Projected 2021 Salary Cap Decrease of $30-80 million

Ring 6 · May 10, 2020

Patsgofor4 said:
Assuming that the league in the teams don't broker some pandemic salary cap deal, how do you figure that teams won't have to cut players they otherwise would have kept? 2022 is not really relevant when you have to get under the cap in 2021 and are faced with a $140 million salary cap, when you budgeted for a $215 million cap. Theoretically, the teams who are in bad shape could restructure a large number of contracts but that is going to push a lot of pain down the road.

Let's take the Chiefs, as an example. Overthecap currently projects them to have $34 million in salary cap space in 2021, based upon a projection of $214 million cap, and that is before Mahomes new contract and doesn't include Chris Jones. Even if the salary cap drops my only $50 million, That still puts them in a very difficult position and I can't see how they don't end up cunning some starters and/or rotational players. Even if they are creative, at a bare minimum it severely limits their ability to add any significant talent to the roster. Frank Clark has a huge cap number next year but they would only gain $500,000 in space as a post June 1 cut. It would save about $13 million by cutting Honey Badger.

I think there's a very good chance that the uncertainty about next year's salary cap played a role in BB not restructuring the contracts of any high priced veterans this off-season, in order to add free agents to the roster. That would simply end up pushing more money into next year, not to mention the added salary of whomever they picked up with that added cap space.

I am certainly not a salary cap expert so maybe I am missing something. I'll be interested to get the opinions of our salary cap guys on the site.

I said teams with $. For example if the patriots project to have 100 mil of cap space and this changes it to 50 they won’t be cutting players. The post I was responding to said even teams with space will cut players because they just don’t want to pay them on the current scale. I don’t agree because the scale will go right back up the next year.

Ring 6 · May 10, 2020

ctpatsfan77 said:
Because a natural consequence of a capocalypse would be a demand by players for a larger percentage of contracts to be fully guaranteed.

There is a cba in place.

And, BTW, teams already do this to an extent. When players are given guarantees in future years, the teams have to put the money in escrow when the contract is signed. So, for example, the Vikings had to pre-pay Kirk Cousins' fully-guaranteed deal.

Totally different. That’s a competitive arrangement of teams competing for a players services. It not a group of 32 owners saying, let’s see, our revenue was reduced by 2 billion, so are going to ignore that and give you a billion more than the cba calls for because (why?) and we’ll just get it back over 9 years.
I cannot see a single reasons owners, particularly THESE owners would think about that for even a moment.

TheRainMaker · May 10, 2020

That is bad news.

ctpatsfan77 · May 10, 2020

If teams have to cut half their roster just to get under the cap, that creates a ridiculously high amount of free agents. Creating more and more free agents gives the players more control, not the owners.

It's actually the worst of both worlds, because you have a high number of free agents and relatively little capital to spend.

Ring 6 · May 10, 2020

XLIX said:
I think the reason why is established as being the point of thread. If this hypothetical “capocalypse” comes into play, many teams will have to make ridiculously large changes to their rosters. Such radical changes would arguably be bad for the league as a whole. I think, for most teams as well as for the league, maintaining the usual amount of roster stability would be worth it.

You keep saying “a billion dollars” but that’s spread out among 32 billionaires. It would only be about $40 million per team and they would get it all back down the road. They could even structure it to take into account the future value of money so that it truly does net to zero.
Creating a situation where owners are borrowing against future cap numbers helps the owners maintain control, not the other way around.

If teams have to cut half their roster just to get under the cap, that creates a ridiculously high amount of free agents. Creating more and more free agents gives the players more control, not the owners.

Huh? Cutting players who are making 8 million when the money available means they will have to play for 2 million surely doesn’t help players.
Again we are talking about a CBA dictated 1 billion dollar payroll reduction. I can’t see these owners saying they will give up a billion dollars to prevent having to cut players and resign then at a fraction of the cost.
Perhaps you see nfl owners as a magnanimous group, I see them as the opposite.

Ring 6 · May 10, 2020

ctpatsfan77 said:
It's actually the worst of both worlds, because you have a high number of free agents and relatively little capital to spend.

Which is good for the owners.

slam · May 10, 2020

If a lot of good players are on the street looking for work and Bill has a relatively good salary cap situation, it'd seem like a good situation for the Pats and other teams with cap discipline. Also a good time to have a QB on a rookie contract and not a $30 million established veteran contract.

It'd also seem to be a good time to approach the Joe Thuneys of the world on the last year of a contract and try to get him to sign an extension below usual market rates, given the uncertainty going forward.

Tony2046 · May 10, 2020

Ring 6 said:
Which is good for the owners.

How is it good news for the owners? I understand that some teams will sign players on a cheap one year deal but the owners and the free agents are all losing money.

luuked · May 10, 2020

The difference in the provided range is pretty significant. I imagine all teams will be allowed to borrow against the future to stay under the cap without shedding too many contracts. But if it really hits the more extreme end of the range then our cap situation will give us a strategic edge for the next 2-3 years. The consequences will not just be felt in 2021 but also in the following years and their respective caps.

ctpatsfan77 · May 10, 2020

Ring 6 said:
There is a cba in place.

There is, and it specifically calls for both sides to negotiate in the event that revenue falls year-over-year. [And it has nothing to prevent players from demanding guaranteed contracts.]

XLIX · May 10, 2020

Ring 6 said:
Huh? Cutting players who are making 8 million when the money available means they will have to play for 2 million surely doesn’t help players.
Again we are talking about a CBA dictated 1 billion dollar payroll reduction. I can’t see these owners saying they will give up a billion dollars to prevent having to cut players and resign then at a fraction of the cost.
Perhaps you see nfl owners as a magnanimous group, I see them as the opposite.

Here's the flaw in your reasoning: Players in 2021 will not be willing to resign long term at "a fraction of the cost" when everyone knows the salary cap will bounce back to a very high level in 2022. Every single player is going to want either a 1 year deal or a contract with a low year 1 cap hit and guaranteed dollars down the line.

For decades, players in all sports have fought for increased free agency and owners have fought for less free agency. It boggles the mind how someone can think that a massive uptick in free agency somehow gives owners more control.

XLIX · May 10, 2020

Ring 6 said:
Which is good for the owners.

No, massive amount of free agency really isn't good for owners. How are they going to pay all the signing bonus for all those free agents in 2021? The players will know the cap goes back to normal in 2022, so they aren't going to take huge long term discounts.

Ring 6 · May 10, 2020

Tony2046 said:
How is it good news for the owners? I understand that some teams will sign players on a cheap one year deal but the owners and the free agents are all losing money.

Because payroll decreases.
I’m not saying lost revenue is good for the owners. I’m saying the resulting dynamic is good for them because it decreases payroll cost. Certainly as opposed to not decreasing payroll cost after revenue plummeted.

XLIX · May 10, 2020

Ring 6 said:
There is a cba in place.

Totally different. That’s a competitive arrangement of teams competing for a players services. It not a group of 32 owners saying, let’s see, our revenue was reduced by 2 billion, so are going to ignore that and give you a billion more than the cba calls for because (why?) and we’ll just get it back over 9 years.
I cannot see a single reasons owners, particularly THESE owners would think about that for even a moment.

You are approaching this from the wrong way: If they get the money back via a reduction in future cap hits (including an adjustment for time value of money) then why wouldn't they do it?

Maintaining things as close to the status quo helps owners maintain control because they get to keep players already under contract. Creating a situation where they are forced to cut huge amounts of players and creating mass free agency in 2021 does not help ownership one bit.

Ring 6 · May 10, 2020

ctpatsfan77 said:
There is, and it specifically calls for both sides to negotiate in the event that revenue falls year-over-year. [And it has nothing to prevent players from demanding guaranteed contracts.]

Players can ask for guaranteed contracts all they want. They would have absolutely no leverage in this case.
If there is a clause in the CBA that says players can negotiate a higher % of revenue if revenue falls that is news to me, can you direct me to it?

XLIX · May 10, 2020

Ring 6 said:
Players can ask for guaranteed contracts all they want. They would have absolutely no leverage in this case.

Of course they would. A player's leverage is the fact that he's a free agent and everyone knows the cap is going back up to a very high level in 2022.

An in-demand free agent will always have leverage. Oh sure, the backup right guard who barely made the team last year might have to take whatever he can get. But expanding free agency shifts control to the players, not the owners.

Every. Single. Time.

Ring 6 · May 10, 2020

XLIX said:
Here's the flaw in your reasoning: Players in 2021 will not be willing to resign long term at "a fraction of the cost" when everyone knows the salary cap will bounce back to a very high level in 2022. Every single player is going to want either a 1 year deal or a contract with a low year 1 cap hit and guaranteed dollars down the line.

i brought that part up first. It would only go back to normal in 2022.
Why would players taking a 1 year paycut correspondent to a 1 year revenue reduction be a negative to owners?

For decades, players in all sports have fought for increased free agency and owners have fought for less free agency. It boggles the mind how someone can think that a massive uptick in free agency somehow gives owners more control.

If you want to believe that players have fought for decades to be cut from large contracts only to be signed to smaller contacts ok but I will have we to disagree.
If the number is a 50 mill decrease and 1/4 of the players are cut those 1/4 of the players are renegotiation when there is 1.5 billion less to pay them.
Let everyone become free and cut team payroll from 200 mill to 150 mill (and it’s even worse than that because it sunk cost) and tell me players think they won.

TomPatriot · May 10, 2020

Elijah said:
This benefits the teams that aren't projected to be over the lowered cap number next offseason, such as the New England Patriots. This could be exactly how the Chiefs dynasty ends before it begins.

What a damn shame.

Ring 6 · May 10, 2020

XLIX said:
You are approaching this from the wrong way: If they get the money back via a reduction in future cap hits (including an adjustment for time value of money) then why wouldn't they do it?

What business man would give away 1 billion dollars today in order to get price reductions over the next 9 years that eventually add up to 1 billion?
Try this. You give me 100,000 today and I’ll give you back 1000 every month for 100 months. Who got the better of that deal?

Maintaining things as close to the status quo helps owners maintain control because they get to keep players already under contract. Creating a situation where they are forced to cut huge amounts of players and creating mass free agency in 2021 does not help ownership one bit.

Of course it does because their players are resigning at a fraction of the cost.
If Edelman is due a $6 million salary and the market due to teams all being over the cap is $1 million how is it not better for the owner to cut him and resign him (or the equivalent replacement) for $1 million.

Ring 6 · May 10, 2020

XLIX said:
Of course they would. A player's leverage is the fact that he's a free agent and everyone knows the cap is going back up to a very high level in 2022.

An in-demand free agent will always have leverage. Oh sure, the backup right guard who barely made the team last year might have to take whatever he can get. But expanding free agency shifts control to the players, not the owners.

Every. Single. Time.

Not this time. You seem to be missing
A) they will be resigning for a small fraction of there already signed contract
B) they will take full injury and performance risk
C) they lose a year off a very short career expectancy
D) the hits will be absorbed largely by the middle class who will have questionable ability to recoup it
E) your alternative is for the owners to take a 2 billion hit to revenue and pay out the same money as if they didn’t. As is they are keeping 50% of gross revenues. I doubt the profit margin on that evens adds up to the 40 mill you want then to forfeit willingly.

Projected 2021 Salary Cap Decrease of $30-80 million

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

3rd runner up sexiest man alive 1998

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

Hall of Fame Poster

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Similar threads