Salary cap historical lesson

[Charles Woodson]

Patler can you give me a breakdown of basically how much money we have to spend where.

for instance

$______-free agents
$______-Drafties
$______-Resingines
and such

thanks in advance

[Patler]

Patler can you give me a breakdown of basically how much money we have to spend where.

for instance

$______-free agents
$______-Drafties
$______-Resingines
and such

thanks in advance

Huh?

[esoxx]

Re: Salary cap historical lesson

While the increase last year was large enough that cuts to get under the cap were all but eliminated, long term nothing has really changed.

Well for me this is the crux of the issue. This indeed does present a big change from years past where teams had to engage in large scale player releases in order to get under the cap. This allowed some top flight talent to be available on the open market, unlike what we've seen here recently.

Those days appear to be gone and it does represent a MAJOR change.

[Bretsky]

Re: Salary cap historical lesson

While the increase last year was large enough that cuts to get under the cap were all but eliminated, long term nothing has really changed.

Well for me this is the crux of the issue. This indeed does present a big change from years past where teams had to engage in large scale player releases in order to get under the cap. This allowed some top flight talent to be available on the open market, unlike what we've seen here recently.

Those days appear to be gone and it does represent a MAJOR change.

[Charles Woodson]

Patler can you give me a breakdown of basically how much money we have to spend where.

for instance

$______-free agents
$______-Drafties
$______-Resingines
and such

thanks in advance

Huh?

ha okay what i mean is about how much per section are we going to use our money on. like estimated we are going to need ___ amount for rookie signing, and we have resigned ____ people for____ amount of money and that leaves us with ______ for free agents or resigning our people

[Patler]

Re: Salary cap historical lesson

While the increase last year was large enough that cuts to get under the cap were all but eliminated, long term nothing has really changed.

Well for me this is the crux of the issue. This indeed does present a big change from years past where teams had to engage in large scale player releases in order to get under the cap. This allowed some top flight talent to be available on the open market, unlike what we've seen here recently.

Those days appear to be gone and it does represent a MAJOR change.

Actually, I think that changed 4 or 5 years ago already. 2006 didn't make a long term change in that regard. Wolf made the comment that in the early years of FA, many teams didn't have a clue, and talented players were all over the FA lists in the mid to late 1990s. He said by the time he retired, most teams had hired full time cap specialists and did much better managing the cap, so fewer good players were available.

That was already the case in 2004, 2005; before the big jump in the cap for 2006. All that 2006 did was give a temporary reprieve to the ones that still bungle it up. Chances are, by 2009, 2010 we will again see a few struggling.

[Bretsky]

I agree that by 2010 we'll see some struggling again, and TT will certainly not be one of them. And it's too bad that Wahle contract would not have come due after the big increase; TT might have decided to keep him then.
But the recent increase had had an impact.

[esoxx]

Re: Salary cap historical lesson

While the increase last year was large enough that cuts to get under the cap were all but eliminated, long term nothing has really changed.

Well for me this is the crux of the issue. This indeed does present a big change from years past where teams had to engage in large scale player releases in order to get under the cap. This allowed some top flight talent to be available on the open market, unlike what we've seen here recently.

Those days appear to be gone and it does represent a MAJOR change.

Actually, I think that changed 4 or 5 years ago already.

That was already the case in 2004, 2005

Which makes it doubly tough to accept the fact that Mike Wahle, a very talented player just entering his prime, was able to get away due to our own cap mess at the time. I've haven't noticed OL of his caliber on the open market the past few years.

[Patler]

Re: Salary cap historical lesson

While the increase last year was large enough that cuts to get under the cap were all but eliminated, long term nothing has really changed.

Well for me this is the crux of the issue. This indeed does present a big change from years past where teams had to engage in large scale player releases in order to get under the cap. This allowed some top flight talent to be available on the open market, unlike what we've seen here recently.

Those days appear to be gone and it does represent a MAJOR change.

Actually, I think that changed 4 or 5 years ago already.

That was already the case in 2004, 2005

Which makes it doubly tough to accept the fact that Mike Wahle, a very talented player just entering his prime, was able to get away due to our own cap mess at the time. I've haven't noticed OL of his caliber on the open market the past few years.

I think it remains to be seen if that was a bad thing for GB or not. Clearly it was a bad thing in 2005, but Wahle finished 2006 on IR with a shoulder tear of some sort, if I remember correctly. Might be nothing, or it could end up being significant. Tony Boselli's career ended due to a bad shoulder. I have no reason to believe this is anything close to that, but you never know.

[retailguy]

Re: Salary cap historical lesson

Actually, I think that changed 4 or 5 years ago already. 2006 didn't make a long term change in that regard. Wolf made the comment that in the early years of FA, many teams didn't have a clue, and talented players were all over the FA lists in the mid to late 1990s. He said by the time he retired, most teams had hired full time cap specialists and did much better managing the cap, so fewer good players were available.

That was already the case in 2004, 2005; before the big jump in the cap for 2006. All that 2006 did was give a temporary reprieve to the ones that still bungle it up. Chances are, by 2009, 2010 we will again see a few struggling.

Patler,

You seem to be arguing that free agency is full of danger. I don't know anyone who disagrees with that. I sure don't.

However, there is a balance between playing 2007 with holes and bringing in a couple of guys to compete. There were some quality players in free agency that could have helped at several positions, in my mind, namely Safety, TE, FB and RB.

While I recognize that the RB's went in most cases for significant money, the other positions were relative bargains, and would have provided camp competition and even if released not overly large "cap hits".

Right now, we have talented but unproven players at those positions, with little depth behind them. If none of them work out we're in serious trouble. If any of them do work out, but get injured, we're in serious trouble.

People "buy" insurance all the time. I'm not asking Thompson to mortgage the future, nor am I asking him to be "an idiot". That being said, we have many needs that can't possibly be filled in the draft. Where are we going to "get" these players?

That's my gripe. I'm not griping because Thompson is not overpaying. I'm griping because the team isn't even improving on paper. I'm not sold that last years 8-8 record is a reflection of the talent level on the team or a "great" coaching job by the staff. I think the record is more a reflection of the schedule that they played in 2006. I'm not optimistic looking at the second place schedule for 2007. I look at the quality of the defenses we'll be facing and think - WE NEED HELP.

I don't see "help" on the horizon.

[Patler]

Re: Salary cap historical lesson

Patler,

You seem to be arguing that free agency is full of danger. I don't know anyone who disagrees with that. I sure don't.

However, there is a balance between playing 2007 with holes and bringing in a couple of guys to compete. There were some quality players in free agency that could have helped at several positions, in my mind, namely Safety, TE, FB and RB.

While I recognize that the RB's went in most cases for significant money, the other positions were relative bargains, and would have provided camp competition and even if released not overly large "cap hits".

Right now, we have talented but unproven players at those positions, with little depth behind them. If none of them work out we're in serious trouble. If any of them do work out, but get injured, we're in serious trouble.

People "buy" insurance all the time. I'm not asking Thompson to mortgage the future, nor am I asking him to be "an idiot". That being said, we have many needs that can't possibly be filled in the draft. Where are we going to "get" these players?

That's my gripe. I'm not griping because Thompson is not overpaying. I'm griping because the team isn't even improving on paper. I'm not sold that last years 8-8 record is a reflection of the talent level on the team or a "great" coaching job by the staff. I think the record is more a reflection of the schedule that they played in 2006. I'm not optimistic looking at the second place schedule for 2007. I look at the quality of the defenses we'll be facing and think - WE NEED HELP.

I don't see "help" on the horizon.

I'm not at all against signing a few free agents. But I have to admit, I like TT's apparent philosophy of assessing the player's value and sticking to his assessment. Long term you avoid the salary cap pitfalls if you stay away from "impulse buying".

Those who suggest TT will never sign anyone are ignoring the obvious. He was not "cheap" in what he paid Manual or Pickett, and certainly wasn't with Woodson. Franks, Wells, Kampman and Jenkins were not low-balled either.

I think TT's assessment of how much some of this years FAs would actually impact the Packers is much lower than many of the fans feel about those same players. If he felt they would make a big difference, he would pay more. He did with Woodson.

Now I'm sure you can name some players who would have improved the Packers, and TT might even agree. What we don't know is if the player would come to GB for what he signed elsewhere. People turn down jobs every day for many reasons. Players do to. While he was willing to play for $Dollars somewhere else, and maybe TT was willing to pay even 1.1 x $Dollars, the player may have wanted 1.2x$Dollars to come to GB, and that was more than TT was willing to pay.

I used to attend auctions, and bought quite a few things. I do the same there as I do in retail outlets. I decide what I will pay to have something, how much it really means to me, and I won't go over that. I have never regretted it, even when it sells for just a little bit more than I was willing to pay. I have regretted more the times that I over-valued something. After getting it I asked myself what I was thinking when I agreed to pay that much.

I turned down a $110,000 house in 1982 over a price difference of $1,000. (Edit, I was vindicated when they subsequently had to sell for a little less than I had offered 2 months earlier!)

I refused delivery on a brand new car I ordered and waited 6 weeks for when the dealer said there was a $300 price adjustment he hadn't told me about. He kept saying, "You're going to turn this down over $300?" I simply said "Yes" because when I ordered it I was at the max that I wanted to pay for it.
Of course, the dealer subsequently sold it with his markup, but I got a car elsewhere for a price I was satisfied with.

TT doesn't seem to be one who sits on the status quo, not the way he has turned over the roster. Changes will occur, but only on his assessment of "value" not on ours or anyone else's..

[Packnut]

Re: Reality

In hind-sight it really does'nt matter if the cap is 1 billion in 2008. Teddy ain't gonna spend any cash. In fact, he's gonna set a record for the GM saving the most money in cap space for 2 consecutive years!

How much of his available salary cap did he not spend in 2005?
How much in 2006?

Do you realize that in 2006 he actually spent MORE than the NFL standard salary cap allotment?

I was'nt talking about 2006. Obviously he front loaded contracts which ate up space. I was talking about 2007 and 2008. I thought that was pretty obvious?

[red]

This is interesting; but I would say from the above statistics things have changed and I would compare the 2006 extreme cap raising with back in the 98-99 area when they had an even bigger % increase.

The 2006 bump explains why everybody has lots of money; Wahle's deal came due on the wrong year I guess.

B

one year too late

if sherman would have been smarter he would have set the contracts up knowing the cap would go way up that year.

he really couldn't do anything right

now wheres that asshole retailguy at?

[Patler]

Re: Reality

In hind-sight it really does'nt matter if the cap is 1 billion in 2008. Teddy ain't gonna spend any cash. In fact, he's gonna set a record for the GM saving the most money in cap space for 2 consecutive years!

How much of his available salary cap did he not spend in 2005?
How much in 2006?

Do you realize that in 2006 he actually spent MORE than the NFL standard salary cap allotment?

I was'nt talking about 2006. Obviously he front loaded contracts which ate up space. I was talking about 2007 and 2008. I thought that was pretty obvious?

I asked the questions as points of historical reference. He has not left cap money unused in the past and will not in the future.

[cpk1994]

Re: Salary cap historical lesson

Actually, I think that changed 4 or 5 years ago already. 2006 didn't make a long term change in that regard. Wolf made the comment that in the early years of FA, many teams didn't have a clue, and talented players were all over the FA lists in the mid to late 1990s. He said by the time he retired, most teams had hired full time cap specialists and did much better managing the cap, so fewer good players were available.

That was already the case in 2004, 2005; before the big jump in the cap for 2006. All that 2006 did was give a temporary reprieve to the ones that still bungle it up. Chances are, by 2009, 2010 we will again see a few struggling.

Patler,

You seem to be arguing that free agency is full of danger. I don't know anyone who disagrees with that. I sure don't.

However, there is a balance between playing 2007 with holes and bringing in a couple of guys to compete. There were some quality players in free agency that could have helped at several positions, in my mind, namely Safety, TE, FB and RB.

While I recognize that the RB's went in most cases for significant money, the other positions were relative bargains, and would have provided camp competition and even if released not overly large "cap hits".

Right now, we have talented but unproven players at those positions, with little depth behind them. If none of them work out we're in serious trouble. If any of them do work out, but get injured, we're in serious trouble.

People "buy" insurance all the time. I'm not asking Thompson to mortgage the future, nor am I asking him to be "an idiot". That being said, we have many needs that can't possibly be filled in the draft. Where are we going to "get" these players?

That's my gripe. I'm not griping because Thompson is not overpaying. I'm griping because the team isn't even improving on paper. I'm not sold that last years 8-8 record is a reflection of the talent level on the team or a "great" coaching job by the staff. I think the record is more a reflection of the schedule that they played in 2006. I'm not optimistic looking at the second place schedule for 2007. I look at the quality of the defenses we'll be facing and think - WE NEED HELP.

I don't see "help" on the horizon.

The schedule they played? Are you aware that execpt for two teams, the Packers played the EXACT same schedule as the Bears? Since they went to 32 teams, ease of Schedule based on place is hardly relevant.