Tentative Agreement for 2011 Salary Cap

[ay-yo]

With the sides working at a frenzied pace, they reached a tentative agreement to make the 2011 salary cap $120 million, a source told ESPN.com NFL senior writer John Clayton.

Since February, the players have been willing to accept a $141 million player cost number -- which includes both salaries and benefits paid to players -- per team, multiple sources told Clayton. By agreeing to a $120 million cap, the players allow $21 million per team to be in benefits. Now that a cap number has been formed, teams need to determine the minimum cash payroll number, or what teams will be required to spend.

From ESPN

Edit: According to Miguel's page we're a tad under 114 million with 76 signed players. Just thought I'd throw that in for discussion's sake.

 

[supafly]

From ESPN

Thank you for the update, glad to see it's all coming together.

I think this cap number is pretty much where we all expected, in the 120-124/125 range.

 

[BlueThunder]

Pats seem to be in decent cap shape and will more than likely have even more money available when some cuts are made.....or long term contracts signed as we hope is Mankin's case...

I'll be happy when the Pats finish up the business of football signings/cuts and we can start contemplating the effectiveness of their new Offensive and Defensive players..

Let Camp begin :rocker:

 

[spacecrime]

Pats seem to be in decent cap shape and will more than likely have even more money available when some cuts are made.....or long term contracts signed as we hope is Mankin's case

Pats have done a decent job at cap management, which is good, but leaves them without a player they can cut for huge cap savings. Here are the cutable players and how much their cap number is from patscap.com (thanks, Miguel).

I'm not recommending these guys be cut, especially Crump, but these are the only guys I see cuttable that would result in a cap savings.


$3.5 Kaczur
$2.5 Sanders
$2.0 Crumpler
$2.0 Mankins (if he signs a long-term deal)
$1.9 TBC

(Mankins is estimate based on current cap figure of a little over 10 mil, and figuring that a long-term deal that Mankins would agree to would be a hair over 8 mil. I know it is based on how the deal is laid out - I just averaged it)

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Surprising. This is NOT good news for the alleged SB Champion NY JETS who have lots of players unsigned and lots of cap committed to few players. Admitedly, they are excellent at figuring ways around the restrictions.

I hope that the NFLPA* gets the league to mandate a high minimum so tightwad owners can't run teams on the cheap.

 

[DaBruinz]

Surprising. This is NOT good news for the alleged SB Champion NY JETS who have lots of players unsigned and lots of cap committed to few players. Admitedly, they are excellent at figuring ways around the restrictions.

I hope that the NFLPA* gets the league to mandate a high minimum so tightwad owners can't run teams on the cheap.

If the Cap Floor is $108 million and excludes the benefits, then there are going to be teams that will HAVE to spend money. Teams like Tampa Bay. On the flip side, though, that is where you'll see some top free agents going.

 

[BradyManny]

This is great news for a team like the Pats who is fiscally responsible and great at drafting and accruing young, cheap talent. Especially where they are right now.

This is bad news for the Jets, however.

Holley notes in Patriot Reign that the Pats like to allocate 14% of the cap to their starting QB. Guess they hit this one on the head again. I know the cap will rise over the next several years, but 14% comes in at about $17 mill.

Also, with a little bit lower cap, we might see some teams scrambling - and forced to cut ties with good, veteran players. Leaving the Pats to scoop them up for cheaper as they did in the early 2000s.

 

[Shelterdog]

If the Cap Floor is $108 million and excludes the benefits, then there are going to be teams that will HAVE to spend money. Teams like Tampa Bay. On the flip side, though, that is where you'll see some top free agents going.

The reporting I've seen (most recently from Lacanfora) is that the floor will be a cash floro about 99% of the cap: TB and KC and other teams will have to spend close to 120 million.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Pats have done a decent job at cap management, which is good, but leaves them without a player they can cut for huge cap savings. Here are the cutable players and how much their cap number is from patscap.com (thanks, Miguel). I'm not recommending these guys be cut, especially Crump, but these are the only guys I see cuttable that would result in a cap savings. $3.5 Kaczur $2.5 Sanders $2.0 Crumpler $2.0 Mankins (if he signs a long-term deal) $1.9 TBC (Mankins is estimate based on current cap figure of a little over 10 mil, and figuring that a long-term deal that Mankins would agree to would be a hair over 8 mil. I know it is based on how the deal is laid out - I just averaged it)

Space, if Mankins were "cut" his cap savings would be the tag price of $10M+...

That said, no need to cut anyone because with simple restructures they can likely free up another several million.

For some context on a $120M cap, the Patriots were at roughly $135M last season had it mattered. In 2009 the cap was set at $123M then adjusted up to $127M based on adjustments that had to go into the last uncapped season rather that be spread over the previously remaining 4 years of the agreement. Some sources say there may also be a year one $3M cap exemption available which would make it the 2009 cap less adjustments.

The sad thing is this was basically where the sides were at when the owners made their offer on March 11... So all the lawyers basically got paid a bundle in the interim so this thing could get into court when all that was ever remaining to be decided beyond some incremental details was just how to approach/rework the actual revenue split formula and just how to cap the rookie deals... While now what significantly remains to be settled is how to settle the pending lawsuit and judicial oversight/handling of arbitration grievances going forward and how to mitigate the effects of 100 plus days of a lockout on teams and FA...

Jim Irsay was right back in March...he and Saturday could have probably done this on a ****tail napkin. Worst deal in history rhetoric to the contrary...

And for the record, it's benefits that take it on the chin as usual. The league paid $26M in benefits in 2009, was offering $27M in their March proposal but to get to the cash cap # the players wanted benefits will now be pegged at roughly $20M. Which is probably why they are still haggling over who pays for the "88" plan for destitute pre '93 retirees which I believe until now the league has covered.

 

[BradyManny]

The sad thing is this was basically where the sides were at when the owners made their offer on March 11... So all the lawyers basically got paid a bundle in the interim so this thing could get into court when all that was ever remaining to be decided beyond some incremental details was just how to approach/rework the actual revenue split formula and just how to cap the rookie deals... While now what significantly remains to be settled is how to settle the pending lawsuit and judicial oversight/handling of arbitration grievances going forward and how to mitigate the effects of 100 plus days of a lockout on teams and FA...

Jim Irsay was right back in March...he and Saturday could have probably done this on a ****tail napkin. Worst deal in history rhetoric to the contrary...

Mo, that's not Florio's take, in fact, Florio states the owners did not do as well as they envisioned:

It Is What It Is » Mike Florio on D&C: ‘I think the owners thought they would do better’

 

[MoLewisrocks]

This is great news for a team like the Pats who is fiscally responsible and great at drafting and accruing young, cheap talent. Especially where they are right now. This is bad news for the Jets, however. Holley notes in Patriot Reign that the Pats like to allocate 14% of the cap to their starting QB. Guess they hit this one on the head again. I know the cap will rise over the next several years, but 14% comes in at about $17 mill. Also, with a little bit lower cap, we might see some teams scrambling - and forced to cut ties with good, veteran players. Leaving the Pats to scoop them up for cheaper as they did in the early 2000s.

Actually that mark was 10-12%. But they are talking on average cap assumptions over the term of the deal, (and I'm sure they weren't factoring in first ballot HOF production leeway...) and in this case the cap will likely hit $140M over the next 4 seasons and 12% of $130M average cap is just under $16M which is about what his 5 year deal averages out to cap wise over the next 4 years because it folded in the remaining year of his 2005 deal last year allowing 20% of his signing bonus for the 4 year extension to be amortized in 2010.

Manning's deals have always averaged closer to 15% and when he signs this final one it will likely average more than that which, to manage, Polian will likely go long and create space for dead cap once he's retired. Manning's new deal will already carry dead cap in 2011-2012 because Polian utilized those voidable years to lower Peyton's cap hits while he still could back in 2007-2009.

 

[patriot lifer]

I'm curious how much Mankins and his agent now expect ($) from free agency. Now that there's the cap crunch, how many teams do they expect to spend big on a guard? I don't know the cap position of a lot of the teams out there, but I expect that whatever we offer won't be that much off from what other teams would offer if given the opportunity.

 

[BradyManny]

Actually that mark was 10-12%. But they are talking on average cap assumptions over the term of the deal, (and I'm sure they weren't factoring in first ballot HOF production leeway...) and in this case the cap will likely hit $140M over the next 4 seasons and 12% of $130M average cap is just under $16M which is about what his 5 year deal averages out to cap wise over the next 4 years because it folded in the remaining year of his 2005 deal last year allowing 20% of his signing bonus for the 4 year extension to be amortized in 2010.

Good points - thanks for the correction on the % (it has been a while since I've read that book...)

In the end, I think we can look at the Brady deal as a deal that works out beautifully for both sides - and is informative on how the Pats approach the cap.

I will be very curious to see what Manning ends up with...

 

[DaBruinz]

I'm curious how much Mankins and his agent now expect ($) from free agency. Now that there's the cap crunch, how many teams do they expect to spend big on a guard? I don't know the cap position of a lot of the teams out there, but I expect that whatever we offer won't be that much off from what other teams would offer if given the opportunity.

A bigger question is: Did they break down the O-line by positions (T/G/C). If so, will the Pats offer that sum or a lesser one for an annual salary in contract negotiations?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Mo, that's not Florio's take, in fact, Florio states the owners did not do as well as they envisioned: It Is What It Is » Mike Florio on D&C: ‘I think the owners thought they would do better’

That's spin and you will see plenty of that in either direction over the next several weeks. Florio often gets what he thinks or anticipates confused with reality. Not to mention his opinions flutter in the wind depending on what he finally hears from more reasoned commentators. It's that rush to judgement that is fueled by the 24/7 competition within the sports media - and particularly those of the internet media variety - to be out in front of things they don't yet have sufficient information to assess.

Fact is the owners offered to meet the $141M TOTAL cap the union was requesting back on March 11... Their initial offer was for a $114M salary cap plus $26M in benefits and they raised that to $120M salary cap at the expense of $6M less in benefits to meet what the union was proposing... But before they could negotiate any deeper into that offer the union decertified 4 hours later so the lawsuit could be filed before 5PM that day...

A lot of other details have been hashed out in the interim, but lets face it...those have only taken a few weeks of actual negotiation to achieve. The rest of that time was spent on court appearances and motions...

 

[BradyManny]

A lot of other details have been hashed out in the interim, but lets face it...those have only taken a few weeks of actual negotiation to achieve. The rest of that time was spent on court appearances and motions...

Fair enough. There was a lot of posturing and attempts to gain leverage on both sides, IMO (for instance, the owners asking for an 18 game season seemed unrealistic, and a throwaway that they knew they'd ultimately be conceding).

As I said in another thread - I don't begrudge either side, they both have an obligation to look out for themselves, and while I personally have more sympathy for the players than most, it doesn't mean I don't understand why the owners have taken the stance(s) they have.

In the end, it'll all be well worth it if they finish this thing off.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

A bigger question is: Did they break down the O-line by positions (T/G/C). If so, will the Pats offer that sum or a lesser one for an annual salary in contract negotiations?

Word earlier in the week was that the owners proposed that and it wasn't expected to be a very contentious issue. Perhaps part of the tradeoff on the rookie wage cap structure. I would imagine that they are still hashing out which tags apply and if they get to redo those in the 3 day window before full FA or the official start of the league year. I don't think it will impact what they've offered him since I think they were always looking at top guards and what he was asking for was to be the top guard. It could lop a couple of million off our 2011 cap though if they recalculate tags based on position specific salaries.

 

[Rob0729]

I think the big question is how the cap will grow of the years. The cap for 2011 has shrunk (which I was wrong about), but does that mean the cap growth year to year will shrink significantly or is this just a reset and the cap will still grow at a big rate after reducing the cap.

Looking a the Jets, I see a number of issues that could really hurt them:

1.) They have potential of getting cap room by converting part of Sanchez's base salary to bonus money and giving David Harris a long term deal. The problems with these moves is the timing since there will likely only be a few days from when the Football year starts and free agency begins. A deal for Harris could take weeks.

2.) The 90% cap floor rule could kill them. That rule says that teams will have to spend 90% of cap in real dollars. The problem is that they have already given big bonuses to Ferguson, Mangold, and Revis. They already have $20 million in dead accrued bonus money in 2012. That could easily balloon up to $30 million. If the cap doesn't grow like it has, they might have a problem getting to the 90% cash line with $30 million of dead money vs. say a $124 million cap.

As Andrew Brandt said on NFP, the new cap rules will probably benefit the teams who pay as they go (teams that don't dole out a lot of huge bonuses and doesn't carry a lot of dead money) like the Patriots do.

Assuming the growth of the cap from year to year shrinks like the cap did, we might go back to an era where teams end up in cap jail and luckily the Jets are a prime candidate for that.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I think the big question is how the cap will grow of the years. The cap for 2011 has shrunk (which I was wrong about), but does that mean the cap growth year to year will shrink significantly or is this just a reset and the cap will still grow at a big rate after reducing the cap. Looking a the Jets, I see a number of issues that could really hurt them: 1.) They have potential of getting cap room by converting part of Sanchez's base salary to bonus money and giving David Harris a long term deal. The problems with these moves is the timing since there will likely only be a few days from when the Football year starts and free agency begins. A deal for Harris could take weeks. 2.) The 90% cap floor rule could kill them. That rule says that teams will have to spend 90% of cap in real dollars. The problem is that they have already given big bonuses to Ferguson, Mangold, and Revis. They already have $20 million in dead accrued bonus money in 2012. That could easily balloon up to $30 million. If the cap doesn't grow like it has, they might have a problem getting to the 90% cash line with $30 million of dead money vs. say a $124 million cap. As Andrew Brandt said on NFP, the new cap rules will probably benefit the teams who pay as they go (teams that don't dole out a lot of huge bonuses and doesn't carry a lot of dead money) like the Patriots do. Assuming the growth of the cap from year to year shrinks like the cap did, we might go back to an era where teams end up in cap jail and luckily the Jets are a prime candidate for that.

The cap will likely grow more slowly, closer to how it did pre 2006, but then the get out of jail card will come when the new TV deals are inked in 2014. What we don't know yet is what they hashed out on a tru-up or if they are going with some compromise on the conservative projections owners initially offered.

 

[DaBruinz]

I think the big question is how the cap will grow of the years. The cap for 2011 has shrunk (which I was wrong about), but does that mean the cap growth year to year will shrink significantly or is this just a reset and the cap will still grow at a big rate after reducing the cap.

Looking a the Jets, I see a number of issues that could really hurt them:

1.) They have potential of getting cap room by converting part of Sanchez's base salary to bonus money and giving David Harris a long term deal. The problems with these moves is the timing since there will likely only be a few days from when the Football year starts and free agency begins. A deal for Harris could take weeks.

2.) The 90% cap floor rule could kill them. That rule says that teams will have to spend 90% of cap in real dollars. The problem is that they have already given big bonuses to Ferguson, Mangold, and Revis. They already have $20 million in dead accrued bonus money in 2012. That could easily balloon up to $30 million. If the cap doesn't grow like it has, they might have a problem getting to the 90% cash line with $30 million of dead money vs. say a $124 million cap.

As Andrew Brandt said on NFP, the new cap rules will probably benefit the teams who pay as they go (teams that don't dole out a lot of huge bonuses and doesn't carry a lot of dead money) like the Patriots do.

Assuming the growth of the cap from year to year shrinks like the cap did, we might go back to an era where teams end up in cap jail and luckily the Jets are a prime candidate for that.

One of the issues has been how they will handle the dead money for players no longer on the team. It will be interesting to see if it stays the same or if it's changed.