5 Teams Facing Serious Salary Cap Issues In 2016

[Toruk_Makto]

Yes. But dead money is ultimately the result of pushing money forward rather than playing "pay as you go" as teams like the Ravens tend to do.

But as you note, realistically, dead money is rather meaningless given a level of cap management that any half-brain with a copy of excel could pull off.

Dead money becomes dead when you currently a guy. It accelerates forward onto your current cap. That's a bad thing and causes bad situations to arise.

But, yes, the actual number gets paid too much attention to. In fact dead money often frees up salary space and is in some ways a sign of proactive cap management.

Also @erod said the cap is a mythical thing that isn't real. That couldn't be further from the truth. If that was the case we'd have Adrian Peterson and Suh on this team today. Like right now.

 

[Nightman]

Dead money becomes dead when you currently a guy. It accelerates forward onto your current cap. That's a bad thing and causes bad situations to arise.

But, yes, the actual number gets paid too much attention to. In fact dead money often frees up salary space and is in some ways a sign of proactive cap management.

Also @erod said the cap is a mythical thing that isn't real. That couldn't be further from the truth. If that was the case we'd have Adrian Peterson and Suh on this team today. Like right now.

Chicken or the egg

I say the money dies the moment you push it forward

When you account for it as dead money is about when a player is actually cut or traded.

But industry wide, any pro-rated money left on the deal is called Dead Money.

 

[erod]

Dead money becomes dead when you currently a guy. It accelerates forward onto your current cap. That's a bad thing and causes bad situations to arise.

But, yes, the actual number gets paid too much attention to. In fact dead money often frees up salary space and is in some ways a sign of proactive cap management.

Also @erod said the cap is a mythical thing that isn't real. That couldn't be further from the truth. If that was the case we'd have Adrian Peterson and Suh on this team today. Like right now.

If they really wanted to, they could move around money all over the place. Push money off five years from now. Is always possible.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

If they really wanted to, they could move around money all over the place. Push money off five years from now. Is always possible.

There are limits to what you can do.

 

[Garrettop]

I didn't know there would be a page worth of argument over what "Dead money" is. Dead money, as commonly understood, is money paid to a player no longer on the team. I don't care if it is "only" 5% or 10% of the cap. It's money you don't have to be better today because you misevaluated talent yesterday/had the money "burn a hole in your pocket".

The modern move of the Dallas FO to deals with incentives and accelerators is much more prudent.

 

[xwalker]

I didn't know there would be a page worth of argument over what "Dead money" is. Dead money, as commonly understood, is money paid to a player no longer on the team. I don't care if it is "only" 5% or 10% of the cap. It's money you don't have to be better today because you misevaluated talent yesterday/had the money "burn a hole in your pocket".

The modern move of the Dallas FO to deals with incentives and accelerators is much more prudent.

It's not that simple. The process of pushing money forward can be very beneficial. The downside of doing it is that it increases the risk of dead-money; however, the benefits can far outweigh the risks if managed correctly.

Even without pushing money forward, there will be guaranteed money and some risk of dead money anyway. Players expect signing bonuses when they agree to new contracts.

 

[DandyDon52]

that article is laughable and SCREAMS "get hits by using the Cowboys in my list"...the other 4 are already projected over in 2016; Dallas? projected under, and their numbers aren't even correct...articles like this make we wonder how some writers stay employed

this

 

[coult44]

5 Teams Facing Serious Salary Cap Issues In 2016
Jimmy Kaylor
June 08, 2015

Parity is a huge part of what makes the NFL the most popular professional sports league in the United States, and that parity was largely made possible by the NFL’s implementation of a hard salary cap in 1994. Unlike other professional sports leagues, where willing teams are allowed to pay a luxury tax for having a total payroll that exceeds their salary cap, NFL teams are subject to fines, a loss of draft picks, and voided contracts for violating their league’s salary cap rules. This is why many teams are forced to constantly restructure contracts, make trades, or outright release some of their best players just to get right by the salary cap. On top of that, the NFL’s free agency period simply wouldn’t be the same if there weren’t a hard salary cap in place.

When it comes to circumventing the NFL salary cap, there is only so much a team can do. As it stands, all 32 teams around the league are in good standing with the league’s 2015 salary cap of $143,280,000 — which is not uncommon for this time of year. Projecting forward to the 2016 league year is a completely different story. While the cap is looking to increase in 2016, there are some teams who won’t be able to avoid facing serious cap conundrums following the 2015 season.

After crunching the 2016 salary cap numbers for all 32 NFL teams, we found that there are five teams in particular that are facing serious cap issues for the 2016 season. The front offices for all five teams will have their work cut out for them in trying to solve their financial issues, but the good news is they have well over six months to do so. Without further ado, here is a look at five teams that are facing serious salary cap issues in 2016.

1. Miami Dolphins
2. Buffalo Bills
3. Dallas Cowboys
4. New Orleans Saints
5. New York Jets

All salary cap data courtesy of Spotrac.

Read much more: http://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/nf...ous-salary-cap-issues-in-2016.html/?a=viewall

Let the panic begin.

Just wondering how teams like Seattle, NE, GB, Pitt, Denver, etc. Stay off these lists. Even if they are wrong. The fact that we are mentioned is not necessarily that good.

 

[Nightman]

Just wondering how teams like Seattle, NE, GB, Pitt, Denver, etc. Stay off these lists. Even if they are wrong. The fact that we are mentioned is not necessarily that good.

It's all cyclical, except for GB. All those teams have been in and out of salary cap issues.

GB spends nothing on FAs and their homegrown guys tend to give them discounts.

People think DEN went on this huge spending spree because of Peyton, but they also let a dozen FAs walk the last couple years.

SEA was a young team that is now having to pay it's stars.

Tom Brady gave NE a HUGE pay cut and they let guys like Welker, Talib, Wilfork, Mankins and Revis walk.

 

[coult44]

It's all cyclical, except for GB. All those teams have been in and out of salary cap issues.

GB spends nothing on FAs and their homegrown guys tend to give them discounts.

People think DEN went on this huge spending spree because of Peyton, but they also let a dozen FAs walk the last couple years.

SEA was a young team that is now having to pay it's stars.

Tom Brady gave NE a HUGE pay cut and they let guys like Welker, Talib, Wilfork, Mankins and Revis walk.

I understand. But we let guys like Murray, Carter, Durant, and Harris leave. We don't break the bank with Dez, Tyron, RoMac, or Tony, and still end up with what others are saying are cap issues. Just seems like we always have that problem. And the funny thing is, all I hear is how The Cowboys have a new way of doing things. Is it a new way with the same end result, cap problems?

 

[xwalker]

Chicken or the egg

I say the money dies the moment you push it forward

When you account for it as dead money is about when a player is actually cut or traded.

But industry wide, any pro-rated money left on the deal is called Dead Money.

If the player plays to the end of the contract, then the prorated money never becomes dead money.

 

[Nightman]

I understand. But we let guys like Murray, Carter, Durant, and Harris leave. We don't break the bank with Dez, Tyron, RoMac, or Tony, and still end up with what others are saying are cap issues. Just seems like we always have that problem. And the funny thing is, all I hear is how The Cowboys have a new way of doing things. Is it a new way with the same end result, cap problems?

But that is the thing. We aren't in cap trouble.

We are 12m under the cap and could easily get to 25m under the cap.

 

[Nightman]

If the player plays to the end of the contract, then the prorated money never becomes dead money.

If he gets traded or cut it never gets pro-rated, it gets accelerated.

If Gachkar gets cut before the season he has 1.2m in dead money and he never played a down.

The moment it gets pushed forward it is dead.

 

[xwalker]

If he gets traded or cut it never gets pro-rated, it gets accelerated.

If Gachkar gets cut before the season he has 1.2m in dead money and he never played a down.

The moment it gets pushed forward it is dead.

No, if he plays for the Cowboys to the end of this contract, there is no dead money.

 

[Nightman]

No, if he plays for the Cowboys to the end of this contract, there is no dead money.

The money is dead either way. Dallas is on the hook for it whether he plays 0 years, 1 year or 2 years.

You prefer to call it pro-rated which is fine in most cases, but it is all dead money.

 

[xwalker]

The money is dead either way. Dallas is on the hook for it whether he plays 0 years, 1 year or 2 years.

You prefer to call it pro-rated which is fine in most cases, but it is all dead money.

It might be similar or equivalent, but it is not dead while the player is still on the team.

Definitions have meaning. It is defined as prorated when while the player is on the team. It is defined as dead when the player is not on the team.

 

[Nightman]

It might be similar or equivalent, but it is not dead while the player is still on the team.

Definitions have meaning. It is defined as prorated when while the player is on the team. It is defined as dead when the player is not on the team.

You can keep your condescending remarks to yourself. I know what technically means.

You and I don't get to decide what the definition of 'Dead Money" is. You have yours and I have mine. Most industry sites list Dead Money differently than your interpretation.

 

[xwalker]

You can keep your condescending remarks to yourself. I know what technically means.

You and I don't get to decide what the definition of 'Dead Money" is. You have yours and I have mine. Most industry sites list Dead Money differently than your interpretation.

No, they don't. They list the amount that would be dead money if the player was cut.

 

[Nightman]

No, they don't. They list the amount that would be dead money if the player was cut.

That is not how the term is used.

It may have started as the specific number on a team's salary cap each year devoted to players no longer on the roster, but it has evolved to cover all potential dead charges at any time on a player's contract.

Tony Romo was considered to have the most Dead Money of any player when he did his restructure in April.

 

[visionary]

Rest easy. Stephen's on it.

Whew! just walked me off that ledge, thanx