July 1 salary cap data for all 32 teams

[goheels22002]

Do you really think they'd let Brady walk and not retire a Patriot ??????

Yes. If the cap remains around $125M and Brady's cap hit is $22M, they have to seriously consider turning him loose at age 37. The sad truth is, you can't have one guy take up 18% of your cap and also have quality at all 22 positions plus special teams. The savings against the cap are $8.2 million in 2013 and $15 million in 2014.

If you are the Krafts, what do you do? Cut $8.2 million in players to keep Brady in 2013 and $15 million in players in 2014? You instantly turn into the Indianapolis Colts - no depth, holes everywhere and an aging QB on your hands.

Look, HOFers get old and get sent packing every year - OJ, LT, Manning, Emmitt Smith, Jerry Rice, Bruce Smith, Montana, Johnny Unitas, Namath - the list is endless. You just can't decimate your team for one guy.

The Pats have walked away from a lot of good players for financial balance reasons - Asante Samuel, Richard Seymour, Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy, Drew Bledsoe, etc. Brady understands that.

It's a contract. Contracts are made to be re-worked in the NFL depending on what writing is on the wall. We all want Brady to finish up as a Patriot but both sides will do what they have to do.

 

[goheels22002]

You would think... But they haven't shown any inclination to. The fact that what they offered him last fall amounted to a three year <$20M deal (albeit largely guaranteed) means their number on him at that time was less than $7M per AAV. They have offered him less guaranteed money since. And that is absent the existing year to backload amortization into. A $4-7M differential (to $24-27M total or $8-9M AAV) is a pretty large gap to close on an incremental (3 year) term, let alone when the guaranteed $$ offer has decreased. Especially for a guy wired like Welker to both believe in himself and be relatively comfortable/secure with rolling the dice given what he has earned to date when the tag is included. He's no longer even the guy who has only made $18M for all his efforts to date. He's now a guy who has made $27.5M... I think we all agree that Wes really, really is a guy aho genuinely wants to win here and finish his career here with Brady. But the team may be overplaying what they perceive as that leverage, and that's how you end up alienating and eventually losing a guy who really fit. It's not so much that guy opts to chase the $$$ so much as that guy begins to feel so underappreciated and taken advantage of that his disenchantment with the FO sours his perspective and trumps comfort level with the scheme and love for playing with his existing teamates.

All it would take next offseason is a 3 year $21M deal with $11 guaranteed for some team to match what he'd have gotten here on two tags. Even if that team is done with him after two seasons...at a dead cap cost of $3M. This team could offer him that on top of his tag on a 4 year deal that guaranteed him $20.5M and hit their cap at $9.5M this year and $6.5M in 2013 and 2014 with an $8M cap hit in 2015 that would anticipate a pay cut to cut that in half or more to remain at 34 or a dead cap hit of $2.25M if cut.

That is why I just don't get the approach they have chosen with Welker. Penny wise and pound foolish unless he literally falls off a cliff after this season, and he obviously neither anticipates that nor has he given them any reason to.

I'll stick to one point here - maybe a new thread is needed for this - the revenue increase by the NFL. When the CBA was negotiated the ratings company Moodys did a study of the NFL revenue picture over ten years so that both sides could look at the same numbers. The Moody's report said that revenue from TV and other sources would soar in 2014 when the new Monday Night Deal and NFLN revenues increased with an expanded schedule, and projected similar increases as the other network deals followed suit.

See: Moody's: NFL media rights to double - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal | SportsBusiness Daily Global

This isn't the best story, but you get the picture - see paragraph #4.

Bob Kraft knew this when they re-structured Brady's deal. This is extreme;y important in this discussion.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I would love to be a fly on the wall when a new Brady contract gets discussed in a few years.
Now lets try to figure how that conversation starts. Will it be an assembly of agents and Patriots management like most negotiations? Or will it begin with an intimate discussion between Bill and Tom...with Bill laying out his plan for the future...and how he sees Tom in that future. These two have been intertwined for a decade plus and I still get the sense that Brady deflects to Bill because of the complete respect his has for his coach.
So this is how I see it going down: Bill explains to Tom that he wants to continue the run their team has been on for the past 14 years and wants Tom to be the teams QB and leader. He reminds Tom that the Patriots have shown Brady contract respect in the past by making Brady the highest paid player in the NFL (for a time). They talk about their legacy as individuals and together as the greatest QB/Coach tandem in NFL history. Then Bill gets to the heart of the discussion. "Skills erode with time....its a fact of life. As we move forward, we will need to surround you with better talent....higher priced talent. Better protection from the line and playmakers with the ball. And to achieve this goal, the team will need you to sacrifice salary. I'm not here to roll out a Joe Namath swan song tour with fans eager to shell out coin to catch a final glimpse of Tom Brady before his time finally comes to an end. This is about winning football games, cementing your legacy as the greatest winner in NFL history......and with a team friendly extension...the greatest team player as well. Our ultimate goal remains the same, win every game...but you will need more help."

Could it play out this way? It sure helps that he is the low wage earner in his household? And I imagine the Joe Montana exodus from San Fran is still vivid in his mind as a painful memory. And the current NFL landscape is eye opening... Manning starting over in Denver. Brees holding the Saints hostage.
Here's an interesting thread idea:
What NFL franchise would Brady respect enough to play for? And which coaches would Brady have enough confidence in to lead him forward on a new team?

Discussions on that deal will likely be underway shortly after the end of this upcoming season, so say in several months. And they will probably go the way they always have, between Brady's agent and the FO. Bill doesn't tend to inject himself directly in these discussions for lots of good reasons. They can get contentious as each side presents it's leverage points. Relationships can be damaged. You will note how players seldom point the finger at Bill when that happens. They are always good with coach and coach always talks about how well they have performed. It's kind of like a little choreographed dance. The few times he has waded in it hasn't exactly gone swimmingly (Milloy, Law, Asante, Branch, Richard).

I don't think Brady and Belichick have to discuss much. Each knows where the other stands. Bill never begrudges players their due provided they've earned it consistently. Welker would appear to be an exception to that rule, but who knows what all underlies that beyond age and continued durability/production concerns at the position. He can afford to keep any player he wants to if he wants to enough to make certain trade offs. Brady has to top his list of trade off worthy retentions. They remain a whole lot more likely to win more with less with him under center than without, so there goes that argument. They'd need a whole lot more talent to win without him than any savings achieved in not having him could provide.

Bill is well paid among his peers. Some claim he is the highest paid. We'll likely never know, but I doubt Kraft plays the legacy card with him at contract time any more than he will with Brady. Tom knows how they feel about putting winning here above personally wringing every last cent out of the budget. They aren't asking him to do a doormat deal although fans have come to. Just expecting him to do what he has always done in not demanding to reset the bar as Manning always did and as Brees seems intent to this time around. But don't kid yourselves, his per year average isn't going in any direction but up. And he isn't playing a snap anywhere but here. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I'll stick to one point here - maybe a new thread is needed for this - the revenue increase by the NFL. When the CBA was negotiated the ratings company Moodys did a study of the NFL revenue picture over ten years so that both sides could look at the same numbers. The Moody's report said that revenue from TV and other sources would soar in 2014 when the new Monday Night Deal and NFLN revenues increased with an expanded schedule, and projected similar increases as the other network deals followed suit.

See: Moody's: NFL media rights to double - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal | SportsBusiness Daily Global

This isn't the best story, but you get the picture - see paragraph #4.

Bob Kraft knew this when they re-structured Brady's deal. This is extreme;y important in this discussion.

Moody's study had nothing to do with the league. They had their own figures. Moody did it's study on it's own and they weren't privy to lots of information, as is always the case. The league did what some said they must, reset the CBA on their terms. The NFLPA didn't get their 50/50 split. Read the piece and note:

Bank said the NFL could indeed see its media fees surpass $8 billion annually in a decade, but he warned that it is misleading to say that the figure would double what’s being paid currently because of escalators that are built into the league’s media contracts.

“To gauge the increase in real costs from a new contract, one probably shouldn’t compare average price to average price, but rather peak price on the old contract versus trough price on the new contract,” he said.
Rich Greenfield, a financial analyst for BTIG, also pointed to the league’s TV ratings as evidence that the NFL’s leverage will get stronger in coming years.

“The NFL clearly has become more important to the TV industry each year,” Greenfield said. “It’s the one thing broadcasters can use to get [retransmission] fees and cable companies can use to fight cord cutters.”

Under the NFLPA’s proposed 50-50 split of all revenue, players would get $2 billion annually of the increased media fees that Moody’s is projecting. The league’s desired percentage is uncertain, but for each percentage-point drop, the players would lose $80 million annually. Presuming a 3 percentage-point difference, and media terms of five years, that translates into a $1.2 billion difference.

The revenue split % landed between 47-48.5% overall, so... And as Kraft keeps pointing out the TV deals increases are phased in, not immediate.

 

[goheels22002]

Discussions on that deal will likely be underway shortly after the end of this upcoming season, so say in several months. And they will probably go the way they always have, between Brady's agent and the FO. Bill doesn't tend to inject himself directly in these discussions for lots of good reasons. They can get contentious as each side presents it's leverage points. Relationships can be damaged. You will note how players seldom point the finger at Bill when that happens. They are always good with coach and coach always talks about how well they have performed. It's kind of like a little choreographed dance. The few times he has waded in it hasn't exactly gone swimmingly (Milloy, Law, Asante, Branch, Richard).

I don't think Brady and Belichick have to discuss much. Each knows where the other stands. Bill never begrudges players their due provided they've earned it consistently. Welker would appear to be an exception to that rule, but who knows what all underlies that beyond age and continued durability/production concerns at the position. He can afford to keep any player he wants to if he wants to enough to make certain trade offs. Brady has to top his list of trade off worthy retentions. They remain a whole lot more likely to win more with less with him under center than without, so there goes that argument. They'd need a whole lot more talent to win without him than any savings achieved in not having him could provide.

Bill is well paid among his peers. Some claim he is the highest paid. We'll likely never know, but I doubt Kraft plays the legacy card with him at contract time any more than he will with Brady. Tom knows how they feel about putting winning here above personally wringing every last cent out of the budget. They aren't asking him to do a doormat deal although fans have come to. Just expecting him to do what he has always done in not demanding to reset the bar as Manning always did and as Brees seems intent to this time around. But don't kid yourselves, his per year average isn't going in any direction but up. And he isn't playing a snap anywhere but here. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Once again, I agree. A little more on the TV deal - apparently the Moody's report that surfaced in the Spring of 2011 is not available - I might write them to see if the report is available somewhere/

Anyway, here is a WSJ story that says that the NFL and the broadcasters agreed to a 63% increase in revenue starting in 2014 over the eight year life of the deal(s). It's hard to know what the year-by-year revenue increase amounts to:

NFL Reaches TV Deals With Fox, CBS and NBC - WSJ.com

No matter, the revenue increase has to be reflected in the salary cap despite what the NFL and John "the constipated professor" Clayton say. A jump of 8% adds roughly $10 million to each team's salary cap, which will help the Brady situation immensely if they can sort out 2013.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Once again, I agree. A little more on the TV deal - apparently the Moody's report that surfaced in the Spring of 2011 is not available - I might write them to see if the report is available somewhere/

Anyway, here is a WSJ story that says that the NFL and the broadcasters agreed to a 63% increase in revenue starting in 2014 over the eight year life of the deal(s). It's hard to know what the year-by-year revenue increase amounts to:

NFL Reaches TV Deals With Fox, CBS and NBC - WSJ.com

No matter, the revenue increase has to be reflected in the salary cap despite what the NFL and John "the constipated professor" Clayton say. A jump of 8% adds roughly $10 million to each team's salary cap, which will help the Brady situation immensely if they can sort out 2013.

OK, I'm gonna splain this to you one more time...

Under the new CBA the formula for calculating the cap as well as the revenue split changed. The players ended up on the short end of the stick for the forseeable future although if certain revenues rise more than others they may ultimately finish out this deal better than they would have under the old deal. They are now getting a little more of some revenue streams and less of others, but less as an overall % of revenue than they did under the old CBA. About 2.5-3% less, and as the article states each % point amounts to roughly $80M. Something neither Moody's nor the WSJ could have anticipated in March of last year...

That said, the cap was rolled back to pre 2009 levels by this CBA as a result. Had they not made some allowances which the league didn't have to agree to the cap would have been substantially less than $120M in 2011...and De wouldn't have been re elected. What got them over the $123M mark barely was in fact a loan out of future cap increases that will be deducted once the cap does start to increase on it's own. 'Causing it to remain flat for some time and grow more slowly for some time thereafter. Same thing will have to happen next year and the year after just to keep the cap from decreasing. This year the league got the union to sign off on the cap penalties to Dallas and Washington in exchange for doing them that solid. Maybe next year the league will finally get blood testing.

TV revenue alone going up 8% doesn't translate into 8% cap increases because the formula is based on more than TV revenue. Besides which the TV increases don't go into effect accross the board in year 1, they are phased in incrementally year to year over the life of the contracts and they won't even begin to change the overall revenue picture until 2015 because revenue is calculated at the end of each season, not anticipated going into it...

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Yes. If the cap remains around $125M and Brady's cap hit is $22M, they have to seriously consider turning him loose at age 37. The sad truth is, you can't have one guy take up 18% of your cap and also have quality at all 22 positions plus special teams. The savings against the cap are $8.2 million in 2013 and $15 million in 2014.

Generally speaking, no, you can't. But again, you don't have to and these two have always managed to get the incremental deals done to avoid that and if push came to shove and you did have to do it short term it might not be the no brainer you think it is because of the situation here vs. say in Indy, where mistakes had been compounding for a while via years of doing just that on top of poor drafting and an almost pathalogical aversion to FA.

If you are the Krafts, what do you do? Cut $8.2 million in players to keep Brady in 2013 and $15 million in players in 2014? You instantly turn into the Indianapolis Colts - no depth, holes everywhere and an aging QB on your hands.

If I have to, hell yeah. But I don't because of that little thing called an extension...

Look, HOFers get old and get sent packing every year - OJ, LT, Manning, Emmitt Smith, Jerry Rice, Bruce Smith, Montana, Johnny Unitas, Namath - the list is endless. You just can't decimate your team for one guy.

All of those guys were sent packing because of injury and/or inability to produce at a level that warranted their salary. Brady is still putting up MVP production numbers...

The Pats have walked away from a lot of good players for financial balance reasons - Asante Samuel, Richard Seymour, Ty Law, Lawyer Milloy, Drew Bledsoe, etc. Brady understands that.

None of whom were producing near the rate at they were compensated being the big difference...

It's a contract. Contracts are made to be re-worked in the NFL depending on what writing is on the wall. We all want Brady to finish up as a Patriot but both sides will do what they have to do.

Or they could extend him for 3 more years at $20M+/- or thereabouts per ($60M in new money with half of it guaranteed (heck by the beginning of the next league year another $10M is guaranteed anyway and the final $10M on his existing deal will be guaranteed before the end of the 2013 season.) and his cap hits in 2013 and 2014 could be as comfortable as they want to structure them to be (say mid teens) on a deal that would be averaging in total $18.2M per over the next 5 years (because with 2 years remaining they can amortize a chunk of that 3 years new money over 5...). And wouldn't have to top the $20M cap hit mark ever unless they want it to. Brady's current deal was never going to top $18M until they decided for some reason they wanted it to... Brady didn't make his cap hits in 2013 and 2014 approach $22M, the team chose to do that in March...

 

[goheels22002]

OK, I'm gonna splain this to you one more time...


TV revenue alone going up 8% doesn't translate into 8% cap increases because the formula is based on more than TV revenue. Besides which the TV increases don't go into effect accross the board in year 1, they are phased in incrementally year to year over the life of the contracts and they won't even begin to change the overall revenue picture until 2015 because revenue is calculated at the end of each season, not anticipated going into it...

The new CBA grants the players 55% of broadcast revenue, 45% of NFL Ventures revenue and 40% of local team revenues up to 47% of the net revenue from these sources. The TV deal actually provides the greatest portion of shared revenue, and is the most predictable for cap purposes.

It comes down to who you believe: the owners or the NFLPA. The owners are saying the cap stays flat through 2015 while the NFLPA says it grows with revenue. Both are saying it will be incremental.

I believe the players and their agents, frankly. If you look at veteran contracts signed since the CBA was ratified, the escalators kick in in 2014 to coincide with the broadcast revenues. Exhibit A - Gronkowski's extension Breaking down Gronk extension - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

In 2014, when the new broadcast deal kicks in, the league revenues go up substantially - so should the salary cap. You are correct in thinking that the owners are trying to set up the perception that the cap may stay flat, but this is being dealt with by the NFLPA.

An incremental increase is indeed in the works and begins with 2013 - a modest $7M (5.7%) increase followed by another $6M per team (5%) increase. That added money makes Brady's cap hit less daunting as it reduces the percentage of payroll he represents under the cap.

Greg Bedard laid out the union's plans and projections in March 2012:

"The NFL offered a cap of $121 million in ’12 - it will be $120.6 million. That’s a loss of $12.8 million for the players.

In ’13, the NFL’s proposed cap was $128 million. If the actual cap stays flat at $121 million, that’s a loss of $224 million.

The proposed ’14 cap was $134 million. If the actual number is again at $121 million, players will have lost $416 million in a year they expect to strike it rich.

That’s $652.8 million lost in the final three years - $448 million if the gains in ’11 are included.

And if 2015 also remains flat, the players will have lost more than a billion dollars from 2012-15.

Surely players and agents are going to be upset if this comes to pass.

“I can’t speak to what the owners were speaking to down there,’’ NFLPA president Domonique Foxworth said. “Honestly, next week is when I’m going to go crunch all the numbers with our lawyers and figure out the true cap projections, so it’s hard for me [to comment]. I really wish I could give you some definitive answer but one thing I know is the NFL isn’t getting less popular, so I don’t think that anyone is in danger, from owners or the players’ side, going bankrupt any time soon.’’

The biggest reason the union got fed up over the negotiations was that the NFL refused to link the cap to the actual revenue generated by the league each year. That was an important issue to the NFLPA, and it ended up getting an annual linkage."

Why would the players give the owners a pass on 2014 revenue sharing when they know now what the revenue from TV will be?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The new CBA grants the players 55% of broadcast revenue, 45%of NFL Ventures revenue and 40% of local team revenues up to 47% of the net revenue from these sources. The TV deal actually provides the greatest portion of shared revenue, and is the most predictable for cap purposes.

It comes down to who you believe: the owners or the NFLPA. The owners are saying the cap stays flat through 2015 while the NFLPA says it grows with revenue. Both are saying it will be incremental.

I believe the players and their agents, frankly. If you look at veteran contracts signed since the CBA was ratified, the escalators kick in in 2014 to coincide with the broadcast revenues. Exhibit A - Gronkowski's extension Breaking down Gronk extension - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

In 2014, when the new broadcast deal kicks in, the league revenues go up substantially - so should the salary cap. You are correct in thinking that the owners are trying to set up the perception that the cap may stay flat, but this is being dealt with by the NFLPA.

An incremental increase is indeed in the works and begins with 2013 - a modest $7M (5.7%) increase followed by another $6M per team (5%) increase. That added money makes Brady's cap hit less daunting as it reduces the percentage of payroll he represents under the cap.

Greg Bedard laid out the union's plans and projections in March 2012:

"The NFL offered a cap of $121 million in ’12 - it will be $120.6 million. That’s a loss of $12.8 million for the players.

In ’13, the NFL’s proposed cap was $128 million. If the actual cap stays flat at $121 million, that’s a loss of $224 million.

The proposed ’14 cap was $134 million. If the actual number is again at $121 million, players will have lost $416 million in a year they expect to strike it rich.

That’s $652.8 million lost in the final three years - $448 million if the gains in ’11 are included.

And if 2015 also remains flat, the players will have lost more than a billion dollars from 2012-15.

Surely players and agents are going to be upset if this comes to pass.

“I can’t speak to what the owners were speaking to down there,’’ NFLPA president Domonique Foxworth said. “Honestly, next week is when I’m going to go crunch all the numbers with our lawyers and figure out the true cap projections, so it’s hard for me [to comment]. I really wish I could give you some definitive answer but one thing I know is the NFL isn’t getting less popular, so I don’t think that anyone is in danger, from owners or the players’ side, going bankrupt any time soon.’’

The biggest reason the union got fed up over the negotiations was that the NFL refused to link the cap to the actual revenue generated by the league each year. That was an important issue to the NFLPA, and it ended up getting an annual linkage."

Why would the players give the owners a pass on 2014 revenue sharing when they know now what the revenue from TV will be?

I'm gonna go with the guys with the track record... I'm still waiting for Dominique to reveal what his numbers crunched out to...beyond a regurgitation of Kesslers nonsense and some blather about the value of less practices. The NFLPA will attempt to spin anything into some kind of win because they have to. I believe it's worked on you since you seem to be claiming that Bedard's piece laying out the potential miscalculations of the union was actually something else...

Players and agents can be upset until the cows come home. Won't do them any good until 2021...if ever. Nothing they can do (short of launching various nuisance suits and grievances they won't win because of the CBA they signed off on that has no opt outs) and being generally divisive and uncooperative as in the case of blood testing in the interim. The TV money won't show up on the revenue books until 2015, and by then they will owe the cap kitty back enough to insure no exponential cap increase even then. Won't see dramatic increases until the final 4-5 years of the deal, which is exactly what the smart guys on the other side always had as their goal. At that time they will enter negotiations on a new CBA prior to negotiating the new TV deals that will begin to kick in in 2023... Bob Kraft has already forgotten more about the TV deals he helped negotiate and the CBA he helped to broker than Dominique will ever know.

The league over the next decade will also be focusing considerable effort on expanding revenues from sources like NFL Ventures and local team revenues that the league collects the lions share of. And even if they don't succeed, the overall % cap on revenue splits will make for some more interesting semantic battles...

I also think you lose sight of the fact that the salary cap as fans perceive it is just the portion of the cap spent on salaries. A higher percentage of the cap is being directed to what constitutes the remainder of the cap, benefits, which will be increasing at a greater rate than the salary portion because of improvements in benefits and the nature of the beast (cost of providing those increased benefits). I believe this year the total cap was $142M or so, but when the cost of benefits were deducted was when the Oh oh moment for the NFLPA occurred. That left them with salary cap well below their projections at first blush, and that's when the renegotiating began to prop it up...via loans against future cap increases. Something that had to be accommodated or Domonique and De would both be out of work. The league would actually prefer to deal with the devil it knows and has already gotten the upper hand on at this juncture.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...claims-that-salarie-are-and-will-remain-flat/

I also think you misconstrue the Gronk deal. Teams would love to sign everyone to one of those... His significant caps (in excess of the tag which is a bargain for the position) don't kick in until the tail end of the deal and the earlier hits are easily restructured to remain at or below it until then. It's a deal they can live with or totally do over or even walk away from come 2016.

http://nyjetscap.com/Patriots/Gronkowski, Rob.php

I'm also going to link Bedard's report you cite for clarity about what it actually said.

http://www.boston.com/sports/footba...y_find_cap_a_bad_fit_in_the_future/?page=full

Including this:

“One thing that we did do that I’m proud of is for the first time we linked our revenue to actual revenue,’’ Foxworth said. “It’s hard to project what’s going to happen out in the future but no one is going to be upset because the only way the cap could be flat is if revenue is flat. So it’s hard to be [ticked] that you’re not getting more money if more money is not coming in. That was one of the smarter decisions that was made during that.’’

Maybe the lockout will eventually be worth it for that, but it’s not doing them much good now.

Part of the problem is that when the union and NFL sat down and did the linkage for the 2012 salary cap, the number came out around $114 million, according to reports, and to get the cap up to $120.6 million, the NFLPA had to borrow against future caps.

Foxworth wouldn’t confirm those reports. He did, however, look as puzzled as anyone about the cap being flat through 2015.

“I’m being careful not to say anything, but I think anyone with a brain in their head thinks that the NFL is going to continue to be lucrative,’’ Foxworth said.

Now, it’s certainly possible that the NFL doesn’t have its numbers right into the future. But one thing we now know is that the numbers the NFL used before the lockout - which the NFLPA derided - have turned out to be correct. So much for the NFLPA’s cry that the NFL was cooking the books. It has the books now. They’re right. And the players are coming up short.

 

[goheels22002]

I also think you lose sight of the fact that the salary cap as fans perceive it is just the portion of the cap spent on salaries. A higher percentage of the cap is being directed to what constitutes the remainder of the cap, benefits, which will be increasing at a greater rate than the salary portion because of improvements in benefits and the nature of the beast (cost of providing those increased benefits). I believe this year the total cap was $142M or so, but when the cost of benefits were deducted was when the Oh oh moment for the NFLPA occurred. That left them with salary cap well below their projections at first blush, and that's when the renegotiating began to prop it up...via loans against future cap increases. Something that had to be accommodated or Domonique and De would both be out of work. The league would actually prefer to deal with the devil it knows and has already gotten the upper hand on at this juncture.

NFLPA disputes claims that salaries are and will remain flat | ProFootballTalk

I also think you misconstrue the Gronk deal. Teams would love to sign everyone to one of those... His significant caps (in excess of the tag which is a bargain for the position) don't kick in until the tail end of the deal and the earlier hits are easily restructured to remain at or below it until then. It's a deal they can live with or totally do over or even walk away from come 2016.

Rob Gronkowski

I'm also going to link Bedard's report you cite for clarity about what it actually said.

NFL players may find cap a bad fit in the future - The Boston Globe

My point is this the money from the TV deal flows in 2014. I know what you are saying, but teams are going to pay more in 2014 because that is when the new TV money shows up.

The $121M, $128M and $134M salary caps in 2012 - 2013 - 2014 in Bedard's story were the NFL's numbers, not the NFLPA's.

The Gronk deal is, as you say, a great deal for both sides. It's totally cap friendly and sets the market. My point was the leap in his salary from 2013 to 2014.

Mario Williams' deal with Buffalo is similar 9.8M in 2012, 11.9M in 2013, 18.4 in 2014

LeSean McCoy with Philadelphia: 2012 - 950K, 2013 - $3.2M, 2014 -$8M

Big jumps between 2013 and 2014 is a trend in the larger contracts signed this off-season. The owners and the agents are agreeing on something, and it sure looks to me like they agree they'll be more money in 2014.

The benefits stuff is not relevant to this discussion. Brady's cap hit in 2013 and 2014 would be against the salary component only, so all the other stuff that the NFL whined about having to pay out doesn't affect the cap hits of individual players. I read all that crap from the NFL about having to provide better benefits and it reminded me why we have unions in this country. They owners would be smart to set up a trust fund right now to care for players with serious post-career chronic conditions before they get sued, and lose, and the Supreme Court says "Read my Obamacare, you idiots." They can call it Seau-care and count the expense against the local revenue under the existing CBA.

Last point: the other money that the players can lay claim to, especially the local revenue over expenses will be a donnybrook. The individual owners will be dodging and dippin' and duckin' and divin' and dodgin' when they report those dollars. Jerry Jones will look like Patches O'Houlihan when that topic comes up with the union.

 

[jason423]

My point is this the money from the TV deal flows in 2014. I know what you are saying, but teams are going to pay more in 2014 because that is when the new TV money shows up.

The $121M, $128M and $134M salary caps in 2012 - 2013 - 2014 in Bedard's story were the NFL's numbers, not the NFLPA's.

The Gronk deal is, as you say, a great deal for both sides. It's totally cap friendly and sets the market. My point was the leap in his salary from 2013 to 2014.

Mario Williams' deal with Buffalo is similar 9.8M in 2012, 11.9M in 2013, 18.4 in 2014

LeSean McCoy with Philadelphia: 2012 - 950K, 2013 - $3.2M, 2014 -$8M

Big jumps between 2013 and 2014 is a trend in the larger contracts signed this off-season. The owners and the agents are agreeing on something, and it sure looks to me like they agree they'll be more money in 2014.

The benefits stuff is not relevant to this discussion. Brady's cap hit in 2013 and 2014 would be against the salary component only, so all the other stuff that the NFL whined about having to pay out doesn't affect the cap hits of individual players. I read all that crap from the NFL about having to provide better benefits and it reminded me why we have unions in this country. They owners would be smart to set up a trust fund right now to care for players with serious post-career chronic conditions before they get sued, and lose, and the Supreme Court says "Read my Obamacare, you idiots." They can call it Seau-care and count the expense against the local revenue under the existing CBA.

Last point: the other money that the players can lay claim to, especially the local revenue over expenses will be a donnybrook. The individual owners will be dodging and dippin' and duckin' and divin' and dodgin' when they report those dollars. Jerry Jones will look like Patches O'Houlihan when that topic comes up with the union.

Dont look too much into the jumps in contracts for two reasons- one is that it is entirely normal for contracts to spike that way. More and more teams are essentially doing a pay as you go system, with rolling guarantees, that essentially gives teams a real option on a player. Its basically a way to defer committing prorated money to a player until they are 100% sold on him being worth the money, kind of like why Gronkowskis big money doesnt kick in for a few years since there are still some questions as to whether he is 2011 insanely good or just very good.

The second reason is that the actually cash minimums dont kick in until 2013. The money paid now doesnt help a team meet their minimum requirements. You defer it as long as possible to fit it in with that schedule.

The entire issue with the TV money is that is seems as if it is going to come back in exponentially. That may have been to intentionally hurt the players who forced the lockout, but more likely its so they could have a huge money deal but let the networks hold off on payment. The cap looks like it may have been at 2008 levels without the NFLPA borrowing with increases of 2 million or so a year expected from this point forward. Im not sure if the NFLPA will be allowed to borrow again since the league is constantly being taken to court now by them. The NFL agreed to increase the cap for this year and increase the rookie pool even though the CBA would have seen the money reduced for both pools. Next year they probably wont be so accommodating.

 

[mayoclinic]

More on the Ed Reed situation:

Reed sheds more light on his plans | ProFootballTalk

Baltimore is barely under the cap right now. Ed Reed wants a new deal. Joe Flacco wants a new deal. Ray Rice wants a new deal. The OL has 3 starters over the age of 33. There will be some growing pains in Baltimore.

 

[goheels22002]

More on the Ed Reed situation:

Reed sheds more light on his plans | ProFootballTalk

Baltimore is barely under the cap right now. Ed Reed wants a new deal. Joe Flacco wants a new deal. Ray Rice wants a new deal. The OL has 3 starters over the age of 33. There will be some growing pains in Baltimore.

I think Reed is delusional at his age and injury history, to think the Ravens are going to sacrifice youth and depth to give him more than $7.2 million. I think they'll let him walk out and trade him a few weeks into camp or the season a la Carson Palmer. Reed has some value in a trade, but not much.

"Uh. Coach Harbaugh. Uh, Yes sir. I have a guy in a ratty sweatshirt on my iPhone who says he's with the Patriots. I know he looks like he's homeless. Coach Harbaugh? He says he can offer a 3rd rounder for Ed Reed and promises not to flick the scoreboard lights when Billy Cundiff tries a field goal this year. Tell him to go shove it where, sir? Oooh. Okay. Mr.? What was your name, again? Bobochick? Okay, Mr. Bobovich, Coach Harbaugh says you can shove it up your...."

 

[BradyFTW!]

I think Reed is delusional at his age and injury history, to think the Ravens are going to sacrifice youth and depth to give him more than $7.2 million. I think they'll let him walk out and trade him a few weeks into camp or the season a la Carson Palmer. Reed has some value in a trade, but not much.

"Uh. Coach Harbaugh. Uh, Yes sir. I have a guy in a ratty sweatshirt on my iPhone who says he's with the Patriots. I know he looks like he's homeless. Coach Harbaugh? He says he can offer a 3rd rounder for Ed Reed and promises not to flick the scoreboard lights when Billy Cundiff tries a field goal this year. Tell him to go shove it where, sir? Oooh. Okay. Mr.? What was your name, again? Bobochick? Okay, Mr. Bobovich, Coach Harbaugh says you can shove it up your...."

If Baltimore decides to trade Reed, the Patriots had damn well better be the first team on the phone with Ozzie Newsome.

I do find it kinda odd, though, that Reed is making waves about a new deal right now, when a little over a year ago he was leaning towards retiring. Two wild, random guesses: either his neck feels a lot better or he lost a lot of money.

 

[goheels22002]

If Baltimore decides to trade Reed, the Patriots had damn well better be the first team on the phone with Ozzie Newsome.

I do find it kinda odd, though, that Reed is making waves about a new deal right now, when a little over a year ago he was leaning towards retiring. Two wild, random guesses: either his neck feels a lot better or he lost a lot of money.

The Pats are out of salary cap room - they have $10M left with Welker, Waters and Hightower to deal with. At $7.2M for Reed they'd have to slash somewhere. Who do you cut for a 34-year-old safety?

 

[BradyFTW!]

The Pats are out of salary cap room - they have $10M left with Welker, Waters and Hightower to deal with. At $7.2M for Reed they'd have to slash somewhere. Who do you cut for a 34-year-old safety?

Welker's $10M is already accounted for in getting them to $10M under, isnt't it? Plus if they sign him to a 3+ year deal, it will most likely reduce his cap hit this year, thus freeing up even more space (although they're running out of time to do that). If the Pats wanted Reed, and the Ravens were willing to trade him for a reasonable price, they could make it happen.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Brees' new deal is in. 5 years, $100M, $40M in the first year (I assume that's the signing bonus and salary) and $60M in the first 3. So the new money on any Brady extension will be roughly $20M per.

 

[VJCPatriot]

More on the Ed Reed situation:

Reed sheds more light on his plans | ProFootballTalk

Baltimore is barely under the cap right now. Ed Reed wants a new deal. Joe Flacco wants a new deal. Ray Rice wants a new deal. The OL has 3 starters over the age of 33. There will be some growing pains in Baltimore.

So the Ravens had either better pay Reed or trade him! Love to see a potential playoff rival weakened!

I'd give up a 3rd or 2nd rounder for Reed if he puts the Ravens over a barrel. What Reed really wants is the bonus money. If we could do a front-loaded deal that pays him say 10-12m bonus in the first 2 years, his contract could be doable. 2 years of Reed is a big enough window to win 2 rings. ^_^ Doubt we do it, but it would be awfully sweet to win the SB with Reed patrolling our secondary.