Remaining cap room (1 Viewer)

[chris1969]

As of Wednesday evening, there were a dozen teams in the league with more than $10 million each in available salary cap room, and that included three franchises with more than $20 million apiece in spending room. The remaining cap room, by team, from top to bottom: Minnesota, $25.0 million; Buffalo, $22.6 million; Cleveland, $21.8 million; Tennessee, $19.6 million; Green Bay, $15.8 million; San Francisco, $13.7 million; Jacksonville, $12.9 million; Dallas, $11.9 million; St. Louis, $11.2 million; New Orleans, $11.1 million; Philadelphia, $10.4 million; New York Jets, $10.1 million; Miami, $8.9 million; Oakland, $8.3 million; Cincinnati, $7.8 million; Carolina, $7.0 million; Seattle, $6.6 million; San Diego, $6.4 million; New England, $6.3 million; New York Giants, $5.8 million; Chicago, $5.1 million; Tampa Bay, $4.9 million; Kansas City, $4.6 million; Denver, $4.3 million; Washington, $3.9 million; Indianapolis, $3.7 million; Baltimore, $3.6 million; Detroit, $3.6 million; Atlanta, $3.1 million; Arizona, $2.8 million; Houston, $2.6 million; Pittsburgh, $1.4 million.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/col...;CMP=ILC-INHEAD

 

[Jous]

I still can't comprehend how Washington isn't last on these lists. For their sake, they better win a SuperBowl soon...basically they're looking at 10-15 years of 6 win seasons maximum

 

[jurb26]

I still can't comprehend how Washington isn't last on these lists. For their sake, they better win a SuperBowl soon...basically they're looking at 10-15 years of 6 win seasons maximum

Why do people continue to believe this myth? Wash is very good about handling their cap and have been doing this for years.

 

[David Yudkin]

I still can't comprehend how Washington isn't last on these lists. For their sake, they better win a SuperBowl soon...basically they're looking at 10-15 years of 6 win seasons maximum

Why do people continue to believe this myth? Wash is very good about handling their cap and have been doing this for years.

If you consider going 91-116-1 with 2 playoff wins in 13 seasons in the salary cap era "very good," then I agree with you.

 

[redman]

I still can't comprehend how Washington isn't last on these lists. For their sake, they better win a SuperBowl soon...basically they're looking at 10-15 years of 6 win seasons maximum

Why do people continue to believe this myth? Wash is very good about handling their cap and have been doing this for years.

If you consider going 91-116-1 with 2 playoff wins in 13 seasons in the salary cap era "very good," then I agree with you.

David, would you like to point out the logical fallacies underlying your non sequitur, or shall I do that for you?

 

[Jous]

I still can't comprehend how Washington isn't last on these lists. For their sake, they better win a SuperBowl soon...basically they're looking at 10-15 years of 6 win seasons maximum

Why do people continue to believe this myth? Wash is very good about handling their cap and have been doing this for years.

If you consider going 91-116-1 with 2 playoff wins in 13 seasons in the salary cap era "very good," then I agree with you.

David, would you like to point out the logical fallacies underlying your non sequitur, or shall I do that for you?

I see what you mean, but David's point is correct. Washington is going about trying to win the completely wrong way. The more you try to build your team around free agents eveyr year, the more you lose. Which is exactly what the Redskins are doing.

 

[redman]

I still can't comprehend how Washington isn't last on these lists. For their sake, they better win a SuperBowl soon...basically they're looking at 10-15 years of 6 win seasons maximum

Why do people continue to believe this myth? Wash is very good about handling their cap and have been doing this for years.

If you consider going 91-116-1 with 2 playoff wins in 13 seasons in the salary cap era "very good," then I agree with you.

David, would you like to point out the logical fallacies underlying your non sequitur, or shall I do that for you?

I see what you mean, but David's point is correct. Washington is going about trying to win the completely wrong way. The more you try to build your team around free agents eveyr year, the more you lose. Which is exactly what the Redskins are doing.

Agreed, but even that's a separate issue. The fact is that when it comes to management of cap and contracts, they're brilliant. It's player evaluation and development, and until Gibbs returned coaching (and coaching change), that have killed them. In other words, their hell is not cap hell, it's coaching/front office/drafting/trading hell.

 

[jurb26]

I still can't comprehend how Washington isn't last on these lists. For their sake, they better win a SuperBowl soon...basically they're looking at 10-15 years of 6 win seasons maximum

Why do people continue to believe this myth? Wash is very good about handling their cap and have been doing this for years.

If you consider going 91-116-1 with 2 playoff wins in 13 seasons in the salary cap era "very good," then I agree with you.

David, would you like to point out the logical fallacies underlying your non sequitur, or shall I do that for you?

I see what you mean, but David's point is correct. Washington is going about trying to win the completely wrong way. The more you try to build your team around free agents eveyr year, the more you lose. Which is exactly what the Redskins are doing.

Agreed, but even that's a separate issue. The fact is that when it comes to management of cap and contracts, they're brilliant. It's player evaluation and development, and until Gibbs returned coaching (and coaching change), that have killed them. In other words, their hell is not cap hell, it's coaching/front office/drafting/trading hell.

Why are people trying to change the subject?

 

[Biabreakable]

The Vikings still have a lot of money despite vastly overpaying the Giants backup Te.

 

[David Yudkin]

There are players that they backed up the money truck for that did not make much sense to me, so if people want to say that that's good cap management, so be it. My point was that whatever they are doing they aren't winning (or at least not a lot and not consistently). IMO, good cap management of not great personnel choices does not equal good cap management. It means a decent accounting system but not a great team.

 

[jurb26]

There are players that they backed up the money truck for that did not make much sense to me, so if people want to say that that's good cap management, so be it. My point was that whatever they are doing they aren't winning (or at least not a lot and not consistently). IMO, good cap management of not great personnel choices does not equal good cap management. It means a decent accounting system but not a great team.

The bottom line is that htere is no cap hell approaching the Skins. Never has been and never will be if they continue to manage it the way the are. This is a huge misconception and that is they myth I was refering to.

 

[mcjc4]

This Vikings ownership is no better than Red was. they talk alot of bull####, but still don't spend a dime. They needed a pass rusher this offseason and made no effort to get one. They needed a WR and got nothing.

This is just more of the same in MN

 

[GregR_2]

Those cap figures from ESPN are likely where things stand today, but not what the teams realistically have. A lot of teams will have more cap room than shown because after June 1st they can move some of the cap hit forward to next year's cap. The Texans for instance show as around $2m but in reality they have around $10m in room to work because they can move $8m forward to next year for Carr and DD.

Though, I don't know that they should do it for Carr at least, as I don't think they are likely to ink any more big price free agents and should have enough to sign the rooks just doing that with DD. Might as well get Carr's cap hit off the books.

 

[David Yudkin]

Those cap figures from ESPN are likely where things stand today, but not what the teams realistically have. A lot of teams will have more cap room than shown because after June 1st they can move some of the cap hit forward to next year's cap. The Texans for instance show as around $2m but in reality they have around $10m in room to work because they can move $8m forward to next year for Carr and DD.Though, I don't know that they should do it for Carr at least, as I don't think they are likely to ink any more big price free agents and should have enough to sign the rooks just doing that with DD. Might as well get Carr's cap hit off the books.

Didn't they change the June 1st rule up to March 1st to better allow teams to map out there off season moves?

 

[David Yudkin]

Those cap figures from ESPN are likely where things stand today, but not what the teams realistically have. A lot of teams will have more cap room than shown because after June 1st they can move some of the cap hit forward to next year's cap. The Texans for instance show as around $2m but in reality they have around $10m in room to work because they can move $8m forward to next year for Carr and DD.

Though, I don't know that they should do it for Carr at least, as I don't think they are likely to ink any more big price free agents and should have enough to sign the rooks just doing that with DD. Might as well get Carr's cap hit off the books.

Didn't they change the June 1st rule up to March 1st to better allow teams to map out there off season moves?

Actually, I found the answer. Here is the new rule that went enforce with the lastest CBA . . .

Prior to the start of the league year, teams may designate up to two (2) veteran players that they will cut after June 1 to spread out the signing bonus escalation (See 1.9b). In so designating them, the team allows these players to become free agents at the start of the free agency period -- although their cap liability remains with the original team just as it would have if the player had stayed on the roster until after June 1.

There's some really useful info in this LINK,

 

[Snotbubbles]

The bottom line is that htere is no cap hell approaching the Skins. Never has been and never will be if they continue to manage it the way the are. This is a huge misconception and that is they myth I was refering to.

How does spending too much money on the wrong player(s) not equal bad cap management. There are little to no teams with cap issues as it relates to HAVING to cut players to get under the cap. Now the issues concern what portions of the cap go to what players. If you give 6 million to a guy who isn't even starting on your team, to me that's bad cap management because you're using a portion of you cap unwisely. You can label it personnel instead of cap management, but the two go hand in hand.

 

[GregR_2]

...

There's some really useful info in this LINK,

Yes, that's a great page that I've used quite a few times before for salary cap info. I hadn't seen it since it was updated with the new CBA though, good to see it's being kept evergreen.

 

[zamboni]

I don't have the time to do the math, but how many of those low-cap teams are below the minimum threshold?

 

[GregR_2]

I don't have the time to do the math, but how many of those low-cap teams are below the minimum threshold?

I believe the minimum team salary this year is 85.2% of the $109m cap, or $92.9m, a difference of $16.1m.However, we really can't use those ESPN cap numbers and assume it reflects the team salary for a variety of reasons. First there is the June 1st thing I already mentioned which makes those numbers not reflect where the team really is. Second, the ESPN cap numbers include cap refunds, such as the Texans got $3,346,071 added back into their cap this year for previous money charged to the cap that wasn't paid to players. So while ESPN shows the Texans as being over $2m under the cap, in reality their salaries are $1m over the cap but they have a $3m cap credit (this isn't counting the June 1 stuff).Also, the off-season salary cap number only reflects the 51 highest paid players, while the team salary would reflect all salaries. The Texans have another $7.7m in player salaries beyond the 51 highest paid players. And of course rookies haven't been signed yet.I would imagine the minimum is an actual team salary minimum and not a cap number minimum, though I'm not 100% positive there.

 

[jurb26]

The bottom line is that htere is no cap hell approaching the Skins. Never has been and never will be if they continue to manage it the way the are. This is a huge misconception and that is they myth I was refering to.

How does spending too much money on the wrong player(s) not equal bad cap management. There are little to no teams with cap issues as it relates to HAVING to cut players to get under the cap. Now the issues concern what portions of the cap go to what players. If you give 6 million to a guy who isn't even starting on your team, to me that's bad cap management because you're using a portion of you cap unwisely. You can label it personnel instead of cap management, but the two go hand in hand.

 

[Liquid Tension]

The bottom line is that htere is no cap hell approaching the Skins. Never has been and never will be if they continue to manage it the way the are. This is a huge misconception and that is they myth I was refering to.

How does spending too much money on the wrong player(s) not equal bad cap management. There are little to no teams with cap issues as it relates to HAVING to cut players to get under the cap. Now the issues concern what portions of the cap go to what players. If you give 6 million to a guy who isn't even starting on your team, to me that's bad cap management because you're using a portion of you cap unwisely. You can label it personnel instead of cap management, but the two go hand in hand.

You guys are talking different arguments because of the way teams run. In reality you are both right (thank you Switzerland).If the personnel team says to the accounting guy, how much money can we spend and in what form the accounting guy says we can spend this amount with this much signing bonus go get the guys you want. then the personnel guys go spend it on poor talent that is the personnel guys screwing up not the account management type.Many people will assume that spending your money on bad talent is the bad cap management, but in reality it probably is two separate groups.

 

[jurb26]

The bottom line is that htere is no cap hell approaching the Skins. Never has been and never will be if they continue to manage it the way the are. This is a huge misconception and that is they myth I was refering to.

How does spending too much money on the wrong player(s) not equal bad cap management. There are little to no teams with cap issues as it relates to HAVING to cut players to get under the cap. Now the issues concern what portions of the cap go to what players. If you give 6 million to a guy who isn't even starting on your team, to me that's bad cap management because you're using a portion of you cap unwisely. You can label it personnel instead of cap management, but the two go hand in hand.

You guys are talking different arguments because of the way teams run. In reality you are both right (thank you Switzerland).If the personnel team says to the accounting guy, how much money can we spend and in what form the accounting guy says we can spend this amount with this much signing bonus go get the guys you want. then the personnel guys go spend it on poor talent that is the personnel guys screwing up not the account management type.Many people will assume that spending your money on bad talent is the bad cap management, but in reality it probably is two separate groups.

This is exactly what was said earlier in the thread.

 

[redman]

The bottom line is that htere is no cap hell approaching the Skins. Never has been and never will be if they continue to manage it the way the are. This is a huge misconception and that is they myth I was refering to.

How does spending too much money on the wrong player(s) not equal bad cap management. There are little to no teams with cap issues as it relates to HAVING to cut players to get under the cap. Now the issues concern what portions of the cap go to what players. If you give 6 million to a guy who isn't even starting on your team, to me that's bad cap management because you're using a portion of you cap unwisely. You can label it personnel instead of cap management, but the two go hand in hand.

I'll say it another way. The Redskins have really not ever been in the position of having to cut players or to be unable to fill a large area of need because of cap problems since the 2001 preseason. That to me would be poor cap management. How you believe that they use their resources and whether that makes any sense as far as team building goes is a separate issue, albeit one that as you said is related. Simply combining the two and treating them as one inseparable issue misses a lot of the point.