Salary cap

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

According to Jon Clayton...........

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=6749994


"Green Bay Packers -- The Packers really don't have a cap problem, particularly if they move linebacker Nick Barnett. Cutting or trading him saves the team about $4.4 million. They can save close to $4.5 million if right tackle Mark Tauscher doesn't come back. The Packers are $62,000 under the cap."

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth

Chicago Bears
Cap status: About $37 million under

Comment: If anything, the Bears will have to spend significantly in order to exceed the cap "floor," or the minimum expenditure required. Regardless, all indications have been that the Bears are prepared to be active in free agency. At least one starting-caliber offensive lineman should be on their shopping list.

Detroit Lions
Cap status: About $16.5 million under
Comment: The Lions are positioned to pursue cornerbacks and/or linebackers on the free agent market. But the big question everyone is asking: Can they fit cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha under the cap? The answer, as always in the case of the salary cap, is yes. Any one player can be squeezed in as long as the team is comfortable with the consequences. The Lions would need to make a priority judgment on whether Asomugha is worth the cap percentage he would consume or if they should use it on multiple other players.

Green Bay Packers
Cap status: About $62,000 under
Comment: As Clayton notes, the Packers have a couple relatively easy fixes. They seem likely to part ways with linebacker Nick Barnett, saving $4.4 million against the cap. Right tackle Mark Tauscher's presumed departure would erase another $4.5 million. And in reality, the Packers' biggest upcoming expenditures will be signing their draft class and probably kicker Mason Crosby.

Minnesota Vikings
Cap status: About $5.1 million over
Comment: Clayton suggests two fixes: Releasing receiver Bernard Berrian and extending the contract of tailback Adrian Peterson, who is scheduled for a monster base salary of $10.72 million. Coach Leslie Frazier said this offseason that he wants Berrian to return, and extending Peterson will be a delicate, complex and time-consuming project. You at least have to wonder how active the Vikings will be on the free agent market.

[RashanGary]

Wilhelm has a surprisingly large number 2+ mil. Poppinga 2+ mil and D Lee 2+mil.

You ditch Barnett, Tausch, Poppinga, Wilhelm and Lee and you have about 15 or 16 mil below the cap.



Then you resign: Crosby, Kuhn (the more I look at it, resigning Colledge might not be a good idea. We're tight against the cap. Gotta save for our really good players.

Then with any remaining money, you reach out and resign a couple of next years UFA's: Sitton, Nelson. Finley probably gets tagged.

We're going to be pretty tight against the cap going into 2012. Clifton will be dumped after this year. Drivers salary goes down after this year. Bottom line is we're looking like the Steelers of the last 5 years. We're going to have to make tough choices like they had to do with Randall El, Burris and others. Finley with his attitude and injury could be one of those casualties. Thompson is going to have new playmakers emerging. We're at that pinnacle where we can't keep everyone.

[Tarlam!]

Highly doubtful that TT tries for Scrabble.

[vince]

I tried to accumulate the Packers cap picture previously and came up with a lower number. I'd like to see Clayton's numbers itemized by player. Right now, the Packers have more guys under contract than they can keep, so the I think the cap number will go lower by default because only 51 players count against the cap. Then when you add in likely cuts as people have said, the number goes even lower. I think there's about $20 mil in "likely to be cut" contracts. That includes Barnett, Tauscher, Jolly, Poppinga, Harrell, and a whole bunch of 1/2 mil guys like Underwood, Gordy, Briggs, Francois, Nance, etc.

If you put the draftee cap at $8 mil, there's $12 mil remaining. Plus, the itemized contracts don't add up to what Clayton is saying. I'm thinking there will be room to re-up Sitton during this year yet before he gets to free agency. Plus, Thompson always leaves $5 mil or so just as a contingency fund for injury replacements as the year goes.

Bottom line, there's not room to give Jenkins or Awesomewa a big payday, but a number of Colledge, Spitz, Jones, Jackson, Kuhn, Crosby and the like could be re-signed if Thompson wants to.

[bobblehead]

I would rather resign BJack and JJones. They both played a solid role in the offense and I think they have good value for the dollar.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Ted spent a lot of money last year when there was no cap. I mean he even extended Goode the longsnapper.

Jenkins is a cap casualty. Jenkins, one of the top free agents this offseason, will provide a nice compensatory pick considering he was a free agent and not a draft pick.

Barnett, Poppinga, Harrell, and Martin probably are too. That is enough to sign all the draft picks not just those that will make the roster and sign Crosby, Colledge, and Spitz.

Jones may be signed with the money saved dumping many of the minor contracts if the Packers actually want to keep him.

It is just another cap year that Ted will handle just fine.

When Matthews, Sitton, Finley, and Wells need extensions next year, well, Clifton, Tauscher, Grant and Driver are coming to the end of the line.

[Lurker64]

When Matthews, Sitton, Finley, and Wells need extensions next year, well, Clifton, Tauscher, Grant and Driver are coming to the end of the line.

Sitton and Matthews are the big projects for Ted once he gets the roster filled out. I think Finley may end up playing one year under the Franchise tag while Ted works out an extension, and Wells should be either replaceable or inexpensive. I'm not sure that Tauscher is back this year, honestly. Clifton probably retires when his contract is up, Grant is gone after next season, and I can't say I know about Driver.

[vince]

Clayton's number most likely includes the tendered RFA's who will be getting UFA status when the CBA is signed. That includes Colledge, Jones, Spitz, Kuhn, Jolly, Crosby, Jackson, Hall, Havner, and Smith. Swain is the only tendered player who doesn't have 4 years in the league yet.

That's 10 guys and probably at least another $15 million that won't actually be on the books when the new year begins. With that adjustment, the real cap number correlates pretty closely with the number I came up with earlier.

If TT moves on from Jenkins, Colledge, Jones, Spitz, Hall, Jolly, Barnett, Poppinga, and Jackson, along with a number of other pretty obvious contracts that'll need to be cut just to get down to the 53-man roster, he'll be in good shape to get Sitton, Finley, Nelso and perhaps Wells renewed (for a short contract I hope) if he so chooses.

Plus, based on the new CBA, the salary cap should be growing quickly after this year based on the projected league growth that I've read. It's a $9 billion league now. I've read projections that estimate the league gowing to $15 billion ( about 20%/year increase) in 3 years. With the new cap based on a percentage of all revenues, it will rise pretty quickly, so Ted will have some room to work within.

[Patler]

I don't understand why Clayton says the cap will be less than 2009. Before the lockout the league said they had agreed to 2011 being the same as 2009 and going to 161 million by 2014.

[vince]

The league isn't projecting much growth this year due to the economy, so the smaller piece of the pie they are pushing down the players' throats (offset from the players' standpoint by a higher cap floor and the lower percentage being calculated from "all revenues") results in a lower cap this year but faster growth in future years based on projected total revenues.

The earlier numbers were just numbers the owners threw out I believe, which would have limited player salary growth over time relative to total league revenues. The players rejected that concept.

[Patler]

The league isn't projecting much growth this year due to the economy, so the smaller piece of the pie they are pushing down the players' throats (offset from the players' standpoint by a higher cap floor and the lower percentage being calculated from "all revenues") results in a lower cap this year but faster growth in future years based on projected total revenues.

The earlier numbers were just numbers the owners threw out I believe, which would have limited player salary growth over time relative to total league revenues. The players rejected that concept.

Ya, I realize that, but the league even proposed hard cap numbers for 2011 and 2012 and accepted the players cap number for 2014. I can't believe the players will now agree to something that gives them less than that. After all,four years is an average career.

[vince]

The problem with the old proposal as I understand it, was there wasn't any formula that would dictate what the players would get over the long-term and they weren't comfortable with what the owners might do from there.

With the current proposal, and the projected 20% increase in total revenues, the cap would go like this:

2011 - 120
2012 - 144
2013 - 172

Obviously, that's based on a big assumption, but that's what the players are looking at I believe.