patfanken

I hope this will FINALLY put an end to those who keep longing for RIchard Seymour to be back. Because if he was here, what happened to the Raiders' cap would be happening to OURS. Richard Seymour was NEVER coming back. Not only because Richard didn't want to be back, but because the team couldn't afford his cap number (and neither can the Raiders, even AFTER they dumped Nnamdi's massive hit)

parthasas

So the jets have 8.9 million in cap space left I don't understand this.

__________________
IT IS WHAT IT IS
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

MoLewisrocks

They saved about $3.5M on his first year cap hit of $6.5M. He may never see the last year or two of the deal due to restructure or cap cut, but he will see $27M in the first 3 which pretty much assures he will see the first 4.

Teams are doing what they can on the first year in new deals but the don't seem to be going for the minimal hit as in past. Teams like the Raiders who are restructuring madly to save the present will likely face the same scenario or worse though in the immediate future.

MoLewisrocks

They have restructured a couple of their heavy hitters this week and cuts like Cotchery saved them a couple of million (albeit while creating additional holes in their roster). It's never just about cap space. It's got to be in relation to your roster. Their's is still populated by a boatload of UDFA's and futures signings and rookies. They are extremely light depth chart wise on experienced players.

SunnyDenmark

While cap numbers are interesting, I have come to realize if a team wants X player badly enough - they will just restructure some Vets deal - thereby getting their man. IMO many 'cap cuts' are a convenient excuse for a team to rid itself of a unwanted or declining skill player.

Maybe the 'Cap Hell' situation was handcuffing in the first few years after the salary cap was introduced before cap managers learned all of the ins & outs of the cap accounting. But lately teams seem always able to wiggle out of it and just use accounting tricks to push the 'problem' into future years. Better for the next HC / GM /FO to pay the price as this is a win now league!

What is most interesting for me, is how the limited salary is divided among the teams players. That tells alot about how the HC / FO philosophy is in team building. Will you use a top heavy (Colts ) approach? Or a strong middle class approach (Pats)? Or a 'Christmas in March' -impulse buy approach (Snyders Redskins).

MoLewisrocks

Here is a link to the JETScap page. It is pretty well kept. Thing to note (for context) is they only have 78 players currently under contract despite the 90 man roster limit. Of those, 35 are minimum salary rookies/UDFA's/futures... They also have quite a contingent of 2nd year players - about a dozen, including some disappointing 2010 rookies. A lot of them are currently among the 51 for jetcap purposes and going to be on their 53 man roster unless Tanny can scrape up a whole lot of vets on minimum deals over the next month...

New York Jets Salary Cap

MoLewisrocks

Here is an example of how restructures work to free up cap space in the present. It shows what Oakland did with Routt and apparently Seymour. Only problem is it tends to ultimately create cap casualties down the road. Seymour as an example was set to have flat $15M per cap hits for 2011 and 2012 with no guarantees or dead cap if cut in 2012. Now, they want to walk away after this season it will cost them, maybe as much as $10M or more in dead cap...

NFL.com Blogs » Blog Archive Routt only one example of how deals are reworked «