Cap situation - ESPN Insider

[mikeak]

I thought Wilson was already under contract for next season? If so wouldn't any new contract numbers hit the cap in 2016?

When a player signs an extension, the current contract is ripped up and the new cap # starts so the player can start getting his bonus money immediately.

Confused about the question and the reply.

If player is supposed to receiver $1million in 2015 and gets a four year 20 million dollar extension of which 10 million is signing bonus then it should work as follows

1) Still pay $1 million in 2015 for base salary
2) Take the 10 million dollar signing bonus and spread it over the five years so 4million hit / year
3) pay the remaining 10 million over the next four years so 2016-2019

So the "current contract is ripped up" - yeah but the base salary for remaining year remains intact which is different than getting a new contract in full which completely rips it up. A four year extension on a one year contract means the guy is signed for five years. A new contract for four years on a guy that has one year left still only means the guy is signed for four years

 

[mikeak]

They should demand a much higher percentage of the total to balance out the rookie wage scale.

Can you elaborate on this? Simply curious. I get an argument for splitting income differently (both sides want more) but I am interested in what you mean with that it should be higher because of the rookie pay scale.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I thought Wilson was already under contract for next season? If so wouldn't any new contract numbers hit the cap in 2016?

When a player signs an extension, the current contract is ripped up and the new cap # starts so the player can start getting his bonus money immediately.

Confused about the question and the reply.

If player is supposed to receiver $1million in 2015 and gets a four year 20 million dollar extension of which 10 million is signing bonus then it should work as follows

1) Still pay $1 million in 2015 for base salary
2) Take the 10 million dollar signing bonus and spread it over the five years so 4million hit / year
3) pay the remaining 10 million over the next four years so 2016-2019

So the "current contract is ripped up" - yeah but the base salary for remaining year remains intact which is different than getting a new contract in full which completely rips it up. A four year extension on a one year contract means the guy is signed for five years. A new contract for four years on a guy that has one year left still only means the guy is signed for four years

You're right, I was correcting brims who thought that new extensions were somehow deferred until the current contract was finished (cap wise).

 

[Mick063]

Seahawks will begin to phase out players that are not measuring up to their salary. This will add cap space.

Sometimes it isn't the player's fault. Injury plagued players are not anyone's fault, but too many of them can spell the demise of any team.

Young players get injured as well, but they also seem to heal faster. In other words, if you are older, not on a rookie contract, and spend a good chunk of time inactive due to injury, your days are probably numbered. I think everyone knows who those players are.

 

[Greenhell]

An article on how obtaining Suh could work. Don't like this option if it means getting rid of Lynch and Mebane. Meh.

http://fanjabs.com/blog/2015/02/06/...attle-seahawks-cap-moves-that-make-it-happen/

 

[Sgt. Largent]

An article on how obtaining Suh could work.

http://fanjabs.com/blog/2015/02/06/...attle-seahawks-cap-moves-that-make-it-happen/

He had me until sign and trade Lynch.

 

[SomersetHawk]

An article on how obtaining Suh could work. Don't like this option if it means getting rid of Lynch and Mebane. Meh.

http://fanjabs.com/blog/2015/02/06/...attle-seahawks-cap-moves-that-make-it-happen/

Horrible. Antithesis of how the Seahawks do business. Clearing three of our own to make room for one? Weak.

 

[Greenhell]

An article on how obtaining Suh could work.

http://fanjabs.com/blog/2015/02/06/...attle-seahawks-cap-moves-that-make-it-happen/

He had me until sign and trade Lynch.

Yep. Same here. No thanks.

 

[Popeyejones]

Okay, let me put this simply.

We now have 57 players contracted for next year including the futures. The 51 counting against the cap put us at a little over $124m.

Ughh. Dude, you can't both count the futures and not count the futures at the same time. Even by the MOST generous measure and including people who aren't going into that projection the Hawks salary cap figure for next year is based on 46 players.

You can add it up yourself.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/seattle-seahawks/yearly-cap/

If what you were saying was true they wouldn't need to cut Mebane and sign and trade Lynch to get Suh as the above link is suggesting. They'd have the money to just sign him outright. From that link:

They currently have almost $25 million in cap space, which is enough to take care of offseason issues and carve out $4 million for Suh.

Notice how I've been saying throughout the thread that a conservative estimate of left-overs would be 3-4 million? See something in common?

C'mon man! :lol:

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

According to this Seahawks have 57 players on contract. So whoever said 46 was right. We added 11 futures players I believe. It also says our cap is at 122 mil. If cap is 142 = 20 mil but I think we have 4 mil in rollover. Either way its enough to take care of Wilson and Wagner.

Cutting Unger with a June 1st tag saves 4.4M.. Miller is 2.4M. Thats 6.8 mil.

Could still keep Lynch if Suh takes a discount. But is Suh worth 4 players?

Also, McDaniels and Mebane cut are worth 8.5 mil against the cap. Thats 15.3 M saved if the Seahawks cut or traded Mebane, Miller, and McDaniels while designating Unger as a post june 1st cut.

But I think that cap will rise up much more than 142 because Goodell wants the Cowboys to remain competitive bc its good for cash flow and Cowboys need Dez and Murray.

I say 150. Some are speculating for the cap to reach a 160 ceiling by 2016 anyway.

 

[SomersetHawk]

Okay, let me put this simply.

We now have 57 players contracted for next year including the futures. The 51 counting against the cap put us at a little over $124m.

Ughh. Dude, you can't both count the futures and not count the futures at the same time. Even by the MOST generous measure and including people who aren't going into that projection the Hawks salary cap figure for next year is based on 46 players.

You can add it up yourself.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/seattle-seahawks/yearly-cap/

If what you were saying was true they wouldn't need to cut Mebane and sign and trade Lynch to get Suh as the above link is suggesting. They'd have the money to just sign him outright. From that link:

They currently have almost $25 million in cap space, which is enough to take care of offseason issues and carve out $4 million for Suh.

Notice how I've been saying throughout the thread that a conservative estimate of left-overs would be 3-4 million? See something in common?

C'mon man! :lol:

Before you start calling me out, I was using the futures contracts as a base for next years cap, on overthecap, not sportrac. You don't have to add it up yourself, they do it for you... http://overthecap.com/salary-cap/seattle-seahawks/ I took $124m to work from when I should have actually been working from $121m (apparently the figure of the top 51).

Sportrac's ok, but I've found they're a lot less reliable than overthecap whenever I've used their figures. (Most recently when looking at Brandon Marshall's contract, they still have his 2015 dead cap money as over $13m when in reality, and on overthecap, it's $5.6m).

I really cba to work out which figures are actually right in this case, this is all prospective anyway and we wont really know how we plan to work this until Russell and Bobby's deals get done. Sportrac's draft workings are relatively useless because we'll have more than seven picks, though overthecap don't anticipate any draft picks.

If it makes you feel better to give legitimacy to the link giving us about $4m to throw at Suh then go ahead buddy! :th2thumbs:

 

[Popeyejones]

If it makes you feel better to give legitimacy to the link giving us about $4m to throw at Suh then go ahead buddy! :th2thumbs:

It has nothing to do with feeling better. I raise it because I'm a jagoff off on a messageboard and using back of the envelope calculations I came to a 3 to 4 million dollar cap window.

If it's entirely meaningless to you that a couple days after I did so a reporter who was investigating what it would take to get Suh came to the exact same figure as I had, I don't know what to tell you.

In what imaginary world does that NOT legitimize the back of the envelope calculations I've been doing? The counterfactual would be that a third-party reporter came to a conclusion that stumbled onto the same figure that you've been arguing for; OF COURSE that would have legitimized your argument to some degree. It's silly to pretend otherwise.