Tank?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Julian Peterson: $10 mil (Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/footba...8_hawks21.html)
Steve Hutchinson: $13 mil (Source: http://fantasyhockey.usatoday.com/co...535&line=65627)
Terrell Owens: $10 mil (Source:http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2374189)

Our $35 mil could have gotten us probably 2 big-name free agents, our draft picks and one or two mid-level FAs. Instead, we got 1 big-name free agent and a bunch of good- to mid-level FA's, including Pickett, Kampman, Henderson, Boerigter, Taylor, and Allen. As you are so fond of pointing out, we went 4-12 last year. We're a little more than 2 guys away from the playoffs. That $10.5 mil you think is so bad for Woodson looks like it's pretty much in line with what other FA's are receiving, and these guys, again, have more guaranteed money in the future.

Singing bonus total of the players you mentioned {Peterson, Hutchinson, Owens): 33 mil; say Woodson’s is 10 mil; that makes it 40 mil. A few years ago Daniel Snider handed out almost $100 mil in signing bonuses to a free agent class, the one that included Deion Sanders. Years later, the Redskins’ cap is still in good condition, as is evident by their constant signing of big time players”

Do you know that SB are pro-rated into 5 years?

Yeah, only an inefficient and dull GM could have “gotten us probably 2 big-name free agents.” And that GM is Ted Thompson.

Tank,

THOSE AREN'T THE SIGNING BONUSES, THEY ARE THE 2006 CAP NUMBERS FOR THOSE PLAYERS. They aren't pro-rated. If you checked my sources, you'd find that those are the cap numbers the players cost THIS YEAR due to BASE SALARY, ROSTER BONUSES, and THIS YEAR'S PORTION OF THE PRO-RATED SIGNING BONUS. The Seahawks are going to pay ANOTHER 8.5 mil to Peterson in pro-rated bonuses/guaranteed money, the Vikings another $1.5 mil in future SB/guaranteed money Owens' number of $10 mil is a $5 mil guaranteed SB THIS YEAR along with a $5 mil base salary. He will get another $8 mil and $7 mil in the next two seasons, respectively.

Ok, pardon me for my mistake. I thought they were signing bonus. But if you think the ONLY way for the Packers sign those players is to hand out that much money upfront, then you have no idea how the cap work. The reason those teams are willing to hand out that much money upfront is because they do not have a lot of holes to fill and they have a lot of money. Minnesota, Seattle, Dallas all started the season with more than $20 mil in cap space and they are all playoffs contender. They don’t need to sign 3-4 players; just 1 or two.

But in the Packers’ case, they need more than 2 players. signing the players I mentioned, with $35 mil, can be done through the art of handing out more signing bonuses, instead of roster bonus. SB are pro-rated, roster bonuses are not. Contracts can be creatively and efficiently back loaded; Washington does that all the time; Sherman did that all the time. Is Washington in a cap hell? Is the Pack in a cap hell?

So according to you Washington is estimated to be 2 mil over in 07. However, doesn’t it hit you in the head that the NFL cap will be inflated more in that next year…like $10-20 mil? Again, I have to laugh cos you seem to think the Redskins are in trouble because are now 2 mil over in 07. Washington is efficiently using their cap, getting the most out of the money the have.

[Scott Campbell]

Why would you think the cap is going up $20M next year?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Sherman, on the other hand, spend money like the Redskins does for 3 years. He made the playoffs all those years. The Packers were competitive and they never went 4-12.

Whats better? Winning or losing?

Sure we won, we got in the playoffs, where it was obvious we were outmatched because we were playing in a weak division. If one or two 4-12 years are the price to pay for making it past the Wild-Card round, that's a sacrifice I'm willing to accept.

This year, Thompson have 35 mil, even though Sherman was a big spender. How is that possible. I mean if Sherman mismanaged the cap, we wouldnt have that much money, would we?[/b]

I refer you to the following salary cap websites:

http://redskins.scout.com/3/salary_cap_chart.html

The Redskins are in trouble next year, they're already $2 mil over the current salary cap for 2007, before rookies. They also got REALLY lucky. Before the new CBA was signed, their cap number was $113 mil, $18 mil OVER the $95 mil cap. Once the new CBA was signed, they were able to push back bonuses and restructure contracts to bring them under the cap with some room to spend. They're avoiding cap hell, but barely.

As for "how could we have this much money if Sherman mismanaged the cap?", I refer you to:

http://members.cox.net/cappage/2005cap.htm

http://members.cox.net/cappage/2006cap.htm

Where was our cap money last year? On the 2005 cap site, check under "Players no longer with team":

Johnson, Joe $3,250,004
Reynolds, Jamal $1,300,000
Sharper, Darren $5,266,666
Wahle, Mike $1,125,000

There's $11 mil that we don't have to pay this year. Add in that the cap went up $17 million from $85.5 mil to $102 mil, and we're at $28 mil. Another $2 mil comes from all the minor players who aren't on the team anymore, bringing us up to about $30 mil. The rest comes from changes in the current player's bonuses.

[/quote]

Again, if you think the Redskins “are in trouble next” because “theyre already 2 mil over” then you have no idea how the cap work. Let me put this in a way so you can understand: Cap numbers for 07 increase, say, $10 mil; 10-2 leaves Washington with 8 mil. That is not cap hell; that is not barely avoiding cap hell. That shows efficient cap management, especially for this year.

Dead money is an expense that is part of doing business in the NFL. Every team has dead money to account for. Sherman had to work with the dead money of Freeman and Levens among others, players signed by Wolf.

After accounting for dead money and you still end up with $35 mil and the only marquee free agent you can sign is Woodson, they you are inefficiently managing the cap. You are not getting the most out of the money you have. You are not helping your team, at least playoffs wise.

You fucked up.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Why would you think the cap is going up $20M next year?

Who said it is going to increase exactly $20 mil.?

I based my estimation of 10-20 mil on historcal data and the fact that revenue sharing in the NFL continue to skyrocket.

heres a histocral data for you: In 1998, the cap number was 52,388,000; up 10,938,000 from the 41,4450,000 in 1997.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Read, The Washington WAY:

Salary cap lets teams legally go over the top
By Larry Weisman, USA TODAY
The Washington Redskins set a single-season spending record with a payroll of $118 million for the 2004 season. But how is that possible when the NFL salary cap was $80.5 million a team?
Cap computations include all salaries and applicable bonuses at full value each year, but a signing bonus gets a slightly different treatment that permits what the NFL calls "cash over cap."

Signing bonuses, while often paid immediately, count against the cap in equal portions for each year of a player's contract. A $5 million bonus on a five-year deal is amortized at $1 million a season. That math changes if the player is cut or traded before his contract expires.

Big bonuses usually are tied to lower base salaries in the early stages of a contract to give the club a favorable salary-cap number in what should be the player's most productive years. Example: A player signs a five-year contract worth $10 million and gets that $5 million signing bonus. His annual salaries are $500,000, $1 million, $1.5 million and $2 million. His cap number starts at $1.5M ($1 million of prorated signing bonus plus base). It ends at $3M. The club paid the signing bonus long before it finished accounting for it. Hence, room for cash over cap.

[CyclonePackFan]

Ok, pardon me for my mistake. I thought they were signing bonus. But if you think the ONLY way for the Packers sign those players is to hand out that much money upfront, then you have no idea how the cap work. The reason those teams are willing to hand out that much money upfront is because they do not have a lot of holes to fill and they have a lot of money. Minnesota, Seattle, Dallas all started the season with more than $20 mil in cap space and they are all playoffs contender. They don’t need to sign 3-4 players; just 1 or two.

But in the Packers’ case, they need more than 2 players. signing the players I mentioned, with $35 mil, can be done through the art of handing out more signing bonuses, instead of roster bonus. SB are pro-rated, roster bonuses are not. Contracts can be creatively and efficiently back loaded; Washington does that all the time; Sherman did that all the time. Is Washington in a cap hell? Is the Pack in a cap hell?

So according to you Washington is estimated to be 2 mil over in 07. However, doesn’t it hit you in the head that the NFL cap will be inflated more in that next year…like $10-20 mil? Again, I have to laugh cos you seem to think the Redskins are in trouble because are now 2 mil over in 07. Washington is efficiently using their cap, getting the most out of the money the have.

These are the NFL cap numbers of the past couple of years:

http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/

2001: $67.4 mil
2002: $71.1 mil
2003: $75.01 mil
2004: $80.782 mil
2005: $85.5 mil
2006: $102 mil (due to a new CBA)
2007: (projected) $109 mil

That's a $7 mil increase. They're $2 mil over, and will need $5-6 to pay rookies next year, putting them right near the limit. They're also probably going to pro-rate some of the SB's for this year's rookies into next year. That's not going to enable them to sign many big FA's next year. I'm pretty sure I understand the cap, and I get that SB's can be spread out over years, which is why I meantioned that we still paid Johnson, Reynolds, Sharper, and Wahle a total $11 mil last year, even though they didn't play for us. THAT'S the beauty of paying money in roster bonuses. If say, Peterson gets hurt and is forced to retire, or if he flat out doesn't perform, the Seahawks are going to be paying him the remaining part of his guaranteed $18 mil over the next few years, plus his salary if he's still with the team. If Woodson was paid entirely through roster bonuses and has a career threatening injury this year, we can cut him and pick someone up next year, because we won't have to waste future cap room like we did with Reynolds, Hunt, and Johnson. If Hutchinson gets hurt this year, the Vikings are pretty much screwed because if they pay another lineman more than him, he's guaranteed $50 mil. Sure, we probably could have signed more big-name FA's, but in order to compete with the teams you meantioned, we'd have to guarantee more money than they signed for, setting us up for an even greater fall if they don't turn out right. It's like paying with a credit card. You don't have to pay it off right now, but eventually you have to pony up. Even if we pro-rated their SB's, we'd still probably be paying $7 mil a year, since they demand such high base salaries. Owen's base is $5 mil, Peterson's is somewhere around $6-8 mil.

Given the circumstances we are currently in, however, there is no point to pro-rating Woodson's contract. Who else are we going to spend the $12ish million on? This way, we'll have lots of cap room again next year, and serves as a failsafe because of Woodson's injury history. Doing what Washington is doing is, in theory, a great way to manage the cap. However, in theory, communism works. Washington's method is also what most of the teams in the NFL do, and they still have to make cap cuts. Case of the failure in action: Steve McNair. Every year he's restructured his contract to keep Tennessee under the cap, which is one of the ways Washington is staying under. As a result, McNair has a $24 million cap number, which, for refrence, is twice of Brett Favre's. Using pro-rated SB's works as long as nobody you sign is a bust and as long as nobody gets injured. Eventually, the 'Skins will get bitten.

[CyclonePackFan]

Why would you think the cap is going up $20M next year?

Who said it is going to increase exactly $20 mil.?

I based my estimation of 10-20 mil on historcal data and the fact that revenue sharing in the NFL continue to skyrocket.

heres a histocral data for you: In 1998, the cap number was 52,388,000; up 10,938,000 from the 41,4450,000 in 1997.

Historical data? You based a statistic off of an outlier data point that's eight years old. The cap has increased, on average, about $5 million a year from 2001-2005, with the skyrocketing revenue shares.

Year Cap Limit Increase
2005 $86,000,000 $5,418,000
2004 $80,582,000 $5,575,000
2003 $75,007,000 $3,907,000
2002 $71,100,000 $3,700,000
2001 $67,400,000 $5,228,000
2000 $62,172,000 $3,819,000
1999 $58,353,000 $5,965,000
1998 $52,388,000 $10,938,000
1997 $41,450,000 $673,000
1996 $40,777,000 $3,677,000
1995 $37,100,000 $2,500,000
1994 $34,600,000

Average increase: $4,672,727

Saying that the cap will increase $10 mil because of the 97-98 increase is no different than me saying the cap will increase $675,000 because of the 96-67 increase. Improper statistics can be used to prove any point if you abuse it properly. Hell, I can statistically prove that global warming is due to a decreasing number of pirates:



(Courtesy the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, http://www.venganza.org/)

You cannot base an assumption off of an outling data point, it makes no statistical sense. From a historical standpoint, the cap should increase by about $5 mil next year, which is predicted to be beaten by $2 mil for a $7 mil increase.

[Scott Campbell]

Why would you think the cap is going up $20M next year?

Who said it is going to increase exactly $20 mil.?

I based my estimation of 10-20 mil on historcal data and the fact that revenue sharing in the NFL continue to skyrocket.

heres a histocral data for you: In 1998, the cap number was 52,388,000; up 10,938,000 from the 41,4450,000 in 1997.

Did there happen to be a new CBA in place that year with increased revenue sharing percentages?

[RashanGary]

Year Cap Limit Increase in Dollars Increase in %
2005 $86,000,000 $5,418,000 6.7%
2004 $80,582,000 $5,575,000 7.4%
2003 $75,007,000 $3,907,000 5.2%
2002 $71,100,000 $3,700,000 5.2%
2001 $67,400,000 $5,228,000 8.4%
2000 $62,172,000 $3,819,000 6.5%
1999 $58,353,000 $5,965,000 11.3%Year following CBA
1998 $52,388,000 $10,938,000 26.3% New CBA
1997 $41,450,000 $673,000
1996 $40,777,000 $3,677,000
1995 $37,100,000 $2,500,000
1994 $34,600,000

Average increase: $4,672,727

Things have changed since the new CBA. It is going to be impossible to predict because we don't know how the new incorporated numbers are going to fluctuate. I think this new increas is probably going to be close to the 11% increase that occured after the last CBA. I'm guessing it will go up 8% or so. Probably 8 or 9 mil increase if I had to project it.
I believe you are correct SC

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Ok, pardon me for my mistake. I thought they were signing bonus. But if you think the ONLY way for the Packers sign those players is to hand out that much money upfront, then you have no idea how the cap work. The reason those teams are willing to hand out that much money upfront is because they do not have a lot of holes to fill and they have a lot of money. Minnesota, Seattle, Dallas all started the season with more than $20 mil in cap space and they are all playoffs contender. They don’t need to sign 3-4 players; just 1 or two.

But in the Packers’ case, they need more than 2 players. signing the players I mentioned, with $35 mil, can be done through the art of handing out more signing bonuses, instead of roster bonus. SB are pro-rated, roster bonuses are not. Contracts can be creatively and efficiently back loaded; Washington does that all the time; Sherman did that all the time. Is Washington in a cap hell? Is the Pack in a cap hell?

So according to you Washington is estimated to be 2 mil over in 07. However, doesn’t it hit you in the head that the NFL cap will be inflated more in that next year…like $10-20 mil? Again, I have to laugh cos you seem to think the Redskins are in trouble because are now 2 mil over in 07. Washington is efficiently using their cap, getting the most out of the money the have.

These are the NFL cap numbers of the past couple of years:

http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/

2001: $67.4 mil
2002: $71.1 mil
2003: $75.01 mil
2004: $80.782 mil
2005: $85.5 mil
2006: $102 mil (due to a new CBA)
2007: (projected) $109 mil

That's a $7 mil increase. They're $2 mil over, and will need $5-6 to pay rookies next year, putting them right near the limit. They're also probably going to pro-rate some of the SB's for this year's rookies into next year. That's not going to enable them to sign many big FA's next year. I'm pretty sure I understand the cap, and I get that SB's can be spread out over years, which is why I meantioned that we still paid Johnson, Reynolds, Sharper, and Wahle a total $11 mil last year, even though they didn't play for us. THAT'S the beauty of paying money in bonuses. If say, Peterson gets hurt and is forced to retire, or if he flat out doesn't perform, the Seahawks are going to be paying him the remaining part of his guaranteed $18 mil over the next few years, plus his salary if he's still with the team. If Woodson was paid entirely through roster bonuses and has a career threatening injury this year, we can cut him and pick someone up next year, because we won't have to waste future cap room like we did with Reynolds, Hunt, and Johnson. If Hutchinson gets hurt this year, the Vikings are pretty much screwed because if they pay another lineman more than him, he's guaranteed $50 mil. Sure, we probably could have signed more big-name FA's, but in order to compete with the teams you meantioned, we'd have to guarantee more money than they signed for, setting us up for an even greater fall if they don't turn out right. It's like paying with a credit card. You don't have to pay it off right now, but eventually you have to pony up. Even if we pro-rated their SB's, we'd still probably be paying $7 mil a year, since they demand such high base salaries. Owen's base is $5 mil, Peterson's is somewhere around $6-8 mil.

Given the circumstances we are currently in, however, there is no point to pro-rating Woodson's contract. Who else are we going to spend the $12ish million on? This way, we'll have lots of cap room again next year, and serves as a failsafe because of Woodson's injury history.

And what if Peterson, Owens and Hutchinson turn out to be instrumental in their respective team's quest for the SB? What if the players play out their contracts without getting hurt? The chances of a player getting hurt are equal to the chances of him NOT getting hurt; 50/50.

The ultimate goal of every team is to win the Super Bowl. You have to take a risk if you want a reward.

You can’t argue that the Vikings, Seahawks, and Cowboys are inferior to the Packers. All 3 of those teams are playoffs contenders.
.
As for Washington, if your estimate is correct, then they can always restructure more contracts for more cap room. In fact, the Redskins have been doing just that since Snyder too over.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Things have changed since the new CBA. It is going to be impossible to predict because we don't know how the new incorporated numbers are going to fluctuate. I think this new increas is probably going to be close to the 11% increase that occured after the last CBA. I'm guessing it will go up 8% or so. Probably 8 or 9 mil increase if I had to project it.
I believe you are correct SC

What collins wrote.

Oh crap, collins just edited it: to I believe you are correct campbell, from agreeing with me on the 10-20% increase.

[Scott Campbell]

Oh crap, collins just edited it: to I believe you are correct campbell, from agreeing with me on the 10-20% increase.

I think the lesson to be learned here is go with what you know. Thompson's cheap. Thompson's gay. Thompson's a polar bear. Thompson's the mother of all screw ups. Be yourself. You know the drill. It got you your own thread.

Leave the math stuff to Patler.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

[quote="Scott Campbell"]

Leave the math stuff to Patler.

Is this the same Patler who said it was impossible to resign Wahle because Thompson only have $7.5 mil?

Oh yeah, leave the math to patler.

[Scott Campbell]

[quote="Anti-Polar Bear"]

Leave the math stuff to Patler.

Is this the same Patler who said it was impossible to resign Wahle because Thompson only have $7.5 mil?

Oh yeah, leave the math to patler.

You'll have to show me the quote. I've never known Patler to get that boxed in by his own comments.

[CyclonePackFan]

And what if Peterson, Owens and Hutchinson turn out to be instrumental in their respective team's quest for the SB? What if the players play out their contracts without getting hurt? The chances of a player getting hurt are equal to the chances of him NOT getting hurt; 50/50.

The ultimate goal of every team is to win the Super Bowl. You have to take a risk if you want a reward.

You can’t argue that the Vikings, Seahawks, and Cowboys are inferior to the Packers. All 3 of those teams are playoffs contenders.
.
As for Washington, if your estimate is correct, then they can always restructure more contracts for more cap room. In fact, the Redskins have been doing just that since Snyder too over.

I don't recall ever saying that the Vikings, Seahawks, and Cowboys are inferior to the Packers. I merely stated a potential outcome if their signing gets injured, and if the odds really are 50/50, since I haven't heard too many cases of players for those three teams being critcally injured in the past few years, they're due for a bust. While you twist my words to imply that these teams are inferior to Green Bay, I'd argue that the Vikings are the best team in the NFL at managing the cap, because they use the player's high opinion of himself. Most of their big-time contracts are loaded with performance bonuses which the players think they can attain, but are fairly lofty goals. Then, when the player fails, the Vikes get a ton of cap room. With the Skins, again, they'll eventually run into a Steve McNair problem where they owe someone over $20 mil.

You say the ultimate goal is to win the Super Bowl. I agree. However, I'm looking at it and seeing the teams like Minnesota and Washington paying big bucks every year, yet teams like the Patriots rarely make any huge FA signings, yet are winning Super Bowls.