Cowboys talking trash

Brandon777 · Post by **Brandon777** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 9:47 pm

http://www.dallascowboys.com/spagnola.c ... 2B660CF5C4 Check this out.

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 11:27 pm

Well, sadly...he's pretty much on target. He could've said the same exact thing in friendlier words, and you might've agreed to it all.
The only problem he has is that Dallas is getting nothing done, and appears to be resting on last season. Meshawn is gonna cost them more than Galloway now, and so there's nothing else to do but look at Washington, a nice distraction year in and year out. Pay it no mind. Consider it envious raving.

welch · Post by **welch** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 1:06 am

(a) Adding Keyshawn is a loss for whoever signs him. What would a Jets fan say? Who was a winner: "throw me the damn ball" Keyshawn, or "mascot" Chrebet?

(b) Who knows where the salary cap will fall. I just look at who's coming to the Redskins, and I see a Joe Gibbs team building up. Yes, Spurrier was an idiot to throw away Steven Davis...no place in the offense, my foot. We can't do-over the blunders of the first Snyder years, but we have not seen them add:

- Neon Deion

- Jeff George (and throw away Brad Johnson)

- Two (not one, but two!) career NFL third-string QB's from U Florida ("because they know the offense")

etc.

DEHog · Post by **DEHog** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 8:08 am

Not sure how much "trash" was in the aticle. 2006 is going to be interesting to say the least. I think Snyder is banking on a much higher cap. Look at it this way, he has nothing to lose. If he's right he a genius, if he wrong then they'll just continue blasting him like they do every year!

cjpck44 · Post by **cjpck44** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 8:16 am

I know that we'll probably end up in cap hell, but the way Snyder is doing it I can almost believe he's figured out a way around it.

Sign guys to big bonuses for long term contracts, than cut him the first year that number gets to be too big to free up cap room. Or, if they want to keep him around, extend his contract another 4 or five years and convert all his big yearly salary to a large signing bonus and it's done all over again. That keeps them at the minimum salary.

It's a dream, but wouldn't it be great if Dan Snyder found a way to buy players every year and not get penalized. Wouldn't that be great. Wouldn't that be great...

DEHog · Post by **DEHog** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 8:24 am

You can cut them all but then you have to deal with the dead cap money when the SB come do. That's what all the writers are talking about. I see Syner structures the SB, I'm just not sure how that works??

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 9:50 am

Ask Gambit next time he pops up. He's taken all those classes.
You can also ask BH. He was the Prof in those classes.

skinsfaninroanoke · Post by **skinsfaninroanoke** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:57 am

The signing bonus is the only money guaranteed. It is spread out over the length of the contract. If someone gets a 5 mil bonus on a 5 year contract... it only hits a mil a year.

If the player is released after 3 years we have 2 mil in dead money, unless they are released after June 1st, in which case it is a mil each year.

If they restructure the contract, the team essentially pays the player less each year after the restructure, but makes up for it with a large signing bonus, which again, is spread over the length of the contract.

I know that if players are cut, we get hit with the bonus money - Boss, do we get hit if Brunell RETIRES in say 4 years?

cjpck44 · Post by **cjpck44** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 12:17 pm

I'm not too sure how it works either. But let's take Stephen Davis. Two years ago he got cut because his contract for that year was 12 mil. Since we cut him before we had to pay him that 12 mil we didn't owe him it and therefore I think it wasn't "dead money". Just what we owed him on his signing bonus.

So if we had renegotiated with Stephen, gave him 12 mil that year in a roster bonus, extended his contract two more years and backloaded it and just kept doing it it might work.

At some point the player is going to have to retire or quit playing, but if we prepare for that with a smaller bonus it might work out.

Now that I look at this I know I'm wrong, but a man can still dream. I mean, I still pay my social security too.

RedskinsRule56 · Post by **RedskinsRule56** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 1:24 pm

If Mark Brunell does retire in 4 years or whenever he retires we got all the money back! Look at Bruce Smith for example did not retire and we saved 6 mil instead of 8 something. I think there is only a minimal cap hit of dead money when he retires! Lets Just hope Players like Brunell dont get greedy like Bruce and retire when they should! Hail to the Redskins!

fezzik · Post by **fezzik** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 5:02 pm

Okay I think all the articles that I have read about Snyder and the salary cap are missing some key points. They expect that the cap will only move up in small incriments for the next few years. This year the cap increased by roughly 5 million dollars. Who is to say that number does not increase like that again and with the TV deal coming up for renewal you know that it will have at least one more jump.

Who knows? Maybe Snyder has allocated an portion of his salary cap room for dead money and so will never be hurt by it as much as other teams have been. Either way this article was pretty good towards the Skins compared to others I have read.

For a good laugh you should check out this story about Snyder and the cap.

Searching for the salary cap

cjpck44 · Post by **cjpck44** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 5:37 pm

Hey there's new tv deal in the works either after new year or the year after. With that deal the revenue should go up, the cap with it.

I hear that that's when the league might move to 18 games and take two games off of preseason, and add one game to each conference in the playoffs. That will be the "carrot" to induce the networks to pay more money. More football games =- more money.

That's why even though some people are griping the current playoff system needs another team or two since now 32 teams play instead of the 26 or 28 teams twenty years ago the owners are waiting until the current contract is up.

skins#1fan · Post by **skins#1fan** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 6:36 pm

the cowboys are just scared......I mean even if we didnt sign all the nice players its scarry enough to know that the best football coach ever is coaching there biggest rival.....

gibbsfan · Post by **gibbsfan** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 8:50 pm

skins#1fan wrote:the cowboys are just scared......I mean even if we didnt sign all the nice players its scarry enough to know that the best football coach ever is coaching there biggest rival.....

yep i feel like joe gibbs has the league somewhat stirred up a little right now. best ever coach to coach against their bigtime rivals. it,s going to be fun.

BossHog · Post by **BossHog** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 9:14 pm

Whoa... I'll try address some questions and some misconceptions:

I know that if players are cut, we get hit with the bonus money - Boss, do we get hit if Brunell RETIRES in say 4 years?

Teams can seek cap retribution if a player retires a la Barry Sanders rule, but I don't believe it's a foregone conclusion. The signing bonus is IDEALLY the players money the second he signs the contract REGARDLESS of it being spread out over the cap. So it's by no means a foregone conclusion and to be honest with you, there may even be provisions for that exact item placed into the contract... I am not privy to that kind of info unfortunately.

But think of it this way... if Brunell thought he was going to lose some of that bonus if he retired, and only wanted to play 4 years, do you think he'd agree to the backloaded 7 year contract? Probably not... now if the team says, 'We won't try recoup any cap if you retire after 4 years'... then obviously he would. it works in some cases like Barry's where he signed a long term contract and played almost none of it before he retired. The Lions argued that he signed a contract that he had no intention of honoring... in the Redskins case... they're the ones who have no intention of honoring the length of the contract... so i would imagine it could change things slightly. If I were Brunell's agent, I'd insist that a provision to NOT try get the signing bonus back was put into the contract, wouldn't you?

I'm not too sure how it works either. But let's take Stephen Davis. Two years ago he got cut because his contract for that year was 12 mil. Since we cut him before we had to pay him that 12 mil we didn't owe him it and therefore I think it wasn't "dead money". Just what we owed him on his signing bonus.

Absolutely not true.

Dead money is ALL signing bonus money. No other money is guaranteed, and disappears as soon as the player does... but the pro-rated value of what's left of the signing bonus is all still put against the cap in the form of 'dead cap money'.

Stephen Davis cost the Redskins cap over 6,000,000 in 2003... more than we pay Portis a year... so it CAN definitely bite you in the butt when you have to cut a player with a long time left in their contract and a lot of bonus money not applied to the cap yet. The Redskins had $12,500,000 in dead money in 2003... 1/2 of it for Davis.

If Mark Brunell does retire in 4 years or whenever he retires we got all the money back! Look at Bruce Smith for example did not retire and we saved 6 mil instead of 8 something. I think there is only a minimal cap hit of dead money when he retires!

Untrue... see above. We only saved 6.5 million by cutting Bruce... true... we MIGHT have saved another 2+ M if he'd retired and we'd applied for a cap credit and been granted it... but since Bruce knew that... he didn't retire... so why would anyone else when all they have to do is wait and the team will be forced to cut them and make the cap $$$ available -- just like in Bruce's case. Also, if the Redskins had been able to wait until June 1st instead of cutting him right away, then that 2+M bonus money that hits the cap would have only been 1.1M. if it helps you at all... we saved 6,5 mil on Bruce's release.. but he's still costing us 2.35 million this year... exactly what was left of his signing bonus that hadn't been applied to the cap yet. It's just that he WOULD have cost 8.85M so we save 6.5 M off of the cap number.

SkiNoVA · Post by **SkiNoVA** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 9:21 pm

so.. did bruce try to have that same intent last year.. he was speculative of retiring but doin the same thing he was doing this year.. we shoulda cut him then but the media made him out to be our god of the pass rush

BossHog · Post by **BossHog** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 9:23 pm

We wouldn't have cut him last year I don't think, then it would have been 4 million in dead money, not 2... 4 million+ to not play.

gibbsfan · Post by **gibbsfan** » Sun Mar 07, 2004 9:41 pm

so the best thing to do is what you mentioned earlier by saying they should wait til june 1st and then they would save extra $$$$$ in the long run.this stuff can be real confusing if you let it but i guess thats why we all call you and rich for this right.

skinsfaninroanoke · Post by **skinsfaninroanoke** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 12:52 am

we live but to serve

seriously - once you learn it - it isn't so bad, but there are some rules that can be confusing at first.

Boss has a beautiful breakdown on this in Football 101 in an example about Bruce's contract

http://www.thehogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2183

BossHog · Post by **BossHog** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:33 am

... I'll do another detailed breakdown on Portis' contract when we have some extra free time and free agency has settled a little.

... the cap is a little complicated, but a lot of it is dressed up in a lot of legalese to make it confusing... a lot of the basics are prety straight-forward.

gibbsfan · Post by **gibbsfan** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 10:27 am

thanks rich and BH. i will be lookin forward to that breakdown .

redskincity · Post by **redskincity** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 4:11 pm

FTC's :twisted:

Brandon777 · Post by **Brandon777** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 4:15 pm

DEHog wrote:Not sure how much "trash" was in the aticle. 2006 is going to be interesting to say the least. I think Snyder is banking on a much higher cap. Look at it this way, he has nothing to lose. If he's right he a genius, if he wrong then they'll just continue blasting him like they do every year!

I guess I said "trash" in regards to this prick who wrote the article being a smart a$$. He did bring up interesting points, but did it in a sarcastic, smack talking way. To me, I don't think that Gibbs and Snyder will do anything to destroy the Skins cap wise in 2006. There has to be something they know in regards to the cap in 2006 that is making the player signings today logical. It doesn't make any sense to do something that seems great this year that will totally cause cap hell in two years. I know that a lot of articles are saying that is the case, but all those articles are written by writers who obviously hate the redskins. I would like to read an article by someone who isn't bias that will explain exactly what the skins are thinking in regards to the cap.

gibbsfan · Post by **gibbsfan** » Mon Mar 08, 2004 4:47 pm

risk or reward or both! they need to have both. i,m sure the new tv deal will factor in somewhat towards the cap increase by 2006.where theres a will theres a way.i,m hoping for good things to happen even by the time 2006 arrives but for now it,s ok.