2017 Salary Cap Update (Cap Space: $18.78M)

[Seahawkfan80]

You are AWESOME Hawkstorian. Just thought I would let you know. Thanks for breaking it down John.

 

[HawkGA]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/836961760217198593[/tweet]

So the more sources a team has, the more salary cap that team has????

 

[HawkGA]

In my opinion, they really only need a lineman or two, and a corner in fa. Should be enough money there to get decent players. The rest can be taken care of in the draft. Got some high potential guys coming off ir this year.

I suspect the team will not pursue a CB in free agency. If they do, it won't be one that will make a significant difference in cap space.

 

[Sports Hernia]

According to OTC.com Seattle has 25.9 million in cap space.

 

[Hawkstorian]

You are AWESOME Hawkstorian. Just thought I would let you know. Thanks for breaking it down John.

Thanks!

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/836961760217198593[/tweet]

So the more sources a team has, the more salary cap that team has????

Apparently. :laugh:

 

[HawkGA]

Just trying to track through the history . . . . Hawkstorian, you were basing your numbers off of a $168 million dollar cap, right? It came in at $167 but with carry-over the Hawks have $169. So in the post you estimated $10 million that becomes slightly higher at $11 million (but still basically right)?

 

[Hawkstorian]

$1M less in total cap means that much less the team has to spend ... but I still think they could put $10M into 1 or 2 players. The rest goes into draft picks, RFA tenders, re-signing low-priority guys (Like Brandon Williams) and keeping a necessary buffer going into the season.

RFA tenders will be interesting. I think they have to tender Gilliam, but what about Shead? What about Terrill? Once that part gets sorted out we'll have a better idea headed into free agency.

BTW -- NFLPA has the Seahawks at $26M in available space: https://www.nflpa.com/public-salary-cap-report which is about as official a figure as you'll see out there.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

Appreciate all done by Hawkstorian. Also found this for those that want financial measurements on the draft alone. Now I see more why we trade down a bit.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/draft/


10 million goes pretty quick now a days.

 

[HawkGA]

$1M less in total cap means that much less the team has to spend ... but I still think they could put $10M into 1 or 2 players. The rest goes into draft picks, RFA tenders, re-signing low-priority guys (Like Brandon Williams) and keeping a necessary buffer going into the season.

RFA tenders will be interesting. I think they have to tender Gilliam, but what about Shead? What about Terrill? Once that part gets sorted out we'll have a better idea headed into free agency.

BTW -- NFLPA has the Seahawks at $26M in available space: https://www.nflpa.com/public-salary-cap-report which is about as official a figure as you'll see out there.

:2thumbs:

So you had already factored in the carry-over from last year. Awesome work.

 

[Hawkstorian]

NFLPA figures updated this morning to reflect tenders to Garry Gilliam and a few EFRAs. The latest balance is $24.2M. Within that, the team needs about $2.35M for draft picks and should leave about a $5M buffer going into the season, which leaves around $16.866M to spend on new players, re-sign current players or give contract extensions.

Key players going into their last year:

Chancellor, Graham, and Britt

If they extended Graham they could probably structure so his cap number didn't change much. Chancellor's would probably go up by $2M or so, Britt would probably go up $5M or more.

It's all subjective, but I still believe the team could throw $8- $10M or so into serious additions

More to update as things evolve.

 

[Hawkstorian]

$8M for Joeckel. Don't know the cap impact until we see how much is tied to incentives. Probably there's a lot tied to games played would be largely "not likely to be earned" since he only played 4 games in 2016.

 

[jammerhawk]

As you note it's only $8 mil. if the incentives are earned, the raw numbers need to be known.

 

[Seafan]

$8M for Joeckel. Don't know the cap impact until we see how much is tied to incentives. Probably there's a lot tied to games played would be largely "not likely to be earned" since he only played 4 games in 2016.

I'm eager to see what the OL depth chart looks like. Who is competing where. Is it Joeckel vs Gilliam? Do both make the roster? Is it Joeckel pushing Ifedi out to RT? Is it Joeckel competing with Glow? Fant?

 

[mikeak]

Remember that it is also relatively easy to create cap by redoing a deal to a player where guaranteed money shifts to signing bonus. It doesn't change the money a player gets just how it gets split

Chicago has it as a standard in all their contract that the team can do this and the player has to agree

Considering RW, Sherman, Kam, Baldwin and a few others I expect that we are willing to slowly start spending money from the future for he next 2-5 years

 

[Hawkstorian]

Remember that it is also relatively easy to create cap by redoing a deal to a player where guaranteed money shifts to signing bonus. It doesn't change the money a player gets just how it gets split

This is possible, but not something the Seahawks have done under this regime. I would be surprised if they went down this path.

 

[EverydayImRusselin]

Remember that it is also relatively easy to create cap by redoing a deal to a player where guaranteed money shifts to signing bonus. It doesn't change the money a player gets just how it gets split

This is possible, but not something the Seahawks have done under this regime. I would be surprised if they went down this path.

Yep, that is how you end up in cap hell ala NO/Dallas the last few years. JS has done a great job of balancing contracts in such a way as to avoid this. Most JS contracts are front loaded with bonus money and early base salary (Wagner being an exception) so that when the player might possibly begin to decline, there is little guaranteed money on the books.

They could also extend some people to free up money as well. Graham for example. A 3 year extension could push his cap hit for 2017 down $4-5M pretty easily.

 

[Hawkstorian]

Good News! The league has posted 'cap updates' and the Seahawks gained about $1.35 in additional space. Cap updates happen every year and normally relate to changes that happened to contracts from the previous season. For example, Michael Bennett had game day bonuses he didn't achieve so those dollars come back to the Seahawks. I don't have data on what makes up total adjustment amount, but that's one possible reason.

With that cap increase, the Seahawks now have a little over $25.5M in available space, pending results of the deal with Joeckel.

 

[mikeak]

Remember that it is also relatively easy to create cap by redoing a deal to a player where guaranteed money shifts to signing bonus. It doesn't change the money a player gets just how it gets split

This is possible, but not something the Seahawks have done under this regime. I would be surprised if they went down this path.

I think we haven't done it because we didn't need too and also because we had several young players signed cheaply on their first contracts.

As those are re-signed and you need money to keep a good team going I personally believe we will utilize this option if needed. It doesn't by itself create "cap-hell" (as noted by others) if done prudently and managed but it allows you to use the 3-5 year window that you find yourself in at different times. Then you have a 1-2 year downturn where you catch up alternatively you hit it in the draft and get lucky / use your skill.

We shall see but if the right guys are there for the right price I see it happening but not like some teams. On the other hand look at Chicago again - they did it quite a bit while they now suck it is not because of the cap (Cutler) and are fine with where the Cap is.

Dallas did it and then hit in the draft and suddenly looks great.

Saints did it and are having major issue. Point being - you can do it and manage it right / wrong and that is what decides the outcome

 

[A-Dog]

We do have a couple of guys - Jeremy Lane and Jermaine Kearse - who aren't top performers and who have pretty sizeable contracts. If we do restructure with a low first year cap hit, it could be balanced by the fact that we could cut those two if it comes down to it.

It would not be difficult to extend Kam and Jimmy and reduce their cap hits this year in the process. Britt is another story, however.