Miguel

Based on this from ProFootballWeeky
http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW...news031207.htm
"It(Washington's contract) also includes a $4 million roster bonus that comes due next March." I have been reporting that Washington is due a $4 million roster bonus in 2008. A roster bonus is not prorated.

This week Mike Reiss reported that the bonus is actually an option bonus. An option bonus is prorated which means that I have been overstating Washington's 2008 cap number by $3 million and understating his 2009/2010/2011 numbers by a million.

This now makes my 2008 numbers really close to what Adamjt13 reported in September. Before, I was off by about $4 million. Now I am off by less than $200,000

__________________
My youngest sister's best friend is on the board of directors of a food pantry in Malden, Massachusetts that distributed 285,000 meals and meal equivalents in 2005. I am asking that if you have found my salary cap pages useful that if you are able to do so, please make a donation to it. Please contact me for more information.

psychoPat

mcbee

Maybe in cap terms, the cash is the same.

You'd have to wonder why they'd pay that kind of money to a guy who is the 5th or 6th WR though. Although he does play special teams.

MoLewisrocks

I still prefer to look at the Washington deal as the Moss down payment as we are now $10.4M under the 2008 cap with 43 players signed and before adjustments for excess ($6M) rolled over and/or cap saving restructures or extensions ($6M-$8M+/-) with more of Randy's extension built in over 4 years than budgeted for 1 more season and we see where we pinch from there... Kinda like his contract base salaries on which to add his protated signing bonus and roster or option bonus language or a little backloaded salary if needbe are already accounted for for 4 years.

Unless Bill sees way more in Washington than we have seen I still don't see any way he's retained on that level of deal. He'd have to projected as a $3M AAV #2 capable of filling in for a #1 as needed, and this year he couldn't edge out Gaffney as the 4th option even with some ST value thrown in.

solman

I hate this way of thinking. An option bonus costs just as much against the cap as a roster bonus. The only difference is WHEN it costs against the cap.

The cost of restructuring salaries to move cap space around is inconsequential in comparison to the cost of carrying a player who isn't worth what he costs.

Bottom Line:

1. Whether it is an option bonus or a roster bonus should have no effect on whether or not we keep Washington.
2. Washington is NOT worth the $12M over for years it would cost to keep him

(He is also not worth $5M/1yr or $7M/2yr)

psychoPat

Now tell me something i don't know.
(You've got a lot to choose from - but that isn't one of 'em.)

I didn't suggest that backloading the cap hit makes KW a lock - or even a value.
I did suggest that it reduces the certainty that he would be released/traded.

Cap hits taken when the cap is larger ... are tantamount to lower cap hits now.
Ask Bill Polian.

solman

I am saying that IF it materially reduces the probability of him being released/traded THEN BB/SP have a significant error in their thought process.

I don't think that BB/SP have such an error. Bill Polian clearly does (witness the Freeney contract).


I also disagree with the notion that cap hits in future years are less negative because the total cap space is larger. At the projected rate of increase, the cap will grow much more slowly than the very substantial risk of injury or diminished performance. Freeney five years from now is worth substantially less than Freeney today because of the enormous risk that he will no longer be the player that he is today.



EDIT: I have reconsidered this. I am conflating two separate issues.

1. Increased cap sizes DO make dollars in future years less important than dollars in future years but
2. Long term contracts with guarantees DO involve a great deal of risk from injuries and diminished performance.

USUALLY the two occur simultaneously and in proportions such that #2 cancels out #1. But this is not necessarily always going to be the case.

Having reconsidered the numbers, I think that the Freeney deal is surprisingly close to being balanced on this count. If he makes it into just the third year of his deal, most of the down side will evaporate, while the up side will remain. (I still think it was a bad deal, but if you win the early gamble (which is likely) it becomes a winner.)

VJCPatriot

I think Washington will get cut before the bonus comes due. With Chad Jackson healthy enough to play #4, I don't see why the Pats would pay 4M to retain Washington, when Stallworth is the better receiver.

__________________

onegameatatime

True on the point about "when," but if the cap is going up by some percent each year, isn't the cost when spread out lower as a percent of the total cap room in future years? And there is more flexibility later?

solman

Of course, if he suffers a serious injury during year one, the Colts are screwed.

Freeney's deal already puts the Colts are already on the hook for $25M in cap hits over the next five seasons.

Most of this was supposed to be earned by Freeney's performance during years 1 and 2.

It may be a while before we know for sure, but the improbable catastrophe hidden in Freeney's contract may have just come to pass.