Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

2017 Salary Cap Update (Cap Space: $18.78M)

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
Re: 2017 Salary Cap Update
Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:28 am
  • So you're estimating ~$10M first year cap hit to sign our RFAs?

    That seems a little high based on the talent level of our RFAs... doesn't seem like we have anyone there who is essential. We also have 5 picks in the top 106 of a deep draft... I would think we could replace much of our RFA depth via those picks.

    We could also potentially add cap space by extending guys like Graham and Chancellor, converting much of their 2017 salaries to bonuses.

    I think we'll be able to add a couple of solid starters ($6M/yr) plus some depth in free agency.
    A-Dog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 806
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:11 pm


Re: 2017 Salary Cap Update
Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:24 pm
  • A-Dog wrote:So you're estimating ~$10M first year cap hit to sign our RFAs?


    No.
    _______________________
    Remember, it's all for fun.
    User avatar
    Hawkstorian
    * NET Staff *
     
    Posts: 3779
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:19 am
    Location: Spokane


Re: 2017 Salary Cap Update
Sat Feb 25, 2017 3:05 pm
  • Hawkstorian wrote:
    A-Dog wrote:So you're estimating ~$10M first year cap hit to sign our RFAs?


    No.


    Hawkstorian wrote:... that leaves 'usable' space at about $19.7M. With that they have to decide if they're going to tender any of the RFAs (Gilliam, etc.) which would bring the cap down.

    I can seen room to go out and spend $10M or so on outside players, which isn't really a lot considering many teams will have far more than that to spend.


    So you go from $19.7M down to $10M... what else besides RFAs are you considering when making that determination? Our own UFAs and ERFAs?
    A-Dog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 806
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:11 pm


Re: 2017 Salary Cap Update
Sat Feb 25, 2017 4:49 pm
  • Re-signing players, signing RFAs .. signing low cost free agents... extending players .. any number of things can use up cap room very quickly.

    I'm saying I can see $10M for signing significant outside players. Yes I didn't word it exactly that way so please accept my most humble apology.

    I think instead of nit picking my math, you are bright enough to understand what I'm talking about.
    _______________________
    Remember, it's all for fun.
    User avatar
    Hawkstorian
    * NET Staff *
     
    Posts: 3779
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:19 am
    Location: Spokane


Re: 2017 Salary Cap Update
Sat Feb 25, 2017 6:36 pm
  • When is the final cap number set? I would assume before free agency, right?
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 104880
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:29 pm


Re: 2017 Salary Cap Update
Sun Feb 26, 2017 8:16 am
  • Should know very soon, yes.
    _______________________
    Remember, it's all for fun.
    User avatar
    Hawkstorian
    * NET Staff *
     
    Posts: 3779
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:19 am
    Location: Spokane


Re: 2017 Salary Cap Update
Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:27 pm
  • In my opinion, they really only need a lineman or two, and a corner in fa. Should be enough money there to get decent players. The rest can be taken care of in the draft. Got some high potential guys coming off ir this year.
    Click the link, I dare you! You will love it!!!!
    https://youtu.be/RTycAlWhrt8
    User avatar
    Jimjones0384
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 606
    Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:43 am


Re: 2017 Salary Cap Update
Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:40 pm
  • Well, now we know. $167 million per team.



    Image
    "The ultimate number is W's, and that’s what matters in Santa Clara. As such, Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does." - Paul Gutierrez
    User avatar
    Seahawk Sailor
    * .NET Navy Bad Ass *
     
    Posts: 23290
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
    Location: Mandaue City, Cebu, Philippines



  • Largent80 wrote:Looks like none of it matters. Unless you are Cleveland.


    Yeah but then you don't matter......
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6192
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • You are AWESOME Hawkstorian. Just thought I would let you know. Thanks for breaking it down John.
    R.I.P. Queen.
    User avatar
    Seahawkfan80
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7012
    Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:20 pm
    Location: A little ways from Boise.


Re: 2017 Salary Cap Update
Wed Mar 01, 2017 4:35 pm
  • Seahawk Sailor wrote:




    So the more sources a team has, the more salary cap that team has????
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 104880
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:29 pm


Re: 2017 Salary Cap Update
Wed Mar 01, 2017 4:37 pm
  • Jimjones0384 wrote:In my opinion, they really only need a lineman or two, and a corner in fa. Should be enough money there to get decent players. The rest can be taken care of in the draft. Got some high potential guys coming off ir this year.


    I suspect the team will not pursue a CB in free agency. If they do, it won't be one that will make a significant difference in cap space.
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 104880
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:29 pm


  • According to OTC.com Seattle has 25.9 million in cap space.
    SEATTLE SEAHAWKS SUPERBOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS!

    May the spirit of our friend The Radish live on forever!

    I SO do not care about your fantasy team and who's on it!
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 22163
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • Seahawkfan80 wrote:You are AWESOME Hawkstorian. Just thought I would let you know. Thanks for breaking it down John.


    Thanks!
    _______________________
    Remember, it's all for fun.
    User avatar
    Hawkstorian
    * NET Staff *
     
    Posts: 3779
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:19 am
    Location: Spokane


Re: 2017 Salary Cap Update
Thu Mar 02, 2017 2:22 am
  • HawkGA wrote:
    Seahawk Sailor wrote:




    So the more sources a team has, the more salary cap that team has????


    Apparently. :laugh:
    "The ultimate number is W's, and that’s what matters in Santa Clara. As such, Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does." - Paul Gutierrez
    User avatar
    Seahawk Sailor
    * .NET Navy Bad Ass *
     
    Posts: 23290
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am
    Location: Mandaue City, Cebu, Philippines


  • Just trying to track through the history . . . . Hawkstorian, you were basing your numbers off of a $168 million dollar cap, right? It came in at $167 but with carry-over the Hawks have $169. So in the post you estimated $10 million that becomes slightly higher at $11 million (but still basically right)?
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 104880
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:29 pm


  • $1M less in total cap means that much less the team has to spend ... but I still think they could put $10M into 1 or 2 players. The rest goes into draft picks, RFA tenders, re-signing low-priority guys (Like Brandon Williams) and keeping a necessary buffer going into the season.

    RFA tenders will be interesting. I think they have to tender Gilliam, but what about Shead? What about Terrill? Once that part gets sorted out we'll have a better idea headed into free agency.

    BTW -- NFLPA has the Seahawks at $26M in available space: https://www.nflpa.com/public-salary-cap-report which is about as official a figure as you'll see out there.
    _______________________
    Remember, it's all for fun.
    User avatar
    Hawkstorian
    * NET Staff *
     
    Posts: 3779
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:19 am
    Location: Spokane


  • Appreciate all done by Hawkstorian. Also found this for those that want financial measurements on the draft alone. Now I see more why we trade down a bit.

    http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/draft/


    10 million goes pretty quick now a days.
    R.I.P. Queen.
    User avatar
    Seahawkfan80
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7012
    Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:20 pm
    Location: A little ways from Boise.


  • Hawkstorian wrote:$1M less in total cap means that much less the team has to spend ... but I still think they could put $10M into 1 or 2 players. The rest goes into draft picks, RFA tenders, re-signing low-priority guys (Like Brandon Williams) and keeping a necessary buffer going into the season.

    RFA tenders will be interesting. I think they have to tender Gilliam, but what about Shead? What about Terrill? Once that part gets sorted out we'll have a better idea headed into free agency.

    BTW -- NFLPA has the Seahawks at $26M in available space: https://www.nflpa.com/public-salary-cap-report which is about as official a figure as you'll see out there.


    :2thumbs:

    So you had already factored in the carry-over from last year. Awesome work.
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 104880
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:29 pm


  • NFLPA figures updated this morning to reflect tenders to Garry Gilliam and a few EFRAs. The latest balance is $24.2M. Within that, the team needs about $2.35M for draft picks and should leave about a $5M buffer going into the season, which leaves around $16.866M to spend on new players, re-sign current players or give contract extensions.

    Key players going into their last year:

    Chancellor, Graham, and Britt

    If they extended Graham they could probably structure so his cap number didn't change much. Chancellor's would probably go up by $2M or so, Britt would probably go up $5M or more.

    It's all subjective, but I still believe the team could throw $8- $10M or so into serious additions

    More to update as things evolve.
    _______________________
    Remember, it's all for fun.
    User avatar
    Hawkstorian
    * NET Staff *
     
    Posts: 3779
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:19 am
    Location: Spokane


  • $8M for Joeckel. Don't know the cap impact until we see how much is tied to incentives. Probably there's a lot tied to games played would be largely "not likely to be earned" since he only played 4 games in 2016.
    _______________________
    Remember, it's all for fun.
    User avatar
    Hawkstorian
    * NET Staff *
     
    Posts: 3779
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:19 am
    Location: Spokane


  • As you note it's only $8 mil. if the incentives are earned, the raw numbers need to be known.
    Until we develop a pass rush that will cause opposing teams to be forced to scheme to defend it we will never be able to consistently take the final step. The interior rush needs improvement. The OLine clearly still needs work.

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions at last after 38 seasons. Awesome!!!
    jammerhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3967
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


  • Hawkstorian wrote:$8M for Joeckel. Don't know the cap impact until we see how much is tied to incentives. Probably there's a lot tied to games played would be largely "not likely to be earned" since he only played 4 games in 2016.


    I'm eager to see what the OL depth chart looks like. Who is competing where. Is it Joeckel vs Gilliam? Do both make the roster? Is it Joeckel pushing Ifedi out to RT? Is it Joeckel competing with Glow? Fant?
    Thomas Paine: To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead
    User avatar
    Seafan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5651
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:30 pm
    Location: Helotes, TX


  • Remember that it is also relatively easy to create cap by redoing a deal to a player where guaranteed money shifts to signing bonus. It doesn't change the money a player gets just how it gets split

    Chicago has it as a standard in all their contract that the team can do this and the player has to agree

    Considering RW, Sherman, Kam, Baldwin and a few others I expect that we are willing to slowly start spending money from the future for he next 2-5 years
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6192
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • mikeak wrote:Remember that it is also relatively easy to create cap by redoing a deal to a player where guaranteed money shifts to signing bonus. It doesn't change the money a player gets just how it gets split


    This is possible, but not something the Seahawks have done under this regime. I would be surprised if they went down this path.
    _______________________
    Remember, it's all for fun.
    User avatar
    Hawkstorian
    * NET Staff *
     
    Posts: 3779
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:19 am
    Location: Spokane


  • Hawkstorian wrote:
    mikeak wrote:Remember that it is also relatively easy to create cap by redoing a deal to a player where guaranteed money shifts to signing bonus. It doesn't change the money a player gets just how it gets split


    This is possible, but not something the Seahawks have done under this regime. I would be surprised if they went down this path.


    Yep, that is how you end up in cap hell ala NO/Dallas the last few years. JS has done a great job of balancing contracts in such a way as to avoid this. Most JS contracts are front loaded with bonus money and early base salary (Wagner being an exception) so that when the player might possibly begin to decline, there is little guaranteed money on the books.

    They could also extend some people to free up money as well. Graham for example. A 3 year extension could push his cap hit for 2017 down $4-5M pretty easily.
    User avatar
    EverydayImRusselin
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1307
    Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:38 am


  • Good News! The league has posted 'cap updates' and the Seahawks gained about $1.35 in additional space. Cap updates happen every year and normally relate to changes that happened to contracts from the previous season. For example, Michael Bennett had game day bonuses he didn't achieve so those dollars come back to the Seahawks. I don't have data on what makes up total adjustment amount, but that's one possible reason.

    With that cap increase, the Seahawks now have a little over $25.5M in available space, pending results of the deal with Joeckel.
    _______________________
    Remember, it's all for fun.
    User avatar
    Hawkstorian
    * NET Staff *
     
    Posts: 3779
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:19 am
    Location: Spokane


  • Hawkstorian wrote:
    mikeak wrote:Remember that it is also relatively easy to create cap by redoing a deal to a player where guaranteed money shifts to signing bonus. It doesn't change the money a player gets just how it gets split


    This is possible, but not something the Seahawks have done under this regime. I would be surprised if they went down this path.


    I think we haven't done it because we didn't need too and also because we had several young players signed cheaply on their first contracts.

    As those are re-signed and you need money to keep a good team going I personally believe we will utilize this option if needed. It doesn't by itself create "cap-hell" (as noted by others) if done prudently and managed but it allows you to use the 3-5 year window that you find yourself in at different times. Then you have a 1-2 year downturn where you catch up alternatively you hit it in the draft and get lucky / use your skill.

    We shall see but if the right guys are there for the right price I see it happening but not like some teams. On the other hand look at Chicago again - they did it quite a bit while they now suck it is not because of the cap (Cutler) and are fine with where the Cap is.

    Dallas did it and then hit in the draft and suddenly looks great.

    Saints did it and are having major issue. Point being - you can do it and manage it right / wrong and that is what decides the outcome
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6192
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • We do have a couple of guys - Jeremy Lane and Jermaine Kearse - who aren't top performers and who have pretty sizeable contracts. If we do restructure with a low first year cap hit, it could be balanced by the fact that we could cut those two if it comes down to it.

    It would not be difficult to extend Kam and Jimmy and reduce their cap hits this year in the process. Britt is another story, however.
    A-Dog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 806
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:11 pm


  • A-Dog wrote:We do have a couple of guys - Jeremy Lane and Jermaine Kearse - who aren't top performers and who have pretty sizeable contracts. If we do restructure with a low first year cap hit, it could be balanced by the fact that we could cut those two if it comes down to it.


    Or not.

    Cutting Kearse would open up a total of $366k...which is less than the NFL minimum salary.

    Cutting Lane would mean an ADDITIONAL salary cap hit $2.5m, on top of the $5.25m if they just keep him.
    drrew
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 904
    Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:50 am


  • drrew wrote:
    A-Dog wrote:We do have a couple of guys - Jeremy Lane and Jermaine Kearse - who aren't top performers and who have pretty sizeable contracts. If we do restructure with a low first year cap hit, it could be balanced by the fact that we could cut those two if it comes down to it.


    Or not.

    Cutting Kearse would open up a total of $366k...which is less than the NFL minimum salary.

    Cutting Lane would mean an ADDITIONAL salary cap hit $2.5m, on top of the $5.25m if they just keep him.


    Sorry, I should have clarified - I mean if we cut them next year. So they play this year and we cut them in the offseason, so if we have bigger 2nd-year cap hits on free agents we sign or vets we extend, we can offset it by cutting those guys.

    We can save almost $10M by cutting those two after this season.
    A-Dog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 806
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:11 pm


  • drrew wrote:
    A-Dog wrote:We do have a couple of guys - Jeremy Lane and Jermaine Kearse - who aren't top performers and who have pretty sizeable contracts. If we do restructure with a low first year cap hit, it could be balanced by the fact that we could cut those two if it comes down to it.


    Or not.

    Cutting Kearse would open up a total of $366k...which is less than the NFL minimum salary.

    Cutting Lane would mean an ADDITIONAL salary cap hit $2.5m, on top of the $5.25m if they just keep him.


    While partially right, designating Kearse a post June 1st cut would save $2.2 million against the cap. With Lane, it would save nothing. Their contracts were structured to let go of them after this year. Kearse can be moved on from if the need arises, but Lane is here to stay this coming year.
    User avatar
    Pie Romania
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 250
    Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:35 pm
    Location: Washington State


  • mikeak wrote:Remember that it is also relatively easy to create cap by redoing a deal to a player where guaranteed money shifts to signing bonus. It doesn't change the money a player gets just how it gets split

    Chicago has it as a standard in all their contract that the team can do this and the player has to agree

    Considering RW, Sherman, Kam, Baldwin and a few others I expect that we are willing to slowly start spending money from the future for he next 2-5 years

    That's a good way to get and stay in Cap Hell. Jerruh Jones in *allas is exhibit A.
    If you do that once in a while you are fine, all of the time like crazy uncle Jerruh, then you are screwed.
    SEATTLE SEAHAWKS SUPERBOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS!

    May the spirit of our friend The Radish live on forever!

    I SO do not care about your fantasy team and who's on it!
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 22163
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • mikeak wrote:
    Hawkstorian wrote:
    mikeak wrote:Remember that it is also relatively easy to create cap by redoing a deal to a player where guaranteed money shifts to signing bonus. It doesn't change the money a player gets just how it gets split


    This is possible, but not something the Seahawks have done under this regime. I would be surprised if they went down this path.


    I think we haven't done it because we didn't need too and also because we had several young players signed cheaply on their first contracts.

    As those are re-signed and you need money to keep a good team going I personally believe we will utilize this option if needed. It doesn't by itself create "cap-hell" (as noted by others) if done prudently and managed but it allows you to use the 3-5 year window that you find yourself in at different times. Then you have a 1-2 year downturn where you catch up alternatively you hit it in the draft and get lucky / use your skill.

    We shall see but if the right guys are there for the right price I see it happening but not like some teams. On the other hand look at Chicago again - they did it quite a bit while they now suck it is not because of the cap (Cutler) and are fine with where the Cap is.

    Dallas did it and then hit in the draft and suddenly looks great.

    Saints did it and are having major issue. Point being - you can do it and manage it right / wrong and that is what decides the outcome

    *allas got lucky last year, last place schedule, caught some huge breaks along the away, and reality reared its ugly head in the playoffs for them. Their Super Bowl window slammed shut before it was opened, thanks to the Cap Hell they are currently in. If you want to look at the masters of working the salary cap look at NE, as much as it pains me to say.
    SEATTLE SEAHAWKS SUPERBOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS!

    May the spirit of our friend The Radish live on forever!

    I SO do not care about your fantasy team and who's on it!
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 22163
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • Yes NE does it well but are helped by a $10-$15M BONUS EACH YEAR from Tom Brady not wanting to get paid like a top-tier QB.

    Let's face it that makes a huge difference.
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6192
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • mikeak wrote:Yes NE does it well but are helped by a $10-$15M BONUS EACH YEAR from Tom Brady not wanting to get paid like a top-tier QB.

    Let's face it that makes a huge difference.


    That's the result of your QB already having gone through 100 contracts in his career. That is gonna end in a year or two. They will have to pay Jimmy garapolo next year, or lose him. This could conceivably be Tommy's last year in new England, if Jimmy is their guy going forward. Belicheck has no loyalty.
    Click the link, I dare you! You will love it!!!!
    https://youtu.be/RTycAlWhrt8
    User avatar
    Jimjones0384
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 606
    Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:43 am


  • mikeak wrote:Yes NE does it well but are helped by a $10-$15M BONUS EACH YEAR from Tom Brady not wanting to get paid like a top-tier QB.

    Let's face it that makes a huge difference.

    Very true.
    SEATTLE SEAHAWKS SUPERBOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS!

    May the spirit of our friend The Radish live on forever!

    I SO do not care about your fantasy team and who's on it!
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 22163
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • mikeak wrote:Yes NE does it well but are helped by a $10-$15M BONUS EACH YEAR from Tom Brady not wanting to get paid like a top-tier QB.

    Let's face it that makes a huge difference.


    Waiting for him to retire and get 20 percent ownership of the Patriots for a dollar.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 20976
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • I actually don't think there is anything shady there. Instead he gets paid less, gets hit less because of better players around him and have a better life after football.

    Coupled with his wife making more than him...
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6192
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • mikeak wrote:I actually don't think there is anything shady there. Instead he gets paid less, gets hit less because of better players around him and have a better life after football.

    Coupled with his wife making more than him...


    Coupled with "endorsement deals" where players can earn more $$ than in football. Go sign a $20M autograph once a year type stuff that is impossible to trace back to Kraft.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1538
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Also Brady's wife makes more money that he does.

    Hopefully that formula comes into play for our QB, but I expect it won't.
    _______________________
    Remember, it's all for fun.
    User avatar
    Hawkstorian
    * NET Staff *
     
    Posts: 3779
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:19 am
    Location: Spokane


  • mikeak wrote:I actually don't think there is anything shady there. Instead he gets paid less, gets hit less because of better players around him and have a better life after football.

    Coupled with his wife making more than him...


    Nothing shady at all. It's his choice and he's benefiting from it.

    It's a perfect example of what an NFL player is when it's not about the money. He clearly doesn't need it so he lets the team benefit from that.

    We can be jealous. But it's pretty damn admirable of him. In this era of pro athletes and how they let fans down people really want to take a run at Brady? Come on...
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 12000
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am



  • Joeckel's contract is being reported as $7M fullly guaranteed and $1M tied to game-day bonuses. Since he played in 4 games in 2016 only $250K of $1M counts right now, so his cap number is $7.25M.

    The deal replaces a minimum salary deal of $465k so his contract reduces our available space by $6.785M leaving us with $18.78M.

    They could still sign Lang, but I think the first year cap would have to be quite a bit less than the APY. I could also see them cutting Gilliam loose sooner than later if they now have some vets to take his spot.
    _______________________
    Remember, it's all for fun.
    User avatar
    Hawkstorian
    * NET Staff *
     
    Posts: 3779
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:19 am
    Location: Spokane


  • ^ good info and update. Thanks.

    I think we are spent on the one year deals. Next guy will have to to be at least two years with a signing bonus
    Last edited by mikeak on Sun Mar 12, 2017 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6192
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • Sports Hernia wrote:
    mikeak wrote:Yes NE does it well but are helped by a $10-$15M BONUS EACH YEAR from Tom Brady not wanting to get paid like a top-tier QB.

    Let's face it that makes a huge difference.

    Very true.

    Brady gets illegally paid under the table somehow.
    User avatar
    Siouxhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2918
    Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:46 pm


  • That is so much damn money for a horrible, hurt player.
    I'm fly
    I should be in the sky with birds
    User avatar
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3659
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:37 pm


  • Siouxhawk wrote:
    Sports Hernia wrote:
    mikeak wrote:Yes NE does it well but are helped by a $10-$15M BONUS EACH YEAR from Tom Brady not wanting to get paid like a top-tier QB.

    Let's face it that makes a huge difference.

    Very true.

    Brady gets illegally paid under the table somehow.

    You don't say? Everyone knows this and the fact his wife Is a billionaire and that Goodell and Kraft are BBF's. It's life adapt and go on.
    Josea16
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 564
    Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:27 am


  • Tical21 wrote:That is so much damn money for a horrible, hurt player.

    The current market disagrees with this opinion. In the current NFL if you're at least an average OL you will be paid. Similar to how average quarterbacks like Cutler, Keapernick, Oswhieller ect. were overpaid. You can thank the NCAA and the stupid spread offenses that most run for this, among other dumb rules they have made out of fear of actual football.
    Josea16
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 564
    Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:27 am


PreviousNext


It is currently Thu Jul 27, 2017 8:55 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online