Is the rollover the plan?

[mikeak]

^^good point. Assuming he signs a six year deal similar to Harvin's, his 2014 cap hit could be as low as about $3M (or a net increase of ~$2M). If it's a 5 year extension, maybe closer to $4m.

Edit: though I'm not sure it's a given that their 2014 salaries remain in tact. I think Kam Chancellor got a raise over what he would've made in 2013 when he signed his deal.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/seattle-seah ... hancellor/

Look at 2013 that doesn't get moved up by the new contract. He had a $5million signing bonus and that $1million hit in 2013 and then spread out on the additional four years so $1M per and then the new salary changing things in 2014

The alternative is what they did with Browner last year. That was not an extension that was a renegotiated contract that gave him $500k more if I remember the numbers right.

Extensions don't change remaining years - Modified Contracts do

 

[DavidSeven]

^^good point. Assuming he signs a six year deal similar to Harvin's, his 2014 cap hit could be as low as about $3M (or a net increase of ~$2M). If it's a 5 year extension, maybe closer to $4m.

Edit: though I'm not sure it's a given that their 2014 salaries remain in tact. I think Kam Chancellor got a raise over what he would've made in 2013 when he signed his deal.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/seattle-seah ... hancellor/

Look at 2013 that doesn't get moved up by the new contract. He had a $5million signing bonus and that $1million hit in 2013 and then spread out on the additional four years so $1M per and then the new salary changing things in 2014

The alternative is what they did with Browner last year. That was not an extension that was a renegotiated contract that gave him $500k more if I remember the numbers right.

Extensions don't change remaining years - Modified Contracts do

Yeah, but his 2013 base salary was $2.8M. That was definitely a raise above what he was scheduled to make under his 5th round rookie contract. I don't think Sportrac is showing you what his Base would have been if he hadn't signed the extension.

 

[mikeak]

^^ Looks like that is correct. But as you see it is a small bump

"Chancellor, a 2010 fifth-round pick out of Virginia Tech, had been scheduled to earn $1.323"

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutd ... --nfl.html

So he received an additional $1.5M - I do have to wonder if that is tied to the bonus section. His extension gave $5.7M in bonuses (not sure what was in his rookie deal).

Guess we can't say for sure - either way it is a small hit on the 2013 cap for Kam's extension in 2013. Showing that it should be easy from a 2014 cap standpoint to extend existing players - yes may not be easy from a 2015 cap standpoint etc but that is a different discussion and that hit will happen regardless.

Speaking of Kam - it was stated in all articles that I saw that it was a priority to resign him last offseason. Despite having one year left the FO clearly communicated that they were not going to have players hit FA that are priorities.

 

[DJrmb]

I don't think many understand how the cap and rolling over works. The only way that rolling over money from this year helps them sign Sherman or Thomas is if they want to give them a big signing bonus to make the yearly totals a bit lower.

When you roll over money over the original cap you simply get that chunk to spend the following year. Once its spent its spent and gone. Wilson is going to make around 20m per year, not one year. So that 24m over the cap would pay for his first year but wouldn't do a damn thing for years 2, 3, 4, etc. That would be a foolish way to extend guys, basically pitting them on "credit" and hoping to find ways to clear out money for the next year and the next.

In other words with your scenario and that 24m next year, yeah we'd have enough for Wilson's 20m and even have 4m left over. However the following year we would then be 20m OVER the cap, because that rolled over money is only a one time deal. Obviously there are some things that play into it and and move those numbers around a bit but I've seen a lot of people seeming to think of that rolled over money as having a bigger salary cap which is not the case. Its more like just having a check that you can choose to spend that year, but like a check, once its spent the money is gone and not usable again.

 

[mikeak]

^ you are assuming the contract is the same every year which it is not. Rolling over cap money this year puts that money there next year to hit Contracts. Doesn't do anything for 2016 which we get but 2016 will be hit differently because all the contracts are different. Not one contract I have seen is stagnant the whole time

 

[DavidSeven]

Team caps are also expected to get bigger each year. They don't stay absolute. Thus, the rollover is more beneficial in earlier years before individual salaries catch up to cap inflation. You don't really need to be as reliant on rollover money for 2016 and beyond if you expect the cap itself to be $15-20m higher at that point. Earl and Sherman's contracts are going to be frozen in 2014 values and will feel less devastating in the later years of their deals as the cap continues to grow. That being said, I'm not sure how much rolling over money into 2016 is really going to help Seattle. It's certainly an option, though.

 

[Tical21]

You guys are right, I posted late last night and I didn't think my way all the way through the rollover progression. It will only help us for a year. Maybe that is enough, but it isn't the magic potion I had originally thought. I still don't get why you cut Clem without a viable replacement, other than to be fair to him if you think you're going to end up cutting him eventually anyways. I would rather have Chris Clemons on my team than 7 million of unused money.

 

[drdiags]

The other thing to consider is whether Clemons wanted to play on the remaining 1 year of the contract. He had less leverage this time but maybe he asked for some security or to be released. Just a fleeting thought.

 

[rideaducati]

It doesn't look good for guys 30 or over. I think they're doing a wonderful job. The difference in costs of the guys they let go to the guys that will take their places is greater than the drop in production will be.

 

[lukerguy]

I just think not overpaying is the plan.

 

[JMR]

I think the rollover could help if we want to structure the contacts like Bennett's that have a high base salary in the first year but then taper off. Also, teams must spend at least 90% of the cap per the CBA so some limit right there on how far they can take this.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

You guys are right, I posted late last night and I didn't think my way all the way through the rollover progression. It will only help us for a year. Maybe that is enough, but it isn't the magic potion I had originally thought. I still don't get why you cut Clem without a viable replacement, other than to be fair to him if you think you're going to end up cutting him eventually anyways. I would rather have Chris Clemons on my team than 7 million of unused money.

Melton seems to be the plan....

 

[mikeak]

I think the rollover could help if we want to structure the contacts like Bennett's that have a high base salary in the first year but then taper off. Also, teams must spend at least 90% of the cap per the CBA so some limit right there on how far they can take this.

The minimum limit is 89% over a four year period so not in one single year

 

[JMR]

I think the rollover could help if we want to structure the contacts like Bennett's that have a high base salary in the first year but then taper off. Also, teams must spend at least 90% of the cap per the CBA so some limit right there on how far they can take this.

The minimum limit is 89% over a four year period so not in one single year

Yeah, and it's 89% of the total cap amount too, and it's chunked into 2013-2016 and then 2017-2020. Choke points.

 

[Seaswab]

Right now we have $85 mil in cap commitments for next season. The cap is supposed to be $145 mil. Do the math. That leaves enough to get these extensions done without any rollover.

 

[edogg23]

I thought I read you can only roll up to5% this year.

 

[rideaducati]

Is there any other type of plan in the NFL? With free agency, it's impossible to keep a team together. We see teams that keep aging vets that offer diminishing returns fall by the wayside every year. I think Pete and John see this too, so they make the tough decisions and let the aging vets walk. The NFL is a business that has little room for sentimentality.

The way I see it is that they let the over 30 crowd leave and let the young guys that are still hungry take their spots. Last season, the Seahawks had a huge amount of rotation in most positions, so it's not like they haven't seen these young players in game situations. They probably see that the drop off in play will be minimal while the cost savings will be huge. None of the players that are now gone are GREAT players and the money saved will certainly help when their truly great players are due to get paid.

Pete is used to winning when he had players for a maximum of 5 years. There was always turnover, which is why Pete always incorporated the young players during the season. He was always ahead of the curve because the young guys were ready when the older guys left.

Whatever the plan, it seems to be working.

 

[Anthony!]

Whatever their plan is, fixing the o-line should be part of it, or we are in big trouble.