2014 Free Agency Rumors and or Speculation

[pbmax]

no it doesn't. but its all wrong anyways. it may as well be an article on the ratio of unicorns to leprechauns

Right now the cap number the League cares about is the Top 51. So you have to account for 2 additional players on the eventual regular season roster. You also have many of those low end deals on players #54-65 currently under contract. All the PS guys are on future contracts. So the Top 51 may be closer to the Final 53 that it might first appear.

$5-7 might seem high (Packers seem likely to have 9 draft picks if comp picks come in as predicted) but that number is usually north of

[red]

edit, just confirmed my way with a couple other sources

I'm right, rookie contracts are mostly just offset

signing our rookies, would add about 1-1.5 million to our cap number IF, the only guys that are replaced are the guys making the minimum (420,000), and we currently have 13 of those guys on the roster.

if the rookies replace vets, that cap hit for all rookies will be even less, or even a complete wash

http://overthecap.com/explaining-the...he-salary-cap/

However when reading this it is easy to jump to conclusions that the Chiefs need to be $7.445 million under the cap today just to sign rookies. Not exactly. We need to remember that in the offseason the salary cap is based on the “Rule of 51” which means only the top 51 cap charges (plus dead money) count towards a teams salary cap. Most teams have more than 51 players under contract. The Chiefs have 55.

This means that each of the Chiefs 7 draft selections will displace a player who is currently counting towards the salary cap limit. Most of these players earn $405,000. So if you have 51 or more players under contract here is the general rule as to how you calculate the net cap space that is being eaten up by your rookie pool:

Year One Rookie Pool – (405,000 x number of draft picks)

For KC that is equal to just $4.61 million a big difference between the $7.445 million we first thought we needed to set aside. So is the Chiefs have at least $5 million in cap room they can sign free agents and not need to worry about their rookie dollars being compromised. If you are a team with less than 51 players that you will need to adjust your calculation accordingly to

Year One Rookie Pool – (405,000 x (number of draft picks – (51- players under contract) )

These are your net cap space requirements for rookies or what I would call your “Effective Rookie Pool”.

last year our rookie pool was about 6.2 million. lets say 9 draft picks. lets say we have 10 picks. 10 x 420,000 (2012 minimum)= 4.2 million. or an "effective" rookie cap hit of somewhere around 2 million

NOT between 5 or 7 million like that fucking dullard dougherty said

[pbmax]

Jason La Canfora ‏@JasonLaCanfora 2h
Lions continue looking at safeties; ex-Dolphin Chris Clemons visiting with them today

[pbmax]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-from-signing/

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...251347841.html

McGinn say Finley at least "2 months" away from signing, maybe several more months. He says the Seahawks said stay in touch and his source has interpreted that as he is either not physically ready or his timeline is still uncertain for the upcoming season.

Finley underwent a cervical fusion Nov. 14 after suffering damage to the C3-C4 area of his spine. He was injured Oct. 20 on a hard hit by Cleveland safety Tashaun Gipson.

Safety Sean Richardson underwent a cervical fusion on Jan. 15, 2013, after suffering a herniated disc in the C5-C6 area of his spine. It was 10½ months later before the Packers' medical staff gave him full clearance to practice and play as a member of the 53-man roster.



Read more from Journal Sentinel: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...#ixzz2wcuCDnvs
Follow us: @JournalSentinel on Twitter

Bob also says:

Cap situation: After the signing of Starks, the Packers were $16.149 million beneath their adjusted salary cap of $141.8 million.

They rank eighth in available room, trailing Cleveland ($31.8 million), Cincinnati ($28 million), Oakland ($27 million), Jacksonville ($25.1 million), the New York Jets ($24.4 million), Miami ($19.2 million) and Philadelphia ($16.2 million).

[red]

Jason La Canfora ‏@JasonLaCanfora 2h
Lions continue looking at safeties; ex-Dolphin Chris Clemons visiting with them today

GAhhhhHH

[red]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-from-signing/

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...251347841.html

McGinn say Finley at least "2 months" away from signing, maybe several more months.

i'm guessing that when he says maybe several more months, he's saying, several more months before he's cleared for football activities

which seems a lot more plausible then the crap finley and his agent have been spewing about him being cleared "any minute now"

[pbmax]

i'm guessing that when he says maybe several more months, he's saying, several more months before he's cleared for football activities

which seems a lot more plausible then the crap finley and his agent have been spewing about him being cleared "any minute now"

Yes. I doubt anyone waits until he is cleared for starting to sign him. But he probably has to be further along in rehab than he is now. A lot can change, why pay someone for the unknowable?

Bet its the same for Jolly. Will sign sometime this summer.

[pbmax]

edit, just confirmed my way with a couple other sources

I'm right, rookie contracts are mostly just offset

signing our rookies, would add about 1-1.5 million to our cap number IF, the only guys that are replaced are the guys making the minimum (420,000), and we currently have 13 of those guys on the roster.

if the rookies replace vets, that cap hit for all rookies will be even less, or even a complete wash

http://overthecap.com/explaining-the...he-salary-cap/



last year our rookie pool was about 6.2 million. lets say 9 draft picks. lets say we have 10 picks. 10 x 420,000 (2012 minimum)= 4.2 million. or an "effective" rookie cap hit of somewhere around 2 million

NOT between 5 or 7 million like that fucking dullard dougherty said

Is this Twitter account you?

scudbot ‏@Scudtech 3h
@PGPackersNews @PeteDougherty The cap hit for the #Packers Year 1 rookie pool is about $1.725M, not $5M-$7M. http://overthecap.com/2014-rookie-pool-estimates.php …

[Patler]

Unless things have changed, there is one salary cap hurdle relating to rookie salaries that the team has to get over in the off season. The league assigns each team a rookie salary cap allocation which has to fit under their cap, and which can not be exceeded in signing their rookies. I'm not sure when the date is that teams have to meet the rookie allocation, but it is shortly before or after the draft.

Example:
Team is $3M under the cap at $130M with their highest 51 players.
Based on draft position, league assigns a pool of $6M for their 7 draft picks.
When the day arrives to meet the number, the teams highest 44 signed players must be below $127M so that plus their rookie allocation is less than 133.

If a team is close to the cap limit with their 51 highest, and has relatively high draft spots, or has accumulated extra high picks, they might have to tweak their roster a bit to account for the rookie allocation. Once the rookies are signed the unused rookie allocation is just like any other cap dollars.

At least, that is what it was under the old CBA, and I believe it still is.

[pbmax]

So red and scudbot are correct about needing to account for contract numbers that may no longer count in the Top 51 calculation when looking at the cap impact of the rookie pool, but with Patler's post, we know that the rookie deals must be counted within the 51. I think that all fits the framework discussed here.

Mainly its a only a question of which contracts to count prior to getting to the 53 man roster. If you want to know how much remaining cap space will be used by the rooks, then you want red's Net number. But if you want to know who counts in the post draft calculation, you have to eliminate the lowest contracts below 51 to fit the new rookie deals in. Once you get down to 44 (or 51 - #_of_draftpicks), then its the full number published by the League.

[mraynrand]

Jason La Canfora ‏@JasonLaCanfora 2h
Lions continue looking at safeties; ex-Dolphin Chris Clemons visiting with them today

Lions are still pissed that they missed signing MD Jennings or Jerron McMillian.

[Patler]

So red and scudbot are correct about needing to account for contract numbers that may no longer count in the Top 51 calculation when looking at the cap impact of the rookie pool, but with Patler's post, we know that the rookie deals must be counted within the 51. I think that all fits the framework discussed here.

Mainly its a only a question of which contracts to count prior to getting to the 53 man roster. If you want to know how much remaining cap space will be used by the rooks, then you want red's Net number. But if you want to know who counts in the post draft calculation, you have to eliminate the lowest contracts below 51 to fit the new rookie deals in. Once you get down to 44 (or 51 - #_of_draftpicks), then its the full number published by the League.

The way I always looked at it was this, until the rookies are signed (when it just goes back to the highest 51, regardless of who they are, the off season cap calculation is this:

(Salary cap total for a team) - (league-assigned rookie allocation) = salary cap available for the top "x#" of players.
"x#"of players = 51 - (the number of rookies used for calculating the rookie allocation pool).

[red]

Is this Twitter account you?

scudbot ‏@Scudtech 3h
@PGPackersNews @PeteDougherty The cap hit for the #Packers Year 1 rookie pool is about $1.725M, not $5M-$7M. http://overthecap.com/2014-rookie-pool-estimates.php …

nope not me, but the guys seems really smart

[red]

The way I always looked at it was this, until the rookies are signed (when it just goes back to the highest 51, regardless of who they are, the off season cap calculation is this:

(Salary cap total for a team) - (league-assigned rookie allocation) = salary cap available for the top "x#" of players.
"x#"of players = 51 - (the number of rookies used for calculating the rookie allocation pool).

i think what we are talking about is just 2 different ways of getting the same number, in the end

which is, if we have 16.1 million right now, and we don't sign anymore free agents (i know, thats really hard to believe), then after we sign all our rookies, we're gonna have somewhere around 14-14.5 million in cap space left

this is also based on the idea that the rookies will only replace the lowest paid guys already on the roster. if the rooks beat out guion or a guy like raji, then we could actually gain cap space and have more then 16.1 million when its all said and done.

[red]

raiders just sent a 6th round pick to the texans for matt schaub

that was a really fast fall from grace

[mraynrand]

if the rooks beat out guion or a guy like raji, then we could actually gain cap space and have more then 16.1 million when its all said and done.

that's just enough for one middle finger (at Ted!)

[Rutnstrut]

Situationally sub par....just like Newhouse

Newhouse is gone, now if we can get rid of Brad Jones I will consider free agency a success.

[pbmax]

i think what we are talking about is just 2 different ways of getting the same number, in the end

which is, if we have 16.1 million right now, and we don't sign anymore free agents (i know, thats really hard to believe), then after we sign all our rookies, we're gonna have somewhere around 14-14.5 million in cap space left

this is also based on the idea that the rookies will only replace the lowest paid guys already on the roster. if the rooks beat out guion or a guy like raji, then we could actually gain cap space and have more then 16.1 million when its all said and done.

There are going to be a couple more signings. Probably Kuhn and Jolly. Possibly Pickett. Those vet deals might push down something more than the rookie minimum.

[Rutnstrut]

There are going to be a couple more signings. Probably Kuhn and Jolly. Possibly Pickett. Those vet deals might push down something more than the rookie minimum.

Jolly and Kuhn are guys that IMO are solid contributors and great locker room guys that you need. But then again I'm one of the few here that are a big AJ Hawk fan, I like solid work ethic type players. They check the ego and do their job, they aren't world beaters but show up every game. Just the opposite of Raji, Brad Jones...

[red]

Jolly and Kuhn are guys that IMO are solid contributors and great locker room guys that you need. But then again I'm one of the few here that are a big AJ Hawk fan, I like solid work ethic type players. They check the ego and do their job, they aren't world beaters but show up every game. Just the opposite of Raji, Brad Jones...

i agree locker room leaders are a good thing to have, but that hasn't stopped the team from moving on from the likes of driver and woodson in the recent past