble will likely retire, if not he has a life threatening infection and is done, he was also on IR and not part of the 53 man roster. Ramsey is known to be on the trading block. I doubt we cut Thrash, he is good value for a Special Teams standout and backup receiver. Riley was also not a part of our active roster, and Tupa will not be cut if healthy...Frost would go before him in my opinion. Jimmy Farris was a practice squad player for most of the year until Patten was placed on IR. Aagain, he was on IR and not the active 53. So what you are failing to understand is that even in that scenario with 11 players, you are only losing around 7 net roster spots.

Second, the labor portion of the agreement is closer to being agreed upon which will leave the revenue sharing portion. There is always the option that the two parts of the deal can be bifurcated allowing an agreement to be made, and having owners agree in a separate addendum.

There is a rookie pool that is used to determine how much money we spend on draft pics.

Nobel, Tupa and Riley are not a part of our active roster...Nobel and Tupa are on IR and Riley was pretty much a vagabond. Which means, we will not be "replacing" all of those players with FA's and rookies.

We will cut players for sure, some players that might have been retained (i.e. Walt Harris ) but, we will not be taking a direct 10-15 player overhaul that will change the face of the team as we know it.

We will have to release between 5-8 players that were a part of the active roster..not including those on IR.

We have 6 draft picks in the upcoming draft at present...which leaves us with 2 or 3 net positions that we will need to fill.

Depending on how much we can save by releasing, restructuring, we may be able to sign 1 or 2 cheap FA's or bring in a good Free Agent and pick up an Undrafted FA or release and re-sign some guys.

The point is there are SO MANY scenarios that are out there that it is silly to try and say you know for sure we will carry 10 Undrafted RFA's...its simply untrue.

The main hurt will be on our ability to sign any higher valued veteran FA's.

[The Hogster]

Thank you HK....this by far the most logical post out of this entire thread...Nobody is whining and nobody needs to eat crow...the facts are the facts...we need to cut players, ALOT of players which will decimate our depth charts..anyone you debates this is very ignorant....lets hope it never copmes to pass....with a new CBA gibbs and co. will figure things out accordingly

Just because someone is agreeing with your opinion doesn't put them and/or you on the side of reason. Nice weakminded attempt at making yourself feel right but you are right the facts are the facts, and it is not what you are making it out to be.

[hkHog]

First, some of the 11 players mentioned above are likely to be released anyway just as in any normal year, collective agreement or not. What will hurt is we will be hindered in replacing them with veterans, however, if there is no deal in place Free Agents for this year will get a lot less money in Free Agency which means we can't be sure what kind of acquisitions we will be able to make.

Brandon Noble will likely retire, if not he has a life threatening infection and is done, he was also on IR and not part of the 53 man roster. Ramsey is known to be on the trading block. I doubt we cut Thrash, he is good value for a Special Teams standout and backup receiver. Riley was also not a part of our active roster, and Tupa will not be cut if healthy...Frost would go before him in my opinion. Jimmy Farris was a practice squad player for most of the year until Patten was placed on IR. Aagain, he was on IR and not the active 53. So what you are failing to understand is that even in that scenario with 11 players, you are only losing around 7 net roster spots.

Second, the labor portion of the agreement is closer to being agreed upon which will leave the revenue sharing portion. There is always the option that the two parts of the deal can be bifurcated allowing an agreement to be made, and having owners agree in a separate addendum.

There is a rookie pool that is used to determine how much money we spend on draft pics.

Nobel, Tupa and Riley are not a part of our active roster...Nobel and Tupa are on IR and Riley was pretty much a vagabond. Which means, we will not be "replacing" all of those players with FA's and rookies.

We will cut players for sure, some players that might have been retained (i.e. Walt Harris ) but, we will not be taking a direct 10-15 player overhaul that will change the face of the team as we know it.

We will have to release between 5-8 players that were a part of the active roster..not including those on IR.

We have 6 draft picks in the upcoming draft at present...which leaves us with 2 or 3 net positions that we will need to fill.

Depending on how much we can save by releasing, restructuring, we may be able to sign 1 or 2 cheap FA's or bring in a good Free Agent and pick up an Undrafted FA or release and re-sign some guys.

The point is there are SO MANY scenarios that are out there that it is silly to try and say you know for sure we will carry 10 Undrafted RFA's...its simply untrue.

The main hurt will be on our ability to sign any higher valued veteran FA's.

You still are not taking all our FAs into consideration. We have 11 of those (I initially said 13 but Albright was resigned and one of them is a practice squad guy) and Brown has retired. How do we replace 23 guys with $1 million unless they're mainly undrafted rookies?

[The Hogster]

Your 1 million dollar figure is just ONE SCENARIO of several. You are basing your entire outlook on the fact that the Redskins will take the exact same steps that some dude from Warpath.net suggested.

That is illogical.

[hkHog]

Your 1 million dollar figure is just ONE SCENARIO of several. You are basing your entire outlook on the fact that the Redskins will take the exact same steps that some dude from Warpath.net suggested.

That is illogical.

Tell me how we can save more!?

Let's see your logic. It seems to me that the guy from Warpath Insiders decided to take the contracts that had the biggest impact on the cap and renegotiate them by the new rules that will be in place this year (i.e. primarily the 30% rule). What else can we do? Please tell me because I would love to hear it especially because you seem to know so much about this situation.

[The Hogster]

How many ways can you shave your head? Just one? We haven't even had the draft yet. There is no telling how many different scenarios that you can use to manuever salaries, and contracts with varying terms, different ways to allocate money between bonuses and salary.

If you read the CBA and just pay attention you would see that trying to sit here and argue that there is ONE way to skin a cat, you look more and more ridiculous.

[hkHog]

How many ways can you shave your head? Just one?

No but you end up with the same RESULT!

[hkHog]

Please, what else can we do? Tell us, because I'd like to hear it. How can we save more money and not have to sign 15 undrafted rookies to replace the ten guys we are going to have to cut and the ten we can't resign? What is your plan?

[The Hogster]

Exactly, a bald head. Trying to recite how you would take the clippers to your head, what direction, etc is work for the insane at this point.

FA hasn't started, the draft hasn't happended, and we have no way in hell to determine how the contracts will be manipulated.

If you want to read Warpath.net and Len Pasquerelli to get your degree in Capology, then go right ahead. Do it all you want.

Hey everybody, let's go walk on to the Redskins this year....they'll have to sign one of us.

[hkHog]

How many ways can you shave your head? Just one? We haven't even had the draft yet. There is no telling how many different scenarios that you can use to manuever salaries, and contracts with varying terms, different ways to allocate money between bonuses and salary.

If you read the CBA and just pay attention you would see that trying to sit here and argue that there is ONE way to skin a cat, you look more and more ridiculous.

I am not saying there is one way. I am saying that by all accounts that's pretty close to a best case scenario. Say we can get another $2 mil from restructuring. Then we have $3 mil to spend on 23 roster spots. That still isn't going to avoid us having to sign 15 rookies to our squad.

[air_hog]

Okay, this argument is getting out of hand, however I am leaning towards Mezzskins and hkHog's view point (not that I like it though)

Adam Schefter seems to me to be a pretty vaild source of info. and unlike Lenny, he's not biased against the Skins.

Now read this and straight from the words that he wrote, it does not look good at all if their is no CBA for us...

SKINNED

Without an extension of the collective bargaining agreement, this could be one of the bloodiest weeks the NFL has witnessed, with more teams cutting more players at this time of the year than the league ever has seen.

And no team is in worse shape than the Washington Redskins, who some league insiders believe will have to cut anywhere from 15 to 20 players.

Those numbers will depend on how many players will be willing to restructure their contracts, but one NFL general manager who reviewed Washington's salary-cap situation wondered how the Redskins will even be able to field a team.

For starters, the Redskins are expected to release defensive backs Matt Bowen and Walt Harris, defensive linemen Renaldo Wynn and Brandon Noble, wide receivers James Thrash and Taylor Jacobs, center Cory Raymer, and kicker John Hall. Even with all those moves, the Redskins still will be significantly over the salary cap, requiring them to release even more players from their roster.

No team is rooting for a CBA extension any harder than Washington. Otherwise, the Redskins team next weekend will be considerably different from the one they have this weekend.

ARMS TRADE

Not all the Redskins moves will be cuts. At least one will be a trade.

The Redskins also are expected to trade quarterback Patrick Ramsey this week. At least three teams have expressed a serious interest, and one should be able to put together an enticing enough package to lure away a player the Redskins once drafted in the first round.

The Redskins are not expected to get a whole lot in return for Ramsey, due to the fact that there are so many quarterbacks expected to be on the free-agent market. But they will get something for a team that soon could have many holes.

Now there is no way someone can come back and say, "he's only saying that because he is Skins biased" because he's not. However, I'm sure Gibbs and Co. have a backup plan like they said they do, but that doesn't mean it's going to be anywhere near good.

Now we'll see whose right if there comes a time with no CBA, and I think Mezzskin and hkHog will be closer to the spot than some other guys...

[hkHog]

Exactly, a bald head. Trying to recite how you would take the clippers to your head, what direction, etc is work for the insane at this point.

FA hasn't started, the draft hasn't happended, and we have no way in hell to determine how the contracts will be manipulated.

If you want to read Warpath.net and Len Pasquerelli to get your degree in Capology, then go right ahead. Do it all you want.

Hey everybody, let's go walk on to the Redskins this year....they'll have to sign one of us.

Great! Why don't you try giving us some FACTS! At least I am showing you some potential scenarios while you do nothing but talk about skinning cats and shaving heads. I don't want to hear anymore proverbs and cliches because people use those when they don't really know what they're talking about. All I'm saying is that without a CBA there will be many ways we can tackle our cap problem but none of them will be pretty. The result will be huge roster turnover and us having 15 rookies on the team next year or us having to cut some very integral parts of our team no matter how this problem is attacked. As you say, no matter how we shave our cap we will always end up with the same result, we will be bald!

[1niksder]

Please, what else can we do? Tell us, because I'd like to hear it. How can we save more money and not have to sign 15 undrafted rookies to replace the ten guys we are going to have to cut and the ten we can't resign? What is your plan?

You have discussed 22 players (11 cut - 11 restructures)
there are over 50 players under contract. That leaves more Contacts that can help with cap space.

The restructures that were done by scout.com were only for the purpose of showing how the Skins could get under the cap

[The Hogster]

How many ways can you shave your head? Just one? We haven't even had the draft yet. There is no telling how many different scenarios that you can use to manuever salaries, and contracts with varying terms, different ways to allocate money between bonuses and salary.

If you read the CBA and just pay attention you would see that trying to sit here and argue that there is ONE way to skin a cat, you look more and more ridiculous.

I am not saying there is one way. I am saying that by all accounts that's pretty close to a best case scenario. Say we can get another $2 mil from restructuring. Then we have $3 mil to spend on 23 roster spots. That still isn't going to avoid us having to sign 15 rookies to our squad.

Obviously you are going to have to cut somebody dude? Who will it be and how much? Impossible to tell right now.

Will it be Lavar? He is the highest played Redskin on the roster? Will he restructure rather than be cut? Will he refuse to restructure? Do you know?

Will it be another player or combination therein, with some other players from the prior Warpath scenario restructuring their deals? Do we know? Can you predict that at this point?

Okay, let's play further. Will it be Mark Brunell, will it be Chris Samuels, how much there?

Will we execute any trades between now and the NFL draft to acquire more picks whose numbers would be impacted by the Rookie Pool?

How many OTHER TEAMS will have to release players because of the same scenario and at what cost would it be to bring them in .

Hell let's just play with 22 men, put Portis at Kicker and pray no one gets hurt. Yeah, let's make a deal to play all our games a co-ed flag games so we get no injuries. That's pure speculation just like you are doing by marrying yourself to the Warpath's cap guy who is probably some dude who read the CBA once over and runs a pretty good fantasy team.

Relax. You sound frantic.

[hkHog]

How many ways can you shave your head? Just one? We haven't even had the draft yet. There is no telling how many different scenarios that you can use to manuever salaries, and contracts with varying terms, different ways to allocate money between bonuses and salary.

If you read the CBA and just pay attention you would see that trying to sit here and argue that there is ONE way to skin a cat, you look more and more ridiculous.

I am not saying there is one way. I am saying that by all accounts that's pretty close to a best case scenario. Say we can get another $2 mil from restructuring. Then we have $3 mil to spend on 23 roster spots. That still isn't going to avoid us having to sign 15 rookies to our squad.

Obviously you are going to have to cut somebody dude? Who will it be and how much? Impossible to tell right now.

Will it be Lavar? He is the highest played Redskin on the roster? Will he restructure rather than be cut? Will he refuse to restructure? Do you know?

Will it be another player or combination therein, with some other players from the prior Warpath scenario restructuring their deals? Do we know? Can you predict that at this point?

Okay, let's play further. Will it be Mark Brunell, will it be Chris Samuels, how much there?

Will we execute any trades between now and the NFL draft to acquire more picks whose numbers would be impacted by the Rookie Pool?

How many OTHER TEAMS will have to release players because of the same scenario and at what cost would it be to bring them in .

Hell let's just play with 22 men, put Portis at Kicker and pray no one gets hurt. Yeah, let's make a deal to play all our games a co-ed flag games so we get no injuries. That's pure speculation just like you are doing by marrying yourself to the Warpath's cap guy who is probably some dude who read the CBA once over and runs a pretty good fantasy team.

Relax. You sound frantic.

Cutting those guys would give us almost no cap room because they all have a lot of their signing bonuses left on the books. We may actually lose cap space by cutting those guys.

BTW, the rookie's contratcs must still make it under the cap as well. The rookie pool isn't money that is added to each team's cap. I don't think you realize that.

[The Hogster]

What you want me to do is sit down here

1) Assume there's no CBA.
2) Assume we do nothing as far as trades for pertaining to the draft.
3) Assume that ONLY the players mentioned in the scout post will restructure.
4) And then give you a hypothetical scenario of how we can acquire players in your narrow and speculative scenario based on at least 3 assumptions.

Take a step back. Breathe deeply and get your head out of Warpath's back pocket.

That was one post to show how we could get under the cap. That is one scenario that has nothing to do with the extension of the CBA. You are taking that and stretching it into a part of a dire situation where we would be forced to expunge our roster.

In order to give a hypo for how we could operate with a 53 man roster we would need to know more facts i.e. what other players are willing to re-structure, 2) what players will agree to be released and re-signed, 3) how many draft picks we will end up with on draft day 4) how much money it will take to retain our RFA's.

None of that information is available on Warpath, on this site, in your notebook or anywhere outside of Cerrato and Snyder's office.

[1niksder]

Relax. You sound frantic.

It's only Monday give it another 24 hours

[The Hogster]

Prove that they will not re-structure. Prove your assumption when Lavar already said publicly he would be open to doing so.

C'mon Lenny, we're waiting..time's running out. Thursday's a comin.

[The Hogster]

BTW, the rookie's contratcs must still make it under the cap as well. The rookie pool isn't money that is added to each team's cap. I don't think you realize that.

Rookie pool will determine how much we need to do from a re-structuring standpoint to get in a position to sign all of the players...you're a super hero. A genius even.

[hkHog]

Prove that they will not re-structure. Prove your assumption when Lavar already said publicly he would be open to doing so.

C'mon Lenny, we're waiting..time's running out. Thursday's a comin.

The only reason I bring up the Warpath thing is because that assumes THAT ALL OUR BIGGEST CONTRACTS GET RESTRUCTURED. So, assuming they all restructure we're still screwed.

[tcwest10]

Okay. Tell you what. I didn't panic when we were winning 5, 6 games a season. Why would I start now ? Really. Nobody is going to completely purge their roster in this league after a 10-6 season. The Marlins, we're not. We all knew that 2006-2007 was going to be an offseason of tough choices, and...guess what ? We're there. Somehow, I have to believe that we're gonna come out of this pretty okay.
The Redskin fans are probably among the very most active online, and probably among the most responsive to this kind of article. Schefter does what he does the way he does it to get a reaction...to show his editors that he somehow "matters".
He doesn't. His opinion doesn't carry anymore weight than mine does.
My glasses aren't rose-colored. I'm not saying we won't bleed a little. I just believe that we're gonna come out of this no worse than we were. Most of the guys we're likely to lose are guys that weren't really available to play all that much over the last two years.
Look it over, Mezz...and relax. We'll be fine.

[The Hogster]

Thank you. Another voice of reason thats been there before.

Hk please edit your post to say "Im screwed" because WE are alright. The rest of the Redskins fans, and I will be okay. The sky will not fall completely and we will not be forced to start BossHog at Right Guard.

I will not be forced to become our Nickle cornerback, and TC will not our second Wideout threat opposite Moss.

Not that we couldn't get 'er done, but it just won't be necessary.

[1niksder]

Prove that they will not re-structure. Prove your assumption when Lavar already said publicly he would be open to doing so.

C'mon Lenny, we're waiting..time's running out. Thursday's a comin.

The only reason I bring up the Warpath thing is because that assumes THAT ALL OUR BIGGEST CONTRACTS GET RESTRUCTURED. So, assuming they all restructure we're still screwed.

That's a BIG ASSUMPTION.

Daniels base is higher than Samuels',Patten and Griffin's but he wasn't included.

Griffin was included and his base salary is $1M, same as Wynn and Moss but they weren't on the list

Taylor, Boschetti, Molinaro, ey, Rodgers, and Campbell have a total base of a little over $3M.

There is room too free up more space.

BTW we currently have 69 players on the roster, if we cut 11 that leaves 58 any day. None of them are rookies so that rumor should no longer have legs.