•I’m going to be updating the salary cap figures weekly—on Sundays—until the start of free agency (which means twice more) & the new league year on March 12th.
•For the sake of convenience, I've also listed the the clubs in alphabetical order by city (see the chart further below, after this one).
*Estimated as of February 24, 2013*
Cap Space for teams (sorted by cap space from most cap space to least cap space):
Source for Carryover $ column:
http://nfltraderumors.co/nfl-team-cap-space-6/
Source for Cap Space column:
http://www.overthecap.com/nfl-cap-space.php?Year=2013
•That salary cap is expected to be $121.1 million; the figures listed above are based off of that premise.
•There has been a rumor (Ralph Vacchiano) that the cap will go up 2 million more dollars, making it approximately $123 million:
Source:
@RVacchianoNYDN twitter feed – Feb. 23, 2013
•23 of 32 teams are cap compliant as of today.
•9 of 32 teams are OVER the cap.
•The 9 teams that are over the cap MUST be cap compliant by the start of the 2013 league year and free agency on March 12th, otherwise they will be fined $1 million a day until they are cap compliant.
•3 of the 9 teams that are over the cap are in “Cap Hell” so to speak:
Dallas, New Orleans, & Pittsburgh—in that order; they’ll have to cut some players or restructure contracts to get their houses in order within the next 16 days.
•On that “salary cap hell” note, here are some rumors about 5 players—
Michael Turner (Falcons), Ryan Fitzpatrick (Bills), Kevin Kolb (Cardinals), James Harrison (Steelers), and Nnamdi Asomugha (Eagles)—that are on the cutting block:
Check this out:
Looking at Some Rumored NFL Cuts
•The Cap floor rule is one that has been misunderstood by many heretofore; please scroll down for an explanation regarding it below.
•You may read more about it here as well:
Minimum Salary Floor explanation for the salary cap
•
I’m going to write up something in the next day or two regarding the June 1st designation rule as well, to help clear up some misconceptions about that too.
*Estimated as of February 24, 2013*
Cap Space for teams (sorted in alphabetical order):
*Estimated as of February 24, 2013*
Cap Spending figures for teams not spending 89% of their cash so far (sorted by most Cap money needed to be spent to least):
•$107,779,000 is the number which equals 89% of the cap spending limit (cash spending) on average for this year’s cap.
•This figure doesn’t count against these teams yet, but is just for reference purposes to understand where teams are in terms of their spending SO FAR with respect to this new rule which is in effect starting this year—teams will NOT be penalized this year if they don’t spend any more money towards the cap.
•If teams don't spend another cent towards the cap spending minimum this year, they'll still have to account for it sometime in the next 3 years.
•It counts towards a 4 year cycle, or “bucket”, which begins in 2013 season and ends in the 2016 season.
•The penalty for not spending the required minimum amount of cash money towards the cap will not be meted out until after the 2016 season cap spending figures have been calculated.
•If the total cap spending of teams in cash money between 2013 & 2016 does not turn out to be 89% of the salary cap for those four years, then that team will be penalized monetarily on early 2017—no draft picks or any other kind of penalty affecting personnel or salary cap space will be meted out.
•Any team(s) which will NOT have spent 89% of its cap will be required to pay the remainder back to the players who played for the respective team(s).
•The remainder will be divided up by the amount of players who played for the team(s) in question, and then that cash remainder will be distributed evenly amongst them.
•Please see this link below to a thread which I posted about this topic last week for more information:
•
Minimum Salary Floor explanation for the salary cap
•To conclude, I recommend reading Jenny Vrentas's article on the salary cap in today's Star-Ledger titled
"Flat salary cap presents challenges, limits for NFL clubs" - February 23, 2013 at 10:22 PM, updated February 24, 2013 at 12:59 AM
•It's a great article that focuses on the problems that teams in the league have had with respect to adjusting to the flat cap.
•Hopefully, the possibility about the $2 million that Ralph Vacchiano tweeted about possibly being added to the cap comes to fruition; it would certainly make life a little easier for teams throughout the league w/respect to handling the cap, especially those clubs who are close to the limit one way or another.
•The additional $2 million would also especially help teams that are over the cap, who are within striking distance of the cap limit which include
San Franciso, Oakland, Arizona, and St. Louis--3/4 of the NFC West other than Seattle.
•Those 4 clubs would benefit greatly from that extra $2 million because they'd then be all be less than $1 million over the cap instead of where they are now.
$121,100,000 - estimated cap
$1,000,000 - cap carryover
$122,100,000 - revised cap space
($111,218,360) - "cap spending"
$10,881,640 - difference between cap alocation and cap spending
$6,804,527 = difference between above and cap room on the table.
What am I missing? I'm probably not correct with my interpretation of "cap spending" am I?
Of the 9 clubs that still have to keep pace with the minimum cap spending floor, only 5 have a significant amount of money that they have to spend (especially the first four that are listed). They don;t have to spend it this year, but if the cap floor were to count for only this year, this would be their respective situations. They are as follows:
1. Cincinnati: ............$32,952,418
2. Indianapolis: .........$32,495,924
3. Miami: ...................$27,468,528
4. Cleveland: .............$23,820,034
5. Tampa Bay: ............$8,287,539
The salary cap is not actual money spent on a per year basis since it includes bonuses. For example:
The entire $40 million sum would count towards the CAP SPENDING column in 2013.
Cap Spending and Cap Space dollars are NOT the same. Hope that clears things up. I feel like Doc Brown now...(I am actually watching a "Back to the Future" marathon, lol):
I have some other links on there about the June 1 cuts as well if they help you out with writing your piece on that. Great cap discussions BTW.
Explaining the June 1st Designation - linked from overthecap.com, February 20,2013 by Jason Fitzgerald
Quick question for you Jason: I tweeted you a couple of times regarding the transition and franchise tag numbers back on February 19th. Are there concrete numbers yet, or is everything still just estimated?
I'd determine to make Victor Cruz a Colt, that's for damn sure.
A guy like Cruz to a team with a lower first round pick, would be attractive. Cruz, in essence, would be their first round pick. He's young (25 years old), and already proven in the shirt time that he's spent in the league (Look out for New England in this scenario as well).
The Colts could then also add a guy like Mike Wallace at WR or sign some quality free agent O-Lineman to help shore up what was a mess of an O-Line in front of Luck. Victor would be quite the investment for clubs with money to spend who have 1st rounders near the bottom of the round. While not likely, it's not impossible to fathom this occurring.
Funny how the Jets were $20 million over just last week but now have more cap room than NYG.
Luck's real payday is coming up in his next deal. Until then, they're in good shape to build around him financially without any financial constraints due to his salary ballooning up like teams with star QBs in their 2nd and 3rd deals.
By that time they could go ahead and use whatever extra money they need to spend in order to reach the cap/cash spending floor. I misspoke when I thought you meant to sign him to his second deal now WideRight. My apologies to you for misunderstanding you if that was the case.
The Colts look to be in fine shape with respect to meeting the 89% minimum cap spending floor in the cash spending department by the end of 2016 with the looming Luck 2nd deal/contract extension.
If you go over the cap, there is a penalty per day for being over, thus the incentive to get under.....
What is the penalty for staying under?
Let's take Cinci.....going to round off numbers to make it easy to figure.....
using 120 mil cap(all 4 years)...110 mil as 90% rule....
Let's say Cinci spends 75, 90, 100 the next 3 years, for a total of 265 mil.....if they are suppose to spend 440 over 4 years, that means they have to spend 175 mil that last year(the players start to salivate).....suppose the owner doesn't want to spend it, or due to financial problems, does not have the money......how much will he be penalized because he does not meet min floor salary? Will this be like the baseball owners who share in the luxury tax, by putting it in their pockets instead of their team? If they are only penalized a %, they still come out ahead.....
•If the total cap spending of teams in cash money between 2013 & 2016 does not turn out to be 89% of the salary cap for those four years, then that team will be penalized monetarily on early 2017—no draft picks or any other kind of penalty affecting personnel or salary cap space will be meted out.
•Any team(s) which will NOT have spent 89% of its cap will be required to pay the remainder back to the players who played for the respective team(s).
•The remainder will be divided up by the amount of players who played for the team(s) in question, and then that cash remainder will be distributed evenly amongst them.
Minimum Salary Floor explanation for the salary cap - ( New Window )
Could be the same thing you are talking about Optimus, but anything upwards of 123 is great for the Giants
Link - ( New Window )