| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
justo
Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 14349
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| AlexGreen#20 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | Why are people saying 19 plz respond |
28-2 (rookie cap hit)-7 (expected roll over) |
why are you subtracting the roll over?
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AlexGreen#20
Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 13518
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| justo wrote: | | AlexGreen#20 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | Why are people saying 19 plz respond |
28-2 (rookie cap hit)-7 (expected roll over) |
why are you subtracting the roll over? |
It's what we will choose not to spend in the interest of rolling it over into next year.
_________________
| BroncoinGermany wrote: | | From the day he was born and subsequently starting to grow into his short neck, round face, scruffy beard and pale face, Bulaga was destined to be a Packers O-Linemen for life. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justo
Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 14349
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| AlexGreen#20 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | AlexGreen#20 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | Why are people saying 19 plz respond |
28-2 (rookie cap hit)-7 (expected roll over) |
why are you subtracting the roll over? |
It's what we will choose not to spend in the interest of rolling it over into next year. |
Ohhhhh. Okay. So 19 to get to the floor?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AlexGreen#20
Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 13518
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| justo wrote: | | AlexGreen#20 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | AlexGreen#20 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | Why are people saying 19 plz respond |
28-2 (rookie cap hit)-7 (expected roll over) |
why are you subtracting the roll over? |
It's what we will choose not to spend in the interest of rolling it over into next year. |
Ohhhhh. Okay. So 19 to get to the floor? |
Nope, that gets us to the cap. Floor really doesn't matter.
_________________
| BroncoinGermany wrote: | | From the day he was born and subsequently starting to grow into his short neck, round face, scruffy beard and pale face, Bulaga was destined to be a Packers O-Linemen for life. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justo
Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 14349
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| AlexGreen#20 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | AlexGreen#20 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | AlexGreen#20 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | Why are people saying 19 plz respond |
28-2 (rookie cap hit)-7 (expected roll over) |
why are you subtracting the roll over? |
It's what we will choose not to spend in the interest of rolling it over into next year. |
Ohhhhh. Okay. So 19 to get to the floor? |
Nope, that gets us to the cap. Floor really doesn't matter. |
I don't understand what the rollover is doing, then.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AlexGreen#20
Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 13518
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| justo wrote: | | AlexGreen#20 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | AlexGreen#20 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | AlexGreen#20 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | Why are people saying 19 plz respond |
28-2 (rookie cap hit)-7 (expected roll over) |
why are you subtracting the roll over? |
It's what we will choose not to spend in the interest of rolling it over into next year. |
Ohhhhh. Okay. So 19 to get to the floor? |
Nope, that gets us to the cap. Floor really doesn't matter. |
I don't understand what the rollover is doing, then. |
It's insurance money for a rainy day. We still get to spend 135 million every year, but because we choose not to spend 7 mil the first year after the new CBA, and haven't spent it since, we could technically spend it.
We likely will not however as we've rolled over that 7 million every year and I don't see that likely changing this offseason.
_________________
| BroncoinGermany wrote: | | From the day he was born and subsequently starting to grow into his short neck, round face, scruffy beard and pale face, Bulaga was destined to be a Packers O-Linemen for life. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justo
Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 14349
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| AlexGreen#20 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | AlexGreen#20 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | AlexGreen#20 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | AlexGreen#20 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | Why are people saying 19 plz respond |
28-2 (rookie cap hit)-7 (expected roll over) |
why are you subtracting the roll over? |
It's what we will choose not to spend in the interest of rolling it over into next year. |
Ohhhhh. Okay. So 19 to get to the floor? |
Nope, that gets us to the cap. Floor really doesn't matter. |
I don't understand what the rollover is doing, then. |
It's insurance money for a rainy day. We still get to spend 135 million every year, but because we choose not to spend 7 mil the first year after the new CBA, and haven't spent it since, we could technically spend it.
We likely will not however as we've rolled over that 7 million every year and I don't see that likely changing this offseason. |
So we have (before Neal) 26 M in cap, but had the potential of 35 M?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AlexGreen#20
Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 13518
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| justo wrote: | | AlexGreen#20 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | AlexGreen#20 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | AlexGreen#20 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | AlexGreen#20 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | Why are people saying 19 plz respond |
28-2 (rookie cap hit)-7 (expected roll over) |
why are you subtracting the roll over? |
It's what we will choose not to spend in the interest of rolling it over into next year. |
Ohhhhh. Okay. So 19 to get to the floor? |
Nope, that gets us to the cap. Floor really doesn't matter. |
I don't understand what the rollover is doing, then. |
It's insurance money for a rainy day. We still get to spend 135 million every year, but because we choose not to spend 7 mil the first year after the new CBA, and haven't spent it since, we could technically spend it.
We likely will not however as we've rolled over that 7 million every year and I don't see that likely changing this offseason. |
So we have (before Neal) 26 M in cap, but had the potential of 35 M? |
We had 27.8 mil in cap space before the signing of Neal including what we rolled over last year.
In reality, our rookie cap hit will be about 2 million and we will choose not to spend 7 million. So in reality before Neal we were operating around 18.8 million.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let me try and explain this better:
Assuming that a team spent every dollar of their cap space last year they would have roughly 135 million.
Because we spent 7 million less than the salary cap last year, we have that 7 million to spend this year, so our cap is 142 million. We will choose to only spend 135 so that we have 7 million more than the cap to spend next year.
We spend the standard cap limit every year.
_________________
| BroncoinGermany wrote: | | From the day he was born and subsequently starting to grow into his short neck, round face, scruffy beard and pale face, Bulaga was destined to be a Packers O-Linemen for life. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justo
Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 14349
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
That money doesn't compound?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AlexGreen#20
Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 13518
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| justo wrote: | | That money doesn't compound? |
It could, except that we always spend 7 million less than our cap that year.
2014: Standard NFL Cap is 135 million. We'll spend 135 million this year and our cap is 142 million. So we'll walk into next year with 7 million in excess.
2015: Assuming the standard NFL cap is 142 our cap would be 149. We will spend 142 and go into next year with 7 million in excess.
_________________
| BroncoinGermany wrote: | | From the day he was born and subsequently starting to grow into his short neck, round face, scruffy beard and pale face, Bulaga was destined to be a Packers O-Linemen for life. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RashaanSalaami
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 29854
Location: Jersey
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
The $7M is not a real number. It's something AG20 has noted the PACKERS will not spend in 2014 based on prior trends. Therefore, at the start of the 2015 league year, that $7M will be available to our team as a rollover.
I don't understand the method of promoting that number does though. If we rolled over $7M every year, it would essentially be a waste because we would never spend it. At some point we will dig into it and do what we want with it. I suspect that the right players were available (free agency, extensions, etc.), we would reduce our rollover. Our cap space is our cap space, however we choose to use it. I have included a breakdown of the numbers for whoever is interested, but there's no sense in bringing a hypothetical rollover into the equation IMO. Serves no purpose and forces people to view the comparison with other teams with an apples to oranges outlook.
The $7M means even less because that's after in-season transactions, so how is that going to help anyone back into a number of "usable" cap by your standards.
Finally, our Carryover was actually $9.8M from last year. In 2012 it was $5.2M according to Jason La Confora, so again, I don't understand the value of promoting a $7M figure as if it bears any real weight a year out.
Either way, I'm running a final audit on my numbers because they differ from a couple other sites to see if I can arrive at a more accurate number. Based on Tom Pelissero tweeted out a couple days ago, I show us with about $300K more cap space. It's hard to get to an official number, but that's about as close as you're gonna get with publicly available information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AlexGreen#20
Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 13518
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| RashaanSalaami wrote: | The $7M is not a real number. It's something AG20 has noted the PACKERS will not spend in 2014 based on prior trends. Therefore, at the start of the 2015 league year, that $7M will be available to our team as a rollover.
I don't understand the method of promoting that number does though. If we rolled over $7M every year, it would essentially be a waste because we would never spend it. At some point we will dig into it and do what we want with it. I suspect that the right players were available (free agency, extensions, etc.), we would reduce our rollover. Our cap space is our cap space, however we choose to use it. I have included a breakdown of the numbers for whoever is interested, but there's no sense in bringing a hypothetical rollover into the equation IMO. Serves no purpose and forces people to view the comparison with other teams with an apples to oranges outlook.
Either way, I'm running a final audit on my numbers because they differ from a couple other sites to see if I can arrive at a more accurate number. Based on Tom Pelissero tweeted out a couple days ago, I show us with about $300K more cap space. It's hard to get to an official number, but that's about as close as you're gonna get with publicly available information. |
Right this.
_________________
| BroncoinGermany wrote: | | From the day he was born and subsequently starting to grow into his short neck, round face, scruffy beard and pale face, Bulaga was destined to be a Packers O-Linemen for life. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justo
Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 14349
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
So after your numbers...our cap is 29.5?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RashaanSalaami
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 29854
Location: Jersey
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| justo wrote: | | So after your numbers...our cap is 29.5? |
Pending an audit, I'm reasonably confident we're at 28.5 +/- 500K. That is noninclusive of Mike Neal.
[EDIT] Sorry, not 29.5. It's 28.5, but still confirming a couple guys' numbers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RashaanSalaami
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 29854
Location: Jersey
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Though the official details of the Raji contract haven't come out yet, I show us with $21.2 million in cap space.
However, once the Raji contract is submitted, I believe the NFLPA Database will have us with $20.1 million in cap space.
I've gone through and double checked all my figures, so until more information is released to the public, I can't do much to reconcile the difference. If anyone is taking a gander at the actual spreadsheet linked on the first page and has any ideas, I'd be appreciative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
