Skip to content

Samuels’ Cap Hit

Nov 29, 2004, 6:08 PM EDT

I mentioned the cap hit that Chris Samuels’ contract might create in the coming season and promised an explaination. Here it is, according to PC, the resident salary cap wizard at this blog’s home site,

Remember that Samuels can void the last year of his contract (2006) at any time.

IMHO he WILL do this at the end of this season to pressure the Redskins into either negotiating a new contract, trading him or releasing him outright…………or if we are prepared to take the cap hit that follows his decision he would be a free agent in 2006.

In any of these scenario’s Samuels and his agent have the upper hand.

At some point in the next two years Samuels will be line for what he and his agent thinks will be a SIGNIFICANT contract…..along the lines of Ogden and Pace.

Samuels is due to count $9.643m against the 2005 cap AT THIS STAGE.

After Samuels voids the 2006 year of his contract the prorated signing bonus for 2006 (minus the Deion Sanders cap charge credit) accelerates into 2005.

The cap charge for Samuels then increases by $2.218m to $11.861m in 2005.

Now if we trade or release Samuels in 2005 (before his workout bonus is due and after he voids his 2006 year) we would take a 2005 dead cap hit of $4.426m – which means we would save over $7.4m against the 2005 cap.

This makes it almost as plain as the nose on your face that trading Samuels for a 1st round pick means that we not only get compensation for the player, but we are then able to use some of the cap savings to afford to cut Brunell.

Trading Gardner as well, would mean we eliminate all our overpriced vs performance players except maybe for Lavar who I have more faith in living up to his numbers than Samuels, Gardner or certainly Brunell.

I just need to make this clear to people talking about the Samuels situation.

To me this is a leading NFL QB type cap hit – not one for a very solid OL.

  1. mbarnes202 - Nov 30, 2004 at 1:56 PM

    I have two questions/comments:

    1. RE: trading Samuels. My understanding is that when a player is traded, all SB $ are instantly accrued and charged to the team that trades him. The acquiring team is not on the hook for any SB.
    Question: What happens in cases where deals are voidable? I.E., can the ‘Skins trade Samuels to a team, who then gets Samuels for the remainder of the contract– which is what? If the VOID clause itself is voided, that would be GREAT for the ‘Skins. But I can’t imagine a team would trade a #1 pick for someone who is only signed for two (at most) years.

    2. As to Gardner, he also only has one more year remaining on his deal. So the team we traded to would only get one more year out of him. On the other hand, wouldn’t Schottenheimer’s Chargers like Gardner? He drafted him, and they need receiver help. What could we get for him, though, a #3? Maybe a #2? Another logical possibility would be Baltimore, but our relationship with their ownership is so poisoned, that would never happen.

  2. Rich Tandler - Nov 30, 2004 at 10:17 PM

    The Skins would eat the remainder of Samuels’ SB immediately regardless of whether or not he has said he would void; there’s only a difference if he stays.

    Nobody is going to give a #1 for Samuels. Not only does his contract situation make it a dicy proposition, his play the past two years makes it a flat out dumb idea. A second or third, maybe, if the receiving team will be able to afford to franchise him.

    I don’t see getting much of anything for Gardner, either. Same deal–only one year left on his deal and his performance doesn’t warrant much more than a conditional low-rounder, even from Marty. Archives

Follow Us On Twitter