Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Salary Cap Situation to end the season
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
justwinbaby81


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 3788
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
justwinbaby81 wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
101Raider wrote:
Sorry to change the subject, but what kind of cap relief or hit would we incur if we hypothetically chose to let Carson Palmer walk?


http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/oakland-raiders/carson-palmer/

The contract details have been updated recently.

If he's cut, we're still carrying 2.335 x 4 = 9.34M in dead money. His 2013 cap hit is 15.335, so we're saving 15.335 - 9.34 = 5.995M against the 2013 cap.

He could also be designated as a post june 1st cut. We'd then be carrying 2.335 in dead money for 2013 and 2.335 x 3 = 7.005M in 2014.


It's situations like this one above that make me really wonder why Reggie didn't take the approach of completely tearing this team down and starting from scratch in 2013. He really prolonged the rebuilding process an extra year.

What I mean is this: most people here said we had no talent on defense and that DA deserves a free pass for it, and then Reggie validates this theory by keeping DA. Why didn't we just get every bad contract off the books, eat the dead money last year as much as possible, pay out veteran minimum contracts to fill roster spots, which in turn would basically forfeit the season (barring McFadden carrying the offense like AP this season, which wasn't going to happen healthy or otherwise), being clear in 2013 for a fresh start with at least as good of a draft position as we have now?

The more that comes out, the more I think Reggie may have half-assed the overhaul process. Which is something to worry about.


The link above explains why he couldn't. With already a quarter of the cap space in dead money, he couldn't get rid of everyone in one year.


I understand, but what advantage do we gain from signing a Briesel for 4M versus an UDFA for about $500K? Moves like that would make getting rid of Seymour possible. Letting Branch walk and cutting Kelly. Its easy to look back and say this after a 4-12 season of course, but this team wasn't in position to win the division.

I am of the radical mindset that you either build for the future or be ready for a championship run, but either way you dedicate the team to one of those two directions completely. This team didn't work enough towards either, even though only one of those options were realistic and total rebuild was the route to take.

There were options that Reggie didn't take, even if it was getting rid of Palmer in this case.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitty


Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 3622
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
Here's a good explanation of how it works:
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Dead-money-disasters.html

As you can see, we were already carrying 28M in dead money last year which is the main reason we couldn't get rid of everyone in 2012. We had to keep some cap room to field a team. This year we're going to end up with a lot of dead money as well. Seymour, Boss and Curry combine for 16.722M of dead money. DVD, Barksdale, Chekwa and Stupar carry some as well which push the dead money to 17.5M right now. And we haven't started cutting anyone yet.


Just how stupid is McKenzie? What was he thinking with Routt's contract.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 14108
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitty wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
Here's a good explanation of how it works:
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Dead-money-disasters.html

As you can see, we were already carrying 28M in dead money last year which is the main reason we couldn't get rid of everyone in 2012. We had to keep some cap room to field a team. This year we're going to end up with a lot of dead money as well. Seymour, Boss and Curry combine for 16.722M of dead money. DVD, Barksdale, Chekwa and Stupar carry some as well which push the dead money to 17.5M right now. And we haven't started cutting anyone yet.


Just how stupid is McKenzie? What was he thinking with Routt's contract.


McKenzie had nothing to do with Routt's contract. He just got rid of it.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 14108
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

justwinbaby81 wrote:

I understand, but what advantage do we gain from signing a Briesel for 4M versus an UDFA for about $500K? Moves like that would make getting rid of Seymour possible. Letting Branch walk and cutting Kelly. Its easy to look back and say this after a 4-12 season of course, but this team wasn't in position to win the division.

I am of the radical mindset that you either build for the future or be ready for a championship run, but either way you dedicate the team to one of those two directions completely. This team didn't work enough towards either, even though only one of those options were realistic and total rebuild was the route to take.

There were options that Reggie didn't take, even if it was getting rid of Palmer in this case.


The Raiders were 25M over the cap when McKenzie took over. His first order of business was getting under the cap. The cap hit for Seymour, Palmer and Kelly would have been higher if he had cut them than with the restructures and they still were there to play for the Raiders. He had to find some balance between fixing the cap situation and fielding a team because his role is also to field a team that will lead to ticket sales.
I don't understand the Branch's contract either so i'd consider that a mistake. The contract structure doesn't make much sense in our situation.

The FAs signed didn't cost much against the 2012 cap. For example, Brisiel had a 1.38M cap hit. In hindsight, he's not someone we should have signed but it's not a contract issue, it's a personnel issue which has a lot to do with the hiring of Knapp and Pollack to begin with.

This year he's not too much over the cap which gives him more freedom to get rid of guys. We'll see how he handles it.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitty


Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 3622
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
bitty wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
Here's a good explanation of how it works:
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Dead-money-disasters.html

As you can see, we were already carrying 28M in dead money last year which is the main reason we couldn't get rid of everyone in 2012. We had to keep some cap room to field a team. This year we're going to end up with a lot of dead money as well. Seymour, Boss and Curry combine for 16.722M of dead money. DVD, Barksdale, Chekwa and Stupar carry some as well which push the dead money to 17.5M right now. And we haven't started cutting anyone yet.


Just how stupid is McKenzie? What was he thinking with Routt's contract.


McKenzie had nothing to do with Routt's contract. He just got rid of it.


Got confused with what year the lockout was in.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justwinbaby81


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 3788
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
justwinbaby81 wrote:

I understand, but what advantage do we gain from signing a Briesel for 4M versus an UDFA for about $500K? Moves like that would make getting rid of Seymour possible. Letting Branch walk and cutting Kelly. Its easy to look back and say this after a 4-12 season of course, but this team wasn't in position to win the division.

I am of the radical mindset that you either build for the future or be ready for a championship run, but either way you dedicate the team to one of those two directions completely. This team didn't work enough towards either, even though only one of those options were realistic and total rebuild was the route to take.

There were options that Reggie didn't take, even if it was getting rid of Palmer in this case.


The Raiders were 25M over the cap when McKenzie took over. His first order of business was getting under the cap. The cap hit for Seymour, Palmer and Kelly would have been higher if he had cut them than with the restructures and they still were there to play for the Raiders. He had to find some balance between fixing the cap situation and fielding a team because his role is also to field a team that will lead to ticket sales.
I don't understand the Branch's contract either so i'd consider that a mistake. The contract structure doesn't make much sense in our situation.

The FAs signed didn't cost much against the 2012 cap. For example, Brisiel had a 1.38M cap hit. In hindsight, he's not someone we should have signed but it's not a contract issue, it's a personnel issue which has a lot to do with the hiring of Knapp and Pollack to begin with.

This year he's not too much over the cap which gives him more freedom to get rid of guys. We'll see how he handles it.


I'm not half as knowledgeable with the cap stuff as you are, so I'm going to take your word that he couldn't do much else besides the Branch deal. I never thought that we'd still be in this cap hell when teams like the Eagles who signed several big free agent contracts, gave McCoy a huge deal, gave Vick a $100M deal, Desean etc...and they have a ton of cap space again. How teams get through that and we get stuck with dead money every time...it's arguably the most frustrating thing about the Raiders.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BlackPrestige92


Joined: 08 Nov 2011
Posts: 5779
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sooooooo. We're screwed? STILL!?!?

What madness!
_________________


If Phil Jackson came back, still no coaching me, Im uncoachable, Im unsociable.
-Kendrick Lamar
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 14108
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BlackPrestige92 wrote:
Sooooooo. We're screwed? STILL!?!?

What madness!


No, we're alright. We can save around 10M with Kelly and DHB. Palmer will take a pay cut or be cut and it will save us some more. We have the option to designate 2 cuts as post june 1st which would open more room for this year and push a bit of the dead money into 2014 where it's much more manageable. Brisiel, Tollefson and Goethel are cut candidates as well and it would save us close to 4M. We can sign FAs with small cap hits for this year. The only thing is we'll probably be carrying more than 25M in dead money once again but in 2014 we're mostly done with the out of whack situation.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Silver&Black88


Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 32161
Location: Boston, MA
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
BlackPrestige92 wrote:
Sooooooo. We're screwed? STILL!?!?

What madness!


No, we're alright. We can save around 10M with Kelly and DHB. Palmer will take a pay cut or be cut and it will save us some more. We have the option to designate 2 cuts as post june 1st which would open more room for this year and push a bit of the dead money into 2014 where it's much more manageable. Brisiel, Tollefson and Goethel are cut candidates as well and it would save us close to 4M. We can sign FAs with small cap hits for this year. The only thing is we'll probably be carrying more than 25M in dead money once again but in 2014 we're mostly done with the out of whack situation.


The only worry about this is the quality (or lack thereof in all probability) of the team. I realize this is a process and we can only afford so much, but its gonna suck watching a team that probably sucks. And Allen will probably get fired because he couldn't turn garbage into gold. And then there'll be the 83647892 people complaining that we didn't field a play off team and how we're only 2 years removed from 8-8 and should have kept Hue.

This crippling cap situation blows. I have no idea how Al always managed to pull it out of his butt with all the stuff he did. Maybe he just went all out in the uncapped year to try and field a winner before he died.
_________________

ravens_rool28 wrote:
Did somebody mention teens?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 14108
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Silver&Black88 wrote:

This crippling cap situation blows. I have no idea how Al always managed to pull it out of his butt with all the stuff he did. Maybe he just went all out in the uncapped year to try and field a winner before he died.


Without getting too much into it, most of the issue comes from the contracts signed the year of the lockout. Routt, Wimbley, Huff and Seymour. Routt and Seymour were signed before the lockout with no signing bonus and had to be restructured with a signing bonus after the new CBA. It pushed a ton of guaranteed money into future years. To add to that, those guys had portions of their base salaries or roster bonuses guaranteed into the 2nd year of their contracts which made them very costly to release.
Then we traded for Palmer and his huge contract during the season and here we are.

I think the Raiders had a very good reason to vote against the CBA that year, they knew they were about to get screwed. The salary cap stayed flat and they hadn't planned for that.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justwinbaby81


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 3788
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like S&B said though, it's gonna suck knowing that we aren't going to be any good, unless our #3 overall pick makes a huge impact and a later pick does too. Highly unlikely.

And like I said earlier, I don't get how the Eagles are getting away with it. Or an even better example, the Jets. They gave out as many awful contracts and can cut a bunch this year and be well under the cap. They sign terrible contracts, suck, but then can cut bait and start over. We pay for our mistakes for years. I just wish I knew the difference. I guess it really all comes down to the uncapped year like you mentioned.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 14108
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

justwinbaby81 wrote:
Like S&B said though, it's gonna suck knowing that we aren't going to be any good, unless our #3 overall pick makes a huge impact and a later pick does too. Highly unlikely.

And like I said earlier, I don't get how the Eagles are getting away with it. Or an even better example, the Jets. They gave out as many awful contracts and can cut a bunch this year and be well under the cap. They sign terrible contracts, suck, but then can cut bait and start over. We pay for our mistakes for years. I just wish I knew the difference. I guess it really all comes down to the uncapped year like you mentioned.


I'd have to look into those teams contracts but the difference is probably in the structure of the contracts. If they give big contracts with not much guaranteed past the first year, it's easy to get rid of players. And if they only have a couple contracts with huge guaranteed past the first year it's easier as well. In the Raiders case, they had multiple contracts with huge amount guaranteed past the first year.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitty


Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 3622
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I say cut Huff, Kelly, DHB and RO. They don't contribute much and they are they are 40 million against the cap. The Raiders will take a cap hit now but save a lot of money in the future.
If Pryor looks good in camp cut Palmer as well.
We have to start from scratch build a whole new team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raiiiiidersssss


Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 5125
Location: The Black Hole
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If I'm understanding this correctly, dead money is guaranteed money that is accelerated to the current year if the player is cut?

Also, as a few others have stated, blow it up. Would love to have a (comparably) clean slate in 2014.

Cut wish list:

Seymour (done)
Kelly
Ro
DHB
Brisel
Palmer - restructure for 5-8 million per year, or cut
Huff - try to trade. Dude counts for over 11 million against the cap
_________________
MACKiavelli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rolni


Joined: 08 Jun 2008
Posts: 2495
Location: Europe
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know what this Levi guy smokes, but it should be cool stuff Smile

http://www.silverandblackpride.com/2013/2/9/3971488/report-oakland-raiders-void-richard-seymour-contract-pick-up-the-tab

There will be more cuts made. The three most likely cap casualties will be Tommy Kelly, Rolando McClain, and Darrius Heyward-Bey. If all three are cut, it would be an additional savings of $17.255 million.

I have no clue how he came up with that 17M saving...
We have TK at 4,775 and DHB at 5,091 saving while McClain probably will cost us a little...
_________________
WIN LOSE OR TIE...RAIDER FAN 'TIL I DIE!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 5 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group