View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently April 20th, 2014, 2:14 am



Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
 Salary Cap Update 
Author Message
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2005, 7:03 am
Posts: 7411
Location: Ford Field - 35 yard line / Row 32
Post Salary Cap Update
For those interested here's the latest on salary caps for the league; although I'm not convinced they are entirely accurate. The Lions # sounds a little high to me but I could be wrong.




Quote:
Below is the amount of money each team is under the $85.5 million salary cap for 2005 as of April 29.

TEAM-BY-TEAM SALARY CAP UPDATE
Arizona Cardinals $9.85 million
Atlanta Falcons $924,000
Baltimore Ravens $5.99 million
Buffalo Bills $1.02 million
Carolina Panthers $2.195 million
Chicago Bears $5.5 million
Cincinnati Bengals $4.796 million
Cleveland Browns $7.86 million
Dallas Cowboys $9.35 million
Denver Broncos $2.35 million
Detroit Lions $3.48 million
Green Bay Packers $4.66 million
Houston Texans $8.38 million
Indianapolis Colts $6.3 million
Jacksonville Jaguars $6.3 million
Kansas City Chiefs $900,000
Miami Dolphins $6.6 million
Minnesota Vikings $10.7 million
New England Patriots $1.96 million
New Orleans Saints $1.68 million
New York Giants $2 million
New York Jets $1.1 million
Oakland Raiders $137,000
Philadelphia Eagles $9.23 million
Pittsburgh Steelers $2.09 million
St. Louis Rams $4.42 million
San Diego Chargers $7.27 million
San Francisco 49ers $4.3 million
Seattle Seahawks $196,000
Tampa Bay Buccaneers $1.3 million
Tennessee Titans $2.09 million
Washington Redskins $1.26 million


John Clayton is a senior NFL writer for ESPN.com.



http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/s ... id=2004973



It sucks to be Oakland!


May 3rd, 2005, 7:53 am
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9764
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
Wow. I count 17 teams (including the Lions) that don't have enough money there to sign their rookies once they start agreeing to terms. June 1st cuts could become a little more interesting than in the past.

Who will the Lions have to cut?

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


May 3rd, 2005, 8:55 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2005, 7:03 am
Posts: 7411
Location: Ford Field - 35 yard line / Row 32
Post 
m2karateman wrote:
Wow. I count 17 teams (including the Lions) that don't have enough money there to sign their rookies once they start agreeing to terms. June 1st cuts could become a little more interesting than in the past.

Who will the Lions have to cut?



The rookie cap is a separate cap altogether. The rookies drafted this year won't be included in the regular cap until next year.


May 3rd, 2005, 10:26 am
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9764
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
LionFan57 wrote:
The rookie cap is a separate cap altogether. The rookies drafted this year won't be included in the regular cap until next year.


I beg to differ. The rookie cap is a part of the overall team salary cap and is defined by the number of picks a team has and where in the draft those picks fall. The NFL sets different rookie caps for each team based on that formula. The teams then must write the contracts for those picks so that the first year salary plus their ammortized signing bonus figure falls under the rookie cap number when all picks are added.

Basically, if the rookie cap given to the Lions this year is a figure of $4.5 million, then the Lions have $81 million to assign to their other players and the rookies contracts must fall under the rookie cap. Those two amounts total the overall salary cap for 2005 of $85.5 million.

The top 51 salaries are used, plus practice squad contracts. If only 53 players can be signed and kept on the roster, that includes the rookies, right?

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


May 3rd, 2005, 12:40 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9252
Location: Dallas
Post 
Mike, you are correct. The rookie cap is a cap within the overall salary cap for each team. It is not a seperate figure. Rookies do count towards the 53-man roster in terms of the cap as well.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


May 3rd, 2005, 1:07 pm
Profile WWW
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman

Joined: March 22nd, 2005, 8:42 pm
Posts: 3811
Post 
The one caveat here is that only the top 53(?) contracts are counted. So effectively I think picks 1-3 count, but not the rest.

_________________
Far and away from the sound and the fury. . .


May 3rd, 2005, 10:05 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9764
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
Yorick wrote:
The one caveat here is that only the top 53(?) contracts are counted. So effectively I think picks 1-3 count, but not the rest.


The top 51 contracts are counted towards the salary cap. It doesn't matter whose contracts they are, rookie or veteran.

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


May 3rd, 2005, 10:10 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman

Joined: March 22nd, 2005, 8:42 pm
Posts: 3811
Post 
Isn't that (51) the final roster size too, minus practice squad? So basically the rule gives you protection on IR players. Of course, the lions do not have any of those yet. So rookies making the team would count towards the cap.

_________________
Far and away from the sound and the fury. . .


May 3rd, 2005, 10:15 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2005, 7:03 am
Posts: 7411
Location: Ford Field - 35 yard line / Row 32
Post 
I stand corrected. I always understood it to be a separate cap. In any event our rookie cap number is 3.6 Mill and shouldn't represent to big a problem for us. This just popped up on ESPN this morning.



Quote:
They chose early and they chose often and so it is only fitting, it seems, that the San Francisco 49ers would have the highest rookie pool allocation for 2005.


Rookie money
Team - Picks - Rookie pool
San Francisco - 11 - $6,168,320
Tampa Bay - 12 - $6,037,440
Tennessee - 11 - $5,701,590
Cleveland - 8 - $5,182,820
Minnesota - 7 - $5,130,880
Dallas - 8 - $4,915,540
Philadelphia - 11 - $4,696,310
Miami - 6 - $4,613,120
St. Louis - 11 - $4,604,330
Green Bay - 11 - $4,483,150
Carolina - 10 - $4,443,290
Chicago - 6 - $4,297,580
Arizona - 7 - $4,274,600
San Diego - 7 - $4,207,770
Washington - 6 - $4,037,660
Indianapolis - 10 - $3,955,360
Seattle - 9 - $3,904,140
Kansas City - 9 - $3,695,300
Detroit - 6 - $3,641,080
New Orleans - 7 - $3,606,940
Jacksonville - 8 - $3,554,350
Oakland - 7 - $3,482,560
Cincinnati - 7 - $3,461,880
Atlanta - 8 - $3,376,980
Pittsburgh - 8 - $3,329,560
Baltimore - 7 - $3,326,380
New England - 7 - $2,962,900
N.Y. Jets - 8 - $2,921,690
Houston - 6 - $2,876,710
Denver - 6 - $2,232,750
Buffalo - 6 - $2,109,800
N.Y. Giants - 4 - $1,688,850


With the league's second-largest draft class, an 11-player bounty that includes top overall selection Alex Smith, the standout Utah quarterback, San Francisco has been awarded an NFL-high rookie pool of $6.168 million, according to documents obtained by ESPN.com through league sources.

San Francisco's allocation is more than 55 percent higher than the leaguewide average.

The rookie pool is, essentially, a cap within a cap. It represents the maximum amount that a team can spend, in terms of salary-cap room, on its draft choices and undrafted rookies. A franchise's rookie allocation is part of, not in addition to, its overall spending limit.

The formula for deriving each team's rookie pool is regarded as Byzantine even by the most astute team officials and is basically a function of how many choices are exercised by a team and where those selections are slotted in a given round.

It is hardy surprising, then, that the 49ers would be awarded the highest pool. Only one team, Tampa Bay, with 12, made more choices. And San Francisco made the initial pick in five of the seven rounds, including in four of the first five stanzas. That included, of course, the selection of Smith to lead off the lottery. The 49ers had at least one choice in all but the fourth round and multiple picks in three rounds.

While the San Francisco rookie allocation is one of the largest in league history, Tampa Bay was not far behind, with a pool award of $6.037 million. Like the 49ers, the Bucs had a high first-round choice, selecting Auburn tailback Carnell "Cadillac" Williams with the fifth pick overall, along with a surplus of draft slots. Tampa Bay had at least one pick in every round and multiple choices in three stanzas.

In all, there were eight teams which exercised 10 or more choices each and, reflective of that, all eight ranked among the top half of the league in rookie allocations. All four of the teams that had two choices in the first round were in the top half of the league and two of those franchises, Minnesota and Dallas, were among the six highest awards.

Conversely, there were four teams that made picks among the top 10 of the first round -- Chicago, Arizona, Washington and Detroit -- but who did not receive top 10 allocations. The Lions, for instance, had the 10th overall choice in the draft but only the 19th highest rookie allocation.

The New York Giants, with a league-low four choices and no first-round selection, also had the lowest rookie pool, at $1.688 million. The three teams with the lowest rookie pools, and four of the bottom five clubs, are all franchises that did not have a first-round selection this year.

The '05 rookie pool totals $126.92 million, an average of about $3.966 million per team. There are 15 clubs with allocations higher than the league average. The pool represents a five-percent increase over the 2004 rookie limit of $120.76 million. That is significant, since last year's rookie total showed a bump of only two percent from the previous one. Five teams received rookie allocations of $5 million or more this year, an increase of two over 2004. Those five franchises account for $28.2 million in rookie pool funds, or roughly 22 percent of the leaguewide allocation.

Len Pasquarelli is a senior writer for ESPN.com.





http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/s ... id=2052412


May 4th, 2005, 5:13 am
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9764
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
Yorick wrote:
Isn't that (51) the final roster size too, minus practice squad? So basically the rule gives you protection on IR players. Of course, the lions do not have any of those yet. So rookies making the team would count towards the cap.


Teams can carry up to 53 players on their roster. That number does not include players placed on the Injured Reserved list or the Physically Unable to Perform list. Players that get injured but aren't placed on the IR continue to be a part of the active roster. Teams are allowed to have only 47 players active for the games, plus the third string QB who can only come in if the first and second string QBs get injured.

The Lions usually carry 51 players on their roster at the beginning of the season so that in case of an injury they can sign a free agent to fill that players position without having to cut someone else. It would also allow them to keep the injured player off IR until they are sure that player isn't coming back, like Bailey last year.

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


May 4th, 2005, 6:34 am
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman

Joined: March 22nd, 2005, 8:42 pm
Posts: 3811
Post 
Thanks!

_________________
Far and away from the sound and the fury. . .


May 4th, 2005, 7:25 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2005, 7:03 am
Posts: 7411
Location: Ford Field - 35 yard line / Row 32
Post 
m2karateman wrote:
...The Lions usually carry 51 players on their roster at the beginning of the season so that in case of an injury they can sign a free agent to fill that players position without having to cut someone else...



Are you sure of this? I don't ever remember this happening. I always thought they had the full 53 plus practice squad.


May 4th, 2005, 10:26 am
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9764
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
LionFan57 wrote:
m2karateman wrote:
...The Lions usually carry 51 players on their roster at the beginning of the season so that in case of an injury they can sign a free agent to fill that players position without having to cut someone else...


Are you sure of this? I don't ever remember this happening. I always thought they had the full 53 plus practice squad.


Last year the Lions started the season with 51 players on their roster, plus the PS. They were carrying the following:

QB-3 (Joey, McMike, Mirer)

RB-3 (KJ, Bryson, Pinner)

FB-2 (Sledge, Smith)
Smith put on IR, Belton from PS, then Trejo re-signed

TE-3 (Alexander, Fitz, Owens)
Owens cut mid-season-not replaced

WR-5 (CRog, Legend, Tai, Az, Eddie)
CRog put on IR, Kircus from PS, Reggie re-signed, Vines from PS when Drummond went on IR

OL-8 (Backus, VRog, Butler, Joyce, McDougle, Woody, Raiola, Loverne)
Hopson re-signed when Loverne got hurt

DL-9 (Porcher, Edwards, Devries, Redding, Hall, Big D, Big B, Kelvin, Bell)
Porcher retired late in season

LB-8 (Bailey, Lehman, Holmes, Dirty, Lewis, Rainer, Curry, Littleton[LS])
Bailey not put on IR until late in season, Mulbach signed to LS when Littleton went on IR

CB-5 (Bly, Bryant, Cash, Goodman, Smith)

S-3 (Walker, Marion, Holt)
Brian W on IR and Fox had not been signed yet.

K/P-2 (Hanson, Harris)

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


May 4th, 2005, 12:15 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 13 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.