Packers Will Have To Cut Players

[pbmax]

Before we send out pink slips, read this item about the next two years of salary cap.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/22/looking-at-how-salary-cap-flexibility-will-work-in-2011/

We reported Thursday that NFL teams would have a mechanism to make it easier to keep high priced veterans in 2011.

When the league rolled out their settlement agreement (which hasn’t yet been agreed to by the players), we found out how it all work.

Teams will have roughly $3.5 million in what would otherwise be performance-based pay available to fund veteran player salaries. Teams could also “borrow” $3 million from a future salary cap that could be paid back.

The salary cap is set to be $120.375 million in 2011. Combining the two exemptions for 2011, the number really rises to $126.885. An extra $6.5 million won’t save guys that truly deserve to get cut, but it will make life easier for teams near the cap limit.

Look for plenty of teams to “borrow” from future years. With television revenue likely to rise significantly in the future, teams can feel confident the salary cap is going to rise quite a bit.

In 2012, each club can also “borrow” up to $1.5 million in cap room from a future year.

[Patler]

I've seen that mentioned several times, and I still do not fully understand what they mean by "Teams will have roughly $3.5 million in what would otherwise be performance-based pay available to fund veteran player salaries." It seems to be an "either-or" situation with only one alternative clear. If they are referring to the money distributed by the league to players who far outperformed their pay, I didn't recall payments being that high. Besides, that would seem to be funding high priced veterans with money that would otherwise go to some of the lowest paid guys. Guys like Shields and Zombo who likely were at minimum salaries but played a lot.

As for borrowing from future caps, it doesn't sound like a TT sort of approach, does it?

[SkinBasket]

Poppinga's name needs to be mentioned way before Chillar's.

Word to the dirty guy.

[pbmax]

Not at all, normally. And while I, like you, do not fully understand the performance based pay money, that doesn't seem to be borrowing from the future like the other $3 mil that is available. But as they have a larger than normal slew of FAs, including all the 4th and 5th year RFAs who did not hit Free Agency in the last two years, there might not be a choice. Clearly some, like Tauscher are going to be cut/renegotiated, but even if they find $10 million in room, they are still going to have a slew of bodies to sign and veterans will be a larger percentage than typical.

But so much depends on how crazy offers are to Jones, Jackson, Colledge and Spitz, its hard to predict.

[KYPack]

Yeah, P, I'm a little lost here, too.

I saw many projections of the '11 cap at 132 - 137 mil. Now it's comes in at 120 (126 with the slush fund/ funny money clause)? The salary floor will be raised from 90% as opposed to the old 80%.

I can't believe the players would go for that without making a peep if a bunch of other significant perks weren't included in the CBA. It's a 10 year deal, but I wonder what all is in that package to placate the players. I'd have to believe the tags will go away and quicker FA will now be available to the players. Both sides dumped on the rookies, but there has to be a lot sweetners for the players to get the deal in a fast as it seems it will be done.

[Patler]

I did some digging. Apparently there was no performance based pay program for the 2010 season, I assume as a result of the non-salary cap year provisions. In 2009 performance based pay amounted to $109.5 million, or a little over $3.4 million per team on an average. So perhaps it is not an either-or situation. The performance based pay system may not even exist for the 2011 season.

Too bad it wasn't there last year. I would have expected Shields and Zombo to get a lot.

[Ballboy]

Looking at salary website, these are some names that came up"

Barrnett @ $5,500,000
Wilhelm @ $3,000,000
Chillar @ $2,000,000
Don Lee @ $2,200,000
Poppy @ $2,200,000
Tausch @ $4,100,000
J Bush @ $1,400,000
Underwood @ $480,000(character issues)

Just over $20,000,000 of contracts that could/will be dumped.

[Old School]

Maybe we could send a 7th round pick to Kansas City in return for 10 mil in salary cap. That would help get them to the 99% floor.

[Fritz]

Ted borrowing against the future? Not very Tedly.

How did the Pack go from being one of the youngest teams in the league, with many people complaining that TT didn't like to spend money at all, to a team that has the second-highest amount of money committed to vets, just behind Dallas? How'd that happen?

[Joemailman]

Looking at salary website, these are some names that came up"

Barrnett @ $5,500,000
Wilhelm @ $3,000,000
Chillar @ $2,000,000
Don Lee @ $2,200,000
Poppy @ $2,200,000
Tausch @ $4,100,000
J Bush @ $1,400,000
Underwood @ $480,000(character issues)

Just over $20,000,000 of contracts that could/will be dumped.

Donald Lee has already been released. Jarrett Bush isn't going anywhere. The rest could be gone.

[MJZiggy]

Ted borrowing against the future? Not very Tedly.

How did the Pack go from being one of the youngest teams in the league, with many people complaining that TT didn't like to spend money at all, to a team that has the second-highest amount of money committed to vets, just behind Dallas? How'd that happen?

He kept all the kids?

[red]

how much does harrell count against the cap? i can see him going away if he has anything higher then like the minimum

[Tarlam!]

Ted borrowing against the future? Not very Tedly.

How did the Pack go from being one of the youngest teams in the league, with many people complaining that TT didn't like to spend money at all, to a team that has the second-highest amount of money committed to vets, just behind Dallas? How'd that happen?

+1. How did that happen?

[red]

what about a guy like robert gallery?

he was a bust at LT, but he's been a nice solid LG. he's a guy that wouldn't cost a ton and IMO would be an upgrade over colledge

also, he fits the packer mold, big white guy with long flowing hair and tats

[red]

+1. How did that happen?

i read somewhere last season that we had one of the highest "cap" numbers last year, if there had been a cap. we might have even been over the cap if there was one

i think, and hope, what we are seeing is TT throwing a lot of bonus money into that uncapped year, freeing up future room

TT's whole idea is to draft good players and resign the ones that really look good, the problem is that TT has drafted way too many guys that have turned out being too damn good