Hawks carried over less salary cap money than anyone else

[Hasselbeck]

I don't care because it is so expensive I am very lucky if I can go to a game. They can make whatever, but the entire process has gotten old for me. I used to go to L.A. to watch the Rams in the cheap seats for $5.00, now game tickets can easily get over $1,000 each. Greed prevails.

Not trying to derail the thread, however my point is part of the process of cap money.

 

[lobohawk]

The article is significant because it shows how well the Hawks managed their cap situation. You don't want to constantly carrying over left over money. That implies you're either sloppy with managing it or you aren't spending to win as a team. While it's nice to have a "windfall" for an upcoming season, it not a sustainable policy.

That is IMHO a very oversimplified look on things. When you manage to get a RW in the third round and then Sherman in the fifth and other players as well then you better be able to roll over money. Don't go spend the $15million you may have just for the sake of spending it. You will need it to extend the players you have on the cheap now and you can use today's money to do it in the future.

That is why the Harvin signing was such a bad thing. Not just the draft picks but spending money that could have been rolled over and used on others. That is why Cary Williams was such a bad signing. That money could have been rolled over to this year -- don't tell me it was good to spend it last year?

I get that bad decisions will always be made in this business my point is simply that carrying large amounts over doesn't mean you are "sloppy" / not managing it.

Well, they didn't just spend money on Harvin or Williams just to spend. That is an oversimplification. They spent for a purpose or defined need. That they didn't work out is less a failure of Cap management. It was a failure to spot the issues thoroughly in advance. In either case, it was a risk and they happen to pretty much every team. Repeatedly carrying over money implies that you haven't found players to fit your team. If you do, you should be spending everything to keep as many as you can.

 

[Alexander]

IMO, the salary cap generates more concern amongst fans than it should. By far the most important factor in the long-term health of an NFL franchise is how well it drafts every year. If you do that, you'll be fine. If you don't, you're going to suck. A lot of times poor cap management is the result of poor drafting, as teams use free agency to paper over holes in the roster that weren't filled by young, cheap talent. (I'm looking at you, New Orleans.) That's not to say that good cap management, independent of drafting success, doesn't matter. It does, but mostly on the margins. On that note, I think the Hawks have done a good job. In particular, they've been very good about maintaining future cap flexibility. If all the players currently under contract start to suck horribly, they can purge the cap and rebuild fairly quickly. (Compare that to Miami, which has a boatload of money tied up in Suh for years to come.)

IMO, the biggest nut punch from the Percy fiasco was the additional 3rd and 7th round picks that we gave up. The missing 3rd, in particular, still hurts to this day. Remember that we were forced to draft Britt in the 2nd in part because we had no 3rd that year.

 

[irocdave]

It's kinda funny to be on the flipside of the cap now and see the other side of the coin. The cap is designed to level the playing field. It's purpose was to break up the dynasty's (owners with deep pockets who didn't care if they made money on the NFL) like the niners of yore, Dallas etc. The Hawks spent a lot of their history on the down side of the coin with a crappy owner who not only meddled and continually sabotaged drafts but brought in washed up high profile players at over priced rates.

 

[HawKnPeppa]

We got a lot of studs. Those guys cost money. Household names.

Costa doin bizness.

"We got some dawgs, boss!"