Denver Salary Cap Hell

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Denver Salary Cap Hell

    I know this has already been debated, but lets 100% debunk it and end it. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SALARY CAP HELL.

     The Broncos seem to be this boards poster child for salary cap hell. Why?

    A quick look shows them for 2014 with approx $12m in available cap pending, before they make the followig moves

    -cut Champ=$10M

    -cut Tamme or Dreeson-$3M

    -cut Kuper-$6M

    2014 with the bove moves shows the Broncos easily with $30M plus in cap space. 2015 looks even easier. please explain, where is salary cap hell?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Denver Salary Cap Hell

    Doesn't look like they've got a problem.  Any thoughts on how it willl project beyond 2014?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Denver Salary Cap Hell

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Doesn't look like they've got a problem.  Any thoughts on how it willl project beyond 2014?

    [/QUOTE]

    the cap figures are too fluid to project that far out with certainty. too many moving parts. but a quick look as of today, assuming the cap is a flat $126-$128m, shows the Broncos with well over $50m in cap spave avalable for 2015 ( top 51 projection of $72m and zero dead money) 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: Denver Salary Cap Hell

    This sight is pretty comprehensive, showing all 32 teams with the dollar figures of every contract, including bonus money and dead money.. Like it or not, at this point the Pats are in worse shape than the Broncos, mainly due to the Hernandez dead money hit (no pun intended).

    http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Denver Salary Cap Hell

    Pats are technically in worse shape...

    But Denver is on borrowed time. They have so much cap space next year because Peyton Manning isn't considered. So, either they pony up another 20+ for Peyton, or they have no QB.

    As was mentioned...it's too fluid to project anything. For all those savings listed in the OP, how much dead money does that add up to? It's not as simple as looking at what they don't have to pay, you also need to consider dead money. If cutting 4 guys saves 25 mil, but puts 10 dead on the books...well, when you replace those 4 guys, you start the meter at 10 mil and go up from there. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Quagmire3. Show Quagmire3's posts

    Re: Denver Salary Cap Hell

    who cares? Why so many threads on another teams cap status in a Pats forum?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Denver Salary Cap Hell

    Well slalary cap hell doesn't exist...we all know that now...having said that take a look ar our current cap situation...

    Currently we are right against the cap, but when we cut Sopoaga, Kelly, Vince, Connolly, Gregory and Adrian Wilson, we will free up roughly 19 million. Now maybe we don't cut Connolly? That will bring us back to 16 million, but maybe we decide McCourty is the future at free safety and extend him? We could probably save 3 million right there - or maybe we decide he's not the future and trade or cut him? We would save 4 million off of that one guy. And maybe they love Slater, but not love him so much that they can live with his 2.2 million cap hit? They could extend or cut him too and save a million, easy.

    Let's say they only do something to half those players, that alone would save around 12 million against this year's cap.

    There is no such thing as salary cap hell, there is such a thing as cutting and signing players...this happens every year. The NFL salary cap is the most fluid thing in all of sports. Every year we have seen old, over priced free agents cut from their teams, this year will be no different. It's not a bad thing, it's not "salary cap hell", it's NFL business (business as usual). NFL owners don't want to have a salary cap hell...why would they? They don't want guaranteed contracts - they can't have that - not with the injuries in football, that's why there never will be a "salary cap hell". And I'm glad.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from NoMorePensionLooting. Show NoMorePensionLooting's posts

    Re: Denver Salary Cap Hell

    In response to Quagmire3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    who cares? Why so many threads on another teams cap status in a Pats forum?

    [/QUOTE]


    All things football! Variety is the spice of life yes? I guess it's why I watch the draft..it's football. I'll talk football, both College and NFL all day long. It's the slow season for sure but I see no issue in a discussion about other teams CAP issues in a Pats forum....

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Denver Salary Cap Hell

    So many people love putting stats on this forum (especially to support their argument). Profootballfocus seems to be the flavor of choice as of late to find stats and make assumptions.,,,Mike REiss is another fan favorite with his happy outlook. Could someone google the internet to find how many players - who sign a big contract - actually play out the entire length of that contract without adjustments, restructures, reductions, extensions, etc? That's what I'd love to see, because there are thousands of NFL contracts - I guarantee most of them never see the end of that contract in it's entirety.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Denver Salary Cap Hell

    OK, so call it Salary Cap Hades, or Salary Cap Purgatory, or Salary Cap Limbo (is that where unbaptized babies go?). It exists. I don't believe it's fatal in many cases (although they say it can cause skin lesions and premature baldness).

    Take a look at Dallas, and tell me what they're going to do. Sure, they can cut DeMarcus Ware and Miles Austin and four or five other guys and they're no longer in Salary Cap [insert name here], but is that a good thing? I would call that Salary Cap [insert name here].

    I like Purgatory, because it's hellish but not permanent.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Denver Salary Cap Hell

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    So many people love putting stats on this forum (especially to support their argument). Profootballfocus seems to be the flavor of choice as of late to find stats and make assumptions.,,,Mike REiss is another fan favorite with his happy outlook. Could someone google the internet to find how many players - who sign a big contract - actually play out the entire length of that contract without adjustments, restructures, reductions, extensions, etc? That's what I'd love to see, because there are thousands of NFL contracts - I guarantee most of them never see the end of that contract in it's entirety. 



    Many big flashy NFL contracts are a year or two (and alot of money) less than the stated value, because they're designed to be terminated (restructured or cut) before they reach their conclusion. They make the agent look good, make the player's wife happy and probably cause a lot of personal bankruptcies, but they don't mean all that much.

    But some teams are undeniably better at salary cap management than others. If you pay top heavy, too many big dollar contracts, your mid level is going to be thin and you're going to need a lot of minimum salary players on your roster. It's the reason there are a lot of veteran football players on the street, even though they are better players than a lot of guys on rosters.

    Seattle is where they are partly because they have a minimum salary QB and they hit on several late round draft picks, Sherman, Chancellor, Smith, etc. Outside of 2010, their first round picks haven't been anything special.

    When all those guys, plus Thomas and a few others (Lynch) need to get paid, it's going to affect that team.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Denver Salary Cap Hell

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    OK, so call it Salary Cap Hades, or Salary Cap Purgatory, or Salary Cap Limbo (is that where unbaptized babies go?). It exists. I don't believe it's fatal in many cases (although they say it can cause skin lesions and premature baldness).

    Take a look at Dallas, and tell me what they're going to do. Sure, they can cut DeMarcus Ware and Miles Austin and four or five other guys and they're no longer in Salary Cap [insert name here], but is that a good thing? I would call that Salary Cap [insert name here].

    I like Purgatory, because it's hellish but not permanent.

    [/QUOTE]

    Pretty much this. On rare cases (such as Dal or the Jets) it does exist. But it exists because of poor drafting and poor FA pickups not because of signing big contracts. Take Chi for instance after they signed Peppers, all I heard was they were going to be in cap trouble and yet they chugged along like nothing happened. Bills with Williams? They are in better cap shape then us. I keep hearing that Sea and Den are in trouble and yet both seem like they are in good shape to me and certainly better shape then us currently. But, wait what happens when they have to resign their players..... That is the worst argument I've ever heard. What would you rather have players that out performed there contract and deserve more or players that underperform to sign them cheaper? The end truth of the matter is the Pats are in worse shape then a fair number of teams this offseason because of dead money. They can get out of some of it but certainly the myth that the Pats way of doing things with low end contracts every year to manage cap space has just been shown to be false and it's more about the quality of player then the contract itself. If you want a player you can find a way to make it work. And if those playersdon't work out you can find ways to get out from under it with only short term pain (maybe a year or 2) but there is no such thing as selling the farm (future) unless you stink at drafting and continue to make mistakes over and over again in FA. SO, for all those who say I don't want to sell the future, I guess that means they have zero faith in BB drafting or picking FA's.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Denver Salary Cap Hell

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    So many people love putting stats on this forum (especially to support their argument). Profootballfocus seems to be the flavor of choice as of late to find stats and make assumptions.,,,Mike REiss is another fan favorite with his happy outlook. Could someone google the internet to find how many players - who sign a big contract - actually play out the entire length of that contract without adjustments, restructures, reductions, extensions, etc? That's what I'd love to see, because there are thousands of NFL contracts - I guarantee most of them never see the end of that contract in it's entirety. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Many big flashy NFL contracts are a year or two (and alot of money) less than the stated value, because they're designed to be terminated (restructured or cut) before they reach their conclusion. They make the agent look good, make the player's wife happy and probably cause a lot of personal bankruptcies, but they don't mean all that much.

     

    But some teams are undeniably better at salary cap management than others. If you pay top heavy, too many big dollar contracts, your mid level is going to be thin and you're going to need a lot of minimum salary players on your roster. It's the reason there are a lot of veteran football players on the street, even though they are better players than a lot of guys on rosters.

    Seattle is where they are partly because they have a minimum salary QB and they hit on several late round draft picks, Sherman, Chancellor, Smith, etc. Outside of 2010, their first round picks haven't been anything special.

    When all those guys, plus Thomas and a few others (Lynch) need to get paid, it's going to affect that team.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Totally agree with most of this, except for the part where there is a lot of veteran players out on the streets that are better than the players on the roster. Take a look at the names of those guys out of football around October or November...most of those guys can't run ten yards anymore without blowing out a acl...they should just retire, but they are holding on for that last chance to play again. Many of these guys (who balked at the idea of taking a pay cut) would gladly take a one year 800k dollar deal, after they've cooled down a bit and realize they can't make that money anymore and their property tax bill is 15k a year, etc. problem is its too late for them at that point...there are literally hundreds of guys like this.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Denver Salary Cap Hell

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    So many people love putting stats on this forum (especially to support their argument). Profootballfocus seems to be the flavor of choice as of late to find stats and make assumptions.,,,Mike REiss is another fan favorite with his happy outlook. Could someone google the internet to find how many players - who sign a big contract - actually play out the entire length of that contract without adjustments, restructures, reductions, extensions, etc? That's what I'd love to see, because there are thousands of NFL contracts - I guarantee most of them never see the end of that contract in it's entirety. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Many big flashy NFL contracts are a year or two (and alot of money) less than the stated value, because they're designed to be terminated (restructured or cut) before they reach their conclusion. They make the agent look good, make the player's wife happy and probably cause a lot of personal bankruptcies, but they don't mean all that much.

     

    But some teams are undeniably better at salary cap management than others. If you pay top heavy, too many big dollar contracts, your mid level is going to be thin and you're going to need a lot of minimum salary players on your roster. It's the reason there are a lot of veteran football players on the street, even though they are better players than a lot of guys on rosters.

    Seattle is where they are partly because they have a minimum salary QB and they hit on several late round draft picks, Sherman, Chancellor, Smith, etc. Outside of 2010, their first round picks haven't been anything special.

    When all those guys, plus Thomas and a few others (Lynch) need to get paid, it's going to affect that team.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Muzzy, the bold print is incorrect. The Seahawks played a low salary QB the past 2 years, but had a high salary QB on the books in Flynn. The Seahwks had very big money in 2 WR's Harvin and Rice that both rarely played. They paid a TE more than Gronk and Hern combined. Lynch is getting big money for a RB. Red Bryant is also getting big money.

    Yes, they do have young guys that will eventually have to get paid. But in Rice, Miller and in 2 years Lynch they will have $20-25M coming off the books...

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Denver Salary Cap Hell

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    So many people love putting stats on this forum (especially to support their argument). Profootballfocus seems to be the flavor of choice as of late to find stats and make assumptions.,,,Mike REiss is another fan favorite with his happy outlook. Could someone google the internet to find how many players - who sign a big contract - actually play out the entire length of that contract without adjustments, restructures, reductions, extensions, etc? That's what I'd love to see, because there are thousands of NFL contracts - I guarantee most of them never see the end of that contract in it's entirety. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Many big flashy NFL contracts are a year or two (and alot of money) less than the stated value, because they're designed to be terminated (restructured or cut) before they reach their conclusion. They make the agent look good, make the player's wife happy and probably cause a lot of personal bankruptcies, but they don't mean all that much.

     

    But some teams are undeniably better at salary cap management than others. If you pay top heavy, too many big dollar contracts, your mid level is going to be thin and you're going to need a lot of minimum salary players on your roster. It's the reason there are a lot of veteran football players on the street, even though they are better players than a lot of guys on rosters.

    Seattle is where they are partly because they have a minimum salary QB and they hit on several late round draft picks, Sherman, Chancellor, Smith, etc. Outside of 2010, their first round picks haven't been anything special.

    When all those guys, plus Thomas and a few others (Lynch) need to get paid, it's going to affect that team.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Muzzy, the bold print is incorrect. The Seahawks played a low salary QB the past 2 years, but had a high salary QB on the books in Flynn. The Seahwks had very big money in 2 WR's Harvin and Rice that both rarely played. They paid a TE more than Gronk and Hern combined. Lynch is getting big money for a RB. Red Bryant is also getting big money.

    Yes, they do have young guys that will eventually have to get paid. But in Rice, Miller and in 2 years Lynch they will have $20-25M coming off the books...

    [/QUOTE]

    You are absolutely right! Seattle went for it, they saw the opportunity and aggressively made their plays at high quality players, but really it was their drafting that won them that Super Bowl. Who the hell hits on as many very very good players in the later rounds like they did? I mean they found first round talent in the fifth...over and over again.

    I'll tell you what though, I don't trust Pete Carroll with that bunch going forward...idi you see the way some of those guys act on that team? Immature, young, brash...and now they've won something. Good luck keeping those guys in check with Carroll leading that ship...not going to be pretty. Even their parade ceremony was embarrassing, with guys running behind Carroll as he's doing his speech...acting like children...I think things could go very wrong there in a hurry.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Denver Salary Cap Hell

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Muzwell's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    OK, so call it Salary Cap Hades, or Salary Cap Purgatory, or Salary Cap Limbo (is that where unbaptized babies go?). It exists. I don't believe it's fatal in many cases (although they say it can cause skin lesions and premature baldness).

    Take a look at Dallas, and tell me what they're going to do. Sure, they can cut DeMarcus Ware and Miles Austin and four or five other guys and they're no longer in Salary Cap [insert name here], but is that a good thing? I would call that Salary Cap [insert name here].

    I like Purgatory, because it's hellish but not permanent.

    [/QUOTE]

    Pretty much this. On rare cases (such as Dal or the Jets) it does exist. But it exists because of poor drafting and poor FA pickups not because of signing big contracts. Take Chi for instance after they signed Peppers, all I heard was they were going to be in cap trouble and yet they chugged along like nothing happened. Bills with Williams? They are in better cap shape then us. I keep hearing that Sea and Den are in trouble and yet both seem like they are in good shape to me and certainly better shape then us currently. But, wait what happens when they have to resign their players..... That is the worst argument I've ever heard. What would you rather have players that out performed there contract and deserve more or players that underperform to sign them cheaper? The end truth of the matter is the Pats are in worse shape then a fair number of teams this offseason because of dead money. They can get out of some of it but certainly the myth that the Pats way of doing things with low end contracts every year to manage cap space has just been shown to be false and it's more about the quality of player then the contract itself. If you want a player you can find a way to make it work. And if those playersdon't work out you can find ways to get out from under it with only short term pain (maybe a year or 2) but there is no such thing as selling the farm (future) unless you stink at drafting and continue to make mistakes over and over again in FA. SO, for all those who say I don't want to sell the future, I guess that means they have zero faith in BB drafting or picking FA's.

    [/QUOTE]


    Sadly, this is and has been the problem, for years.

    The Pats haven't had any major big contract signings reeking havoc over the years,  unless you want to count Brady whose constant restructures/extensions have actually masked cap problems, that would have surfaced long ago. (Saving 7.5M of cap in 3 out of the past 4 yrs). There are some cap heavy problems this year but we all know those guys will be restructured or released.

    Every terminated contract has ramifications, though, and the Pats seem to always have a high share.

    Way too many bad contract causing way too much dead money with those bad signings having to be replaced, again and again, IS their issue.

    You can't reduce your cap spending by $16 & $23M in DM, as they have in the past 2 years and NOT expect issues in signing and re-signing talent.  It's a problem.

    When they actually only spent $102M in a $123 cap year because of DM, last year,

    IT'S A PROBLEM.!!!!

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Denver Salary Cap Hell

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I know this has already been debated, but lets 100% debunk it and end it. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SALARY CAP HELL.

     The Broncos seem to be this boards poster child for salary cap hell. Why?

    A quick look shows them for 2014 with approx $12m in available cap pending, before they make the followig moves

    -cut Champ=$10M

    -cut Tamme or Dreeson-$3M

    -cut Kuper-$6M

    2014 with the bove moves shows the Broncos easily with $30M plus in cap space. 2015 looks even easier. please explain, where is salary cap hell?

    [/QUOTE]

    haven't we been thru this a thousand times already rkarp? Just listen to Rusty as he understands that the 31 other teams are in "cap hell" and all 31 other GMs have no understanding of economics...

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: Denver Salary Cap Hell

    Having more cap money to spend and being in better cap shape are totally different. The Bills or Browns might have $20 million to spend under the cap where the Pats or Broncos might only have $4 million. Are the Browns or Bills in better shape? If all the other guys on your roster aren't good enough to win consistently, what good does having extra cap room do for you? 

    One other point, the position the Pats are in now (actually over the cap) should once and for all dispell the myth that Bob Kraft is cheap and doesn't spend to the cap.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: Denver Salary Cap Hell

    As far as Denver goes, even if Manning decides to retire the cap hit shouldn't be to bad.  His prorated signing bonus is 2.5 million.  Accelerated hit would be 2.5 million times 4 years or 10 million (If I got this right) His 15 million dollar salary plus what ever other bonuses would be coming off the books.

    They would need a QB but they would have some money.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Denver Salary Cap Hell

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:

    Having more cap money to spend and being in better cap shape are totally different. The Bills or Browns might have $20 million to spend under the cap where the Pats or Broncos might only have $4 million. Are the Browns or Bills in better shape? If all the other guys on your roster aren't good enough to win consistently, what good does having extra cap room do for you? 

    One other point, the position the Pats are in now (actually over the cap) should once and for all dispell the myth that Bob Kraft is cheap and doesn't spend to the cap.




    Are the Browns and Bills in better shape? Of course not! You've seen who their quarterbacks are...it dosn't matter if their cap is in good shape, or bad..not when your quarterback is throwing balls over guy's heads, or tossing picks because they can't make a decision quick enough. This is why I don't like all this cap debate - people forget what neutralizes everything - the quarterback. Teams that don't have one don't really have a chance...teams that do almost always do.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: Denver Salary Cap Hell

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BostonSportsFan111's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Having more cap money to spend and being in better cap shape are totally different. The Bills or Browns might have $20 million to spend under the cap where the Pats or Broncos might only have $4 million. Are the Browns or Bills in better shape? If all the other guys on your roster aren't good enough to win consistently, what good does having extra cap room do for you? 

    One other point, the position the Pats are in now (actually over the cap) should once and for all dispell the myth that Bob Kraft is cheap and doesn't spend to the cap.

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly.  They see cap space or the potential to create it and they think that means that team is not in a cap hell. They are in a cap hell because the players they're cutting to create that space were overpaid on the market, hence the cutting.

    Any NFL team that lacks continuity and decent depth is a loser team and organization.

    You don't have to be Dallas in 2014 to be considered officially in a cap hell.  

    People are morons for mouthing with this and showing they still don't get it. Ignorance and arrogance is a terrible combo.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    no no i won't say it...it's just too easy

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Denver Salary Cap Hell

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    ...The end truth of the matter is the Pats are in worse shape then a fair number of teams this offseason because of dead money. They can get out of some of it but certainly the myth that the Pats way of doing things with low end contracts every year to manage cap space has just been shown to be false and it's more about the quality of player then the contract itself. If you want a player you can find a way to make it work. And if those playersdon't work out you can find ways to get out from under it with only short term pain (maybe a year or 2) but there is no such thing as selling the farm (future) unless you stink at drafting and continue to make mistakes over and over again in FA. SO, for all those who say I don't want to sell the future, I guess that means they have zero faith in BB drafting or picking FA's.

    [/QUOTE]

    The Pats have any dead money at all from one guy, Hernandez. Cap issues (let's just call it that) exist because of poor management, bad contracts, however they got there they got there. Dallas absolutely gave out too many big dollar contracts. Look it up.

     

     

Share