Salary Cap expected to rise by 7m

good news for the 'hawks - this could mean keeping bennett, resigning tate, etc. . .

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... 0-million/

As the NFL’s revenues rise, so do the players’ salaries. And the 2014 season will see both the owners and the players getting richer than ever before.

This year’s salary cap is expected to rise to about $130 million per team, according to Adam Schefter of ESPN. That’s a 5 percent increase from last year’s cap of $123 million, and it’s good news for teams that are tight on cap space.

Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the amount teams can spend on players is determined by the league’s revenues, through a complex calculation that includes TV money, ticket sales, merchandising and so on. The players get about 48 percent of the total league revenue, so a cap of $130 million suggests that NFL teams are raking in about $270 million a year.

The salary cap should rise by at least a few million dollars per team next year as well, thanks to the new TV revenue coming from CBS buying the Thursday night package.

Click to expand...

This is huge. This is one player retained that we thought we might lose, maybe even two.

How do you get the 7M figure from this article?

brimsalabim":3fybzd33 said:

How do you get the 7M figure from this article?

Click to expand...

2nd paragraph.

I'm not sure this really helps the Hawks more than any other team. To me it just means the players will want more money now that the cap is higher - so maybe Bennett wants $12mil/year instead of $10mil/year.

If the cap rises equally for every team then the salaries should rise in conjunction - I don't know if this really gives the Hawks any advantage.

They just said on NFL Radio that the $130 million cap number is about $4 million more of a raise than expected.

JonRud":27qzegvn said:

I'm not sure this really helps the Hawks more than any other team. To me it just means the players will want more money now that the cap is higher - so maybe Bennett wants $12mil/year instead of $10mil/year.

If the cap rises equally for every team then the salaries should rise in conjunction - I don't know if this really gives the Hawks any advantage.

Click to expand...

when you add it to the money they could free up by restructuring/cutting Rice/Miller/Bryant/Clemons it is pretty significant. Any sort of space you can put between yourself and the cap if you're a team right up against it is an instant benefit to you more than anyone else.

Yeah, with this increase I can see them trying to keep both Bennett and Tate. That $4m extra beyond what was expected basically can cover what Tate would get. If we wanted to keep him for $2m before now we can squeeze in $6m theoretically.

Cap going up = COST to sign players goes up.

It also means more money other teams can pay for Bennett & Tate & others.

I think this keeps Zach Miller on the team.

All this talk about Bennett wanting 10M/yr is based on what source? The only thing he said for sure is that he considers anything less that 5M/yr a pay cut, and that he wouldn't accept that. Anything other then what he said is pure speculation, though I doubt he would accept something close to the same amount.

I like Davis Hsu's take on the potential roster/salary cap issues.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/seahawks-anal ... ree-agency

The only thing I dislike is cutting Miller. Maybe the fact that Miller has already received a huge chunk of money from the team and that Seattle has brought in Travis Beckum gives Seattle leverage to request a paycut from Miller that could keep him around. That's probably wishful thinking.

On the surface this can be great news...

However, I expect we will see a player or two wanting 5% more then they originally intended to ask for. Plus some players that may be asked to renegotiate their contract for cap reasons may not play ball either.

Perfect, that's exactly the kind of space we need for Bennett. $7 million per year/3 years.

Jiggy":29jmq5sz said:

On the surface this can be great news...

However, I expect we will see a player or two wanting 5% more then they originally intended to ask for. Plus some players that may be asked to renegotiate their contract for cap reasons may not play ball either.

Click to expand...

The eyes of the Agents are the ones seeing these dollar signs...

I guess us buying all these jerseys, caps, and other memorabilia is paying off in spades for some people.

JonRud":20oisv1r said:

I'm not sure this really helps the Hawks more than any other team. To me it just means the players will want more money now that the cap is higher - so maybe Bennett wants $12mil/year instead of $10mil/year.

If the cap rises equally for every team then the salaries should rise in conjunction - I don't know if this really gives the Hawks any advantage.

Click to expand...

Looks like somebody paid attention in Econ class and understands how inflation works!

That said, the equal percentage rise in price is only true for flexible prices. Because of existing fixed contracts, it is likely salaries won't rise for everybody by an equal percentage this year. This salary cap increase will likely affect positions differently - specifically positions in need by teams under the salary cap. Whether that's Dline or not, I don't pay enough attention to know for sure. Somebody else here might be able to make a guess.

I would presume also that the Suggs deal will have a pretty big impact on what Bennett can get too. Maybe it's just over, maybe it's just under but I suspect the ballpark has been set.

One thing to remember is that agents also have clients that would be without a team if it were not for the extra increase. Agents get that, so I do not think Bennett's agent will press for extra cash other than what was already stated. It might make them less willing to settle for less but I don't think they will push for more.

In the grand scheme of things, the extra $4 million per team isn't going to change overall salaries by much. There are quite a few teams with between $30 and $60+ miillion in cap space when it was originally estimated at $126 million. What this does is gives us a little extra wiggle room that we didn't have before. Schneider has said repeatedly that they have been doing all their contracts with a look ahead and planning for future sesason's caps. I have no doubt they had a solid plan for this offseason. Having that 3% extra will just allow them to have an easier time executing the plan. I don't see it altering their plan by very much. I still believe we keep our nucleus on both sides of the ball pretty much in tact. The same guys rumored to go will likely go (unless they take new deals) and the same guys we are rumored to want back they will actively try to sign them. I still see Bennett being the same sore spot. If anything at all, they can stick to their original plan now and probably have a better shot at keeping Bennett. Although I believe $10 million per year is still too much IMO, I think they could structure something in the $8-9 million range now that could keep us in a range to be able to afford to extend Sherman and Thomas this year and Wilson next year.

This is going to be a very interesting and telling off season. If we do things right, this team can and will be very good for years to come

JonRud":3kj2hxzn said:

If the cap rises equally for every team then the salaries should rise in conjunction - I don't know if this really gives the Hawks any advantage.

Click to expand...

In a simple model that says salary levels are strictly determined by supply and demand then an unexpected bump in supply would raise the optimal price for each player. The only people benefiting would be the current FA players and those in talks for contract extensions. The teams that would benefit would be the ones who had already locked in their players to long term contracts before this news came out.

However, things get more complicated when we factor in the rookie pay scale. The salaries for many of these free agents are based on perceived Value above Replacement and as the median veteran salary rises so does the probability that the teams will simply opt for a younger player instead. The result is that as the cap inflates so does the pay disparity between the few "difference makers" that teams cough up for and the bulk of the team which will increasingly depend on rookie contract levels. So while this is very good news for guys like Richard Sherman and Russell Wilson, it may be less impactful for Michael Bennett and have no impact whatsoever on Tony McDaniel. This could be indirectly good news for the Hawks because we already prioritize young players under rookie contracts, and having of our best players getting an unexpected small pay bump over the next few years should be good motivational material.

it's a 5% increase so it's not like it's a huge increase for player salaries.

For example if Golden Tate was set to make 5m a year, even if he scaled up directly, that's still only 5.25m. Compared to 7m more cap dollars it's not a huge bump. The market is going to be the market, this doesn't change it dramatically.