Cowboys and Redskins lose cap space after uncapped year

The Cowboys and Redskins have a little less cap space than they thought

3/12/12 in NFL   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

The NFL is cracking down on the Redskins and Cowboys for shady deals that they tried to pull off during the uncapped 2010 season, according to ESPN's Adam Schefter. Apparently those teams front loaded some salaries to pay out as much as possible when there wasn't a cap, softening the blow for later years when the cap was back in place.

The Cowboys will lose $10M worth of cap space, and the Redskins will lose $36M. Schefter says that they'll be able to split it over this year and next, but it will be a tough hit for them.

It appears that the Redskins took advantage of the uncapped year to absorb a lot of the money from Albert Haynesworth and DeAngelo Hall, a couple players whom they had signed to rather exorbitant contracts a few years ago.

Unfortunately for the 'Skins and 'Boys, they won't get the "get out of jail free" card that they were looking for. the NFL caught them in the act, and they're getting payback now.

This might help explain the Redskins' all-out blitz to trade up to the 2nd overall pick to get Robert Griffin III. Now that they don't have the cap space to go after Peyton Manning, they have to resort to the draft, which is cheaper than it was previous to the new collective bargaining agreement.

The cap space taken from the Cowboys and Redskins will be spread out over the rest of the teams, so each team (except the Raiders and Saints) get an additional $1.6M in cap space.

Assuming they spread out their punishments equally over this year and next, the Cowboys' $5.5M that they USED to have in cap space is virtually all gone. The Redskins, who used to have $31.1M in cap room, will now have considerably less leeway.
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

3/24/12   |   JenX63   |   32472 respect

Nate wrote:
No I wasn't joking, but I do joke a lot. Neither the Cowboys nor Washington made it to the playoffs in 2010 so that leaves a huge question mark next to the phrase unfair advantage. Secondly all contracts had to be approved by the NFL, so if they thought teams were spending too much money then why did they wait two years to say anything? It wasn't like either team was paying players money under the table to avoid big brother's eyes. Finally it was an uncapped season as you rightfully stated if you got the money you can pay it. No rules were broken, no crazy advantages were gained. I'd also like to point out that the cowboys used the money to re-sign Miles Austin and didn't make any huge free agency moves in 2010, Washington signed two big names one of which was Albert Haynesworth and as far as I know both were cut, so that's not much of a continued disadvantage either. Just saying.

I agree, and im not sure why hes still pissed since the Giants won the SB.

3/24/12   |   Nate   |   128 respect

JenX63 wrote:
I dont know if you were serious or not, since I dont know you here, but uncapped is limitless, people were saying the Skins & Cowboys had the advantage since both teams had deep pockets and could basically buy anyone.

No I wasn't joking, but I do joke a lot. Neither the Cowboys nor Washington made it to the playoffs in 2010 so that leaves a huge question mark next to the phrase unfair advantage. Secondly all contracts had to be approved by the NFL, so if they thought teams were spending too much money then why did they wait two years to say anything? It wasn't like either team was paying players money under the table to avoid big brother's eyes. Finally it was an uncapped season as you rightfully stated if you got the money you can pay it. No rules were broken, no crazy advantages were gained. I'd also like to point out that the cowboys used the money to re-sign Miles Austin and didn't make any huge free agency moves in 2010, Washington signed two big names one of which was Albert Haynesworth and as far as I know both were cut, so that's not much of a continued disadvantage either. Just saying.

3/24/12   |   JenX63   |   32472 respect

Nate wrote:
So the question is what does uncapped mean? I think its fishy that the office handing down these punishments is ran by the owner of the New York Giants, and the teams hit by it are two NFC east teams. Also according to some members of the NFLPA this punishment was part of a collusion agreement between the NFLPA and to add money to the cap. That said the teams didn't hide their contracts from the NFL the NFL has to approve them this is just someone's dirty tricks.

I dont know if you were serious or not, since I dont know you here, but uncapped is limitless, people were saying the Skins & Cowboys had the advantage since both teams had deep pockets and could basically buy anyone.

3/24/12   |   JenX63   |   32472 respect

Debi_L wrote:
It wasn't me who came up with it. Just google "black helicopters". It was a term someone used to describe a conspiracy theory. NASCAR fans used it a lot when Kevin Harvick won the first time, when Jr won at Daytona. It was overused after Dale Sr. died.

RIP Dale Sr, nascar sure could use your level head and input right now.

3/24/12   |   Debi_L   |   11785 respect

JenX63 wrote:
you crack me up....black helicopters....why do they always have to be black?

It wasn't me who came up with it. Just google "black helicopters". It was a term someone used to describe a conspiracy theory. NASCAR fans used it a lot when Kevin Harvick won the first time, when Jr won at Daytona. It was overused after Dale Sr. died.

3/23/12   |   DallasFan55   |   38096 respect

JenX63 wrote:
One of the many reasons I *heart* her!

Seriously?... I heart her too but it's because I really really REALLY!!!....... want her Fan iq Tee shirt....

3/23/12   |   JenX63   |   32472 respect

DallasFan55 wrote:
That was funny! I laughed too. 

One of the many reasons I *heart* her!

3/23/12   |   DallasFan55   |   38096 respect

JenX63 wrote:
you crack me up....black helicopters....why do they always have to be black?

That was funny! I laughed too. 

3/23/12   |   JenX63   |   32472 respect

Nate wrote:
I don't delve too deep into conspiracy theories, at least never on a political level, however it does make me raise eye brow or two when you look who heads the committee who handed down that fine, and it wasn't Goodell, I can also point to quite a few recent competitive edge conspiracies that turned out to be true like spygate and bountygate. Just sayin.

I get what you are saying, really. Maybe something else is going on, but, then again, maybe not. This could be the last of the fines, maybe other teams are going to get hit. Could be, Jones & Snider were the holdouts in the talks last year and this is payback. Could be alot of things...I'll wait and see.

3/23/12   |   JenX63   |   32472 respect

Debi_L wrote:
Aha! I knew I saw some black helicopters.......

you crack me up....black helicopters....why do they always have to be black?

3/23/12   |   Nate   |   128 respect

I don't delve too deep into conspiracy theories, at least never on a political level, however it does make me raise eye brow or two when you look who heads the committee who handed down that fine, and it wasn't Goodell, I can also point to quite a few recent competitive edge conspiracies that turned out to be true like spygate and bountygate. Just sayin.

3/23/12   |   Debi_L   |   11785 respect

JenX63 wrote:
That starts delving into "conspiracy" theories, and I stay away from those.

Aha! I knew I saw some black helicopters.......

3/23/12   |   JenX63   |   32472 respect

DallasFan55 wrote:
I never really thought about it the way Nate has. But I think Nate has a good point. Be curious to see if anything get's said about the NY Jets as well.  Good thinking Nate.

That starts delving into "conspiracy" theories, and I stay away from those.

3/23/12   |   DallasFan55   |   38096 respect

I never really thought about it the way Nate has. But I think Nate has a good point. Be curious to see if anything get's said about the NY Jets as well.  Good thinking Nate.

3/23/12   |   JenX63   |   32472 respect

As for the "bounty" investigation, Williams had a program, just not as "extensive"....Skins were cleared, for now.

3/23/12   |   Nate   |   128 respect

So the question is what does uncapped mean? I think its fishy that the office handing down these punishments is ran by the owner of the New York Giants, and the teams hit by it are two NFC east teams. Also according to some members of the NFLPA this punishment was part of a collusion agreement between the NFLPA and to add money to the cap. That said the teams didn't hide their contracts from the NFL the NFL has to approve them this is just someone's dirty tricks.

3/13/12   |   Debi_L   |   11785 respect

JenX63 wrote:
Certainty that would of been one memo that would not of gone to the shredder had they received it. I like that the statement was short and to the point.

I like that they didn't ignore it and pretend it didn't exist.  But yes, say as little as possible, and carry on.  Smart move.

3/13/12   |   JenX63   |   32472 respect

Debi_L wrote:
The Redskins' Statement on the situation.

Certainty that would of been one memo that would not of gone to the shredder had they received it. I like that the statement was short and to the point.

3/12/12   |   Debi_L   |   11785 respect

The Redskins' Statement on the situation.

3/12/12   |   JenX63   |   32472 respect

But its the Cowboys & Skins....obviously they profited from this, with playoff...umm nope, SB appearance, ( let alone a victory)...uh, nope. Sorry, I started laughing as I was typing. What goes around...blah blah blah serves Snider right for trying to cheat his way. I'm sure they won't be the only teams hit with this. NFL still smartin' from last years black eye.

3/12/12   |   Pat   |   5229 respect

Very true. And I'm also curious about whether the NFL issued a memo or anything like that warning the teams about this, or if it was included in the fine print of the new CBA.

I feel like the teams probably should have kept it in mind, but at the same time, it's a shady move by the NFL.

3/12/12   |   Debi_L   |   11785 respect

Hmmm, I'm with Eric on this one.  

3/12/12   |   Eric_   |   7716 respect

Apparently those teams front loaded some salaries to pay out as much as possible when there wasn't a cap, softening the blow for later years when the cap was back in place.

So, they're being punished for using an accounting trick, even though during capped years all teams do the same type of cap massaging by back loading contracts? That makes sense.