Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
stoicsentry

The Saints in salary cap hell

Recommended Posts

We'll probably end up with closer to $40M.  And the top 3 on that list (Raiders, Jaguars, Browns) are decidedly worse places for free agents to end up than here.

 

Yes, we'll lose out on a couple FA WR's who'd rather get big money to play with Andrew Luck or Aaron Rodgers than get big money to play with ???? here.  But if we're smart we can bring in some nice players that can help us.

 

agreed.  its not a great year to spend it all either.  I'd be perfectly happy with re-signing big mo, re-working cro's deal, and bringing in help for the O passing game, including an OG and back up QB.

 

  I'd like to see idzik leave some room for next year as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Registered members do not see this ad. Click here to create your free account today.
Registered members do not see this ad. Click here to create your free account today.

agreed.  its not a great year to spend it all either.  I'd be perfectly happy with re-signing big mo, re-working cro's deal, and bringing in help for the O passing game, including an OG and back up QB.

 

  I'd like to see idzik leave some room for next year as well. 

 

No receiver? They have to get at least 1 receiver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No receiver? They have to get at least 1 receiver.

 

oh yeah, probably 2-3.  that's what I meant by "including"  I just don't see a big splashy name coming in, just 2-3 solid upgrades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmy Graham probably won't be a free agent. If he was, though?

 

We don't know how much Idzik would be willing to offer him, so we can't say with certainty that the Jets would make the best offer.

 

However, it is certainly possible that the Jets would make the best offer, because the Jets will have one of the best cap situations in the league next year. So there's no reason why Idzik couldn't make the best offer if he really wanted to do so. It just depends on how much he's willing to pay.

 

It's very unlikely that there would be a "line of teams" willing to offer the same money. For one thing, there isn't a "line of teams" that have as much room under the cap as the Jets will. And even among that group, not all of them will have a desperate need at tight end to the extent that the Jets do.

 

You recently asked this question about Maclin, so that makes me think you don't understand the Jets current cap situation. It's great. They have a lot of money to spend.

 

simple reason why we won't get graham. graham would represent an investment in geno. and idzik is not investing that kind of money in geno.

 

sidenote can you imagine graham in seattle?

Edited by jgb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has them at "11" so to speak, the bonus team.

A couple things about that, though:

-He doesn't seem to be taking into account the team's own free agents. The Jets have very few players of importance that must be re-signed. The Colts, for example, have Vontae Davis coming up whereas the Bills have Jairus Byrd to worry about.

The Jets get to the $50 million mark by cutting Holmes, Harris, Cro, and Sanchez--none of whom have replacements on the roster right now, and will cost decent money to replace. A decent vet QB will cost you $3-$4 mil, a decent starting corner is $4-$5 mil. They'll have to draft a WR because no free agent in his right mind is coming here. They need to re-sign Austin Howard, which will be $4-$6 mil. That money looks nice on paper, but realistically it guarantees you nothing. For all the talk of "Rex Effect," the last decent FA to sign a contract here was Bart Scott.

-He doesn't take into account the $$$ that these teams are actually willing to spend. Not their cap room, but their willingness to spend big money--something Johnson is not afraid to do. Take the Jaguars, for example. No, seriously, take them. Get them out of here.

The cap floor is in full effect this year, iirc. Everybody has to spend those dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Jets fans have convinced themselves that they're the only team in the league with tons of cap space. In fact, they're not. According to this Joel Corry article, there are at least ten teams with better cap situations.

http://mweb.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24379050/agents-take-raiders-atop-list-of-10-teams-with-best-2014-salary-cap-situation

 

Then you didn't read the article that closely.  Jets will have among the most cap room since no one expects them to retain Sanchez, Holmes, Cromartie (at his current salary), maybe Harris (if the Jets don't think his production in 2014 will be worth $5M).  

 

According to this article, the only teams who clearly have more space than we will are Oakland and Jacksonville. The numbers for Cleveland don't count 1 or 2 guys mentioned that they're probably going to bring back for big bucks (like Mack).  They're mentioned by name but not factored into Cleveland's allegedly-available cap space because (obviously) they haven't tagged or re-signed either one yet.  Chicago's number doesn't take into account the gargantuan contract they just gave Cutler since the article is from over a month ago.

So again, from your article, the Jets should have approximately the 3rd-most available cap space in the NFL when all the dust settles.  The Jets will be able to afford/fit anyone they want.

 

Even still, the difference in who technically has the most room doesn't matter because Graham is one person and he's not going to eat up nearly half the available space that a bunch of teams have available.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Jets get to the $50 million mark by cutting Holmes, Harris, Cro, and Sanchez--none of whom have replacements on the roster right now, and will cost decent money to replace. A decent vet QB will cost you $3-$4 mil, a decent starting corner is $4-$5 mil. They'll have to draft a WR because no free agent in his right mind is coming here. They need to re-sign Austin Howard, which will be $4-$6 mil. That money looks nice on paper, but realistically it guarantees you nothing. For all the talk of "Rex Effect," the last decent FA to sign a contract here was Bart Scott.

The cap floor is in full effect this year, iirc. Everybody has to spend those dollars.

Yes, but what it does guarantee is IDZIK being able to pick and choose players that hopefully have better character than a couple of the ones being cut, better work ethic rhan a couple being cut, and better team oriented ethics than one thats being cut. Hopefully he can find players that may not neccessarily be that much better than the ones cut, but vertainly find ones that will make a better TEAM when added to the roster left after these cuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you didn't read the article that closely. Jets will have among the most cap room since no one expects them to retain Sanchez, Holmes, Cromartie (at his current salary), maybe Harris (if the Jets don't think his production in 2014 will be worth $5M).

According to this article, the only teams who clearly have more space than we will are Oakland and Jacksonville. The numbers for Cleveland don't count 1 or 2 guys mentioned that they're probably going to bring back for big bucks (like Mack). They're mentioned by name but not factored into Cleveland's allegedly-available cap space because (obviously) they haven't tagged or re-signed either one yet. Chicago's number doesn't take into account the gargantuan contract they just gave Cutler since the article is from over a month ago.

So again, from your article, the Jets should have approximately the 3rd-most available cap space in the NFL when all the dust settles. The Jets will be able to afford/fit anyone they want.

Even still, the difference in who technically has the most room doesn't matter because Graham is one person and he's not going to eat up nearly half the available space that a bunch of teams have available.

I said that Jets fans think they're the only team with tons of cap space. I said that there are other teams with tons of cap space. Corry, however he defines "best cap situations" didn't feel that the Jets are in the top ten. He's weighing other factors besides "most available dollars." I linked the article to show that we're not going to be the only fat-pocket buyers out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but what it does guarantee is IDZIK being able to pick and choose players that hopefully have better character than a couple of the ones being cut, better work ethic rhan a couple being cut, and better team oriented ethics than one thats being cut. Hopefully he can find players that may not neccessarily be that much better than the ones cut, but vertainly find ones that will make a better TEAM when added to the roster left after these cuts.

Lord hear our prayer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

simple reason why we won't get graham. graham would represent an investment in geno. and idzik is not investing that kind of money in geno.

 

sidenote can you imagine graham in seattle?

 

You really think so? I think getting Graham is investing in the passing game, not Geno Smith's passing game per se.  If Graham and Geno had some type of history together - or if Graham was a specific type of receiver that fits Geno's specific skill set - then maybe, but that clearly isn't the case.  Graham would be signed to a 5 year deal probably, give or take, and he'd be expected to perform at a high level for at least that window of time.  Long enough to be of considerable use even if we go with Geno for another year and he is no better than he was in '13.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cap floor is in full effect this year, iirc. Everybody has to spend those dollars.

I believe the salary floor is the most misunderstood aspect of the CBA. There is no "salary cap floor" but a CASH spending floor of 89% per team over two four year periods:

 

"For each of the following four-League Year periods, 2013-2016 and 2017-2020, there shall be a guaranteed Minimum Team Cash Spending of 89% of the Salary Caps for such periods (e.g., if the Salary Caps for the 2013-16 and 2017-2020 are$100, 120, 130, and 150 million, respectively, each Club shall have a Minimum Team Cash Spending for that period of $445 million (89% of $500 million))." CBA

 

The league wide spending must be 95% of CASH for the periods (2013-16, 2017-2020).

 

For example Joe Flacco was paid approximately $30 million in cash in 2013 but cost $7 million on the salary cap.  For "Salary Floor" purposes the entire $30 million counts towards the 89% team spending necessary over 2013-16, not $7 million, this is why there is no cap floor.

 

The bottom line is no team makes roster decisions based on meeting their salary floor. 

Edited by denden29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the salary floor is the most misunderstood aspect of the CBA. There is no "salary cap floor" but a CASH spending floor of 89% per team over two four year periods:

"For each of the following four-League Year periods, 2013-2016 and 2017-2020, there shall be a guaranteed Minimum Team Cash Spending of 89% of the Salary Caps for such periods (e.g., if the Salary Caps for the 2013-16 and 2017-2020 are$100, 120, 130, and 150 million, respectively, each Club shall have a Minimum Team Cash Spending for that period of $445 million (89% of $500 million))." CBA

The league wide spending must be 95% of CASH for the periods (2013-16, 2017-2020).

For example Joe Flacco was paid approximately $30 million in cash in 2013 but cost $7 million on the salary cap. For "Salary Floor" purposes the entire $30 million counts towards the 89% team spending necessary over 2013-16, not $7 million, this is why there is no cap floor.

The bottom line is no team makes roster decisions based on meeting their salary floor.

Interesting, but logistically that makes it nearly impossible to sit on $20+ mil in cap space in any given year, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, but logistically that makes it nearly impossible to sit on $20+ mil in cap space in any given year, right?

 

Your not sitting on it.  Your actually spending it.  Say if the Jets sign Mo, and give him a bunch of money up front.  If they want they can structure the deal any way they want.  But the money they give him now counts to the 89%.  No matter what the actual cap hit is 

Edited by flgreen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your not sitting on it. Your actually spending it. Say if the Jets sign Mo, and give him a bunch of money up front. If they want they can structure the deal any way they want. But the money they give him now counts to the 85%. No matter what the actual cap hit is

Right, but you'd have to do that every year--throw a fat check at a handful of guys every season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said that Jets fans think they're the only team with tons of cap space. I said that there are other teams with tons of cap space. Corry, however he defines "best cap situations" didn't feel that the Jets are in the top ten. He's weighing other factors besides "most available dollars." I linked the article to show that we're not going to be the only fat-pocket buyers out there.

 

When did any Jets fan say that? Or is this just you badmouthing everyone on the board again with another straw man argument?

 

Every year there are teams with a lot of cap space.  This year we are one of those teams.  I haven't seen a post that suggests anyone fails to understand that.  If you can show me otherwise, I owe you a handjob with lotion.

 

Corry listed the 10 teams that were scheduled to have the most cap room on paper (as of Dec 17th).  He even added the Jets in there as a special throw-in specifically because he knows the Jets will have a LOT more than the $16M on-paper cap space as of the article date.  NO one expects Sanchez or Holmes to be back and forgo $8M of cap space apiece.  Nor does anyone - Corry included - expect Cromartie to return with a $15M cap number.  

 

So that's $26M on top of $16M just for those 3.  

 

Then there's the annually overpaid David Harris: another of my favorite Tannenbaum blunders, guaranteeing the guy like $30M of a $36M contract over 4 years.  This is the first year he's cuttable because of all that guaranteed money.  Even though his cap number no longer hovers in the top10 QB levels, he's still overpaid.  Will the Jets be better off with Harris or with $5M more cap room? They'll decide.  Personally I think Harris will be back; Rex seems to like him a lot, if they find a FA to replace him the savings would then be minimal, and we'd also be forgoing a compensatory pick by letting him go as a UFA a year later.  If the way the draft goes leads us to a LB replacement in round 2 (give or take a round), then I expect Harris to get his walking papers a year early.

 

It would be great if we could get Ferguson to lower his undeserving salary for the year, but that seems a longshot.  He gets $8M of new money this year and I suspect he'd get that much in new money this year on the open market if we cut him, and he likely knows it.  Granted, he wouldn't get the rest of the sweetheart deal he has with the Jets, but he's not guaranteed to see any of that 2015+ money anyway.  So we don't exactly have a ton of leverage.

 

Ditto Mangold, though he makes less and his dropoff has been less as well.  Plus there's that other thing, that it likely doesn't go over well when a team has $40M+ in cap room after maybe cutting 4 of their 6 highest-paid players, and their next orders of business are getting the 2 remaining ones to take pay cuts when the team doesn't need to space.  

 

They both deserve pay cuts; their contracts were based on them playing at levels they aren't playing at anymore.  But my guess is both come back at the same dollars.  Kudos to Idzik if he can get either to lower their compensation without the Tannenbaum method of guaranteeing them the same or more in the future (pointless in our current cap situation anyway).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd quote that, but I'm not sure how much data is allowed in a terabyte.

You friend and mine, slats, keeps saying that we have $50! Million! And! 12! Draft! Picks!, like this is some guarantor of recreating the '94 Niners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, but you'd have to do that every year--throw a fat check at a handful of guys every season.

 

It's the nature of the game.  Your going to pay guys every year.  But yes if it's just he cap space you are concerned with for future years there are certainly ways to  pay guys, and move open cap space to a future year

Edited by flgreen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, but logistically that makes it nearly impossible to sit on $20+ mil in cap space in any given year, right?

No because it is cash, not cap, and bonuses can be spread out over five years and the cash spent, not the cap charge, is what matters.  You can give a $25 signing bonus then next year a $20 million guaranteed roster bonus which gets prorated saving cap space but it is still $45 million in cash towards the salary floor. It is the cash spent by teams not their cap space or lack thereof.

 

Example:

 

Assume four caps each 100 million so, $400 million over 4 years, using easy numbers.

 

Year one team a spends $80 million, cap and cash equal, all cap/cash is equal here, carries over $20 million.

 

Year two adjusted cap of $120 million spends $95 million cap/cash

 

Year three adjusted cap of $125 million spends $93 million cap/cash

 

Year four adjusted cap $132 million spends $88 million cap/cash

 

The team spent $20 million under the cap in year one but spent $356 million in cash (89%) of $400 million meeting the salary floor.

Edited by denden29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd quote that, but I'm not sure how much data is allowed in a terabyte.

You friend and mine, slats, keeps saying that we have $50! Million! And! 12! Draft! Picks!, like this is some guarantor of recreating the '94 Niners.

Uh, you may refer to him in those terms: "friend" but in another thread, he called me a "racist" so I doubt the term friend applies in the relationship between him and I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really think so? I think getting Graham is investing in the passing game, not Geno Smith's passing game per se.  If Graham and Geno had some type of history together - or if Graham was a specific type of receiver that fits Geno's specific skill set - then maybe, but that clearly isn't the case.  Graham would be signed to a 5 year deal probably, give or take, and he'd be expected to perform at a high level for at least that window of time.  Long enough to be of considerable use even if we go with Geno for another year and he is no better than he was in '13.

 

yeah i do think it. i believe idzik believes--well i believe so isn't that the important thing--that getting 2 or 3 upgraded targets is more worthwhile than blowing half our cap on one guy. but with geno being a staredown artist, maybe best to just have one stud since everyone beyond the first option is a decoy anyway ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, but logistically that makes it nearly impossible to sit on $20+ mil in cap space in any given year, right?

 

Nope.  In the example he just gave, they're satisfying the cash payment without sacrificing cap space (in the near term anyway).  

 

Teams can also pay a player the same money in the middle of a contract by restructuring.  Pretend we needed the cap room badly right now and player X was due $10M in salary and roster/workout bonuses.  $10M of "new money" no matter how it's sliced, but in those ways all $10M of that new money is used up on this year's salary cap.  If this player has 4 years left on his contract we could restructure a lot of that into new signing/option bonus that gets amortized over the remaining length of the contract.  So in this example, pretend we still pay the player $2M salary, but now $8M is new signing bonus money.  This year we're still paying him $10M but now his cap hit this year is $2M (salary) plus $2M (amortized signing bonus), or $4M total. I'm paying the same player the same amount of money but now we have $6M more cap room than we had a minute ago.  Do that for multiple players, plus make this a "down year" in your spending floor, and it's easy to finish the year with $20M of cap room.  It wouldn't really make sense to do that unless you wanted to just keep options open (like trying to sign someone who ends up signing elsewhere like Asomugha with us).  So while in the future we'd have $6M less cap space for my one fictitious player, we'd also be pushing all $6M of unused space to next season.  It becomes a wash if the cleared space ends up unused.

 

I think we did this with Cromartie in 2013.  Gave him more guaranteed up front to clear up 2013 space.  Meanwhile we ended up not maxing out on the cap in 2013 so that cleared extra space will be pushed to next season: even though technically Cromartie counts more as a gross amount, he'll count the same as a net amount.  Why did we do it? We didn't know what we were doing with Revis or Sanchez are probably 2 very good reasons.  If Idzik wanted to make TB take Sanchez and eat some of his 2013 salary as part of the Revis trade, that would have been great long-term.  But the flip-side of that coin is that in the short term, the past bonus money already paid to Sanchez wouldn't be amortized anymore.  It all would have accelerated to 2013, so we'd need that extra cap space just to make that offer fit under our cap.  That move didn't happen, so we ended up having cleared more space than we needed to.  In other words, in hindsight we probably didn't need to restructure Cromartie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd quote that, but I'm not sure how much data is allowed in a terabyte.

You friend and mine, slats, keeps saying that we have $50! Million! And! 12! Draft! Picks!, like this is some guarantor of recreating the '94 Niners.

 

Our having almost $50M and 12 draft picks is correct.  The latter part is your own addition to it. Therefore, you are finding fault with him for your own comment that you've attributed to him.  No not-alone, lotiony handjob for you.  As usual.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah i do think it. i believe idzik believes--well i believe so isn't that the important thing--that getting 2 or 3 upgraded targets is more worthwhile than blowing half our cap on one guy. but with geno being a staredown artist, maybe best to just have one stud since everyone beyond the first option is a decoy anyway ;)

 

Truthfully I don't know what he believes.  None of us do.  What we do know is that, in a year where we were cap-poor and need-rich at some 20 roster spots, he went the route of cheap acquisitions and lots of draft picks.  Also, he could have created even more cap room and picked up more players in FA in '13.  But I believe he wanted to see what roster spots he could fill cheaply before spending on those same positions.  Seems sane enough. 

 

This year we are in a very different situation.  Some 30% of our cap space is (or will be) available and the number of holes is greatly reduced.  Still have a number remaining, but nowhere near as many as a year earlier, and I'm not counting Geno as a guarantee of anything other than a roster spot as somewhere between our 1st and 3rd string QB.  Another year later he won't even be guaranteed that if he doesn't improve.

 

My point is only that, regarding Idzik, we've only seen how he acts in 1 team situation in 1 year.  A year, mind you, in which he could make every effort to tank the season personnel-wise and get a mulligan year as GM.  He won't be in that situation again with the Jets, and certainly not this season.

 

I expect to see the Jets spend a bunch of money this year.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, but logistically that makes it nearly impossible to sit on $20+ mil in cap space in any given year, right?

 

Not really. Depends on the timing of the payments. For example our team had almost no cap space this year but actually were under the cash spending minimums. That can just as easily flip the other way. 

 

The other thing to consider is there is no penalty for not spending. You simply allocate the money to the players at the end of a 4 year period. So if the Jets wanted to be $10 mil under a year, Woody could go take that $10 million and invest it probably turning the $40 million shortage to $46-$48 million in cash without many problems. In 2017 Woody pays out the $40 million and pockets $6 to 8. Thats pretty good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah i do think it. i believe idzik believes--well i believe so isn't that the important thing--that getting 2 or 3 upgraded targets is more worthwhile than blowing half our cap on one guy. but with geno being a staredown artist, maybe best to just have one stud since everyone beyond the first option is a decoy anyway ;)

Agreed. You saw in the later part of the season and playoffs, teams schemed to take Graham out of the offense, and it worked for the most part. And this was with Colston as another option. We don't have the other options that would make Graham worth that kind of money for another 2 yrs. at the earliest.

 

I'd rather keep building through the draft, pick up some FA that won't break the bank on offense(Maclin, Baldwin,) bring back Cro at $4-5 mil, bring in a young stud OLman who can help keep Geno, or whoever, safe for the next 5 years. Put some money towards the back 7 of the defense, and go draft some offensive talent that will be peaking together with our QB.

 

If it were only that easy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×