Salary cap thread 2016

[Wynnebeck]

Anything TT signs now will be vet min or so structured that it benefits the Packers. Ball and TT are going to want as much cap as possible for next year's FA class.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not a lot of money, but if Tim Masthay is cut (please) and the Packers replace him with a rookie, they will save $1.3 M (less what they have to pay a rookie to take his place)

 

[HardRightEdge]

Not a lot of money, but if Tim Masthay is cut (please) and the Packers replace him with a rookie, they will save $1.3 M (less what they have to pay a rookie to take his place)

Thanks for the kind words, by the way.

Everybody, other than perhaps the front office, thinks the punter position could stand an upgrade. If the replacement was a day 3 pick or UDFA, he'd be at the rookie minimum, which is $450,000, so he'd yield an $850,000 cap savings.

That's not chump change, but it's not a game changer either...more an "every bit helps" situation as the cap space has grown tight.

I think it's telling that Masthy is the lead candidate for generating cap savings.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think it's telling that Masthy is the lead candidate for generating cap savings.

Well they could cut Sitton and clear $6,850,000 or Lang and save $5,081,250, but I don't see that happening

 

[HardRightEdge]

Well they could cut Sitton and clear $6,850,000 or Lang and save $5,081,250, but I don't see that happening

As a matter of fact, I suggested (tongue in cheek) a couple of weeks ago that maybe Thompson will jump the gun and trade Sitton for a draft pick. The Pats like rent-a-players (which Sitton would be with one year left on his deal), and their O-Line was trashed last season with injuries. Then Tretter takes LG, or Lang goes to LG and Taylor goes to RG, or the 3rd. pick really takes off.

Of course this is risky; 2016 is looking to have better odds to make a run than 2017, and it goes counter to everything we know about Thompson.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

As a matter of fact, I suggested (tongue in cheek) a couple of weeks ago that maybe Thompson will jump the gun and trade Sitton for a draft pick. The Pats like rent-a-players (which Sitton would be with one year left on his deal), and their O-Line was trashed last season with injuries. Then Tretter takes LG, or Lang goes to LG and Taylor goes to RG, or the 3rd. pick really takes off.

Of course this is risky; 2016 is looking to have better odds to make a run than 2017, and it goes counter to everything we know about Thompson.

After I posted that, my mind was thinking the same way. If we know we can't sign both Guards, do you roll the dice and as you said, trade one now and take your chance with what we have or a rookie? Lose his big 2016 cap hit and actually get a higher then compensatory pick for him. Now if we knew which one is going to get hurt (you know one will, LOL) and won't be sign-able for 2017, we would look like geniuses with that kind of move

 

[tynimiller]

As a matter of fact, I suggested (tongue in cheek) a couple of weeks ago that maybe Thompson will jump the gun and trade Sitton for a draft pick. The Pats like rent-a-players (which Sitton would be with one year left on his deal), and their O-Line was trashed last season with injuries. Then Tretter takes LG, or Lang goes to LG and Taylor goes to RG, or the 3rd. pick really takes off.

Of course this is risky; 2016 is looking to have better odds to make a run than 2017, and it goes counter to everything we know about Thompson.

I would be worried but I would 100% completely understand the logic behind a move like this...and would be impressed by the thought....the pick we get could make him look like a genius as well.

 

[tynimiller]

I'd love to get Vic's opinion on that scenario...be entertaining I bet.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

OK...meeting is over.....HRE or Tyn......which one of you wants to report back to TT?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Problem is, the first time either Lang or Sittons replacement got rolled over, we would be packing our bags and being forced to live in Minnesota or Jacksonville.

 

[tynimiller]

Problem is, the first time either Lang or Sittons replacement got rolled over, we would be packing our bags and being forced to live in Minnesota or Jacksonville.

I hear Jacksonville is actually pretty nice......and Minnesota has awesome fishing and above average hunting....I'll go be the one to talk to TT.

(I wouldn't be the one jumping against the replacement right away...game or 2 then sure.)

 

[HardRightEdge]

OK...meeting is over.....HRE or Tyn......which one of you wants to report back to TT?

I'll leave that to Eliot Wolf. He might be the only guy who's opinion he might internalize.

 

[HardRightEdge]

(I wouldn't be the one jumping against the replacement right away...game or 2 then sure.)

Belichick is not averse to making in-season trades.

 

[HardRightEdge]

After I posted that, my mind was thinking the same way. If we know we can't sign both Guards, do you roll the dice and as you said, trade one now and take your chance with what we have or a rookie? Lose his big 2016 cap hit and actually get a higher then compensatory pick for him. Now if we knew which one is going to get hurt (you know one will, LOL) and won't be sign-able for 2017, we would look like geniuses with that kind of move

Well, Sitton's a year older and he's struggled with injuries the last 2 years. I think it was his back in 2014; I forget what was nagging on him in 2015. I actually think Lang outplayed him last year after a couple of early season gaffs.

 

[HardRightEdge]

After I posted that, my mind was thinking the same way. If we know we can't sign both Guards, do you roll the dice and as you said, trade one now and take your chance with what we have or a rookie? Lose his big 2016 cap hit and actually get a higher then compensatory pick for him. Now if we knew which one is going to get hurt (you know one will, LOL) and won't be sign-able for 2017, we would look like geniuses with that kind of move

Given his age and the fact he's only got one year left on the contract, I'm not sure you'd get more than a 3rd. rounder in trade, the best case with the compensatory pick. But you'd get that pick a year earlier and you get the cap savings for rollover to 2017.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Well, Sitton's a year older and he's struggled with injuries the last 2 years. I think it was his back in 2014; I forget what was nagging on him in 2015. I actually think Lang outplayed him last year after a couple of early season gaffs.

I think Sitton has an ongoing Toe injury. Torn ligaments, that he just keeps trying to play through. I give him kudos for playing through it, but have to wonder if it effects his play at times?

 

[PackerDNA]

I think they'll just step back and let the whole Sitton/Lang situation take care of itself. Both are at the 30 mark in age, both with a lot of wear and tear on them. How well they play , how beat up or healthy they get through the season; I'd look for mid December until the team really starts leaning towards decisions on either one.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

3) Often overlooked is the fact that guys on IR and PUP count against the cap. Replacing those guys requires cap space. If, for example, 4 guys go to IR before the start of the season and you replaced them with minimum salary rookies, the additional cap cost would be about $2 mil. Then, lets say, 4 guys go to IR during the season averaging 8 missed games apiece. Rookie minimum replacements off the PS would earn 1/2 the minimum for 8 games apiece on the roster. That's an additional $1 mil.

If pressed against the cap starting off, the only way to remedy the IR situation in this example is to cut a vet or vets to get to an aggregate $3 mil in cap savings. There are no likely candidates on the Packers.

By my count, in 2015 the Packers lost 80 regular season player-games to IR, or the equivalent of 5 full season roster spots. That was a low injury year.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/2015_injuries.htm

In 2014, I come up with 139 regular season player-game lost to IR, the equivalent of nearly 9 full season roster spots That's closer to the high end.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/2014_injuries.htm

2010 may have been the high water mark for games lost. I come up with 143 regular season player-games lost to IR/PUP, again about the equivalent of 9 full season roster spots.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/2010_injuries.htm

So, how much cap should be held in reserve for IR replacements? The prudent thing to do is to cover the worst case scenario from recent history, i.e., enough to cover 9 player-season replacements with minimum salary rookie deals, or about $4.5 mil. If you're fortunate to replace only 5 instead of 9 full-season equivalents, you can carry over the $2 million balance to 2017.

Using that $4.5 mil, the remaining usable cap space is $3.5 mil.

One thing to remember is that the Packers roster currently includes 11 players with per-game active roster bonuses. If one of them has to be placed on injured reserve a replacement player won´t result in any or significant additional cap hit.

As a matter of fact, I suggested (tongue in cheek) a couple of weeks ago that maybe Thompson will jump the gun and trade Sitton for a draft pick. The Pats like rent-a-players (which Sitton would be with one year left on his deal), and their O-Line was trashed last season with injuries. Then Tretter takes LG, or Lang goes to LG and Taylor goes to RG, or the 3rd. pick really takes off.

Of course this is risky; 2016 is looking to have better odds to make a run than 2017, and it goes counter to everything we know about Thompson.

It would for sure be a risky move to trade either Sitton or Lang before this season and I don´t see it happening. FWIW the Patriots currently don´t have the cap space to pull off a move like that.

 

[HardRightEdge]

One thing to remember is that the Packers roster currently includes 11 players with per-game active roster bonuses. If one of them has to be placed on injured reserve a replacement player won´t result in any or significant additional cap hit.

That's a valid point, but it's impact is only at the margins and doesn't alter my calculations. rotoworld.com does indeed show 11 players with per game roster bonuses:

Bulaga: $550,000
Burnett: $300,000
Cobb: $500,00
Crosby: $100,000
Guion: $800,000
Matthews: $500,000
Nelson:$500,000
Perry: $1,ooo,000
Rodgers: $800,000
Shields: $500,000
Starks: $300,000

Those 11 average $550,000, which approximates a 1st. or 2nd. year minimum salary replacement for each of those players.

However, those 11 comprise only about 20% of the 53 man roster. Since these guys, on balance, are high snap guys, one might be inclined to consider them more likely to be injured. History does not bear that out. While the 2010 IR list includes a lot of starters, the 2014 and 2015 lists do not bear out the argument. These are the kinds of guys where Thompson might be inclined to look for a vet street FA that represents a more pricy replacement, specifically if there are other injuries at the position making it particularly thin. Howard Green in 2010 and Matt Flynn in 2013 come to mind. There may have been others.

My $5 mil number was predicated on rookie minimum salary replacements, thereby a conservative estimate. On that basis I suppose one could drop my $5 mil IR reserve by 20% to $4 mil. A street FA or two could take the replacement cost right back up again to the $5 mil number.

If memory serves, Thompson has entered each season with at least $5 mil in cap space since carryover was instituted with the 2011-to-2012. There's a reason for that.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I would be worried but I would 100% completely understand the logic behind a move like this...and would be impressed by the thought....the pick we get could make him look like a genius as well.

Not sure how intelligent that move would look when Rodgers is getting pressured up the middle on a consistent basis. Packers get to play against what should be a very good Giants dline this year, JJ Watt and the Seahawks not to mention a good Vikings defense twice and, probably most importantly, the Packers probably need to be able to beat either the Panthers or Cardinals to reach the Super Bowl and those two teams feature VERY good interior pass rushers.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That's a valid point, but it's impact is only at the margins and doesn't alter my calculations. rotoworld.com does indeed show 11 players with per game roster bonuses:

Bulaga: $550,000
Burnett: $300,000
Cobb: $500,00
Crosby: $100,000
Guion: $800,000
Matthews: $500,000
Nelson:$500,000
Perry: $1,ooo,000
Rodgers: $800,000
Shields: $500,000
Starks: $300,000

Those 11 average $550,000, which approximates a 1st. or 2nd. year minimum salary replacement for each of those players.

However, those 11 comprise only about 20% of the 53 man roster. Since these guys, on balance, are high snap guys, one might be inclined to consider them more likely to be injured. History does not bear that out. While the 2010 IR list includes a lot of starters, the 2014 and 2015 lists do not bear out the argument. These are the kinds of guys where Thompson might be inclined to look for a vet street FA that represents a more pricy replacement, specifically if there are other injuries at the position making it particularly thin. Howard Green in 2010 and Matt Flynn in 2013 come to mind. There may have been others.

My $5 mil number was predicated on rookie minimum salary replacements, thereby a conservative estimate. On that basis I suppose one could drop my $5 mil IR reserve by 20% to $4 mil. A street FA or two could take the replacement cost right back up again to the $5 mil number.

If memory serves, Thompson has entered each season with at least $5 mil in cap space since carryover was instituted with the 2011-to-2012. There's a reason for that.

I agree that teams need to save some cap space for guys replacing players being put on injured reserve, I just wanted to point out that per-game active roster bonuses make a difference, albeit a small one.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not sure how intelligent that move would look when Rodgers is getting pressured up the middle on a consistent basis. Packers get to play against what should be a very good Giants dline this year, JJ Watt and the Seahawks not to mention a good Vikings defense twice and, probably most importantly, the Packers probably need to be able to beat either the Panthers or Cardinals to reach the Super Bowl and those two teams feature VERY good interior pass rushers.

It would only make sense if the coaching staff feels absolutely comfortable with Lane Taylor or a draft pick capable of being a decent starter.

 

[tynimiller]

Not sure how intelligent that move would look when Rodgers is getting pressured up the middle on a consistent basis. Packers get to play against what should be a very good Giants dline this year, JJ Watt and the Seahawks not to mention a good Vikings defense twice and, probably most importantly, the Packers probably need to be able to beat either the Panthers or Cardinals to reach the Super Bowl and those two teams feature VERY good interior pass rushers.

It would make great sense moving forward as an organization if TT and coaches feel Tretter or Taylor or "x" is the future at the position....be better to replace one this year and the other next year than both guard positions at once. Again though it would be a gamble in a sense too...one which would have to be weighed on pretty heavily before doing.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think HRE, Tyn and myself were simply playfully brainstorming of creative Cap moves. Personally, I expect both Sitton and Lang playing for the Packers in 2016. But as Captain pointed out, if they had a guard capable of sliding into the starting role this year, I could see the logic of trading either Sitton or Lang now, saving a lot of cap space and getting value for their eventual departure next season, when we probably will not be able to afford both of them.

 

[PikeBadger]

I think HRE, Tyn and myself were simply playfully brainstorming of creative Cap moves. Personally, I expect both Sitton and Lang playing for the Packers in 2016. But as Captain pointed out, if they had a guard capable of sliding into the starting role this year, I could see the logic of trading either Sitton or Lang now, saving a lot of cap space and getting value for their eventual departure next season, when we probably will not be able to afford both of them.

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.