30% Rule AKA Deion Sanders Rule.. GONE?

[DaBruinz]

Could it be that Washington is able to make all these signings because they restructured a bunch of their players and the limiting factor is no longer in affect? The limiting factor being the 30% rule?

I had seen posts that said it was, indeed, truly gone. If that is the case, then I fully understand, now, how Indy and Washington went from being in Cap Hell to not. But I can't help but wonder if the animosity will build with the players who get cut from Washington every year.

 

[Murphys95]

It's been reported that the Redskins have re-worked the contracts of upwards of 12 of their players before signing the 4 they just did.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

It's been reported that the Redskins have re-worked the contracts of upwards of 12 of their players before signing the 4 they just did.

If they're clever enough to take advantage of the rules, more power to the bastids.

 

[Pats726]

They are certainly doing something..but in the end..they are either good manipulaters of the rules...or all may come flying down. In the end, the cap is the cap...and the money will have to come due at some point. It is that simple.

 

[Murphys95]

They are certainly doing something..but in the end..they are either good manipulaters of the rules...or all may come flying down. In the end, the cap is the cap...and the money will have to come due at some point. It is that simple.

The Redskins are doing something right - they're playing the cap. As long as the cap rises each season, Washington will be fine (we saw the heck they were in when the CBA came down to the wire).

There are pros and cons to what Snyder does. Obviously bringing in big-named talent keeps fan interest at a high - which is good for sales and marketing. On the other hand, when you constantly bring in new talent, you risk team cohesiveness for the sake of talent. It is possible with a guy like Brandon Lloyd grabbing a big contract, that his attitude problems may only worsen - I mean after all, the Skins did pay him some big money.

 

[patchick]

They are certainly doing something..but in the end..they are either good manipulaters of the rules...or all may come flying down. In the end, the cap is the cap...and the money will have to come due at some point. It is that simple.

But as long as the cap keeps going up, future years' dollars aren't as cap-potent as current year's dollars. Which is why spending above the cap can and does work.

All of which leads to my question (apologies if it's already been discussed): isn't there a cash-over-cap limit in the new owners' agreement? Isn't that what the Redskins should be running afoul of?

 

[hwc]

Yes. The 30% rule is gone.

So, here's the deal. If the Redskins sign a free agent with a 10 million bonus, the bonus is prorated over five years. Combine that with a league minimum salary and the first year cap hit is about $2.8 million.

However...it's the later years in all those contracts that puts you a gazillion dollars over the cap. That's why the Redskins cut every free agent they sign after two years, constantly churning the roster and taking dead money hits.

Right now, they have at least $14.5 million in dead money (cap money for players no longer with the team) for 2006. That number will increase as they cut more veterans to free up cap room for draft picks, the 53 man squad, etc. By comparison, the Pats have somewhere around $3 million in dead money. That $11 million is the difference between SuperBowl winning depth and a perpetual crap team.

 

[Miguel]

The 30% rule is not the Deion rule.

The 30% rule does not apply this year since this year is not the last capped year.