|
|
|
| Quote: |
Even before the Giants made any moves this offseason, they had $44 million under the salary cap to spend on free agents, extensions and draft picks. Already, just days after the completion of the Super Bowl and the 2015 season, that number has grown significantly. The Giants cut offensive linemen Will Beatty and Geoff Schwartz and middle linebacker Jon Beason retired before he was released. That freed another $12 million under the salary cap for the Giants this offseason. Do the math and that gives them $56 million to spend (if they so please), with it being a certainty there will be more. Giants players currently under contract for 2016: 50 Salaries counted against 2016 salary cap: $97.625 million Dead money vs. 2016 salary cap: $9.7 million Current total committed to cap (salaries + dead money): $107.3 million Giants projected salary cap for 2016: $152 million (estimate) + $11.2 million carryover from 2015 = $163.2 million Money available under cap: $55.9 million |
The pressure is really on Reese. He has to have a plan in place for FA - to go after the 2-3 big name guys he wants right away. He also needs to account for the increase in salaries in his calculations so he's not low-balling folks.
The pressure is really on Reese. He has to have a plan in place for FA - to go after the 2-3 big name guys he wants right away. He also needs to account for the increase in salaries in his calculations so he's not low-balling folks.
This is where Abrams' expertise in cap savvy comes into play
Not sure I understand the 1/2 mil point
We just have to hope the players become available (and it's not Franchise Tag-fest), and that the Giants pick the right ones. That's it - if those two happen, we'll be in great shape.
Or, to put it another way we could have kept Beatty and Schwartz for 2 million a piece.
Now I assume that's not right and I'm mixed up....so pls. someone explain....
Ahh, ok
Or, to put it another way we could have kept Beatty and Schwartz for 2 million a piece.
Now I assume that's not right and I'm mixed up....so pls. someone explain....
The $56m is a net number. The dead money is accounted for when that number is computed. A net gain for releasing a players is net of the accelerated bonus money.
Giants CAP situation - ( New Window )
Marshall (trade) - 9M
D. Harris (resigned) - 7.5M
Cromartie - 7M
Skrine - 6.5M
Gilchrist - 5M
Carpenter - 5M
Fitzpatrick -3.25M
6 of the 10 highest cap hits last year are from that list. I think it's very reasonable to expect that Reese will attempt to follow suit and add at least 5 players to the fold. I'd be shocked if we don't have at least 3 new front 7 players and 2 new secondary guys on defense. Probably at least 1 new OL now as well considering the Beatty/Schwartz moves.
BTW for some context on how much is possible, DRC's first year cap # was less than every name on that list so if they want to get creative they certainly can. Currently our 4th highest paid player is Vereer at $4M.
In general, capology isn't concerned about this year's cap, but the effect of this year's signings on future years and how that impacts being able to sign (or re-sign) players down the road. First year salary and impact is usually fairly low (as compared to 2 or 3 years down the road on a multi-year contract). Try to evenly load the contract to minimize the escalation and you end up with players forgetting they already got paid and only see that others are getting paid more when the back end of the contract rolls around(witness Osi, Strahan, and a host of others)
Or, to put it another way we could have kept Beatty and Schwartz for 2 million a piece.
Now I assume that's not right and I'm mixed up....so pls. someone explain....
If there was no dead money, they would have had $65 mill to spend, not $56 mill. The savings is the difference between what the players would have earned this year and the remaining averaged out bonus money already paid out to those players. Look at it this way, the dead money is that which is already in the players' bank account; the savings is what the players would have earned this year.
In reality, the last guy on the roster will no longer count against the cap. Thus removing his $500k or so. So signing a $5mm guy will move the cap from $100mm to $104.5mm, not $105mm. Sounds insignificant. But if yousign 5 guys, thats a net savings of $2.5mm. That could be an important role player.
Marshall (trade) - 9M
D. Harris (resigned) - 7.5M
Cromartie - 7M
Skrine - 6.5M
Gilchrist - 5M
Carpenter - 5M
Fitzpatrick -3.25M
6 of the 10 highest cap hits last year are from that list. I think it's very reasonable to expect that Reese will attempt to follow suit and add at least 5 players to the fold. I'd be shocked if we don't have at least 3 new front 7 players and 2 new secondary guys on defense. Probably at least 1 new OL now as well considering the Beatty/Schwartz moves.
BTW for some context on how much is possible, DRC's first year cap # was less than every name on that list so if they want to get creative they certainly can. Currently our 4th highest paid player is Vereer at $4M.
And I can imagine the BBI meltdown if we spent 1/3 of the cap money on two 30+ year old corners.
Quote:
Revis - 16M
Marshall (trade) - 9M
D. Harris (resigned) - 7.5M
Cromartie - 7M
Skrine - 6.5M
Gilchrist - 5M
Carpenter - 5M
Fitzpatrick -3.25M
6 of the 10 highest cap hits last year are from that list. I think it's very reasonable to expect that Reese will attempt to follow suit and add at least 5 players to the fold. I'd be shocked if we don't have at least 3 new front 7 players and 2 new secondary guys on defense. Probably at least 1 new OL now as well considering the Beatty/Schwartz moves.
BTW for some context on how much is possible, DRC's first year cap # was less than every name on that list so if they want to get creative they certainly can. Currently our 4th highest paid player is Vereer at $4M.
It still came down to how it was spent. Getting the play they got out of Fitzpatrick was a major bargain.
And I can imagine the BBI meltdown if we spent 1/3 of the cap money on two 30+ year old corners.
We will be players, perhaps significantly so..Agree about all that money for two 30+ players at those positions, as good as they are
Quote:
flush with cap money would be severe opponents of ours in securing FAs. While that may be true in a sense, the lure of NY monetary prospects and an opportunity for their families to enjoy the capital of the world, can not be underscored enough imo..Yes, there will be those who would not want the NY pressure, but by and large, I believe the opportunities that could present themselves could predominate if contracts offered are competitive with one another
And add NY-NJ taxes and housing costs. Not everyone is anxious to enjoy the fruits - and the burdens- of being in the "capitol of the world."
Point taken
this is the age of mass media. there are opportunities everywhere.
In reality, the last guy on the roster will no longer count against the cap. Thus removing his $500k or so. So signing a $5mm guy will move the cap from $100mm to $104.5mm, not $105mm. Sounds insignificant. But if yousign 5 guys, thats a net savings of $2.5mm. That could be an important role player.
But at this point the roster isn't full is it? Aren't there empty roster spots with the cuts?
BTW for some context on how much is possible, DRC's first year cap # was less than every name on that list so if they want to get creative they certainly can....
Eric's hit it on the nose in that post - these are the remaining years of Eli's career, our best chance to win with him is 2016 and 2017.
Nobody's going to worry about cap prudence for the future, because his window will start to close rapidly, and at that point the likelihood that we won't see another down cycle is slim. Go for broke, spend the money - just be sure it's on the right people.
I'll do it just for you BB'56. lol. How ya been by the way?
Anywho, I'll prolly have to get back on the salary cap horse again. I'll just say this: An analysis has to be made comparing the players who will be available in the draft come the Giants' picks vs. those available in FA who play positions that count the most against the cap in order to make the cost effective moves while not screwing up the cap. The positions that cost the most against the cap off the top of my head, excluding QB of course, are pass rushers, OTs (specifically LOTs), WRs, and CBs.
A projection of the expected salaries paid to these guys will also have to be made--which has in all likelihood already been done. We'll see moves made quickly at first, then the market wil stabilize, so teams like the Giants who have lots of cap room must be calculated at first and not veer away from their plan if it includes a player who's a "must-sign" player. IF he messes up the market, then steer clear of him. There's always wiggle room, but you can't go crazy.
Just some opening thoughts off the top of my head. P.S. Don't overpay--or draft highly for that matter--players who play positions that are easily fungible (e.g., Running Backs).
Exactamundo. This is the comment everyone must remember.
Here's a nice little read for those of you who're interested on reading up on the topic of the salary cap from one of the primary go to guys on the subject, Jason Fitzgerald:
A Guide to the NFL Salary Cap - (Posted on February 19, 2013) by Jason Fitzgerald - ( New Window )
Right on. Reese has to get this right, a la 2005 when the Giants signed Pierce, K-Mac, and Plax. Talk about a Home Run.
Quote:
the Giants will spend stupidly..They rarely do..I believe they'll spend impactfully..
Right on. Reese has to get this right, a la 2005 when the Giants signed Pierce, K-Mac, and Plax. Talk about a Home Run.
Agreed..Reese KNOWS he has to get this right. His rope might be shortening a great deal
I don't expect 4, but not because I think the Giants won't spend it (or are being cautious to not compromise the future).
I don't think we'll get 4 impact players because there aren't enough to go around. I'm thinking we hit on two top tier (>=$10M/yr), two mid-tier ($7-10M/yr) and then various others.
So it's going to be up to Abrams to be creative about structuring these new deals so that the cap hit is more front-loaded than in years past. Which, yeah, that doesn't seem like such a difficult thing to do (just replace signing bonus with fat salary in year one), but for some reason teams have been reluctant to stray from their usual formula.
Exciting off-season. We should know soon if our team has a good pulse on needs and quality players.
The 20 teams are 'flush with cap space' argument is irrelevant. Many of those teams have in house contracts to prioritize and then there are the other twelve teams that are vulnerable to raiding in free agency.
The Giants won't sit on this money. They'll spend the vast majority of it. Buckle up fellas this is going to be a helluva free agency ride.
*A note about the $11.5M rollover from 2015. That money can't be factored into the AAV of salaries going forward as it won't be available beyond 2016. It's a one shot deal to front load contracts or use as bonus money in year one. It isn't a recurring factor.
So it's going to be up to Abrams to be creative about structuring these new deals so that the cap hit is more front-loaded than in years past. Which, yeah, that doesn't seem like such a difficult thing to do (just replace signing bonus with fat salary in year one), but for some reason teams have been reluctant to stray from their usual formula.
Given the rate of inflation for NFL contracts, I think the other way to go might be to keep the contracts as-is, but use the remaining cap space to extend some of the younger talent (Richburg, Pugh) so that when we hit those seasons we won't have to worry about bracing the cap impact of retaining them.
Granted, that's dependent on them wanting the extensions, vs. wanting to wait for a bigger contract or test FA.
I have no idea if they're at all interested in making such a switch. If they are the players we target in free agency could look far different than what many of us have theorized.
Exciting off-season. We should know soon if our team has a good pulse on needs and quality players.
Randy - is there is a difference between Poo Poo and examining reality? Sometimes I'm not sure -- there have been days when Poo Poo was my reality - I've raised three children, 4 grandchildren, 5 dogs, 4 cats and several hundred chickens : )
I too am excited for the future -- but there will be Poo Poo