1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Help: Packer's cap space left - two different values...

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by all about da packers, Apr 12, 2007.

  1. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    THIS CAP WEBSITE lists the Packers as having 14 million cap space left(AFTER we get our rookies signed)


    That's odd, I worked out the cap space left over right after the Barnett deal, and got a figure of almost 10 million in cap space left (minus the rookie signings that are yet to come).

    I certainly don't mind 14 million, but I'm wondering why is there such a difference between my calculated amount and the one listed at the link LT provided.

    I went step by step, and I don't think I did anything wrong...


    Packers had 21.7 million in cap space at the beginning of the off-season. (According to this website)

    - Frank Walker cost us 1.24 million (according to the JSOnline article about his signing).

    - Jenkins got a 4 year 16 million dollar deal, which works out to 4 million on average per year. The CAP website that is linked at the very top lists the cap charge at 3.76 million.

    - Barnett's deal pays out 12 million in the first year, and I had calculated it as a 6 million dollar cap charge. The JSonline lists the cap charge at just over 7 million in the first year, and if you factor in Barnett was due about 1.5 million this year, and got 7.225 million cap charge, the net increase in the cap charge is about 5.725 million.

    SO: 1.24 million (Walker) + 3.76 million (Jenkins) + 5.725 million (Barnett) = 10.7 million dollars cap charge for the 3 players.

    21.7 - 10.725 = 10.975 (Approx.) IN CAP SPACE LEFTOVER WITHOUT ANY ROOKIE POOL ALLOCATION.

    Even if you add 3 million as an estimated amount for the cap like the website did (I had a different estimate, about 4.3 million is more realistic IMO), the Packers have only 7.975 left over in cap space.

    Basically I get a difference of about 6 million when I compare my value against the websites... so which is accurate?

    Am I missing something, or adding a contract I shouldn't be?
     
  2. Lare

    Lare Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    705
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think one thing that may be affecting your numbers is the fact that Jenkins signed his deal before the start of free agency (Feb. 26th), and the cap page you're referencing is listing the Packers amount as of March 2. So that should be the correct amount after deducting Jenkins and Harris new cap amounts at the start of free agency, not the start of the offseason.

    Don't know where, but I read somewhere that the Packers now have around $14-15 million in cap space yet before signing their rookies.
     
  3. CaliforniaCheez

    CaliforniaCheez Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    The draft picks will have a rookie cap of 4.5 to 5 million.

    Also they got Barnett's signing bonus incorrect. It is prorated at 850K a year. He counts about about 7.2 million this year which is roughly an additional 5 million this season.

    There is over 7 million left and the team will want to keep 1.5-2 million as just in case money for injuries.

    So Cory Williams will take up some of that on his deal if and when done. and there will be possibly Taylor and perhaps a few unknowns out there.

    The Packers are in good shape. What else would you want to spend it on?
    Cutting players like Barry, Ferguson, and Manuel? That gains money.
     
  4. CaliforniaCheez

    CaliforniaCheez Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    Also Hawk got a huge roster bonus that is not reflected in the web site you cited. That roster bonus has to be part of this year's cap so as to not violate the rookie cap.
     
  5. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    Awesome stuff Lare, that is the reason.

    Taking that into account, Packers have 14.735 million in space left, so that seems to be the right amount.

    Thanks man! :thumbsup:
     
  6. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    Last year, Philly had 8 picks in the draft, and picked #14.

    They had a rookie pool allocation of just over 4.3 million. Taking inflation into account, 4.5 seems to be a very reasonable number (also add in the fact that TT likes to pick up extra picks, so we may end up with 9-10 players).

    As for Hawk, the roster bonus will be spread evenly over the remainder of the contract, so it shouldn't effect the overall cap charge by a huge amount (maybe 1-1.5 million extra charge all subsequent years).
     
  7. retiredgrampa

    retiredgrampa Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2005
    Messages:
    804
    Ratings:
    +0
    Good figuring, AADP! But subsequent posts now have me confused as ever. Suffice it to say we have sufficient cap dollars to see us comfortably through the year but perhaps not enough to sign somebody in a trade to BIG bucks. But I doubt that THAT would be TT'S style.
     
  8. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hey retiredgrampa, thanks! :)

    Lare was correct though, Packers are between 14-15 million dollars under the cap.

    That leaves enough money for a big acquisition (IE Randy Moss).
     
  9. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    17,826
    Ratings:
    +3,477
    I take it the link I have provided is pretty close???

    I really trust the guy that does that, he really does seem to know what he is talking about..
     
  10. retiredgrampa

    retiredgrampa Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2005
    Messages:
    804
    Ratings:
    +0
    The cap # of 14-15mil sounds great to me. Early on, a bunch of teams had MORE to spend than the Packers, around 10 or so. I haven't heard whether these teams have spent down significantly or not. I'm only interested because if a big deal was in the future (around draft time) I wonder how many teams could compete with us for the deal. Of course, my hope is that all of them blew their wads and they now must stand idly by while TT reaps the harvest. How's that for wishful thinking? Anyhow, I appreciate you fellas putting your info out there for the rest of us.
     
  11. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yup LT he is almost dead on. He seemed to really put effort into that site and that is why I questioned why my figure was so off. Turns out I was counting Jenkins signing as happening after Free Agency started, when in fact he signed before FA got started.

    I was kinda getting my hopes down because I didn't see how we could fit Moss with that low of a cap, but no worries we've still got plenty of room. :D
     
  12. PackerLegend

    PackerLegend Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,947
    Ratings:
    +0
    KGB 3rd highest cap number? what a joke he needs to be traded or rework his contract
     

Share This Page