poly1274":15dbyewa said:Greg Olsen
Luke Wilson
jammerhawk":2mvbcwpl said:I have been quietly wondering just exactly where the $ will come from if Clowney or Ngakoue or another top level DE is signed. Have been noting the decreasing available cap numbers with concern on the roster page. Some cuts are going to need to happen or some restructuring of a few deals.
Seymour":2mrwumkq said:I've posted this several times but once again. Because we have so few players signed, the cap space is a total mirage to begin with. This is the life of living with "1 year deals".
Fade":b9ul5dgt said:The Seahawks have $20M in bad contracts they can cut at any time if they need the space.
John63":3iymbbr1 said:Fade":3iymbbr1 said:The Seahawks have $20M in bad contracts they can cut at any time if they need the space.
Nto to mentiono we have 20 million not 15
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/seattle-seahawks/cap/
Nunya":3ao5hzto said:John63":3ao5hzto said:Fade":3ao5hzto said:The Seahawks have $20M in bad contracts they can cut at any time if they need the space.
Nto to mentiono we have 20 million not 15
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/seattle-seahawks/cap/
You are only looking at the cap space with the Top 51. Cap Space (w/All) is $14,800,559. If the projected Draft Pool reserve is considered, we are at a cap space of $13,271,362
Also, the resent potential signing are not added yet. Neither are the other 20-some players on the roster that we need to either sign or release.
John63":1aldzrf1 said:Nunya":1aldzrf1 said:John63":1aldzrf1 said:Fade":1aldzrf1 said:The Seahawks have $20M in bad contracts they can cut at any time if they need the space.
Nto to mentiono we have 20 million not 15
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/seattle-seahawks/cap/
You are only looking at the cap space with the Top 51. Cap Space (w/All) is $14,800,559. If the projected Draft Pool reserve is considered, we are at a cap space of $13,271,362
Also, the resent potential signing are not added yet. Neither are the other 20-some players on the roster that we need to either sign or release.
no look at the bottom it is broken down with everyone, cap for draf etc.
Fade":17e234yb said:You don't need a lot of money for rookies.
This is where the salary cap amateurs get it wrong. Rookies are cheaper than vets.
600k rookies will take the spots of $1M vets. You don't need $10M or even $5M for rookies when you're drafting in the late 1st round.
Rookies are cheap and save money. Every rookie you keep past the first 2 rounds is a savings of 200k+ into the millions $$$ depending on what vets get cut.
Yes, there is a hit when the roster goes from top 51 to 53, and then there is the practice squad and IR budgets for sure, but it is so minimal it isn't worth talking about until Seattle gets really up against the cap, which they aren't.
Another element some seem to be completely oblivious to is that Seattle has a lot of big contracts that they will be moving on from in the next 24 months, with not a lot of young players they need to extend. Quill Griffin, Poona Ford after this year (run stuffers are cheap), and not too many more after that.
So the Seahawks have the ability to sign or trade for a couple of big, long term contracts, and fit them in to their 3 year road map quite easily. It's just a matter if they want to do that and the right opportunities come along, not if they have the space to do it. They may want to stay young and continue to try to build through the draft with very minimal Free Agency acquisitions. Which I am generally on board with, with the exception of pass rush.
I am thinking Seattle is going to sign Clowney and then trade for another pass rusher, but we will see.
It's looking a little more compressed than some would think right now, but once Britt, Ed Dickson, and a few other vets get cut/restructured they will have the space if they need it to make a couple of big moves, and still have plenty of cap space for IR & the practice squad.
Nunya":3sfplpta said:The $7+ million shown as needed for "Draft Money" is based on the AVERAGE contracts over the past few season for the draft picks we have. Yes, rookies are cheaper than veterans, but you still have to pay them...and the early pick will be for more than league minimum.
If we draft in our current positions, we are slotted for 9.3 million for rookies.Fade":17fqdmtd said:Nunya":17fqdmtd said:The $7+ million shown as needed for "Draft Money" is based on the AVERAGE contracts over the past few season for the draft picks we have. Yes, rookies are cheaper than veterans, but you still have to pay them...and the early pick will be for more than league minimum.
You're leaving out a key point. They have to cut a veteran to make room for them on the roster when it comes time to go to 53 (= cap savings). Meanhwhile 80-90% of rookies will come in under the top 51 in the meantime.
Vets will be cut to make room for the rookies. Vets make more money than rookies.
$7M rookie pool, while $10M+ in vets will be cut to make room for said rookies on the 53 man roster.
TT has a $2.133M in cap savings alone, and will not be on the roster in the not too distant future.
Brandon Jackson also a $2.133M in savings if cut, and right now is a long shot to make the roster.
$4.266M in savings. Just by cutting two scrubs to make way for the rookies. And I could easily keep going.
All the way down to minimal savings like a Jordon Roos being cut for 750k to be replaced by a rookie making 600k.
Rookies are cheap, and save cap space.
Again, 80-90% of the rookies on Seattle's roster this offseason will come in under the top 51. = 0 impact on their cap. And of those rookies that do make the final roster when they go to 53, will be replacing a more expensive veteran, which = cap savings.