The Seahawks Have More Cap Space Than You Think in 2020

[Tical21]

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.

 

[A-Dog]

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.

 

[AgentDib]

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.

 

[Jville]

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.

 

[knownone]

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.

 

[chris98251]

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.

 

[Fade]

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.

 

[Tical21]

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?