•First off, the Giants' official cap number as of today is $3,312,849
•I was close; I had the Giants $3,461,340
under the cap, which was close, but no cigar.
•This number will change once Justin Pugh signs by about slightly less than a cool million bucks on the minus side.
•In addition, I've got it this information all listed here on my blog as well:
New York Giants Cap Central
•I'm trying to use the tweetuh for it now, so if you're so inclined you can follow me there too:
•Joel Corry threw me a shout out on his twitter account after he and I corresponded some:
•I'm thankful to him on two counts: 1-for suggesting that I put it out on twitter, and 2-suggesting to Giants fans that they follow that Cap twitter account.
•Joel is one of the go-to people regarding the salary cap; if you want to learn about it, follow him.
•Without further ado, here goes with the fun gang--specially made for my fellow BBIers.
•First in order of most cap space to least cap space:
Source: Top 51 League Cap Report
Now, here are the figures listed in alphabetical order for convenience's sake:
Source: Top 51 League Cap Report
A couple of observations about the league as a whole and the NFC East clubs:
•The Raiders are in cap hell this year, but will be getting out of it soon.
•They're taking their medicine this year, to get healthy next year, and going forward in the future.
•The Giants are going to need to make a move or two to get fully under the cap by the time the regular season begins.
•Since the Top 51 rules apply, everything is fine now, but this won't last.
•This is just speculation on my part, but it makes TOO MUCH sense to cut Chris Snee the day after June 1st and gain $7,875,000
in cap room ($4,750,000 in cap savings sans dead money, and then another $3,125,000 in cap credits due to the leftover dead money amount of $6,250,000 being spread out over two years).
•I'd cut Snee, and sign the still available--and pretty damned good--Brandon Moore to play his position for a 2 year deal with a cap hit in 2013 and 2014 of around $1.5 to $1.75 M, unless of course Snee would be amenable to agreeing to that deal himself after being released after June 1st.
•This move would give the Giants the room they need under the cap to not only give Victor Cruz the contract that he wants, but give the Giants the room that they need to operate under the cap for the rest o f the offseason, going past the Top 51 rule and into the regular season without having to restructure deals for any more of their players to create added room, like Antrel Rolle, Justin Tuck, or Steve Weatherford, off the top of my head of viable restructuring candidates.
•The Eagles continue their pattern of being way over the cap, which figures with the owner in charge their and Howie Roseman (more of a money guy than a personnel guy) running the show there.
•Dallas renegotiated a SHIT LOAD of contracts to get the point where they are now, ranked 13th in the entire league in cap room, being $7,695,234
•The Cowflops are playing a fast and DANGEROUS fame, which will eventually come back to haunt them.
•They're playing (by they're I mean J.J. of course) "kick the can"
with a lot of contracts on their team, and are basically a house of cards right now.
•As far as the Redksins are concerned, they're actually blessed to be where they are since the cap has saved the from their own stupidity in a sense.
•They can't go out and make their typical big splashes in free agency, simply because they don;t have the room.
•That'll change in a couple of years when RG3's rookie deal is up (provided of course they haven't run him ragged with whatever is left of his injured knee).
Check out this article by Joel Corry on offset language. It'll be an issue going forward for teams. I touched on it in my blog previously, and referred to an article by Mike Garafolo on it. Click HERE
This and split salaries are something that fans who follow the salary cap might want to become more familiar with. Joel did a great job on this write-up. It's worth a read.
Enjoy the holiday weekend.
The Offset Battle with Early First Round Picks - by Joel Corry from nationalfootballpost.com - MAY 24, 2013, 05:30 AM EST
- ( New Window
It's Coughlin family money.
Like I said, I'm just speculating. Hypothetically, they could release Snee on June 2nd, and then already have an agreement in place to sign him very shortly thereafter to save the money that they need against the cap. Brandon Moore could function as leverage against Snee.
certainly not commensurate with his cap number of $11,000,000 listed below:
Optimus, thanks for all your hard work. Snee will definitely not get cut this year. And they would never use leverage against him, as that would be insulting to Coughlin.
I would agree that they will likely do something after June 1, and that was the plan that they all agreed to many months ago. This was also part of the Cruz plan, using the Snee savings to partially pay for that deal.
I also feel that if they do not sign Cruz then they will carryover the money into next year, so they have extra money for the franchise tag.
Couple of questions - is it possible the Snee cap situation around the June 1 date and the Cruz signing are interrelated? Also, in your comment above about the eagles, I think you meant to say "under" the cap, not "over".
Thanks again for all the info. You are an excellent addition to this site.
Thanks dude. Under not over is what I meant to say about the accursed Green Slime 90 miles south of NYC. That will have to change in order for them to meet the minimum salary spending floor.
being interrelated. My amateurish guess would be yes. It just makes too much sense if you break it down and analyze it that way with Cruz's new contract in mind.
I can see the logic of dropping Snee, but I think that if the Giants had intended to release him they would have done it already. If nothing else the Giants are loyal to their players and releasing Snee after June 1st would not allow him to find a job with another team. That is predicated that he is healthy, if not then all bets are off.
If they do release Snee, I would not sign Moore. There is a reason that he is still available despite the fact that his contract demands are not excessive.
You missed the point.
They could have already agreed to the terms of a new, more cap friendly deal after releasing him on June 2nd. The intention of a such move for either party would not be to part ways, but to gain the cap room that the Giants need, and then have Snee sign a new already agreed upon deal the next day with reduced terms commensurate with his skill set.
In the end, Snee is an aging player who is not as teflon as some people may think he is just because he's TC's son-in-law. TC is not the GM here. Jerry Reese is. Neither Snee, nor any other Guard in the league is worth 11 million bucks in cap room. Such a move would not be out of the ordinary.
The Giants would get more money credited to their cap if they release Snee after June 1st, then they would before that date (the dead money hit would be spread out over two years, giving the Giants an extra $3,125,000 to work with in 2013). That's why releasing him after June 1st with the parameters in mind mapped out in my previous post would make sense.
My speculative call on Snee is a cut in pay or restructure(not a fan of this)..
I don't see him being cut this year. If he hasn't rebounded from his surgery to have a Snee-like year, I think he's gone in '14
for engaging in such obvious nepotism with Snee. Not so much for the money but for the potential it had to cause problems in the locker room. If you have been in an organization or office where one person was treated differently financially, you know how easily it breeds resentment.
But I think Optimus figured out what is going to happen. Giants are waiting for June 1, so that cutting/resigning Snee will produce the maximum cap benefit.
They did that last on September 8th of last season. They would have to wait another 12 months to do another restructure. A post June 1st cut, would be the best way to address the issue of the Giants still needing to make room under the cap. It would be a wink-wink, nod-nod type of deal in which, for accounting purposes, Snee would be off the books for a day--on Monday, June 3rd--and then the next day they could re-sign him to new contract that more accurately reflects his worth at that point, thereby making him much less vulnerable to getting released next year.
Right now, Snee is dead in the sights of Kevin Abrams and the rest of the Giants' cap people. An aging, injury prone player who is making more money than he should with respect to his position, and who is ranked only 2nd to Eli Manning in cap value on the team is "marked for Cap Death" so to speak (pardon my Steven Segalese).
This kind of move would take him off the Giants' most wanted to take a paycut/restructure/or get cut list for next year. It would benefit Snee too since he'd be better off here in all likelihood, then any other situation throughout the league. Bottom line is this: Snee's not worth his cap number at this point in time to the Giants, or any other team in the league at this time, or going forward in the near future.
The Giants need to make room for when the Top 51 Rule ends in a little over 3 months (approx. another 2 to 2.5 million bucks), and if they're serious about singing Cruz, another 3.5 to 4 million bucks. That's $5.5 to 6.5 million worth of cap dollars they need to clear, if you count those two situations going forward. The Giants are reported to be at the "2 yard line" with respect to the new Cruz deal. You can be damned sure that Cruz's money ain't gonna come out of thin air, I can promise you that. Moves will have to accompany such a transaction.
may be a necessity/advantageous this year, but don't be so cavalier about dumping dead money onto next year.
Also, before we worry too much about Coughlin's family taking a monetary hit, don't forget that all that prorated bonus figure is already in Snee's bank account (and the IRS's, and his agent's).
A question, though Optimus: how can Snee's prorated bonus go down next year?
Prorated bonus money can be designed to count towards the cap in different increments. It can be designed to go down towards the end of a player's contract, as in Snee's case in 2014, or stay the same, as throughout Tuck's deal (leaving roster bonuses and workout bonuses out of the equation).
you mean 12 months FROM Sept. 8th, 2012, I would assume.
Then I can see a cut in salary, but cutting him? Can't see it. Not so certain we can classify him as injury prone. His poor performance this past year can be directly linked to his season long hip problem which presumably(hopefully) will be a non-issue once he's ready to play full time. The previous year, he was never the same after his concussion.
Nope, an outright cut would surprise the hell out of me
It's not a cut in the "goodbye forever and get lost sense"; rather, it's a cut, for accounting purposes only, and then a re-sign the next day with both sides having an understanding. It's not an uncommon occurrence in the NFL.
be cut without a re-sign then?
two years instead of just one. That's why June 2nd and on is a significant date in the NFL calendar.
but could you explain about Dallas' cap issues a little more--why dangerous, why a house of cards?
I'll refer you to overthecap.com on that one. The Cowboys are a disaster with Jerruh robbing from Peter to pay Paul down there.
Read the article below: "The Cowboys and Paycut Options for Doug Free" - by Jason Fitzgerlad from overthecap.com | May 8, 2013
- ( New Window
IIRC, there's a way for a team to designate up to 2 pre-June releases as post-June-1 transactions for Cap purposes.
If the Giants were counting on a Snee move to give them cap flexibility, they wouldn't be letting him participate in OTAs and allowing the chance of an injury to take that opportunity away. If they were planning to release Chris, they'd have done it already.
I emailed Joel Corry about it. He told me that that information isn't really made available to the public, but that it's noted when teams make transactions with the NFL. Bradshaw and Canty don't count towards it for the Giants, and neither does anyone else who was cut.
However, there are 5 players who word got out who do count as "pre-June 1st cuts." They are as follows, to go along with the dates they were released, and the teams they signed with:
having lots of cap room with Linebackers Kevin Burnett and Karlos Dansby at the time of their release (not as much now). They elected to spread out their dead money hits over the course of two years for each, and in a bit of irony signed a player who was also designated as a pre-June 1st cut, in the person of ROT Tyson Clabo, formerly of the Falcons.
Just because he is related to the coach
Let Snee play out the year, and if he doesnt improve, cut him after the season and take advantage of the big cap savings in 2014 (as opposed to cutting him after June 1st and split the dead money over 2 years).
The only reason I can think of to cut Snee is to give Cruz the long term deal. But I dont think a deal hasnt been reached because the Giants cant create the cap space, they probably set a value and dont want to go over that number.
If the Giants need a couple of extra million in cap space before the season starts as Optimus pointed out, they can create that by a minor restructure for any of the players available long term (typical convert salary to signing bonus type restructure).
I refer you to the last section of my 12:21 pm post:
|The Giants need to make room for when the Top 51 Rule ends in a little over 3 months (approx. another 2 to 2.5 million bucks), and if they're serious about singing Cruz, another 3.5 to 4 million bucks. That's $5.5 to 6.5 million worth of cap dollars they need to clear, if you count those two situations going forward. The Giants are reported to be at the "2 yard line" with respect to the new Cruz deal. You can be damned sure that Cruz's money ain't gonna come out of thin air, I can promise you that. Moves will have to accompany such a transaction.
They're gonna need another $5.5 to 6.5 million bucks in cap room before the season starts. I've done the math, and explained it several times. There's nothing minor about that. Either an Eli extension is on the horizon (Eli, Cruz, and TC share the same agent in tom Condon), or there's going to have to be some major fat trimmed.
Other players to look to who fit that categorization are Antrel Rolle and Justin Tuck (Steve Weatherford may also be a possibility for a restructure too). Personally, I'd rather avoid all that, and get the cap dollars that I need, if I'm the Giants, from Snee's contract.
think that's a really good analysis Optimus. They cut Snee after June 1, resign him to a more cap friendly deal, and use some of the extra money to resign Cruz.
My only problem is that I'm not sure the Giants should pay Cruz more than the $8M they've already offered Cruz, even if new money becomes available. But regardless of whether any new money is used for Cruz, they should still cut and resign Snee as you said. No way he's worth $11M.
I'm interested in seeing how they go about this. It can work in any number of ways. I don't want to go the Cowboys route and have to restructure another 3 players to get Cruz's new deal done an officially on the books (which for my speculative purposes I'm assuming to be $6.5 million in cap bucks; thereby necessitating another $3.621 M in room, which they don't have enough of at present).
I'm looking at players with bloated cap numbers first, like Snee and Rolle, who have cap numbers of 11 million and 9.25 million dollars respectively. Rolle is healty, and is a leader on defense, and his time will eventually come, but Snee's cap hit at this point is just obscene at this point in time.
I suggested that outside of the box line of thinking (which is not really "outside of the box" thinking at all for actual NFL cap analysts) to see as to how the Giants could create that room. Believe me, I've pondered over many different ways to get the necessary cap money that the Giants need, and this scenario is the one that makes the most sense to me.
|The only reason I can think of to cut Snee is to give Cruz the long term deal.
I should have clarified better... my point was in reponse to the nepotism remarks. I dont think that has anything to do with it.
I fully agree that Snee's play the last couple of seasons doesnt justify his cap number, but under the circumstances, Giants would be better off, IMO, keeping him under the same deal this year to benefit from cap saving next year UNLESS they come to an agreement to a long term deal with Cruz. If a long term deal with Cruz doesnt happen, then I wouldnt cut Snee.
They would still need to make another 2 to 2.5 million bucks in cap room though if they don't come to terms with Cruz (leaving Snee out of the equation at this point). That would likely involve restructures for Rolle, and maybe Tuck, or even Weatherford.
|But regardless of whether any new money is used for Cruz, they should still cut and resign Snee as you said. No way he's worth $11M.
Its not about what Snee is or isnt worth at this point. Deal is already in the books... too late for that. At this point, its about the best way to deal with a bad situation.
If Giants and Cruz cant reach a deal, whether Snee deserves the money or not, I think the best course of action would be to keep Snee's deal as is in 2013, as opposed to cutting him and resigning him and increasing the dead money next year.
Rolle's cap number is very high and Tuck has been declining and in his final contract year. Both may not be with the team beyond 2013.
Weatherford's contract ends in 2017, so the $2-3m signing bonus can be spread out over the life of his contract with a little effect down the line. Punters can play well into their 30s, specially for a guy like him who takes great care of his body.
Basically. It'll be interesting to see which direction the Giants go in with respect to clearing up more cap room, especially if the Cruz deal get verbally agreed to.
Giants could still go out and make a handful of minimum salary moves to bring in more players, if need be. I have a feeling that they're not done in that department either. One such example is Time Hightower. The Giants have shown interest in him on multiple occasions so far this offseason. He would make sense as another Minimum Salary Benefit signing.
It is laughable to hear the dopes here talk about nepotism with Snee when they have no idea what they're talking about.
Snee isn't going to be cut this year. The cap should resolve itself once 1) some of the one-year vets are gone; 2) some additional veterans are cut (I am anticipating that at least two players from last year don't make the roster this year); 3) IR and Inactive PUP players are determined, especially if said players have splits in their contract.
Good work, BTW, on your numbers. I went through my spreadsheet last night to update everything-- spent several hours while hubby was watching the Coca Cola 600. I'm off on my numbers by about $400k but I think I know where I have to look again to get closer. :)
The Giants have the room right now for Cruz and a multiyear deal. If he signs it, his first year cap hit will supposedly, at least from the info I have, be lower than his current one-year tender.
That's very interesting about the cap hit for Cruz's first year being lower than his current one-year tender. IF that's the case, then Snee is safe. They can tweak elsewhere if need be. I'm going to very interested to see the details of Cruz's new deal.
P.S. Do you think Barden's deal involves a split?
I am basing my theory on the fact that the Giants managed to get Beatty's cap number very reasonable, and historically, players who sign a new deal do have a reasonable first year cap number.
The players generally don't care about their cap figure so long as they get a large chunk of cash up front and guarantees. So when reports day Cruz's deal may average $7M per year, that doesn't mean it will be $7M per cap year.
No, I don't think Barden has a split, the good thing about these one-year minimum's is that if the player is cut, the team only has to eat $65K (the signing bonus). I'm pretty sure with a qualifying offer (the correct term for these 1-year minimum deals), teams need to keep them straight forward.
Again, there are other factors that will affect the cap, so it's too early to forecast that the Giants are destined for cap hell once the season starts. This is why the cap is fluid -- and a PITA to track, as I am sure you no doubt have realized. ;)
One other thing I meant to mention. teams CAN restructure contracts as often as they want if they have a willing partner. There is no 12-month waiting rule. The 12-month rule affects NEW money, or a renegotiation. I think people mix up renegotiation with restructuring...two different concepts.
Snee has an option year in 2014. If my numbers are correct, he'd count for $2M against the cap if the option is not picked up.
That Snee, Rolle, and Baas are the future contributors to cap space....
I don't see Snee being cut....but I do see a definite pay cut.....
I think Baas has one more year here.....I think we will be grooming one of the OLmen we have on the roster to play center next year....cutting Baas next year, will net us 2.5M and create a huge cap savings in 2015...
After Manning and Snee, Rolle is the third highest cap hit on this team....Rolle is kind of in the same predicament as Webster......the Giants could demand a paycut from 7M to 4-5M.....there is no way Rolle would get 4-5M out there on the open market....
Next year Tuck could be a casualty, too...
It's a tough business to operate under the cap, and hard decisons have to be made....
|...don't be so cavalier about dumping dead money onto next year.
I think the teams that know how to manage their cap try to avoid dumping dead money into the next year's cap at all costs, especially if the cap figure isn't expected to rise much.
Again, if I have done my math correctly, the Giants have approximately 5% of this year's cap tied up in dead money. I don't know what the league average is, but that dead money, when broken back down into actual dollars, could have easily covered a few more veterans, I suppose.
Question: You say the Giants could have trouble with the 53-man roster. Does that mean you've projected who makes the final roster? If so, I'd hold off on that. There are still a few variables that can influence the makeup of the final 53.
I know that teams can renegotiate deals to a lower cap number as many times as they want (I think that's the proper terminology, but I may be wrong). I remember Joel Corry tweeting something about this, with an agent doing this several times in the same season for a player--maybe I'm not phrasing it correctly. I always had a little trouble with that concept of "renegotiating down" and the 12 month rule.
I projected the 53-man roster before the draft; I'm gonna have to go do it again now that the draft is over. Out of curiosity, Who do you think doesn't make it or is vulnerable?
The cap is most definitely are PITA to track. I think my numbers are off due to the Dead Money figures. I have them listed here:
I'm thinking that the reason I was off by the amount that I was off by--$148,491--is mostly because of a discrepancy in that department.
I think you did pretty good with your numbers. If it makes you feel any better, I'm a tad off with my figures as well. The only thing I can think of as to why I'm off is because signing bonuses en to be rounded up.
For example, a player might get a signing bonus of $2,560,896 yet in the media, it's reported as $2.5M. So I end up missing that $60,896 and if you miss a few thousand here and there, it adds up to where your numbers don't balance with what the NFLPA reports.
There could also be LTBE incentives factored into a guy's cap figure that on certain sites are listed as part of bonuses. If those LTBEs aren't collected, then they become cap credits at the end of the year.
Teams can restructure deals but I'm pretty sure that they can only re-negotiate, be it for a raise or a reduction, once per 12-month period. Restructure, as you know, means moving money around whereas renegotiate means changing the terms and dollar amounts of the deal.
I'll check on this as perhaps I'm wrong abut the 12-month rule, but I know I had this discussion with him before, though I can't remember if he said it pertained to new money or just changing toe overall dollar value of the deal.
Regarding who makes it and who doesn't, all I can tell you is to look at the numbers at each position on the roster. You see more than 4 safeties being kept? How many DTs stay? Who makes it as the third RB, Da'Rel Scott, Ryan Torain, or Michael Cox? Then pay attention to the preseason camp reports and games and the picture will become clearer.
Also ask yourself who might be candidates for inactive PUP (not to be confused with active PUP) or season-ending IR, and if those guys have splits in effect for this year if they don't make the 53-man roster. These are all factors that can influence the salary cap.
Do you see the Giants keeping 2 QBs, like they usually do, or 3? I have a hard time seeing them not keeping 3 since Nassib is so green.
I think unless something totally unexpected happens, they keep 3 QBs this year.
I projected a 53-man roster for the first time in exactly 2 months. Looks like the cap figures add up nicely enough to avoid any issues, particularly if the new Cruz deal's cap number in 2013 is smaller than his tender amount already on the books. I'm gonna post it to my cap blog either tonight or tomorrow.
I personally think it's too soon to project a 53-man roster and hence the cap. I've been learning of some new nuances that could affect different players, specifically those who go on PUP or IR, which is why I say it's much too soon to worry about that right now. I've also learned of some new credits a team can gain during the season that directly affect their cap -- again not by millions, but if they add up, it could be enough to fit in another qualifying veteran offer.
I understand you want to get a leg up on things but there are going to be at least 10 roster spots where anything can happen and while we're not talking huge dollars, it could affect the reserves moving forward.
BTW, if you want to contact me offline to discuss the cap stuff, feel free. I don't' want to take anything away from what you've done, which as I said is very impressive and better than most efforts I've seen.
I don't have your e-mail. If you get a chance, can you e-mail me here: firstname.lastname@example.org