Close To The Cap At $9M

[Ivan]

We are at the point in the offseason where the cheaper and better replacement needs to be on the roster before the release is made. Making the team worse for no reason makes no sense. The exception would be if they needed the space to fill an important need and cut the player to gain it knowing they can address the hole the release makes. Mgteich did a good job outlining upcoming costs but for now they have the room to sign Fairley if they want and would be able to create the post draft space they will need.

 

[Urgent]

we have 11 picks. i'm not an expert on cap matters, but isn't that's less than 60K per player?

At its simplest:
You have 11 picks.
You don't get 11 extra slots on the roster. You don't get 53 plus however many draft picks you choose. You get 53.
So, if you add a player from the draft, that pushes another player off the roster.
One salary comes on, and another comes off. Miguel is projecting the net impact.

What Miguel has done, at a detailed level, is account for the most expensive players on the roster, and then calculated what the anticipated salary cap charge for each of the 11 drafted players is, and then recalculated the most expensive 53 players. (In this case, 51, but ignore that for a moment; it's confusing.)

In general, drafted players - especially if you have no first round and seven picks in the sixth and seventh rounds - are cheaper than the players they are replacing on the roster. So often the net salary cap impact is almost nothing.

If you take today's cap charge and subtract all the players that would be replaced by draft picks, then calculate the cap charge for those new players, that number will be higher than $600K. The net impact of adding and subtracting players is $600K.

 

[Urgent]

Because of the rule of 51 Malcolm Butler is one of several lower-paid players who are currently counting zero against the Patriots salary cap.

My basic understanding of the Rule of 51:
It's an artificial exercise to provide a tiny bit of cap flexibility to teams in the offseason when they are carrying 90 players. The more straightforward approach would be to count the 53 highest salaries. The Rule of 51 provides some recognition that teams might keep some of their late-round draft picks and release some of their more-expensive veterans, so the actual cap will be lower than the highest 53. So, to account for that likely outcome, they count the most-expensive 51.

 

[SLGDEV]

You might wanna sorta become an expert before trying to refute Miguel on cap matters.

He said $0.6M which is $600,000. Look at Explaining the NFL's Rookie Salary Cap - Over the Cap.
That link gives for the Patriots a Rookie Salary Pool of $5,572,767 and an Effective Cap Cost of $1,658,787 and that was for 9 draft picks. We now have 11 picks and that includes adding a second round pick.

So, what is wrong with my statement that $0.6M won't cover it?

 

[Galeb]

He said $0.6M which is $600,000. Look at Explaining the NFL's Rookie Salary Cap - Over the Cap.
That link gives for the Patriots a Rookie Salary Pool of $5,572,767 and an Effective Cap Cost of $1,658,787 and that was for 9 draft picks. We now have 11 picks and that includes adding a second round pick.

So, what is wrong with my statement that $0.6M won't cover it?

Apparently you didn't read and/or understand the explanation. Your response simply reaffirms the idea that when lacking sufficient knowledge and understanding on a subject, one should not casually challenge the experts.

 

[SLGDEV]

View attachment 12541

Once again, what is "5/30" and what ;s "9/10"? (If it was already answered then, sorry, I missed it.)

 

[Miguel]

5/30 cap hit is what the player counts on the cap as of May 30.
9/10 cap hit is what the player will count on the cap on September 10 if they make the 53-man roster after the roster cutdowns.

 

[Urgent]

5/30 cap hit is what the player counts on the cap as of May 30.
9/10 cap hit is what the player will count on the cap on September 10 if they make the 53-man roster after the roster cutdowns.

Slightly more specifically:
The anticipated guaranteed signing bonus (based on Miguel's analysis of historic bonuses at those slots and escalation of the rookie cap) will count against the cap whether the player makes it or not, and so assuming they will that portion of the bonus counts for salary cap accounting during the offseason.

At the end of training camp, the rules change and each team has a roster of 53 players, a practice squad, and so forth. The Sep 10 projection is what that player will count against the cap if he makes the team.

In the question above:
The actual cap impact of the rookies is uncertain. Some will make it; some won't.
The question of 'what is the salary cap impact when they are all signed but before the season starts' is something a highly knowledgeable analyst can project. Miguel has done the research.

There are some different questions that are being asked that may sound similar.
What is the total anticipated salary of all the draft picks? That's Miguel's figure of around $6mm.
What is the projected net impact if all those players make the team and replace exactly the 11 least-expensive other players? That's the ~$1.6mm figure. But that really sits in a range, depending on your assumption of who is cut and who makes the team.

What is the amount of cap required to sign those 11 players? That has much more clear assumptions, and that's the question Miguel is answering.

 

[SLGDEV]

Apparently you didn't read and/or understand the explanation. Your response simply reaffirms the idea that when lacking sufficient knowledge and understanding on a subject, one should not casually challenge the experts.

Do you have any friends? The tone of your response makes that seem rather doubtful.

Point is when the question he addressed was explained, it made sense AND I understood it fully. The way the original wording was put forth, AND to which I responded that prompted your reply, implied the Pats could sign all their draft picks for $600,000. That is clearly not the case (as it would take about 10 times that amount), but that it is the NET cost that is $600,000.

 

[jah]

Apparently you didn't read and/or understand the explanation. Your response simply reaffirms the idea that when lacking sufficient knowledge and understanding on a subject, one should not casually challenge the experts.

Do you care at all about intellectual discussion or just "gotcha"s?

 

[mgteich]

Do you have any friends? The tone of your response makes that seem rather doubtful.

Point is when the question he addressed was explained, it made sense AND I understood it fully. The way the original wording was put forth, AND to which I responded that prompted your reply, implied the Pats could sign all their draft picks for $600,000. That is clearly not the case (as it would take about 10 times that amount), but that it is the NET cost that is $600,000.

You should understand that when we discuss the cost of a player at this time of year, we are almost always discussing the net cap cost to acquire that player.

 

[Galeb]

Do you have any friends? The tone of your response makes that seem rather doubtful.

Point is when the question he addressed was explained, it made sense AND I understood it fully. The way the original wording was put forth, AND to which I responded that prompted your reply, implied the Pats could sign all their draft picks for $600,000. That is clearly not the case (as it would take about 10 times that amount), but that it is the NET cost that is $600,000.

I implied nothing about the cost of signing the picks. You challenged an expert on a topic about which you are clearly not an expert, and even after multiple people explained reasoning behind the low cost of the rookies you replied restating your flawed viewpoint. My response was appropriate, without any intended mean and/or sarcastic tone. I stand by the advice of not casually challenging experts on a subject about which one is a novice. That is good advice and delivered without malice.

To answer your first question, I have many people with whom I am a friendly acquaintance, and a relatively small number I consider close friends. IMO, real friends require a large investment of time, emotional resources and attention. Because of the limited time in a day, a large number of true "friends" is impossible to maintain. I have no real enemies though. How many enemies do you have?

 

[Galeb]

Do you care at all about intellectual discussion or just "gotcha"s?

Intellectual discussion is something I value greatly. I also value the teachings of experts who take the time to enlighten the rest of us. That said, I don't know nearly enough about cap stuff to add anything about cap management to the discussion. What I could add to the intellectual discussion was the the original point was expressed by a true expert on the subject and advised that it shouldn't be challenged casually by a non-expert.

The reasoning was then explained multiple times by people that know a lot more about the topic than I, and the guy responded to me, still contending the statement by the expert. I simply replied that he either didn't read and/or understand the explanations, and that novices like us shouldn't casually refute the words of genuine experts. It's good advice and was delivered without malice.

 

[ashley]

I think we are all thankful that Miguel is here and able to explain in laymen's terms what our cap hit is!!!!

 

[Big Bucks]

I think this 51 man rule has literally caught everyone out. lol.. except Miguel

 

[Galeb]

I think we are all thankful that Miguel is here and able to explain in laymen's terms what our cap hit is!!!!

Agreed. He works hard, not just to give us the numbers, but to educate us as to the why. We are lucky to have him.

 

[Galeb]

I think this 51 man rule has literally caught everyone out. lol.. except Miguel

I once tried being a smarty pants and cited 51 rule during training camp one year. I was totally wrong and called out for it. It was a humbling experience, and I have since learned that the the topic is too complex, and my knowledge about it too limited to comment on it intelligently.

 

[mgteich]

We have discussed the net cap cost of signing our draft choices in June and July (a cost of about $600K).

Should any of the later picks make the 53 man squad, they would represent a cap savings, most by more than $100K each. If a 6th rounder makes the team at $500K and replaces a $600K player, then the savings would be $100K.

Miguel has given us the name of this effect. It could be significant. If the bottom player of the 51 is $600K on the day before the season starts and Belichick keeps 8 late draftees and UDFA, we would likely save over a million of cap money.

 

[Bledsoehasaring]

He said $0.6M which is $600,000. Look at Explaining the NFL's Rookie Salary Cap - Over the Cap.
That link gives for the Patriots a Rookie Salary Pool of $5,572,767 and an Effective Cap Cost of $1,658,787 and that was for 9 draft picks. We now have 11 picks and that includes adding a second round pick.

So, what is wrong with my statement that $0.6M won't cover it?

That article you posted was from march 2015.. Last year we had a first round pick.. This year we dont. It would make sense that a first rounder would cost us at least a million more towards the cap. This year unfortunately we dont have that problem.

 

[BTTA]

Point is when the question he addressed was explained, it made sense AND I understood it fully. The way the original wording was put forth, AND to which I responded that prompted your reply, implied the Pats could sign all their draft picks for $600,000. That is clearly not the case (as it would take about 10 times that amount), but that it is the NET cost that is $600,000.

The point here is simple. When you see something that you don't understand, and the information you have causes you to think it might be wrong, rather than saying, "you are wrong" it is more fruitful (for yourself, the conversation, and society in general) to say "I don't understand...this is how I see it...can you explain why you see it differently?". This requires a commitment to delayed emotional gratification, as do most worthwhile things in life.

And when there is one individual who has made the personal sacrifice to become a rocket scientist while the rest of us are playing with fireworks, this principle is even more the case.