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

Brunell Reluctant to Redo Salary Again

By Jason La Canfora
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 1, 2006; Page E02

The Washington Redskins met with representatives for quarterback Mark Brunell over the weekend in an attempt to restructure his salary and create additional space under the salary cap by the NFL deadline on Friday.

Brunell's agent, Leigh Steinberg, rejected the team's proposal, sources said, and although the sides have not negotiated since, the Redskins could make another attempt to rework the contract before Friday.

The Redskins have $115.4 million devoted to their 2006 salary cap, and must get under what is projected to be about a $96 million cap by 12:01 a.m. Friday if there is not an extension of the collective bargaining agreement between the league and the NFL Players Association. Without an extension, the Redskins face as tough a challenge as any team in the league in meeting the cap. With an extension, the cap figure could approach $108 million.

Brunell, who signed a seven-year, $43 million contract, including a guaranteed $8.6 million signing bonus, in 2004, has a $4 million base salary for 2006, second highest on the team. The Redskins had hoped to convert his base salary into bonuses and diminish his cap figure by several million dollars, but Steinberg declined, according to two sources with knowledge of the situation.

Steinberg, who agreed to rework Brunell's contract last year after a poor 2004 season, declined to comment, but sources said he met with Eric Schaffer, Washington's director of football administration, Friday night at the Indianapolis hotel where team executives and agents converged for the NFL combine.

Coach Joe Gibbs would not comment directly on Brunell's situation, or whether the team would approach him again, but said in general the Redskins are considering all means of managing the cap, given the uncertainty of labor negotiations.

"At this time, a lot of teams have a number of scenarios going on and they're talking to a number of their players to find ways to fulfill their obligations with the salary cap," Gibbs said. "But so much is up in the air right now, and we've got all kinds of scenarios going depending on how this thing turns out" with the CBA.

Brunell, who turns 36 in September, and offensive linemen Jon Jansen and Randy Thomas are three of the most obvious candidates for restructuring for cap purposes, but agents for those players said they have made no movement toward altering those contracts as of the start of this week. Thomas is coming off the best season of his career and Jansen played much of the season with broken thumbs.

Gibbs has been Brunell's biggest supporter throughout his roller-coaster tenure here, prizing his leadership and smarts, and has favored experienced passers throughout his Hall of Fame coaching career. Brunell has significant leverage because he would count more against the salary cap if traded or cut than he presently does ($5.43 million), and Washington's quarterback situation certainly also plays in Brunell's favor.

Patrick Ramsey, the only other quarterback on the roster with NFL experience, has been granted permission to seek a trade and is being shopped aggressively after sitting on the bench virtually all of 2005. Gibbs said that, as of yesterday afternoon, there had been no real progress toward a deal, but Miami and the New York Jets are interested, and there is sentiment in the league that a third- or fourth-round pick would satisfy the Redskins.

Jason Campbell, a first-round pick last year, was the third quarterback last season and Gibbs has said he is ready to fill a bigger role this season.

Gibbs said that if the Redskins cannot receive "value" for Ramsey he could still return, but the team agreed it would move the former first-round pick after benching him, sources said, and could use the $1.7 million in cap savings that trading him would provide, particularly if Campbell is ready to at least be the backup.

The Redskins would like to clear sufficient cap space to acquire a wide receiver and a pass-rushing defensive end in free agency, which begins Friday.

A new CBA would make it even more likely Washington could retain free agent safety Ryan Clark, tight end Robert Royal and defensive end Demetric Evans.

gay4pacman wrote:If i was making 5 million dollars??? cmon rich is rich

these guys need to e team players

I'd add Chris Samuels and a few other people to my list also. None of these guys are bad players, they're simply OVERPAYED.

SkinzCanes wrote:

I'd add Chris Samuels and a few other people to my list also. None of these guys are bad players, they're simply OVERPAYED.

Hasn't Samuels reworked his contract atleast twice to help the team get under the cap in previous years?

Jake wrote:

SkinzCanes wrote:

I'd add Chris Samuels and a few other people to my list also. None of these guys are bad players, they're simply OVERPAYED.

Hasn't Samuels reworked his contract atleast twice to help the team get under the cap in previous years?

Yes but that was before he received his new contract last year.

dabear wrote:what would you guys do if your boss asked you to take a pay cut at work today to help out others in your office? would you do it? i don't think so.

riggofan wrote:If you have to take a pay cut to keep your company in business, you do it.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Cut the guy. He won't make it to the playoffs anyway. We'll do just fine with Ramsey and Campbell. We'll take just a 3 million dollar hit and be better off for it. Of the top players we may have to lose because of the new cap problem, he's the obvious one to go. I sure as hell don't want to lose Portis or ey or Washington or Moss or Taylor. We should count ourselves lucky if we just lose Brunell from our first string offense. We're sure to lose almost all of our receivers except, hopefully (Moss).

skinsfan#33 wrote:

riggofan wrote:If you have to take a pay cut to keep your company in business, you do it.

You don't think these guys actually give up any money when they re-do their contracts do you? 95% of the time they end up with the same amount or more; it is just in a more cap friendly format.

If someone gives you 10 $100 bills or a bank draft for $1000 or 100,000 pennys it is all still $1000. This is all just a shell game!

GoSkins wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:Cut the guy. He won't make it to the playoffs anyway. We'll do just fine with Ramsey and Campbell. We'll take just a 3 million dollar hit and be better off for it. Of the top players we may have to lose because of the new cap problem, he's the obvious one to go. I sure as hell don't want to lose Portis or ey or Washington or Moss or Taylor. We should count ourselves lucky if we just lose Brunell from our first string offense. We're sure to lose almost all of our receivers except, hopefully (Moss).

So should I agree with you or Joe Gibbs who states "When you go back and look at his stats, last season was one of the best years he's ever had. He played extremely well for us. Obviously, Mark is at a point where you have to ask: How many more years is he going to be able to do that? We think he has a couple more years for sure, and he would probably say more than that."?

Again, everyone has the right to an opinion and to express that opinion. But, for the life of me, I can't fathom why you think you know more about the QBs than Joe Gibbs.

ATV wrote:They just restructured his contract.....

http://www.redskins.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=6270

I guess he's a Redskin again.

Brunell reacted strongly to a report in The Washington Post that suggested he was reluctant to restructure his contract.

"I have, and always will, try to do what is in the best interest of my team," said Brunell, who agreed on Tuesday to restructuring the terms of his deal. "If I am seen in a negative light for something I have done wrong, so be it. During the course of my career, I have always maintained the team above myself; however I do not like when I am written about in the paper and it is incorrect."