Spotrac Starters Cap Hit

Just thought this was an interesting little feature to talk about.

http://www.spotrac.com/research/nfl/pro ... ially-514/

For the Seahawks:

21 out of 32 for age of prospective starters (youngest being #1)

#3 in the league for the cap hit for projected starters (they're 4 million behind #2 and 5 million behind #1, meaning without any changes if Wilson and Wagner have hits this year for their new deals the Hawks will likely be #1).

#1 in the league for cap hit for projected defensive starters and by a VERY wide margin (the Hawks spend 30% on their defensive starters than the #2 team)

#29 in spending for offensive starters, which makes sense, as the only dollar amounts on offensive starters really worth talking about are Lynch, Graham, and Okung, with the three of them together accounting for 66% of the Seahawks spending on offensive starters.

#10 for kicker/punter spending.


Overall I think these numbers all make a good sense. The seahawks had a truly exceptional run at the draft 3-4 years ago, and are now paying for it; the best defense in the NFL, even beforeWagner's deal, is now far and away the most expensive.

Equally interesting is how much offensive production the Hawks have been able to get out of very little money, basically from being able to pay Wilson peanuts. If you pay Wilson 15 million the Hawks would jump from 29th to 10th in offensive starter spending (I'd expect the first year of the extension to come in somewhere between 6-10 million, though). and they'd be paying 10 million more on their starters than the second most spending team in the NFL.

Nothing wrong with any of these numbers as you'd EXPECT a very good team to also have very well compensated starters (LOL at the poor Jets), but figured it was interesting for discussion.

Lots of players on a great team expect to be paid.

If you're not rewarding the players of a team that gets to the SB in consecutive years and with one Lombardi already hoisted over their heads, who the hell else are you going to reward.

Make perfect sense to me.

What will be interesting to see if our recent FAs who got paid well elsewhere will shine with their new teams or will they be average starters who just got overpaid based on who they played next to while still with Seattle.

Byron Maxwell, James Carpenter, and Jeron Johnson come to mind... Malcolm Smith as well.

I personally expect Maxwell to shine if used similarly to how he was used in Seattle... and I also expect Johnson to become noticed as a very good safety in the league.

onanygivensunday":3rpu3avy said:

Byron Maxwell, James Carpenter, and Jeron Johnson come to mind... Malcolm Smith as well.

I personally expect Maxwell to shine if used similarly to how he was used in Seattle... and I also expect Johnson to become noticed as a very good safety in the league.

Click to expand...

IMO maybe Johnson, as he's the only one who was actually stuck behind someone who's incredibly talented.

If forced to put money on it, I'd guess the rest of the guys are the standard story: non-essential players that were allowed to walk from their excellent team BECAUSE they're non-essential, who are then overpaid by dumb other teams because of the team they previously played on.

I think we've already seen some of that with the Seahawks. You've got Golden Tate on one side, and then a bunch of guys who got overpaid and didn't do too much (heck, Bryant, Browner and Thurmond didn't even make it past year before their markets plummeted).

Couple of notes on the defense

After next season Michael Bennett can be cut and save us money against the cap (3 million savings). I wonder if this is part of his insecurity?

Same thing goes for Cliff Avril (5 million savings). Both will be 30, the magical age for the hatchet man to visit.

Brandon Mebane and Tony McDaniel will be a UFA after this season, shaving another 9 million off that number.

Cary William's deal was basically a one year contract. Cutting him in 2016 saves us about 4 million.

Those 5 starters will all be 30+ next season. We need Marsh, Clark, J. Hill, Gwacham, Simon, T. Smith and others to step up and show something.

On offense, Russell Okung's 7.3 million on the last year of his contract stands out like a sore thumb. He's still pretty young, and is a top 5 LT when healthy, but he's really on a prove it deal with a team that undervalues OL.

This team could be radically re-worked next year.

There are some low hanging fruit that will get trimmed next year.

We have 30m+ on the DL on the books this year. But 2017 has a lot of those contracts expiring.

Additionally, we are carrying a significant amount of dead money this year for the Harvin hit. Next year's dead money should be very minimal. That dead money relief can account for Wagner's extension almost by itself.

Seattle's cap situation is actually pretty healthy. What Seattle hasn't done, is continue to reload with our next wave of core players. The trades for Harvin and Graham have merely added to our current core group in terms of age and expense.

Seattle has done very well in reloading quality role player talent. Richardson at the end of the season was a good replacement for Tate, but his injury probably will rob him of that quality. I'd consider Lockett to be an even better replacement -- especially if we consider the expected performance out of the box in years one and two.

I don't expect Sweezy to be on the team next year. I think he'll price himself off the team. Our OL is going to have to shoulder the load in terms of cap relief. We don't have a similar quality replacement for Okung on the roster. I think we'll be looking at LT prospects in R1 next year. As I see it, here are the players we are most likely to see go next season, expected cap relief and reload options we have in house:

1. Okung 7m (no replacement)
2. Sweezy 1.5m (Glowinski)
3. Mebane 5.7m (no replacement)
4. C. Williams 5.0m (Tye Smith)
5. McDaniel 3.6m (no replacement)
6. Irvin 2.9m (Wright moves, Kevin Pierre-Louis at WLB)


Players who may decline and be cut:

1. Lynch 11.5m (no replacement)

Mebane and McDaniel are good players. And I'd feel a lot better if we had guys on the roster to fill their roles. But they aren't necessarily premium positions in terms of using draft stock to reload. Also, I don't see us keeping both Baldwin and Kearse on the roster next year, where Baldwin will garner 6m and Kearse likely close to 4m. I would expect that Lockett will reload one of those positions. Just don't know who at this point.

Our biggest issues next year as I see them from this early stage, is reloading LT and RB. These are the highest impact positions that seem to be short term reload needs. I would be surprised if we were to make another 1st round trade for a veteran next year. The loss of draft options starting next year is going to be more painful for the club. This year seemed to me like the last year we had that option given who we were losing. Not that I'm expecting us to use the 1st round pick. We'll probably trade back like we generally like to do. I do believe this year we felt we missed out on some important players because of the loss of the 1st round pick and I'd expect that sting to linger next year.

What troubles me going forward, is that Seattle hasn't really established our next wave of core players. Players who will merit getting their second deals instead of rolling off the payroll for reloading. I do think that Lockett could be the first in that next wave. The Clark selection has the realistic potential to reload Avril (2018) or Bennett (2017) when their contracts are up. If he develops and becomes that next player, he would be the most important addition IMO of this draft class.

Jordan Hill will move into the role occupied by either Bane or Tony. He was playing like a starter prior to being injured. Body wise he is a 1 tech, skill wise he is a 3 tech, which is actually a pretty apt description of Mebane as well.

McGruff":24drdg2x said:

Couple of notes on the defense

After next season Michael Bennett can be cut and save us money against the cap (3 million savings). I wonder if this is part of his insecurity?

Same thing goes for Cliff Avril (5 million savings). Both will be 30, the magical age for the hatchet man to visit.

Brandon Mebane and Tony McDaniel will be a UFA after this season, shaving another 9 million off that number.

Cary William's deal was basically a one year contract. Cutting him in 2016 saves us about 4 million.

Those 5 starters will all be 30+ next season. We need Marsh, Clark, J. Hill, Gwacham, Simon, T. Smith and others to step up and show something.

On offense, Russell Okung's 7.3 million on the last year of his contract stands out like a sore thumb. He's still pretty young, and is a top 5 LT when healthy, but he's really on a prove it deal with a team that undervalues OL.

This team could be radically re-worked next year.

Click to expand...

This is a very good post that highlights the thinking and planning of the FO. Like you said where the Hawks cap in 2016 will be placed is completely different than the 2015 outlook. That's why I believe you saw a slight shift in how they drafted a couple years ago. Drafting potentially starter replacements one to two years in advance. Effectively RedShirting players their first year. And I think they knocked the 2015 draft out of the park with drafting players that should help out immediately.

There are more than a few ways our cap space will be shifting and McGruff's accurately highlights what I think the direction of the franchise will be heading.

I do think Marsh will be a solid starter for us in the very near future. Gwacham is raw as sushi, but has skills.

McGruff":e1ynum8t said:

This team could be radically re-worked next year.

Click to expand...

yep, that's probably when it really starts, and makes sense with the Seahawks being 1 to 2 years behind the 9ers in really dealing with the salary cap (i.e. the 9ers' radical reworking happening as we speak).

I've said it before, but it's why it's so important for the Hawks' team and their fans that they got a Super Bowl (and almost two) in this little window (and still with one last year in it!), and why for 9ers fans like myself it was so friggin tragic to have a super bowl and two NFCC games all come down to losing on a matter of yards on a single play at the end of the game.

Windows like these really don't come around a lot, and capitalizing on them makes all the difference.

Popeyejones":jg6cd75h said:

McGruff":jg6cd75h said:

This team could be radically re-worked next year.

Click to expand...

yep, that's probably when it really starts, and makes sense with the Seahawks being 1 to 2 years behind the 9ers in really dealing with the salary cap (i.e. the 9ers' radical reworking happening as we speak).

I've said it before, but it's why it's so important for the Hawks' team and their fans that they got a Super Bowl (and almost two) in this little window (and still with one last year in it!), and why for 9ers fans like myself it was so friggin tragic to have a super bowl and two NFCC games all come down to losing on a matter of yards on a single play at the end of the game.

Windows like these really don't come around a lot, and capitalizing on them makes all the difference.

Click to expand...

I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with this. The Hawks situation and the 9ers situation aren't similar at all. The 9ers had a legit window because of the age of the roster and the volatility of the team. Plus not replacing those aging vets all led to their demise.

The Seahawks are a young team with the core locked up for quite some time. Also, the Seahawks cap situation (as you said "really dealing with the salary cap") is fine and they've done a good job managing the cap and stacking the salaries so the core guys can stay and not be cut do to cap restraints. Add that with the rise in the cap and the Hawks "window" is not who you described it, no matter how much you wish it were true.

^^^^ IIRC I've had this conversation here before, so I'd rather not derail and instead just agree to disagree. :th2thumbs:

FWIW though, just for clarification, our disagreement is about if the Seahawks will have to deal with some roster churn and tough decisions in the next two years because of the salary cap*, NOT about if they'll be successful in doing so or not. I'm really not making a comment on that at all, as it's trying to predict an unknown futur that comes AFTER an unknown future.

*(and I think they ALREADY have started to deal with this; Tate, Bryant, Clemons, Maxwell, Browner, Carpenter, etc.)

Yeah, when I say "re-worked" I don't think that means "re-built."

The problem with the niners is their core was all 30-35. The Seahawks core (the LOB, Wright, Wagner, etc.) is much younger. The big concern is restocking the front 4 of the defense. They've invested there and I think 3 of the 4 starting positions are covered long term with Hill, Marsh and Clark. I'm putting a lot of faith out there on those guys, but I like what I've seen.

I view Gary Gilliam as a potential replacement for Okung. He was raw coming out of college but he should have 2 years under his belt at the NFL level. Have we've played with so-so talent at the position the last few years, injured Okung and McQuistan.

Not to mention Alvin Bailey will be an RFA.

I think it's important that Cable views Glowinski as a player who can swing to Tackle. Glow can man the right side depth and which would allow Gilliam to get work in on the left side.

Cable is also high Jesse Davis thus far, he was a top 10 Tackle in Sparq ratings.

The Tackle class should also be deep next year depending on what underclassmen come out. Even if the Seahawks draft a raw, high-ceiling tackle in the late 1st. One could assume Bailey and Gilliam can be solid enough to stop gap for a season.

I agree. I think Cable believes in his coaching ability to get raw players to perform at adequate levels, even at an important position like LT.

Bailey is probably first in line, pushed by Gilliam. I also like Gilliam a lot with a bit more coaching.

The vast majority of our core players are locked up, and we have to believe the FO has accounted for all those contracts already. Basically, we're working in Wilson and Wagner and that's about it. Okung will be a question mark, but really the FO's biggest task moving forward is filling in all those smaller holes around the positions being paid. It's a nice problem to have, as it works concurrently in sourcing out great depth and replacements for the core players (most are so young, they probably won't be replaced in the next 3 years).

Lynch will be off the books by the time Wilson's contract will be full steam.

We'll save some money on the DL, as previously mentioned. OL is looking to be where we save the most money, as Cable has shown he can piece together a top running game out of almost anything. If we keep compiling 4th and 5th round comp picks like we have been, it will literally be a bottomless well of OL talent to choose from.

We could go LT in the 1st next year, or see what we have with Bailey. He lost 30 lbs this offseason, and that to me shows that he's taking it very seriously what is going on with Okung. Bailey was serviceable at LT already, losing weight and getting more reps at the position most likely will help us out there.

I see Lockett replacing Baldwin in a year or so. They're basically the same player, but Lockett is more explosive, and Baldwin might have slightly better hands. We can save money there. I can also see Kearse getting replaced eventually too.

The cap issues can be massaged by rotating the OL like we have been, and rotating the WR corps. The only issue is we have to be able to hit on WRs in the draft better than we have at this point.

The most important thing to wonder here is how long will pete/schnieder will be here??? Are they planning down the road or just for now? Usually every coach that retires or gets fired, the team that gets left behind needs to be blown up by the succeeding coach.

Pete is right up there in age and I don't think he will be here after a couple more seasons.

PC/JS have to be one of the best, if not the best GM/coach duo in history in terms of preparing for the future, right? I mean, how often do teams get a young core like the Seahawks do, with so much top talent, even with the impending Wagner and Wilson deals, have so many ways of creating much more cap room like cutting or trading players? Even the Graham trade created cap room for the new deals, and they traded an inconsistent(injury-wise) center in Unger. And yet, with all their talent, they know how to prepare for the future by drafting potential replacement players like Frank Clark this year, KPL and Cassius Marsh last year.

dumbrabbit":28z4c9u3 said:

PC/JS have to be one of the best, if not the best GM/coach duo in history in terms of preparing for the future, right?

Click to expand...

Ehh, I don't think anyone really knows yet for this question. So far I'd say their moves are pretty standard, if maybe a bit below average from a preparing for future perspective due to their penchant for trading away draft picks.*

That said, one of the best, if not the best, thing I think you'd attribute to them is there 2010 to 2012 draft run (including trades, FA signings, etc.). That was really historical team building that's up there with the best in history IMO, if not the best in history.

*There's a general consensus supported by data that not trading away draft picks (and instead using them to multiply them) is far and away the best long-term team building/sustaining strategy.