HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Washington Capitals
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012 Redskins Screw Up The Offseason Thread (+QB, -1st Rounders, -$36 Million!)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-12-2012, 04:18 PM
  #326
Capitlols
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 11,620
vCash: 500
ProFootballTalk ‏ @ProFootballTalk
League warned teams about not dumping salary into uncapped year "at least six times"

Capitlols is offline  
Old
03-12-2012, 04:19 PM
  #327
WetHog
Out to Lunch
 
WetHog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Country: Poland
Posts: 10,688
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to WetHog
Wow what a huge cluster ****. How does the old saying go? If something appears to good to be true, it usually is. No way to spin this, this is bad. And from what the radio says Dead spin is reporting that the Crackboys and Skins were warned multiple times about this situation.

Also, the players involved in this fiasco are Haynesworth (21 million bonus in the un-capped year) and Hall (15 million in the un-capped year). Two gems of the franchise.

George Allen's son sure did **** up something fierce.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EYEuhFRAYtee View Post
I swear this franchise is cursed.
It is. I"ve been saying for years, John Kent Cooke put a Bermuda voodoo curse on this team when he couldn't get the loot together to buy the team.

WetHog is offline  
Old
03-12-2012, 04:25 PM
  #328
CapsWolverinesUSA
Registered User
 
CapsWolverinesUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capitlols View Post
ProFootballTalk ‏ @ProFootballTalk
League warned teams about not dumping salary into uncapped year "at least six times"
I don't see why this matters at all. What did they "warn" them about? There was no rule. Something is either legal or it isn't. If it was legal in 2010, it is grossly unjust to retroactively make it illegal later.

It's a basic principle of law that a person can not be liable for conduct he/she committed before a law was passed that rendered the conduct illegal. There's a fancy legal term for it: "ex post facto". It's in the damn Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 3).

CapsWolverinesUSA is offline  
Old
03-12-2012, 04:31 PM
  #329
WetHog
Out to Lunch
 
WetHog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Country: Poland
Posts: 10,688
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to WetHog
Quote:
Originally Posted by CapsWolverinesUSA View Post
I don't see why this matters at all. What did they "warn" them about? There was no rule. Something is either legal or it isn't. If it was legal in 2010, it is grossly unjust to retroactively make it illegal later.

It's a basic principle of law that a person can not be liable for conduct he/she committed before a law was passed that rendered the conduct illegal. There's a fancy legal term for it: "ex post facto". It's in the damn Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 3).
Sounds good, but the Skins have the NFL and 30 other owners to convince. No getting out of this it seems.

WetHog is offline  
Old
03-12-2012, 04:31 PM
  #330
Capitlols
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 11,620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CapsWolverinesUSA View Post
I don't see why this matters at all. What did they "warn" them about? There was no rule. Something is either legal or it isn't. If it was legal in 2010, it is grossly unjust to retroactively make it illegal later.

It's a basic principle of law that a person can not be liable for conduct he/she committed before a law was passed that rendered the conduct illegal. There's a fancy legal term for it: "ex post facto". It's in the damn Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 3).
Agreed, but its hard to believe this ruling will get overturned.

Albert Haynesworth, the gift that keeps on giving.

Capitlols is offline  
Old
03-12-2012, 04:36 PM
  #331
Cush
-inator
 
Cush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Northern Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 10,254
vCash: 500
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post...nished-but-why

Quote:
What'd they do wrong? Well, they apparently violated no actual rule but rather a behind-the-scenes guideline designed to keep the uncapped year from truly being uncapped.

While the 2010 season was an uncapped year, the NFL told teams not to use that as a means of eating up portions of long-term contracts in order to reduce cap room in future years. The Redskins and Cowboys and, to a lesser extent, the Raiders and Saints, were found to have done just this. As a result, not only do they lose this money, but every NFL team other than Oakland and New Orleans gets an additional $1.6 million in cap room. (The Saints and Raiders aren't docked any cap room, they just don't get to share in what the Redskins and Cowboys have to give back.)

This seems a pretty ridiculous thing for the league to do. Either the year is uncapped or it's not. To tell teams, "Yeah, it's uncapped, but don't spend too much this year just because of that, or we'll fine you for it down the road" feels a little bit like collusion to me. But this is the NFL, which does what it wants and makes up the rules as it goes along.

Cush is offline  
Old
03-12-2012, 04:39 PM
  #332
Capitlols
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 11,620
vCash: 500
Redskins and Cowboys fans unite!

Capitlols is offline  
Old
03-12-2012, 04:45 PM
  #333
Capitlols
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 11,620
vCash: 500
John Clayton ‏ @ClaytonESPN
Even if the Redskins take $18 million off their cap for 2010 salary cap moves, the Redskins will still have more than $18 million left.

Cowboys are in worse shape. Again this would be a good year to integrate cheap draft picks.

Capitlols is offline  
Old
03-12-2012, 04:47 PM
  #334
CapsWolverinesUSA
Registered User
 
CapsWolverinesUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,141
vCash: 500
Here's another question: Why are we being punished for 100% of the bonuses we paid to DHall and Fat Albert? Were Washington and Dallas literally the only two teams that did anything to take advantage of the uncapped year? If paying out ALL of their contract bonus was "going too far", would we have been punished if we paid half? Did other teams defray some portion of player bonuses? If so, shouldn't our punishment only be some portion of the re-structuring?

I doubt we'll get an answer for this.

CapsWolverinesUSA is offline  
Old
03-12-2012, 04:51 PM
  #335
CapsWolverinesUSA
Registered User
 
CapsWolverinesUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,141
vCash: 500
Fun with google. From a 2010 Pro Football Talk article answering FAQ's about about the uncapped season:

Quote:
Q. Can contracts be dumped in 2010 with no salary cap consequences?

Yes. In past years, teams had to weigh the decision to cut a player against the acceleration of bonus money applicable to future years. In some cases, it cost more under the cap to get rid of a player than it did to keep him.

In 2010, bad contracts can be wiped off the books with no ramifications, since there will be no salary cap and thus no acceleration of bonus money.

There’s one caveat. A new agreement could, in theory, reallocate to 2011 and beyond bonus money that was avoided by contracts terminated or traded in 2010. Whether and to what extent this occurs depends on the terms of the new CBA. Still, it seems unlikely that the new deal would reach back to 2010 and impose cap charges against teams that took advantage of the absence of a cap to clean the slate.

Q. Can contracts be negotiated with the bulk of the money being paid in 2010?

Again, the rules determined by the league and the union in the future will control this issue. A large signing bonus paid in 2010 easily could be spread over the life of the deal, resulting in additional cap charges in 2011 and beyond.

One possible approach entails paying the bulk of the money as a roster bonus or base salary in 2010. The problem with this concept, however, is that once a player has pocketed the full amount of money earned in 2010, he might be inclined to want more money in the out years, forgetting about the money he already has been paid. Alternatively, he could be more apt to retire.

So while there are ways to engineer a contract in order to maximize the cap charge in 2010, the year with no cap, a team needs to have high level of trust that a player who would be getting most of his money in the first year of the deal will still show up and play — and not ask for more money — in 2011 and beyond.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...uncapped-year/

CapsWolverinesUSA is offline  
Old
03-12-2012, 04:51 PM
  #336
Jedgi
Registered User
 
Jedgi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 977
vCash: 500
Collusion! Sue!

Jedgi is offline  
Old
03-12-2012, 04:56 PM
  #337
Francesa
Moderator
 
Francesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 197,703
vCash: 500
If the Redskins in fact did violate this rule which was "allegedly" told to them 6 times, why did the NFL wait so long to penalize? The timing of this is pretty bad, especially with what is supposed to go down tomorrow.

Francesa is offline  
Old
03-12-2012, 04:57 PM
  #338
Cush
-inator
 
Cush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Northern Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 10,254
vCash: 500
http://twitter.com/#!/Rich_Campbell/...06940722188288

Quote:
It sounds to me like the owners strong-armed the union into agreeing to the penalties against WAS/DAL. Wild stuff.
People are also saying that Green Bay & Chicago are guilty as well, but no punishments for them

Cush is offline  
Old
03-12-2012, 05:01 PM
  #339
mrwarden
Nothing Witty
 
mrwarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 8,983
vCash: 500
The union won't care. Sounds like 28 teams are getting additional cap space. It's a net even for them.

__________________
mrwarden is in ur threads, deleting ur posts
mrwarden is offline  
Old
03-12-2012, 05:06 PM
  #340
CapsWolverinesUSA
Registered User
 
CapsWolverinesUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrwarden View Post
The union won't care. Sounds like 28 teams are getting additional cap space. It's a net even for them.
Probably right (though many teams don't spend to the cap while Washington and Dallas usually do). The league's decision to redistribute the cap space is interesting. This penalty appears to be nothing more or less than a simple middle finger from 28 owners directed at Jones and Snyder. And for all this trouble we got a 6-10 record in 2010 and a 5-11 record last year. Jesus.

CapsWolverinesUSA is offline  
Old
03-12-2012, 05:07 PM
  #341
CapsWolverinesUSA
Registered User
 
CapsWolverinesUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ixcuincle View Post
If the Redskins in fact did violate this rule which was "allegedly" told to them 6 times, why did the NFL wait so long to penalize? The timing of this is pretty bad, especially with what is supposed to go down tomorrow.
Let's be clear. There is no rule. They violated a gentelmen's agreement amongst the owners.

CapsWolverinesUSA is offline  
Old
03-12-2012, 05:14 PM
  #342
RandyHolt
Capitals Station
 
RandyHolt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: Poland
Posts: 25,131
vCash: 1520
I always say the NFL cap is BS easily circumvented - that even the most hardcore skins fan dont even know the cap - compared to hockey fans at least. This will be the true test.

It does reek as odd timing. I think Dallas started the cash laden teams trend in beating the cap. One way or another, this has been going on for some time. We just followed the Dallas lead.

Watch RG3 say he won't report if we draft him.

RandyHolt is offline  
Old
03-12-2012, 05:22 PM
  #343
CapsWolverinesUSA
Registered User
 
CapsWolverinesUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,141
vCash: 500
From Sports Illustrated's NFL writer Chris Burke:

Quote:
@ChrisBurke_SI
The Redskins and Cowboys essentially lost a slap bet with the NFL. That's about how official this "rule" was that they broke.

CapsWolverinesUSA is offline  
Old
03-12-2012, 05:33 PM
  #344
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
FAT SLOB
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 44,877
vCash: 500
What the fat greasy hell is this nonsense!?

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
03-12-2012, 05:50 PM
  #345
WetHog
Out to Lunch
 
WetHog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Country: Poland
Posts: 10,688
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to WetHog
I just read that the Crackboys and the Skins don't have to eat their penalties this year. They can split it over two years. A small ray of sunshine. 18 million in cap space is something to work with.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider

Still they need to fight this plain and simple. This is bull****.

WetHog is offline  
Old
03-12-2012, 05:56 PM
  #346
capsfn95
Registered User
 
capsfn95's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 405
vCash: 500
anybody know of an nfl version of capgeek?

capsfn95 is offline  
Old
03-12-2012, 06:07 PM
  #347
WetHog
Out to Lunch
 
WetHog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Country: Poland
Posts: 10,688
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to WetHog
J.I. Halsell just said on CSN that the Skins will probably take 6 million of the fine this year, leaving them with 24 million in space, and then take 30 million next year. Halsell reasons the Skins will take the penalty next year because the Cap should be higher and they hope to have around 15million in cap space to sign FA's next year after factoring in the 30 million fine and the cap going up.

WetHog is offline  
Old
03-12-2012, 06:10 PM
  #348
strungout
Professional Killer
 
strungout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 29,570
vCash: 500
Still funny hours later. Hahahaha!

strungout is offline  
Old
03-12-2012, 06:13 PM
  #349
Ridley Simon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by strungout View Post
Still funny hours later. Hahahaha!
Save it

Ridley Simon is online now  
Old
03-12-2012, 06:27 PM
  #350
CapitalsCupFantasy
HFBoards Sponsor
 
CapitalsCupFantasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 28,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ixcuincle View Post
Griffin needs tools now. He'll be impaired with the current roster and OL the Skins have.

Spend it now, and eat it later.
Someone gets it at least....

CapitalsCupFantasy is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:35 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.