cap number

[cadams]

anyone have a clue on where the texans are sitting as far as the cap number goes right now? (before any cuts)

[WMH]

Originally Posted by cadams

anyone have a clue on where the texans are sitting as far as the cap number goes right now? (before any cuts)

Funny, I was just fixing to post this.....

Just saw on espn.com this morning via Clayton.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/67...cap-casualties

Cap situations*
Team Status
Arizona $37.3 million under
Atlanta $13.9 million under
Baltimore $5.33 million under
Buffalo $35.9 million under
Carolina $30.6 million under
Chicago $37. million under
Cincinnati $35.9 million under
Cleveland $33.3 million under
Dallas $18.9 million over
Denver $1 million under
Detroit $16.6 million under
Green Bay $62,600 under
Houston $7.6 million under
Indianapolis $2.7 million over
Jacksonville $31.4 million under
Kansas City $34.3 million under
Miami $13.6 million under
Minnesota $5.1 million over
New England $7.57 million under
New Orleans $11.7 million under
N.Y. Giants $11.3 million over
N.Y. Jets $1.2 million over
Oakland $10 million over
Philadelphia $13 million under
Pittsburgh $10 million over
San Diego $19.4 million under
San Francisco $18.9 million under
Seattle $39 million under
St. Louis $35.6 million under
Tampa Bay $59.2 million under
Tennessee $10.3 million under
Washington $10.6 million under
*Does not include restricted free-agent tenders.

Its going to be a wild two weeks coming, so who knows what is going to happen with cuts, restructures, and such. Also, I believe they have a certain date that they have to be at or under the cap figure, so they will continue to monkey around with it for the next couple of months.

[nunusguy]

Wow, to be a FA this year who the Bucs were targeting !

[painekiller]

Also interesting is the Colts, they are over and they have not signed Peyton yet. This might get interesting.

[WMH]

Saw this from a CBA excerpt from PFT.com
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...l/#more-141226

"2011 salary cap flexibility: Even though the salary cap was ostensibly scaled back, teams were given two avenues to make it easier to retain high priced veterans this year. Teams can “borrow” $3 million against future salary caps to pay for veterans. They can also use another $3.5 million in what would otherwise be performance-based pay to use for veterans.

So the cap really isn’t $120.375 million. It’s basically $126.88 if teams want it to be. An extra $6.5 million won’t save guys that truly deserve to get cut, but it will make life easier for teams near the cap limit."

[painekiller]

Originally Posted by WMH

Teams can “borrow” $3 million against future salary caps to pay for veterans. They can also use another $3.5 million in what would otherwise be performance-based pay to use for veterans.

Just remember this is not congress, when you borrow the $3MM you will have to pay it back, meaning in a latter year you will have to lower your cap by $3MM. So borrowing from the cap for a team like the Ravens who are getting older might make sense, but for a team that appears to be on the rise that would not appear to be the smart move.

[NBT]

Originally Posted by painekiller

Also interesting is the Colts, they are over and they have not signed Peyton yet. This might get interesting.

......And Peyton is not recovered from the disc problem operation he had May 23rd. Word is he will not be able to practive, or play in pre-season, much less the first game of the real season. Too bad!!

[painekiller]

Originally Posted by NBT

......And Peyton is not recovered from the disc problem operation he had May 23rd. Word is he will not be able to practive, or play in pre-season, much less the first game of the real season. Too bad!!

I know, right!!!!

[cadams]

Originally Posted by painekiller

Also interesting is the Colts, they are over and they have not signed Peyton yet. This might get interesting.

they franchised him before the lockout (23+ million cap number), so that may already be added in, but i am just guessing on that one.

[WMH]

Originally Posted by cadams

they franchised him before the lockout (23+ million cap number), so that may already be added in, but i am just guessing on that one.

I think you are right, as he didn't show up on the FA list that the NFL published.

http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/...ee-agency1.pdf

[WMH]

Originally Posted by painekiller

Just remember this is not congress, when you borrow the $3MM you will have to pay it back, meaning in a latter year you will have to lower your cap by $3MM. So borrowing from the cap for a team like the Ravens who are getting older might make sense, but for a team that appears to be on the rise that would not appear to be the smart move.

PK - I saw this from a comment from Alan Burge regarding this very topic. While you can't keep borrowing forever (unlike Congress), for the first year or two, it might not be as big of a deal as we think.

Quote from Alan's comment section:
"teams will have to be under the cap on August 4 but the new CBA provides a $3.5 million cap credit this season plus the ability to borrow $3 million from future salary caps this year and $1.5 next year. That's significant because caps are projected to increase with revenue over the next several years, enabling teams to repay the 'cap loan'"

Interesting stuff...note - he says "caps" - plural, a mill here a mill there could wash away pretty quickly with the rise each year in this new arrangement.

[painekiller]

Originally Posted by cadams

they franchised him before the lockout (23+ million cap number), so that may already be added in, but i am just guessing on that one.

I forgot about that. Thanks

[painekiller]

Originally Posted by WMH

PK - I saw this from a comment from Alan Burge regarding this very topic. While you can't keep borrowing forever (unlike Congress), for the first year or two, it might not be as big of a deal as we think.

Quote from Alan's comment section:
"teams will have to be under the cap on August 4 but the new CBA provides a $3.5 million cap credit this season plus the ability to borrow $3 million from future salary caps this year and $1.5 next year. That's significant because caps are projected to increase with revenue over the next several years, enabling teams to repay the 'cap loan'"

Interesting stuff...note - he says "caps" - plural, a mill here a mill there could wash away pretty quickly with the rise each year in this new arrangement.

Nice stuff, I should have figured my old friend aj would have the answer.