Salary cap thread 2016

[HardRightEdge]

This isn't anything new. I put the odds at about 65/35 that one of those two guys isn't on the roster by the trading deadline in October.

Imo, the re-signing of Taylor confirmed this.

I also think there will likely be one or two vets leaving besides the guards.

65/35 seems awfully high.

As for those one or two vets leaving, can you supply some names who would provide meaningful cap space, which is the topic at hand? I'm not seeing it.

 

[PackerDNA]

65/35 seems awfully high.

As for those one or two vets leaving, can you supply some names who would provide meaningful cap space, which is the topic at hand? I'm not seeing it.

Do you mean clearing up cap space for next off season? If so, best bets are Starks, Guion and Taylor, which would free up about $8.7M in cap room.
You can take some of your top paid guys and create more cap room by having them convert some base salary to signing bonus, although that's not something you'd want; it's just kicking the can into future caps.
With best guesses at $35-40M to start with, there are always options. They could keep both Sitton and Lang. It'll be a matter of prioritizing, and what they're willing to do.

 

[PikeBadger]

65/35 seems awfully high.

As for those one or two vets leaving, can you supply some names who would provide meaningful cap space, which is the topic at hand? I'm not seeing it.

I would expect it to be someone in the 2-5 million range. A lot depends on the development of the young guys. If guys like Ringo, Elliot, Gunter, Goodson, Boyd, Campbell, Thomas, Tretter, Taylor, Rotheram, Kowalski make good impressions it could put a number of vets jobs in jeopardy.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I would expect it to be someone in the 2-5 million range. A lot depends on the development of the young guys. If guys like Ringo, Elliot, Gunter, Goodson, Boyd, Campbell, Thomas, Tretter, Taylor, Rotheram, Kowalski make good impressions it could put a number of vets jobs in jeopardy.

You said "2 or 3 vets leaving besides the guards", so Tretter, Taylor and Rotheram don't count. So tell me, which veterans in the $2-$5 million cap range would you suggest leave that those other guys can replace?

Take a look at the cap savings column in the following link to identify your candidates:

http://overthecap.com/salary-cap/green-bay-packers/

 

[Poppa San]

These are the players currently in the top 51 cap I feel are in the bottom of the roster churn and could be replaced by a minimum wage rookie. {+ signifies cap savings after being replaced by rookie ignoring dead money}
Thomas +75k, Henry +75k, Crockett +75k, Campbell +75k, Bradford +75k, Perillo +150k.
These are the ones that could be outperformed: Abby +75k, Walker +75k, Banjo +225k, Boyd +260k, Masthay +1.1m, +Guion +3.1m, Eliot +151k, Janis +162k. Of these Boyd, Walker, and Masthay are the only ones I feel are on the bubble.
I feel fairly confident the rest of the roster is set barring injury and trade or other FA signings.
Edit: forgot about Palmer for +250k in the second group.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Do you mean clearing up cap space for next off season? If so, best bets are Starks, Guion and Taylor, which would free up about $8.7M in cap room.
You can take some of your top paid guys and create more cap room by having them convert some base salary to signing bonus, although that's not something you'd want; it's just kicking the can into future caps.
With best guesses at $35-40M to start with, there are always options. They could keep both Sitton and Lang. It'll be a matter of prioritizing, and what they're willing to do.

The team is already $40 mil under the 2017 cap right now with only 29 players under contract and a slew of key free agents.

You might or might not get some guys to renegotiate and kick the can down the road, as you suggest. It is not a unilateral decision. And they have to be young players (or the QB) to take the dead cap risk in subsequent years.

Unless you can address specifically the math in post #124 above, citing specific instances of where the savings will come from without meaningfully degrading the roster, it would be difficult for me discuss this any further.

 

[PackerDNA]

I'll get back to you later (busy now) with a better answer HRE, but for now, the convert salary to SB to my knowledge is never a problem, as the player still gets his money just a portion of it now instead of over the course of the season.

 

[Poppa San]

Sitton, Peppers I do each for 3 year $20m extension turning this years salary into a SB for the extension. Vet min one year cuts both cap hits in half for this season. $7-10 m cap hit for next two seasons based on salary structure. Relatively the same as this season would be without the new contracts.

 

[HardRightEdge]

These are the players currently in the top 51 cap I feel are in the bottom of the roster churn and could be replaced by a minimum wage rookie. {+ signifies cap savings after being replaced by rookie ignoring dead money}
Thomas +75k, Henry +75k, Crockett +75k, Campbell +75k, Bradford +75k, Perillo +150k.
These are the ones that could be outperformed: Abby +75k, Walker +75k, Banjo +225k, Boyd +260k, Masthay +1.1m, +Guion +3.1m, Eliot +151k, Janis +162k. Of these Boyd, Walker, and Masthay are the only ones I feel are on the bubble.
I feel fairly confident the rest of the roster is set barring injury and trade or other FA signings.
Edit: forgot about Palmer for +250k in the second group.

Excluding Guion, the sum total of savings for those guys would be about $1.5 mil, $2.7 mil assuming your numbers are correct which I'm not going to double check because the savings is not very significant.

The cap savings for Guion would be $3.0 mil, but you'd have to pay his replacement. If it was a minimum salary rookie, the savings would be about $2.5 mil for 2016. Since what we're talking about here is how might the 2017 cap squeeze be alleviated, there would be about another $2.8 mil savings in 2017 relative to that same replacement in his second season, for a total of $5.3 mil over 2 years.

The Packers will not be cutting Guion unless he runs into trouble again before week 1. To start, they just signed him, well aware of how the cap is heading by 2017. They're not going to cut him now to generate cap space, nor should they. The position group is simply too thin, and his value simply exceeds the $2.5 mil cap savings for 2016. He's a reasonably priced option because of his suspension history.

You already got rid of Boyd, which I can't argue with. After 3 seasons he's still just a guy. In any event, without Guion your current D-Line roster is composed of:

Daniels, Pennel (minus 4 games) and a handful of guys with questionable resumes who have never taken an NFL. snap. Adding Boyd back in doesn't help much. If Peppers and Jones combine for 200 snaps at 3-tech in nickel and dime, that's 1/4 of a D-Lineman you can add to the list.

I don't see how you'd fix this problem with one draft.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Sitton, Peppers I do each for 3 year $20m extension turning this years salary into a SB for the extension. Vet min one year cuts both cap hits in half for this season. $7-10 m cap hit for next two seasons based on salary structure. Relatively the same as this season would be without the new contracts.

The point of this discussion, at least it was when I revived the thread, was to illustrate the cap squeeze in 2017. If you're trying to buy room for a high priced FA for 2016 (or that trade for Wilkerson ) I won't engage in that discussion at all.

To your points:

Peppers: By SB you mean "Super Bowl"? He's been around 2 years already and he's not guaranteed one yet. That contract you propose is a really bad idea and it will not happen. At his age, he's year-to-year. You would be stuck with a whomping amount of dead cap in 2017 if his play falls off this year, making the 2017 problem considerably worse.

Sitton: While you'd hate to lose a player who's been of such value, he's 30 years old and has been playing through nagging injuries 2 years running. I'd more inclined to resign Lang after the season, or earlier if it buys a meaningful discount. Since the squeeze comes next year, redoing the deal now to gain 2016 cap space is of no advantage for 2017.

The way out of the 2017 squeeze while remaining a legitimate contender is to have 2 very good drafts in 2016 and 2o17.

 

[adambr2]

I'll get back to you later (busy now) with a better answer HRE, but for now, the convert salary to SB to my knowledge is never a problem, as the player still gets his money just a portion of it now instead of over the course of the season.

It's generally never a problem for the player, it can definitely be a problem for the team further down the road since each time this is done will either result in bigger future cap hits or future dead money.

 

[PikeBadger]

You said "2 or 3 vets leaving besides the guards", so Tretter, Taylor and Rotheram don't count. So tell me, which veterans in the $2-$5 million cap range would you suggest leave that those other guys can replace?

Take a look at the cap savings column in the following link to identify your candidates:

http://overthecap.com/salary-cap/green-bay-packers/

I'm not suggesting any specific players need to go. I'm saying that there are older vets making decent money that could be essentially forced to restructure contract or be released or traded. They're all going to be replaced some day any way. Thompson won't sacrifice the cap and future of the team for any of these non-core players.

 

[PikeBadger]

The point of this discussion, at least it was when I revived the thread, was to illustrate the cap squeeze in 2017. If you're trying to buy room for a high priced FA for 2016 (or that trade for Wilkerson ) I won't engage in that discussion at all.

To your points:

Peppers: By SB you mean "Super Bowl"? He's been around 2 years already and he's not guaranteed one yet. That contract you propose is a really bad idea and it will not happen. At his age, he's year-to-year. You would be stuck with a whomping amount of dead cap in 2017 if his play falls off this year, making the 2017 problem considerably worse.

Sitton: While you'd hate to lose a player who's been of such value, he's 30 years old and has been playing through nagging injuries 2 years running. I'd more inclined to resign Lang after the season, or earlier if it buys a meaningful discount. Since the squeeze comes next year, redoing the deal now to gain 2016 cap space is of no advantage for 2017.

The way out of the 2017 squeeze while remaining a legitimate contender is to have 2 very good drafts in 2016 and 2o17.

IMO, There will be no cap squeeze in either 16 or 17. Current players on the roster will be moving on somewhere else and there will be at least 20 new 1st and 2nd year guys on the 2017 opening day roster

 

[Poppa San]

The point of this discussion, at least it was when I revived the thread, was to illustrate the cap squeeze in 2017. If you're trying to buy room for a high priced FA for 2016 (or that trade for Wilkerson ) I won't engage in that discussion at all.
To your points:

Peppers: By SB you mean "Super Bowl"? He's been around 2 years already and he's not guaranteed one yet. That contract you propose is a really bad idea and it will not happen. At his age, he's year-to-year. You would be stuck with a whomping amount of dead cap in 2017 if his play falls off this year, making the 2017 problem considerably worse.

Sitton: While you'd hate to lose a player who's been of such value, he's 30 years old and has been playing through nagging injuries 2 years running. I'd more inclined to resign Lang after the season, or earlier if it buys a meaningful discount. Since the squeeze comes next year, redoing the deal now to gain 2016 cap space is of no advantage for 2017.

The way out of the 2017 squeeze while remaining a legitimate contender is to have 2 very good drafts in 2016 and 2o17.

SB=signing bonus. Guarantee this years pay as a signing bonus for the extension. Pay vet minimum this season and about whatever they were going to make as salary as the salary for the next 2-3 years. Basically add a million or so for each guy and spread the cap hit out a few years. Dead money risk in exchange for a cap hit about half as much this season. Lang extension wouldn't gain as much cap under this method.
Not saying this is smart, just a way to gain cap space for this season.

 

[ExpatPacker]

Regarding the Sitton-Lang upcoming FA, I wonder if the Packers would go after Cody Whitehair if he was available in the 2nd round, or perhaps trade up for him?

I actually saw a mock or two with us taking him in the 1st round, but that would be silly IMO.

Vadal Alexander is also a 2nd round option.

 

[PackerDNA]

It's generally never a problem for the player, it can definitely be a problem for the team further down the road since each time this is done will either result in bigger future cap hits or future dead money.

That's the thing; you're robbing Peter to pay Paul, and you'll still have to pay the Piper down the road. The Saints used this again this past week, their cap's been a mess for a while, but they're kind of trapped now.
It's a tactic that would be anathema to a team like the Packers.

 

[HardRightEdge]

IMO, There will be no cap squeeze in either 16 or 17. Current players on the roster will be moving on somewhere else and there will be at least 20 new 1st and 2nd year guys on the 2017 opening day roster.

I never said there would be a cap squeeze in 2016. The cap issue for 2016 is how much cap will be left to carry over to 2017 when the big FA class hits.

Your estimate of 20 1st. and 2nd. year players on the 2017 roster would be typical. The Packers turn over about 10 players per year on average which predominantly represent churn at the bottom of the roster. The number could be higher than that given the size and quality of the 2017 FA class.

Popppa San has a list of 15 players in post #155 whose release would bring some cap savings. Out of that list I would say Guion and Janis would be exceptions, leaving 13 possible players eligible for bottom of the roster churn. If all 13 were replaced with minimum salary rookies, the cap savings would be about $2.5 mil, not an insignificant amount but not enough to affect the big picture.

The question isn't whether there will be significant roster turnover by 2017, or whether there will be cap space in reserve at the start of that season.

The question is whether the 20+ guys added in the interim will be able to replace the FA losses. Like I said, the problem could be resolved with very good drafts in 2016 and 2017. Anything like 2011 and 2012 would be a big problem.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Guion is one of the best bargains on the team imo.

I think peppers still would be worth resigning after this year, unless his production falls off.... But. Replacing his roughly 10 mil salary with a "part time" job offer, that will extend his career and still give us a fresh peppers to rotate in... That idea could fill a big hole at a bargain price...

I think its already a done deal that the guards will be replaced... And bahk too if he thinks he is worth starting lt $$$. He is a project player who has had a bumpy few years. I think he will continue to develope. And by the end of this extension he will probabally get, he will be starting to get paid accordingly... But now?!?!?!? Heck no imo. He is a liability in the run game. And TOO OFTEN gets bull rushed right into rodgers lap... I will lose my mind if he makes over 5/yr...3 or 4 tops imo.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

With best guesses at $35-40M to start with, there are always options. They could keep both Sitton and Lang. It'll be a matter of prioritizing, and what they're willing to do.

The Packers will have approximately $40 million in cap space available to sign 24 players, the practice squad and saving for replacement players for guys being put on IR.

The top three picks from each of the drafts will account for approximately $7 million of cap space, the practice squad for another one and Thompson would be wise to save at least $3 million for replacement players. Filling out the bottom of the roster with rookies playing for the minimum would add another $8.37 million towards the cap.

That means the Packers will only have a bit more than $20 million to actually work with. Taking a look at next year's free agents that's not a lot of money.

Sitton, Peppers I do each for 3 year $20m extension turning this years salary into a SB for the extension. Vet min one year cuts both cap hits in half for this season. $7-10 m cap hit for next two seasons based on salary structure. Relatively the same as this season would be without the new contracts.

There's absolutely no reason to offer Peppers a three-year deal at this point.

Regarding the Sitton-Lang upcoming FA, I wonder if the Packers would go after Cody Whitehair if he was available in the 2nd round, or perhaps trade up for him?

I actually saw a mock or two with us taking him in the 1st round, but that would be silly IMO.

Vadal Alexander is also a 2nd round option.

The team has more pressing needs to address the offensive line that early in the draft.

I think its already a done deal that the guards will be replaced... And bahk too if he thinks he is worth starting lt $$$. He is a project player who has had a bumpy few years. I think he will continue to develope. And by the end of this extension he will probabally get, he will be starting to get paid accordingly... But now?!?!?!? Heck no imo. He is a liability in the run game. And TOO OFTEN gets bull rushed right into rodgers lap... I will lose my mind if he makes over 5/yr...3 or 4 tops imo.

Bakhtiari will for sure get more than $5 million per season.

 

[Poppa San]

There's absolutely no reason to offer Peppers a three-year deal at this point.

Agree it probably won't happen. Is a way to kick the salary cap down the road though.

The team has more pressing needs to address the offensive line that early in the draft.

agree. MM and TT feel they can develop picks from the lower end of the draft to be sufficient for their plan.

Bakhtiari will for sure get more than $5 million per season.

Expect at least Bulaga money if not a lot more. He IS a starting NFL LT. Pay the position if not the guy. I expect pages of posts next off season saying how someone overpaid for him.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Agree it probably won't happen. Is a way to kick the salary cap down the road though.

I would be fine with doing it with Sitton.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Re: Bakhtiari

If one were to assume he'd be paid as an average starting LT, you could figure on $7.5 mil / yr. under the current cap. Maybe $8 mil by next season.

Take a look at the #16 and #17 contracts in the following link, which would represent the midpoint of starting LT contracts: they're at $7.4 and $7.5 mil.

http://overthecap.com/position/left-tackle/

 

[Mondio]

I know he's a starting LT, but if his level of production stays the same, I'd be happy to let him walk at 8 million per year and start over. We've played with less out there and it seems when our coaching staff knows we're going with less out there, they adjust the offense to cover for it. When we get into trouble is when they think a guy like Barclay can step in without missing a beat and he can't. He needs help. It limits our offense, no doubt, but an 8 million dollar a year tackle for 3-4 million dollar a year production will hurt your roster.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I know he's a starting LT, but if his level of production stays the same, I'd be happy to let him walk at 8 million per year and start over. We've played with less out there and it seems when our coaching staff knows we're going with less out there, they adjust the offense to cover for it. When we get into trouble is when they think a guy like Barclay can step in without missing a beat and he can't. He needs help. It limits our offense, no doubt, but an 8 million dollar a year tackle for 3-4 million dollar a year production will hurt your roster.

The Packers allowed a total of 14 sacks in two games (7 on average) Bakhtiari wasn't able to play. They allowed 33 in 14 games (2.36 on average) with him starting. He's above average in protecting Rodgers, which is the most important thing for a starting left tackle with the Packers.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I know he's a starting LT, but if his level of production stays the same, I'd be happy to let him walk at 8 million per year and start over. We've played with less out there and it seems when our coaching staff knows we're going with less out there, they adjust the offense to cover for it. When we get into trouble is when they think a guy like Barclay can step in without missing a beat and he can't. He needs help. It limits our offense, no doubt, but an 8 million dollar a year tackle for 3-4 million dollar a year production will hurt your roster.

Well, then add him to your no-sign list.