Where is The Cap (after the draftees are signed)?

[mgteich]

Why do you ask?
(I'm not trying to be a smarta$$). Just curious what your thought process is? How much we'll be able to roll-over, how much we have to maybe extend or give out a pay increases for this year or maybe pay some vets/players that may get cut? Sadly, $9-$10m isn't going to put a dent in all of the above.

I just thought that we might see where we are. I thought that someone might have a cap after the draftees are signed. But we can all do the arithmetic. The answer is about $10M
-----------------
$9-10M isn't putting a dent in any of the above. We still need to pay for player 51, player 53, players placed on the IR during camp, and the Practice Squad. Then will see what have what is left for replacement players during the year and bonuses that count toward this year's cap.
---------------------
It seems that we don't have much "extra" left for trades or rollovers.

It is true that there are players than can be extended to reduce the cap. Other than Allan, I'm not expected much this year.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

New England Patriots 2018 Salary Cap

New England Patriots 2018 Salary Cap

Alan Branch 1m in dead cap space for 2018. That's one major pile of Chow Mein from Panda Express and one irritating loss of money for a guy who got a new contract only to become an over inflated tackling dummy (something that hurt this D in 2017 much more than was ever reported)

 

[supafly]

We can probably do without D. Allen and Gillislee. That
would save 7.2m There is also the possibility of a Brady extension.

I think Gilleslee is about as good as gone right now, but that’s also assuming that Hill looks serviceable in TC + the preseason, as well as predicting minimal injuries at the position.

As for Brady, I think it’s looking more and more as though they’ll choose to wait until after this upcoming season. First off, I think it’s a bit difficult to predict the future at his age—at least beyond the next two years, which he’s already signed for. I also think it may be a bit harder trying to come up with a fair deal for both sides, particularly when the market is now hovering around 30m a year, and your QB will be 43 before the extension even kicks in.

 

[maineman209]

I think Gilleslee is about as good as gone right now, but that’s also assuming that Hill looks serviceable in TC + the preseason, as well as predicting minimal injuries at the position.

As for Brady, I think it’s looking more and more as though they’ll choose to wait until after this upcoming season. First off, I think it’s a bit difficult to predict the future at his age—at least beyond the next two years, which he’s already signed for. I also think it may be a bit harder trying to come up with a fair deal for both sides, particularly when the market is now hovering around 30m a year, and your QB will be 43 before the extension even kicks in.

I'm still not sure why Gillislee is more likely to be gone than Hill.

Gillislee doesn't have many breakaway long runs, but he's been at or near the top of the charts in both 2016 and 2017 in terms of highest percentage of successful plays gaining the yardage required for down-and-distance.

In contrast, Hill's yardage has come from a number of breakaway runs mixed in with a lot of runs for zero/negative yards. Maybe his "zero/negative" failure rate improves running be hind a better OL, maybe it doesn't.

Anyway, the competition still seems 50-50 to me.

WRT Brady, I'm not sure that the current "$30M/year" market top will have much (if any) effect on an extension. His 2018 salary of $14M in now fully-guaranteed, but his 2019 salary (also $14M) is not guaranteed until this time next season. Tacking another year of non-guaranteed salary on the end of the current deal (at whatever amount), while increasing his guaranteed "new" cash via amortized signing bonus doesn't seem to me like it would be all that difficult or necessarily represent any enormously increased financial risk.

 

[DarrylS]

Really appreciate the work of the capologists and all those who took the grad course on capology.. no need for me to understand the machaninations of it, just the bottom number...

Then there is the Felger approach, "The Cap is Crap".. in that world, none of this matters.. and some fans follow along, i.e. "they should've signed Amendola and Solder"..

 

[mgteich]

I agree

I'm still not sure why Gillislee is more likely to be gone than Hill.

 

[Miguel]

The draftees are not signed. There may be other transactions that happen before they are signed.

 

[supafly]

I'm still not sure why Gillislee is more likely to be gone than Hill.

Gillislee doesn't have many breakaway long runs, but he's been at or near the top of the charts in both 2016 and 2017 in terms of highest percentage of successful plays gaining the yardage required for down-and-distance.

In contrast, Hill's yardage has come from a number of breakaway runs mixed in with a lot of runs for zero/negative yards. Maybe his "zero/negative" failure rate improves running be hind a better OL, maybe it doesn't.

Anyway, the competition still seems 50-50 to me.

WRT Brady, I'm not sure that the current "$30M/year" market top will have much (if any) effect on an extension. His 2018 salary of $14M in now fully-guaranteed, but his 2019 salary (also $14M) is not guaranteed until this time next season. Tacking another year of non-guaranteed salary on the end of the current deal (at whatever amount), while increasing his guaranteed "new" cash via amortized signing bonus doesn't seem to me like it would be all that difficult or necessarily represent any enormously increased financial risk.

In terms of Brady, the suggestion was that he be extended right now. I think that’s unlikely. We’ll see. And I do think that it may be slightly more difficult to gauge his value with the market shifting. I don’t know why he would be inclined to accept such an offer as you proposed, but again—we’ll have to see how it plays out. One thing is for sure, it’s not going to be at 14m dollars. Does he push harder for something in the current market range? I don’t know. At this point, I don’t even think we know if he’s playing past the next two seasons, so I think that can be addressed during the next spring.

As for Gilleslee, he couldn’t make it to the active list last year, with a less talented RB stable. There are only going to be 4 actives, with Bolden being one of them. He’s the one who provides the most cap savings, so I’d have to think that he’s the front runner to leave. Actually, they both could be gone if we have good health and/or see a cheap option offer anything, whatsoever. I would think the 4 actives would be Bolden, Michel, Burkhead, and White.

 

[Baboon]

Why do some posters put 5MM instead of 5M, what is the extra M for? This has been intriguing me for many years and never found the right thread to pop the question. Ken is the only MM'er so far in this thread but normally MM'ers are in the majority

M is roman numeral for one thousand. In general, to avoid confusion, you should use MM, Mil, Mln to abbreviate million; but, on this forum, everybody understands M means million. (Nobody is getting a $2.4 thousand contract.)

The official financial notation is MM.

 

[maineman209]

In terms of Brady, the suggestion was that he be extended right now. I think that’s unlikely. We’ll see. And I do think that it may be slightly more difficult to gauge his value with the market shifting. I don’t know why he would be inclined to accept such an offer as you proposed, but again—we’ll have to see how it plays out. One thing is for sure, it’s not going to be at 14m dollars. Does he push harder for something in the current market range? I don’t know. At this point, I don’t even think we know if he’s playing past the next two seasons, so I think that can be addressed during the next spring.

As for Gilleslee, he couldn’t make it to the active list last year, with a less talented RB stable. There are only going to be 4 actives, with Bolden being one of them. He’s the one who provides the most cap savings, so I’d have to think that he’s the front runner to leave. Actually, they both could be gone if we have good health and/or see a cheap option offer anything, whatsoever. I would think the 4 actives would be Bolden, Michel, Burkhead, and White.

I personally don't have enough inside information to be able to declare anything wrt Brady's contract/possible extension as either likely or unlikely. The best I can do is posit various scenarios.

"Couldn't make it to the active list" is a bit inaccurate. Gillislee was active for nine games last season. In four of those games, all five RBs (including Bolden) were active. In the other five of those nine games, he was subbing for one of the other RBs who was injured. Which is kinda the point.

In those nine games he posted the second most rushing yards per game by a long shot (42.6), and the second most rushing TDs on the team (5). IOW, the Pats ground game didn't suffer when he was active. He wasn't more "dynamic" or versatile than the other three RBs - which is why he was on the bench - not because he was "bad". And he was reliable - the very definition of bench depth.

Gillislee picked up 25 1st-downs rushing in those nine games, the same number as Ajayi did. And yet, Ajayi had 20% more carries, a lower YPA, and zero TDs.

Gillislee had more 1st-downs and TDs, and the same YPA as McCaffery, Marlon Mack, and Devontae Booker.

But Gillislee was merely "bench depth" on the Pats. I really have no idea what more anyone could ask of a #4/bench-depth RB.

 

[supafly]

I personally don't have enough inside information to be able to declare anything wrt Brady's contract/possible extension as either likely or unlikely. The best I can do is posit various scenarios.

"Couldn't make it to the active list" is a bit inaccurate. Gillislee was active for nine games last season. In four of those games, all five RBs (including Bolden) were active. In the other five of those nine games, he was subbing for one of the other RBs who was injured. Which is kinda the point.

In those nine games he posted the second most rushing yards per game by a long shot (42.6), and the second most rushing TDs on the team (5). IOW, the Pats ground game didn't suffer when he was active. He wasn't more "dynamic" or versatile than the other three RBs - which is why he was on the bench - not because he was "bad". And he was reliable - the very definition of bench depth.

Gillislee picked up 25 1st-downs rushing in those nine games, the same number as Ajayi did. And yet, Ajayi had 20% more carries, a lower YPA, and zero TDs.

Gillislee had more 1st-downs and TDs, and the same YPA as McCaffery, Marlon Mack, and Devontae Booker.

But Gillislee was merely "bench depth" on the Pats. I really have no idea what more anyone could ask of a #4/bench-depth RB.

He’ll get his shot in TC. In the meantime, he saves the most cap space, so he’s likely the one on the hot seat. I think if Hill shows anything at all, Gilleslee will be sent packing. As you said, injuries tend to ruin these springtime projections, anyway, so this whole convo could be a moot point.

 

[maineman209]

He’ll get his shot in TC. In the meantime, he saves the most cap space, so he’s likely the one on the hot seat. I think if Hill shows anything at all, Gilleslee will be sent packing. As you said, injuries tend to ruin these springtime projections, anyway, so this whole convo could be a moot point.

The player who performs the way the Pats want him to the most consistently will be the one who's kept. The difference in the cap hits between Hill and Gillislee is only $850k. I doubt that it would be much of a factor in the decision.

 

[supafly]

The player who performs the way the Pats want him to the most consistently will be the one who's kept. The difference in the cap hits between Hill and Gillislee is only $850k. I doubt that it would be much of a factor in the decision.

As we’ve seen with other positional players who are on the bubble, Bill can be quite thrifty. A million, here. A million, there. They add up.

At any rate, your first sentence wraps everything up nicely, so we’ll have to see how the competition looks in training camp.

 

[mgteich]

I would think the 4 actives would be Bolden, Michel, Burkhead, and White.

Yes, and if 4 are active and contributing, then the backup is valuable if there is an injury.
As was the case in 2017, I could see Gillislie having that role (or Hill or Webb).

 

[supafly]

Yes, and if 4 are active and contributing, then the backup is valuable if there is an injury.
As was the case in 2017, I could see Gillislie having that role (or Hill or Webb).

With a 2.3m dollar cap hit? I don’t know. I suppose we’ll find out soon enough.

 

[maineman209]

With a 2.3m dollar cap hit? I don’t know. I suppose we’ll find out soon enough.

According to OTC, Gillislee's net 2018 cap hit is $2,181,250.

Just to be clear, are you projecting that the Pats would keep a lesser player for the #4/backup RB spot in order to save 1/10th of 1% in cap expense?

 

[supafly]

According to OTC, Gillislee's net 2018 cap hit is $2,181,250.

Just to be clear, are you projecting that the Pats would keep a lesser player for the #4/backup RB spot in order to save 1/10th of 1% in cap expense?

I would never use the term “lesser player,” but I think there have been plenty of examples where two guys are looking similar in TC and Belichick goes with the cheaper option, yes. As a matter of fact, I think that’s pretty much the norm. That’s precisely what he’s hoping to see, and he’ll save as little as 100k dollars if that’s what it comes to. We know this about Bill.

If we’re speaking of gameday inactives (10 of 19 games—or the majority) in a backup role for injury only as @mgteich seems to suggest, I do think that a 2.2m dollar cap hit is excessive for the specific position of RB.

According to your numbers, the team would save 1m dollars by going with Hill, so if the competition is close I would expect him to have the upper hand. I’m not sure why anyone would find this statement as controversial or out of the norm? We would say this about any position.

 

[maineman209]

I think there have been plenty of examples where two guys are looking similar in TC and Belichick goes with the cheaper option

Can you provide some examples?

If we’re speaking of gameday inactives (10 of 19 games—or the majority) in a backup role for injury only as @mgteich seems to suggest, I do think that a 2.2m dollar cap hit is excessive for the specific position of RB.

So, why isn't Hill's $1.33M "excessive" compared to Webb's $480k, if "it's close"? The cap hit difference there is exactly the same - $850k, 1/10th of 1% of the cap. Where do you draw the line?

Gillislee's cap hit is $2.18M based on him being active for nine games like last season. If he's active for fewer than nine, his cap hit is reduced (active-roster bonus of $31k per game). It's maybe "excessive" only if no one is ever injured. If one of the others ends up on IR, it may well seem cheap.

Gillislee has proven himself reliable in the Pats system. Statistically, in 2017, he performed better than most #3 RBs around the league, and better than at least a few #2 RBs (who are being paid the same as Gillislee or even more).

Hill has been a boom-or-bust runner his entire career - occasional breakaways, but more frequently failing to get more than 1-2 yards on 1st-down. He's also had significant fumbling issues.

Sony Michel has had significant fumbling issues throughout his college career.

Webb's college fumble-rate was even worse than Michel's.

And yet, it's Gillislee who is "as good as gone", partly because his cap hit is a whole 1/10th of 1% more?

 

[Miguel]

Gillislee's cap hit is $2.18M based on him being active for nine games like last season. If he's active for fewer than nine, his cap hit is reduced (active-roster bonus of $31k per game).

This is incorrect. His 2018 cap number would remain the same while the Patriots would get a credit on 2019.

On the other hand, Gillislee's 2018 cap number will go up if he is active for more than 9 games as earned NLTBE roster bonuses immediately hit the cap.

 

[TomPatriot]

Can you provide some examples?



So, why isn't Hill's $1.33M "excessive" compared to Webb's $480k, if "it's close"? The cap hit difference there is exactly the same - $850k, 1/10th of 1% of the cap. Where do you draw the line?

Gillislee's cap hit is $2.18M based on him being active for nine games like last season. If he's active for fewer than nine, his cap hit is reduced (active-roster bonus of $31k per game). It's maybe "excessive" only if no one is ever injured. If one of the others ends up on IR, it may well seem cheap.

Gillislee has proven himself reliable in the Pats system. Statistically, in 2017, he performed better than most #3 RBs around the league, and better than at least a few #2 RBs (who are being paid the same as Gillislee or even more).

Hill has been a boom-or-bust runner his entire career - occasional breakaways, but more frequently failing to get more than 1-2 yards on 1st-down. He's also had significant fumbling issues.

Sony Michel has had significant fumbling issues throughout his college career.

Webb's college fumble-rate was even worse than Michel's.

And yet, it's Gillislee who is "as good as gone", partly because his cap hit is a whole 1/10th of 1% more?

Gillislee is an enigma. With the Bills he ran north-south with power and speed. I didn’t see that last year. He always looked a bit tentative, especially the few times I saw him in the red zone. It’s like playing in the Pats system sucked the life out of his game. What was it? Was he overthinking? Not enough reps? Learning a tougher system?