The Seahawks Have More Cap Space Than You Think in 2020

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • Overthecap.com has the the Seahawks right now at $95,159,669 in space with a projected $200M cap in 2020.

    But it doesn't factor in rollover which would put them at $105,378,774 in projected space.


    Here is where it gets crazy. Looking at the guys that have a cap hit of $4M or more that could be cut, or there will be a strong consideration for them to be cut at the very least.

    2020 Roster Potential Cap Casualties

    Kam Chancellor -$14.5M- if cut $12M savings.
    Doug Baldwin -$14.1M- if cut $11M savings.
    Justin Britt -$11.67M- if cut $8.75M savings.
    K.J. Wright -$8.5M- if cut $6.5M savings.
    Ed Dickson -$4.3M- if cut $3.4M savings.

    2019
    Mingo getting cut this year adds another $4.1M in savings.


    Adding the cost of two more rookie classes, and vet mins to fill out the 2020 roster,
    practice squad, IR, etc., Approximately $25M will be needed on the safe, and conservative side.


    Total approximate cap space = $125M in 2020.


    Now of course they are not cutting everyone of these players. And some guys I would think are going to be extended. So this number is going to shrink over the next 12 months.

    I'm just putting it out there for people to see. The Seahawks have a lot of money to play with. If they can't build a championship contender, It's on them. They have plenty of resources, and a Franchise QB to build around.
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2615
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • And possibly less than we think since Wilson, Wagner, Clark, Reed aren't on there and that alone is around $88M per year average salaries (yes 88M is a WAG)
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6964
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:41 pm


  • Seymour wrote:And possibly less than we think since Wilson, Wagner, Clark, Reed aren't on there and that alone is around $88M per year average salaries (yes 88M is a WAG)


    They have plenty of space to do it too.

    That will not be what they count against the cap in year 1 (2020) as well.


    Some Examples. The highest paid players at there positions.


    Khalil Mack $23.5M APY extension signed in 2018. (FRANK CLARK)

    2019 cap hit = $11.9M


    Aaron Donald $22.5M APY extension signed in 2018 (JARREN REED lol)

    2019 cap hit = $17.1M


    Aaron Rodgers $34M APY extension signed in 2018 (Russell Wilson)

    2019 cap hit = $26.5M APY



    So let's now plug in those numbers in for the Seahawks + $1M APY over on each making them the highest paid players at their positions. Which isn't happening besides Wilson.

    12.9
    18.1
    27.5

    58.5M against the cap, and Bobby Wagner will not be counting $30M against the cap in 2020. So your salary cap numbers are not structured in a realistic way whatsoever for the 2020 season.
    Last edited by Fade on Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2615
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • Fade wrote:I'm just putting it out there for people to see. The Seahawks have a lot of money to play with. If they can't build a championship contender, It's on them. They have plenty of resources, and a Franchise QB to build around.

    Not sure why you're going with this "if they can't build a championship contender it's on them" stuff. They've been in the playoffs almost every year of Carroll's tenure, which means they have been in position to contend for the championship all those years. They one won, and almost won another.

    Sometimes it just comes down to who's left over at the end of the year. While this has to with bankroll tangentially in terms of quality of depth, repetitive injuries at a particular position can still let a team down, regardless of how much money they throw at it. Sure it's important to get the right guys in the right places, but it's also a matter of luck. If enough key guys get hurt, you're pretty much done.

    I'm not saying it's a crap shoot, but to win a Super Bowl you have to be both talented AND relatively healthy, and only one of those can money really fix.

    Point is, they can build a championship contender because they DID build a championship contender and have consistently been a championship contender.

    I sometimes wonder if you guys were here through the 7-9, 8-8 seasons and the NFL's longest playoff drought, because if you were I expect you' have more respect for where we are now.
    KiwiHawk
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 2436
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:22 pm
    Location: Auckland, New Zealand


  • KiwiHawk wrote:
    Fade wrote:I'm just putting it out there for people to see. The Seahawks have a lot of money to play with. If they can't build a championship contender, It's on them. They have plenty of resources, and a Franchise QB to build around.

    Not sure why you're going with this "if they can't build a championship contender it's on them" stuff. They've been in the playoffs almost every year of Carroll's tenure, which means they have been in position to contend for the championship all those years. They one won, and almost won another.

    Sometimes it just comes down to who's left over at the end of the year. While this has to with bankroll tangentially in terms of quality of depth, repetitive injuries at a particular position can still let a team down, regardless of how much money they throw at it. Sure it's important to get the right guys in the right places, but it's also a matter of luck. If enough key guys get hurt, you're pretty much done.

    I'm not saying it's a crap shoot, but to win a Super Bowl you have to be both talented AND relatively healthy, and only one of those can money really fix.

    Point is, they can build a championship contender because they DID build a championship contender and have consistently been a championship contender.

    I sometimes wonder if you guys were here through the 7-9, 8-8 seasons and the NFL's longest playoff drought, because if you were I expect you' have more respect for where we are now.


    People are concern trolling over Seattle's cap space. Seattle's cap is fine and has been managed very well. That is all.
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2615
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • "concern trolling"..LMAO
    Someone said in another post that we have like over 30 players
    who's contracts end next year?I'm not sure if that is correct but
    if it is wow..
    Lots of players to resign,sign and yada yada that cap space dries
    up quick especially if we sign the three Fade mentioned but he
    forgot Wags in that mix so how much will those 4 take up?
    We could act like Cowboys I suppose and just spend it all.
    IndyHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4878
    Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 2:42 pm


  • KiwiHawk wrote:
    I sometimes wonder if you guys were here through the 7-9, 8-8 seasons and the NFL's longest playoff drought, because if you were I expect you' have more respect for where we are now.


    Hell, we used to think 8-8 was a GOOD year. Just be in the wildcard conversation entering December, that's how low our expectations used to be.

    These are the salad days, that's certainly not lost on me. I highly doubt we'll ever see a Seahawk run like this ever again. Enjoy it.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 15915
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • Thanks for posting, excellent post Fade.

    Another factor to consider however is the incredibly high number of contacts the team presently has, 32 up to now, which will expire at the end of this season making it a need to redo many of them to keep a roster. This will reduce the available cap a many other contracts will require fair market payment if the players are to be kept.

    In the roster thread each of the 'one year guys' are identified with italics. One year contracts are short term advantageous and reduces the cap cost of players but exposes the team to constantly redoing contract and having to pay bonus money where players are kept over a longer time window. at present this seems to be a present modus operandi, whether it serves a long term advantage remains to be seem if the team can't take advantage of comp picks. They failed at that last season but seem presently determined not to repeat.

    I'm quite unsure of the team's desire to axe all those you mention with high cap numbers but I could see a contract like Britt's being traded.
    jammerhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 6496
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:13 pm


  • Fade wrote:
    Seymour wrote:And possibly less than we think since Wilson, Wagner, Clark, Reed aren't on there and that alone is around $88M per year average salaries (yes 88M is a WAG)


    They have plenty of space to do it too.

    That will not be what they count against the cap in year 1 (2020) as well.


    Some Examples. The highest paid players at there positions.


    Khalil Mack $23.5M APY extension signed in 2018. (FRANK CLARK)

    2019 cap hit = $11.9M


    Aaron Donald $22.5M APY extension signed in 2018 (JARREN REED lol)

    2019 cap hit = $17.1M


    Aaron Rodgers $34M APY extension signed in 2018 (Russell Wilson)

    2019 cap hit = $26.5M APY



    So let's now plug in those numbers in for the Seahawks + $1M APY over on each making them the highest paid players at their positions. Which isn't happening besides Wilson.

    12.9
    18.1
    27.5

    58.5M against the cap, and Bobby Wagner will not be counting $30M against the cap in 2020. So your salary cap numbers are not structured in a realistic way whatsoever for the 2020 season.


    That depends largely on prior contract amounts and at what point in the contract they sign. Pushing money down the road ends up catching up to every team sooner or later. I find it 'safer" to simply go with the average per year which ultimately is what the player costs you unless it ends early for some reason.
    That said, likely it will be less then I stated on cap hit, I agree.
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6964
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:41 pm


  • jammerhawk wrote:Thanks for posting, excellent post Fade.

    Another factor to consider however is the incredibly high number of contacts the team presently has, 32 up to now, which will expire at the end of this season making it a need to redo many of them to keep a roster. This will reduce the available cap a many other contracts will require fair market payment if the players are to be kept.

    In the roster thread each of the 'one year guys' are identified with italics. One year contracts are short term advantageous and reduces the cap cost of players but exposes the team to constantly redoing contract and having to pay bonus money where players are kept over a longer time window. at present this seems to be a present modus operandi, whether it serves a long term advantage remains to be seem if the team can't take advantage of comp picks. They failed at that last season but seem presently determined not to repeat.

    I'm quite unsure of the team's desire to axe all those you mention with high cap numbers but I could see a contract like Britt's being traded.


    I factored that in.

    Fade wrote:Adding the cost of two more rookie classes, and vet mins to fill out the 2020 roster,
    practice squad, IR, etc., Approximately $25M will be needed on the safe, and conservative side.


    And yes I pointed out not all of those players will be cut. Kam is a given. Baldwin is looking extemely likely, and I would be very surprised if Ed Dickson makes it. The other guys it will come down to how they play in 2019.
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2615
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • Britt is a guy that has two back up's at least behind him and I could see as part of the mix to trade for picks if we had to. They are also looking at a lot of LB's now as well. Again mileage on Wagner. Clark if not careful could talk himself out of town for the right price, I know they like him but the depth behind him may step up and we have the draft. Wilson is the only guy that we don't have a Red Shirt for really. That speak for itself.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 28941
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • A lot of this is about cycling off a lot of the big contracts that haven't worked out the last few years. Once those deals are gone we should finally be in good cap space after a 2-3 period of relative austerity.
    Hawkstorian
    * NET Staff *
     
    Posts: 4196
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:19 pm
    Location: Spokane


  • Seymour wrote:
    That depends largely on prior contract amounts and at what point in the contract they sign. Pushing money down the road ends up catching up to every team sooner or later. I find it 'safer" to simply go with the average per year which ultimately is what the player costs you unless it ends early for some reason.
    That said, likely it will be less then I stated on cap hit, I agree.



    This is how a typical big NFL contract extension goes.

    The first 2 years is the real money. 100% guaranteed. It is paid out by a fat signing bonus, and $1M and change Base Salary.
    Year 2: The base salary / roster bonuses get you the rest of the way there (To what you agreed to on the first 2 yrs.)

    Year 3 is injury guaranteed only, and is the big hump year, that will be biggest strain on your cap % wise, as the player will have a very big base salary / roster bonus + proration still remaining from that signing bonus.

    Year 4: by then the cap has gone up significantly since when they first signed (40M+), and now the player begins to look like a bargain, though the cap number is still pretty high (similar to year 3). Proration still remains.

    Year 5: Same song and dance.

    Year 6: Proration no longer remains (only allowed up to 5 years.) Big base salary.



    Frank Clark as an example in a very flat structure. Which Seattle tends to lean towards. So more than a $1M base in the 1st year.

    4yrs 80M = 20M APY

    first 2 years 40M dollars

    yr 1 a 6.5M base + 20M Signing bonus = 26.5M

    yr 2 13.5M base = $13.5M

    = 40M in the first 2 years.

    THIS IS HOW IT WOULD LOOK IN SALARY CAP FORM


    2019 yr 1: 6.5M base + 5M signing bonus proration = 11.5M Cap hit (Lowers Clark's cap hit in 2019 by almost $6M)

    2020 yr 2 13.5M base + 5M signing bonus proration = 18.5M Cap hit

    That is with a very aggressive shorter (Only 4 years), which creates higher proration. 5 yrs it would be 10.5M + 17.5M

    Which reminds me.

    I should point out that if Wilson, Clark, or Wagner should sign extensions this off-season. They will have a lower cap number than they have now, for 2019. Thus giving Seattle even more salary cap dollars to rollover into the next season.

    As I illustrated with Clark. His cap hit right now in 2019 is $17.1M. But that fat signing bonus payout allows for a lower base salary in the first 2 years, and creates lower cap numbers.
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2615
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • I don't know how you figure out the rollover amount (realistically) before the season starts. Lots that can (and likely will) happen before then

    Dickson - trying to decide if he is more waste of money than Percy. I mean seriously everyone except PC knew he was overpaid when signed
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7763
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • How many players do we currently have signed through 2020?

    If we sign any three of Wilson, Wagner, Frank and Reed, we will be spending more on 3 players than ANY OTHER team spends on their highest 4. There's no way that even with signing 3 of them, that we are going to be cap-rich.
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4376
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:37 pm


  • Tical21 wrote:How many players do we currently have signed through 2020?

    If we sign any three of Wilson, Wagner, Frank and Reed, we will be spending more on 3 players than ANY OTHER team spends on their highest 4. There's no way that even with signing 3 of them, that we are going to be cap-rich.


    But we might be talented.
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 17136
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:46 am


  • The main reason there are so many contracts up is that the team has signed a ton of players to 1 year deals.

    It's actually a brilliant scheme and has kept the team competitive in a market of Brinks trucks being delivered loaded to elite players.
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 34992
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:38 pm


  • Tical21 wrote:How many players do we currently have signed through 2020?

    If we sign any three of Wilson, Wagner, Frank and Reed, we will be spending more on 3 players than ANY OTHER team spends on their highest 4. There's no way that even with signing 3 of them, that we are going to be cap-rich.


    Again, how did they sign the LOB, Wagner, Bennett, Avril, Pay the RB, Pay Jimmy Graham $10M, Pay Doug Baldwin, and pay their QB the 2nd highest contract in the NFL.

    You were probably also saying back then they couldn't pay Sherm, Kam, Earl, and the QB. :D

    How did they do that?

    I have crunched the numbers, they fit, comfortably. Play around with the calculator yourself, and you will see.

    This team has a ton of cap space. It comes down to if Seattle feels like the players are worth investing in for the long term. And getting their numbers just right. Schneider is also on record stating they can fit everyone in. And he referenced those LOB days.
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2615
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • They did it by backloading and guaranteeing contracts of Britt, Wilson and Baldwin. They were in cap purgatory and had to release Richard Sherman in his prime.

    Over half your cap for four players? Plus Brown, Lockett, McDougald. 7 players for 70% of your cap? That's like 40% higher than their previous generation 8 highest. I do not believe for one second that you have played with the numbers. You can barely give the other 45 guys minimum contracts.
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4376
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:37 pm


  • Tical21 wrote:How many players do we currently have signed through 2020?

    If we sign any three of Wilson, Wagner, Frank and Reed, we will be spending more on 3 players than ANY OTHER team spends on their highest 4. There's no way that even with signing 3 of them, that we are going to be cap-rich.


    We have 27 guys signed through 2020, second lowest in the league. As of right now we have about 90 million in cap space, assuming you resign Russ at his current rate, that drops to 65 million for 25 players.
    AirStrike
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 104
    Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:41 pm


  • AirStrike wrote:
    Tical21 wrote:How many players do we currently have signed through 2020?

    If we sign any three of Wilson, Wagner, Frank and Reed, we will be spending more on 3 players than ANY OTHER team spends on their highest 4. There's no way that even with signing 3 of them, that we are going to be cap-rich.


    We have 27 guys signed through 2020, second lowest in the league. As of right now we have about 90 million in cap space, assuming you resign Russ at his current rate, that drops to 65 million for 25 players.

    Thanks! So Frank, Bobby, and Reed dont count in that either? That leaves like 15 million for 22 players (plus money for injury replacements). I'm sure I'm wrong as always, but that doesn't sound like a lot of cap space.
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4376
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:37 pm


  • That headcount of 27 for 2020 dropped to 26 today with the release of LB Emmanuel Beal. That ties the Raiders for the fewest current contracts for 2020. With the inevitable release of Kam Chancellor prior to 2020, the effective number can be viewed as 25.

    The Seahawks are potentially set up to emerge as one of the hungriest teams in the NFL with lots of players on prove it contracts. I like it! :2thumbs:

    P.S.The cap cost of the 2019 Seahawks rookie class should be among the more affordable.
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 9146
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:49 pm


  • Thanks for starting this thread Fade. :2thumbs:
    Maybe it will slow down the trade everyone of value for draftpicks mindset a bit.
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 26520
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • Can we rename the thread "The Seahawks Have Less cap space than you think...."
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4376
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:37 pm


  • Wow, totally disagree, with the no cap post.

    Reality is that that the team has 32 players on 1 year contracts for 2019 and that is of the 67 signed at present. That will of course present difficulty, but will be able to worked around.

    The FO is doing a good job retooling the roster. Keep the faith. At present there are a few BIG contracts that need to be done but they are cap possible and notwithstanding the "cap trolling" worries the true core of the team can be kept.

    Next season the team could possibly have 11 draft picks with 4 in the first 3 rounds. If you are paying attention there is a significant transition occurring and that will result in a few tight situations but the money part as the OP has opined is available for the players the team wants to keep.

    Wilson, Wagner, and Reed will be kept, Clark will depend on the numbers, but he's doable without a doubt.

    Lots of drama here but really would the team let Wilson go??? Wagner?? Reed? They keep Clark for the season, and the question is can they reach a deal that makes sense?

    The point of the thread is that the team has the cap available in 2020 to keep all these guys.
    jammerhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 6496
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:13 pm


  • If people want to see both who is signed and how much room the Hawks have in 2020, go to this link and click on the "2020" tab on the top left.

    https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/seattle-seahawks/

    The shorthand here is that 13 months from now these 26 players will account for about 50% of possible cap space, with the other 50% of possible cap space available to be taken up by (a) Current Seahawks who are not on this list of 26, (b) draft picks, and (c) free agents.

    The other way to think about this is that if the Hawks re-sign Wilson at 30, Clark at 20, Wagner at 18, and Reed at 14, that would leave them 18 million dollars left on the cap to fill out 21 total roster spots.

    You can adjust big or small, up, down, or around from there.
    Popeyejones
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5327
    Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:58 am


  • I don't see why there is a panic, you can't have a full roster of All Pros and pay them, we will trade, release, restructure, and make it work.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 28941
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.



  • UPDATE: AS OF MAY the 9TH

    The Seahawks as of today now have 41 players under contract for 2020 (which doesn't account for cheap ERFAs) with $82M + $20M in rollover = 102M in Cap Space for 2020. That is with Russell Wilson being the highest paid player in NFL history.

    Ziggy has yet to show up on OTC, but he will count $13M against the cap knocking it down from $33M to $20M in rollover.
    He probably won't earn all of his incentives, but they have to account for it. So they could save some additional space.

    Mingo could still be cut, or take a massive pay cut (which I would advise they do).

    Ed Dickson could get cut for age/salary reasons as well.

    KJ has to be dynamite this year or he will be cut next year. BBK and/or Cody Barton will take his job otherwise.

    I feel like Justin Britt may be in the same boat as KJ.

    I like Jaron Brown, and I don't think he will be cut, but it is a possibility.

    The point is they can free up even more space if necessary.

    Again like I said in the original OP, the cap numbers this year and next are going to get eaten into, With Wagner & Reed, a couple more vet signings, and typical IR, practice squad, Top 51 converting to 53, etc. But they will have so much leftover space for this year and next, it is bordering on crazy.

    The Seahawks are drowning in cap space at this point. They blew up the roster, and it appears they have rebuilt it on the fly while still remaining contenders.

    They have 11 Draft Picks for 2020. I would like to see John Schneider trade down a few times and draft 16 players next year just for the lolz.

    Pretty impressive stuff. What he and Carroll have pulled off this off-season.
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2615
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • Way too early look at UFA targets in 2020:

    1. Grady Jarrett. Currently on franchise tag. Unlikely to be tagged a second year
    2. Leonard Williams.
    3. Jack Conklin. 5th year option was surprisingly denied by Tennessee.
    4. Chris Jones.
    5. Reggie Ragland (was a VMAC visit in draft year).
    6. Javon Hargrave

    Not a ton of top shelf (and young) talent next year. Most of these will be resigned. Didn't even bother to list Michael Thomas. Saints will be hard strapped for cash but still he wouldn't end up here.
    Attyla the Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2318
    Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:38 pm


  • Fade wrote:
    They have 11 Draft Picks for 2020. I would like to see John Schneider trade down a few times and draft 16 players next year just for the lolz.

    I have us at 10 picks for next year.

    Explanation... we have our original top 5, having trading away our 6th to J'ville to draft John Ursua this year and our 7th to NE for TE Jacob Hollister, albeit a conditional pick, terms not specified. Add in the 2nd we get from KC for the Frank Clark trade and also add in our expected four compensatory picks in the 3rd, the 4th, the 6th and 7th rounds... makes a total of 10 picks next year... for the time being.
    onanygivensunday
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4197
    Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:59 am


  • onanygivensunday wrote:
    Explanation... we have our original top 5, having trading away our 6th to J'ville to draft John Ursua this year and our 7th to NE for TE Jacob Hollister, albeit a conditional pick, terms not specified. Add in the 2nd we get from KC for the Frank Clark trade and also add in our expected four compensatory picks in the 3rd, the 4th, the 6th and 7th rounds... makes a total of 10 picks next year... for the time being.


    Yeah, I forgot about the TE trade. So it is 10.

    41 players as of 2020 doesn't even account for 1st rd Pick L.J. Collier yet as well.

    But I think I've done a good enough job ramming home the point that Seattle has managed their salary cap extremely well.

    And the trolls concerned about Seattle's cap space have disappeared. :D
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2615
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • Fade wrote:
    onanygivensunday wrote:
    Explanation... we have our original top 5, having trading away our 6th to J'ville to draft John Ursua this year and our 7th to NE for TE Jacob Hollister, albeit a conditional pick, terms not specified. Add in the 2nd we get from KC for the Frank Clark trade and also add in our expected four compensatory picks in the 3rd, the 4th, the 6th and 7th rounds... makes a total of 10 picks next year... for the time being.


    Yeah, I forgot about the TE trade. So it is 10.

    41 players as of 2020 doesn't even account for 1st rd Pick L.J. Collier yet as well.

    But I think I've done a good enough job ramming home the point that Seattle has managed their salary cap extremely well.

    And the xxxxxx concerned about Seattle's cap space have disappeared. :D


    I'd give your effort and contribution on this subject five out of five stars. :2thumbs: Carry on!
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 9146
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:49 pm


  • While we all know this would be highly uncharacteristic of Seahawks' FO, the greater cap flexibility makes me wonder if there's a chance they might trade up in the first or second round to land a certain coveted player in the 2020 draft. Especially considering the team's playoffs/SB window of opportunity. "When pigs fly," I know, especially knowing there's no guarantee a certain player will succeed in the NFL. I'd of course be surprised if they did, but still fun to consider the possibilities.
    Ruminator
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 914
    Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 7:52 pm


  • Ruminator wrote:While we all know this would be highly uncharacteristic of Seahawks' FO, the greater cap flexibility makes me wonder if there's a chance they might trade up in the first or second round to land a certain coveted player in the 2020 draft. Especially considering the team's playoffs/SB window of opportunity. "When pigs fly," I know, especially knowing there's no guarantee a certain player will succeed in the NFL. I'd of course be surprised if they did, but still fun to consider the possibilities.


    Trading up has happened (see Tyler Lockett), but in rounds 1-2, it's rare for JS to do so since the draft capital means leaving many players off his board.
    Ad Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2262
    Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:25 am


  • The core argument here is great. The FO has handled this off-season very well and we do have plenty of flexibility going forwards despite Russ's contract.

    That being said, I've never liked this idea of comparing cap space across teams and cap space itself isn't always good. Praising a team for having cap space is a lot like praising a sports car for being light before you've noticed that it's still missing several dozen parts. The reason why our cap space looks so low is that we have 18-20 players who should be playing key roles on Sundays but are slated to be UFA's after this season. We would be much better off if we had less cap room in 2020 but some of those players were extended at reasonable rates.

    The solution is to continue throwing young players at the roster and for enough of them to work out to keep things rolling. We'd love to have Ifedi, Iupati and Fant play their way to bigger contracts elsewhere next year provided younger linemen like Simmons, Haynes and Jones are ready to take their spots. Perhaps we won't need Ansah, Marsh or Jefferson due to the growth from Rasheem Green, Jake Martin and LJ Collier. Travis Homer looks like a good candidate to replace McKissic and/or Prosise. If we could have a few of the young receivers make a 2019 impact that would smooth the transition next off-season there as well.

    The rest of our team around the QB is going to keep getting very young over the next couple of seasons, with our 11 picks next year and almost certainly another four additional comp picks in 2021.
    AgentDib
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3980
    Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:08 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • Fade wrote:
    onanygivensunday wrote:
    Explanation... we have our original top 5, having trading away our 6th to J'ville to draft John Ursua this year and our 7th to NE for TE Jacob Hollister, albeit a conditional pick, terms not specified. Add in the 2nd we get from KC for the Frank Clark trade and also add in our expected four compensatory picks in the 3rd, the 4th, the 6th and 7th rounds... makes a total of 10 picks next year... for the time being.


    Yeah, I forgot about the TE trade. So it is 10.

    41 players as of 2020 doesn't even account for 1st rd Pick L.J. Collier yet as well.

    But I think I've done a good enough job ramming home the point that Seattle has managed their salary cap extremely well.

    And the trolls concerned about Seattle's cap space have disappeared. :D

    I suppose i'm among those because I didn't want Clark to get his and RW to get over
    $30 million a year :177692:
    Don't conviently forget Bwags is getting paid and since he is the best MLB in game
    I can live with that.
    The fact you label anyone who doesn't see your spin on cap matters a "troll" is lame.
    I will state my opinion on anything to agree or disagree so piss off.
    IndyHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4878
    Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 2:42 pm


  • IndyHawk wrote:
    Fade wrote:
    onanygivensunday wrote:
    Explanation... we have our original top 5, having trading away our 6th to J'ville to draft John Ursua this year and our 7th to NE for TE Jacob Hollister, albeit a conditional pick, terms not specified. Add in the 2nd we get from KC for the Frank Clark trade and also add in our expected four compensatory picks in the 3rd, the 4th, the 6th and 7th rounds... makes a total of 10 picks next year... for the time being.


    Yeah, I forgot about the TE trade. So it is 10.

    41 players as of 2020 doesn't even account for 1st rd Pick L.J. Collier yet as well.

    But I think I've done a good enough job ramming home the point that Seattle has managed their salary cap extremely well.

    And the trolls concerned about Seattle's cap space have disappeared. :D

    I suppose i'm among those because I didn't want Clark to get his and RW to get over
    $30 million a year :177692:
    Don't conviently forget Bwags is getting paid and since he is the best MLB in game
    I can live with that.
    The fact you label anyone who doesn't see your spin on cap matters a "troll" is lame.
    I will state my opinion on anything to agree or disagree so piss off.


    The only ones concerned about Seattle's cap space, were the trolls, or the ill informed who do not study how the salary cap actually works. Which ever category you want to place yourself in is fine by me, all I know is the mind numbingly dumb posts about Seattle's cap space have stopped.

    Seattle's cap situation was fine even with Clark. KC just made them an offer they couldn't refuse.

    Seattle is currently on track to have the most cap space in 2020. They have too much space at this point. We'll just have to wait and see on Wagner & Reed, but cap hits in year 1 are usually are pretty low.

    The Seawhawks have more cap space than you think in 2020.
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2615
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • Fade wrote:
    IndyHawk wrote:
    Fade wrote:
    onanygivensunday wrote:
    Explanation... we have our original top 5, having trading away our 6th to J'ville to draft John Ursua this year and our 7th to NE for TE Jacob Hollister, albeit a conditional pick, terms not specified. Add in the 2nd we get from KC for the Frank Clark trade and also add in our expected four compensatory picks in the 3rd, the 4th, the 6th and 7th rounds... makes a total of 10 picks next year... for the time being.


    Yeah, I forgot about the TE trade. So it is 10.

    41 players as of 2020 doesn't even account for 1st rd Pick L.J. Collier yet as well.

    But I think I've done a good enough job ramming home the point that Seattle has managed their salary cap extremely well.

    And the trolls concerned about Seattle's cap space have disappeared. :D

    I suppose i'm among those because I didn't want Clark to get his and RW to get over
    $30 million a year :177692:
    Don't conviently forget Bwags is getting paid and since he is the best MLB in game
    I can live with that.
    The fact you label anyone who doesn't see your spin on cap matters a "troll" is lame.
    I will state my opinion on anything to agree or disagree so piss off.


    The only ones concerned about Seattle's cap space, were the trolls, or the ill informed who do not study how the salary cap actually works. Which ever category you want to place yourself in is fine by me, all I know is the mind numbingly dumb posts about Seattle's cap space have stopped.

    Seattle's cap situation was fine even with Clark. KC just made them an offer they couldn't refuse.

    Seattle is currently on track to have the most cap space in 2020. They have too much space at this point. We'll just have to wait and see on Wagner & Reed, but cap hits in year 1 are usually are pretty low.

    The Seawhawks have more cap space than you think in 2020.

    This is an exceptionally silly take. Not everyone concerned with cap space is a troll, and just because they disagreed with your perception of our cap situation doesn't mean that you know more about the cap than they do.

    Guess what? People stopped talking about the cap because we traded Frank. That's the only reason. If you added Frank's contract to this team, we'd still be having that conversation.
    knownone
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2213
    Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:10 am


  • knownone wrote:
    Guess what? People stopped talking about the cap because we traded Frank. That's the only reason. If you added Frank's contract to this team, we'd still be having that conversation.


    Why not do the math?

    Because even if the Seahawks signed Frank to those high Kansas City contract numbers, the resulting 2020 effective cap space would still have been upwards of around $55 million last time I checked. With or without Frank Clark, there was and still is plenty of cap space ...... more cap space than many thought.
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 9146
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:49 pm


  • Jville wrote:
    knownone wrote:
    Guess what? People stopped talking about the cap because we traded Frank. That's the only reason. If you added Frank's contract to this team, we'd still be having that conversation.


    Why not do the math?

    Because even if the Seahawks signed Frank to those high Kansas City contract numbers, the resulting 2020 effective cap space would still have been upwards of around $55 million last time I checked. With or without Frank Clark, there was and still is plenty of cap space ...... more cap space than many thought.

    Looking at cap space and doing basic arithmetic is not doing math. Math in this situation would ask; what is your talent level relative to your cap space? That is the question some people seem to be missing. No one argued that Seattle couldn't create cap space. They argued whether Seattle could maintain a deep roster while giving a large percentage of their cap space to a handful of players. Make sense?
    knownone
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2213
    Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:10 am


  • Funny that we literally lose by far our best young player because we can't pay him, and then guys say "the guys who said we have no cap room have disappeared." Yeah, because we were already proven right and this discussion is over. We still have the second fewest players under contract for 2020.

    Math here is: available cap space divided by spots you need to fill. We are average without Reed and Wagner under contract, and will probably be dead last afterwards. Nail, coffin.
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4376
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:37 pm


  • Tical21 wrote:Funny that we literally lose by far our best young player because we can't pay him,


    We didn't LOSE by far our BEST young player because we COULDN'T pay him

    We TRADED one of our better young players for a pretty solid return because we DIDN'T WANT to pay him what he wanted to be paid.

    I maintain that Clark is overrated and would have been a risky long-term signing and I would rather have Reed than him even at the same price 10 times out of 10.
    A-Dog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1134
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:11 pm


  • Tical21 wrote:Math here is: available cap space divided by spots you need to fill.

    I think you'd agree that it is still early to be projecting 2020 needs. "Good contract" and "Rookie contract" have become synonymous to a degree in this CBA and next off-season we will have 75% more information about our 2018 and 2019 draft classes than we do now. If they aren't looking good then our cap situation will indeed look dire, but it's entirely possible that enough of these picks will hit to make most of our 2020 UFA's expendable.
    AgentDib
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3980
    Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:08 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • knownone wrote:
    Jville wrote:
    knownone wrote:
    Guess what? People stopped talking about the cap because we traded Frank. That's the only reason. If you added Frank's contract to this team, we'd still be having that conversation.


    Why not do the math?

    Because even if the Seahawks signed Frank to those high Kansas City contract numbers, the resulting 2020 effective cap space would still have been upwards of around $55 million last time I checked. With or without Frank Clark, there was and still is plenty of cap space ...... more cap space than many thought.

    Looking at cap space and doing basic arithmetic is not doing math. Math in this situation would ask; what is your talent level relative to your cap space? That is the question some people seem to be missing. No one argued that Seattle couldn't create cap space. They argued whether Seattle could maintain a deep roster while giving a large percentage of their cap space to a handful of players. Make sense?


    Yours is a creative extension to the term math. My use of the term math indeed refers to common adding and subtracting as practiced by Over The Cap (OTC) and other entities who track contracts, cap costs and cap space. After all, cap space is the subject of this thread.

    If anyone has some creative ideas about developing some kind of talent weighted cap cost or value, then by all means organize them into a digestible form for all of us to see and enjoy. Such a unique presentation would surely demand its own subject specific thread. I would be among the first to welcome such a contribution.

    As to whether the front office and staff can continue to remain competitive with depth while managing the cap, that's essentially an expression of the degree of confidence each individual poster possesses in the Seahawks organization.
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 9146
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:49 pm


  • Jville wrote:
    knownone wrote:
    Jville wrote:
    knownone wrote:
    Guess what? People stopped talking about the cap because we traded Frank. That's the only reason. If you added Frank's contract to this team, we'd still be having that conversation.


    Why not do the math?

    Because even if the Seahawks signed Frank to those high Kansas City contract numbers, the resulting 2020 effective cap space would still have been upwards of around $55 million last time I checked. With or without Frank Clark, there was and still is plenty of cap space ...... more cap space than many thought.

    Looking at cap space and doing basic arithmetic is not doing math. Math in this situation would ask; what is your talent level relative to your cap space? That is the question some people seem to be missing. No one argued that Seattle couldn't create cap space. They argued whether Seattle could maintain a deep roster while giving a large percentage of their cap space to a handful of players. Make sense?


    Yours is a creative extension to the term math. My use of the term math indeed refers to common adding and subtracting as practiced by Over The Cap (OTC) and other entities who track contracts, cap costs and cap space. After all, cap space is the subject of this thread.

    If anyone has some creative ideas about developing some kind of talent weighted cap cost or value, then by all means organize them into a digestible form for all of us to see and enjoy. Such a unique presentation would surely demand its own subject specific thread. I would be among the first to welcome such a contribution.

    As to whether the front office and staff can continue to remain competitive with depth while managing the cap, that's essentially an expression of the degree of confidence each individual poster possesses in the Seahawks organization.

    Creative extension of the term math? I majored in a branch of Mathematics; I did very little arithmetic.

    The only problem with creating a weighted model is finding a non-biased valuation of the players. If we follow the arithmetic OTC model to determine value there is absolutely no scenario where the Seahawks are a better team with more cap space.

    Why? Because the only way for the OP's position to make any sense; we'd have to assume that the players that left in free agency or trade are being replaced by an equivalent player on a lesser contract. Otherwise, what is the logical conclusion to surmise from his debate against those who worried about cap space? That we are a better team without Frank Clark, Justin Coleman, Doug Baldwin, or even Earl Thomas? You can have that opinion, but that opinion is not supported by the cap.

    His argument only makes sense if we look at cap space abstract of overall talent. That's a fine position to have, I just don't understand why he's using that as a reason to call people who disagree with him a troll. There is more than one way to evaluate the cap, and it doesn't always involve looking solely at the numbers.
    knownone
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2213
    Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:10 am


  • You can't pay everyone what they want sadly, but you can get addition by subtraction like we did this year, sad to see Frank go but we got multiple players in return as well as have room not to lose others.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 28941
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • knownone wrote:This is an exceptionally silly take. Not everyone concerned with cap space is a troll, and just because they disagreed with your perception of our cap situation doesn't mean that you know more about the cap than they do.



    I agree not everyone of them was a troll, some of them were/are really dumb, and don't know how to use a salary cap calculator.

    They had no ability to factor in 2 rookie classes & ERFAs. Or guys like Chancellor, Baldwin, and more coming off the books.

    These Chicken Littles or Trolls, predicting Seattle's salary cap demise over a month ago if they signed RW to a mega deal, have a lot of egg on their face.

    The Seahawks have the most projected space in 2020, the opposite of salary cap hell. If they had signed Frank Clark they would still be amongst the top teams in terms of projected cap space. JS at his draft presser said they planned to sign Clark, but KC made them an offer they couldn't refuse. JS has turned Clark into a huge cache of players, and he still has a 2nd rounder next season from that trade that will inevitably net multiple players after he trades down again.


    An exceptionally silly take is saying something like Russell Wilson isn't elite, or Todd Gurley is. That is silly.

    Me pointing out over a month ago that Seattle has more cap space than people thought at the time, and people needed to do their homework wasn't silly, but factual.
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2615
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


  • Again...the Seahawks are near the bottom in dollars available per unfilled roster spot in 2020.

    And we just watched one of the top young pass rushers in the league get traded for cap purposes.

    And we are the ones whose calculators dont work?
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4376
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:37 pm




It is currently Mon Dec 09, 2019 1:44 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information