Rams have options to create cap space/Wagoner

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
Rams have options to create cap space
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/16015/rams-have-options-to-create-cap-space

EARTH CITY, Mo. -- Heading into the 2015 offseason, the St. Louis Rams' salary-cap situation looks to be relatively tight. But looks in many cases, especially this one, can be deceiving.

The final number for this year's salary cap has yet to finalize, but many are expecting another large hike in that number in 2015 and 2016. Beyond that, the Rams also have a $3 million plus salary-cap exemption due from the release and subsequent signing of cornerback Cortland Finnegan by the Miami Dolphins.

So attempting to put an exact number on how much space the Rams have now or will have is solely a guess. What isn't a guess is how much room the Rams can create by making a few tweaks to the roster.

Whether it's via a cap casualty or executing a new contract, there are four players who could and likely will allow the Rams plenty of flexibility heading into the offseason.

Here's a look at the quartet that could help restock the vault with all contract numbers courtesy of ESPN Stats & Info:

QB Sam Bradford: 2015 cap number -- $16.58 million

The Rams have made no secret that they would like to bring Bradford back at a reduced rate. The above number is the reason why, and it seems entirely unlikely that they'd bring him back from two major knee surgeries at such a high price. They've actually budgeted for that amount and could make it work, but the more likely scenario is executing a new contract that would drop his base pay down substantially with a lot of playing time and performance bonuses built in. They won't take the risk of outright releasing Bradford so any deal will have to be agreed to before the Rams would do anything with the old contract. The Rams can get a big savings here, but it will depend heavily on how much less the player is willing to take and then how he performs after. If the Rams did outright release Bradford, it would save them nearly $13 million but again, that's almost certainly not going to happen.

OT Jake Long: 2015 cap number -- $10.5 million

Like Bradford, Long is also coming off a second straight season-ending knee injury. Unlike Bradford, though, there's no guarantee that Long will return. Long has not spoken to the media since the injury. There have been rumors of his considering retirement, but recent momentum points toward his attempted return. Either way, it would be crazy for the Rams to bring Long back at such a high price. They could attempt to come up with a new deal for him, but if they did they'd have to find a new position for him with coach Jeff Fisher committed to Greg Robinson as his left tackle. The Rams could save $8 million with an outright release or more than $9 million if they designate him a post-June 1 cut. Regardless, this seems like the easiest and quickest way to save a big chunk of money.

C Scott Wells: 2015 cap number -- $5 million

Wells already redid his contract last year and is now in the final year of a two-year deal he signed before last season. This one is pretty cut and dry in terms of Wells' status. Releasing Wells would save the Rams $4 million with $1 million in dead money, but it's possible the Rams could hang on to him to see if they can land an upgrade first. Wells has been oft-injured in his time in St. Louis and, to his credit, played through it in 2014, but his production has dropped precipitously from the guy the Rams initially signed three years ago. The Rams have young options such as Tim Barnes, Barrett Jones and Demetrius Rhaney around, but none is a proven commodity. Wells is due a $1 million roster bonus on the third day of the league year. If the Rams are sure that they have a better player in hand by then, Wells could be on the way out.

DT Kendall Langford: 2015 cap number -- $7 million

Langford is still a solid, productive player for the Rams and was a valuable piece of a defense that improved dramatically over the final half of the season. But he's also no longer a starter as rookie Aaron Donald supplanted him and took many of his snaps. And $7 million is a lot of money for a player who played 467 snaps with 25 tackles and a sack last year. That's down from 703 snaps, 49 tackles and five sacks the year before. If the Rams chose to release Langford, it would save $6 million with $1 million in dead money. The Rams would like to retain Langford, who is also a good locker room influence, but for that to happen, it's probably going to have to be on a new, reduced contract.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,923
Name
Stu
I realize KD seems to find his way around or through the cap but what are you seeing? I personally think the cap stuff is clear as mud.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,809
Rams won't have any cap flexibility issues this off-season.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,923
Name
Stu
Thanks @flv That is what I thought about Bradford's deal. Hadn't really looked too deep at the others.

And IIRR @jrry32 is referring to the potential cap situation coming more to a head in '16. Is that right?
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,809
Thanks @flv That is what I thought about Bradford's deal. Hadn't really looked too deep at the others.

And IIRR @jrry32 is referring to the potential cap situation coming more to a head in '16. Is that right?

Nah. 2016 and 2017 are why we won't have issues this year. If you're ever in trouble, you can push money into the future. 2016 and 2017 do not have much on the books which gives us plenty of flexibility this year.

I've always been of the opinion that you don't push a lot of money forward and the Rams shouldn't need to if they make a few cuts and can restructure Sam but if need be, that would be an option.
 

Dodgersrf

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
10,776
Name
Scott
Nah. 2016 and 2017 are why we won't have issues this year. If you're ever in trouble, you can push money into the future. 2016 and 2017 do not have much on the books which gives us plenty of flexibility this year.

I've always been of the opinion that you don't push a lot of money forward and the Rams shouldn't need to if they make a few cuts and can restructure Sam but if need be, that would be an option.
I think the Rams have done just that.
 

junkman

Farewell to all!
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
822
Name
junkman
2016 and 2017 do not have much on the books which gives us plenty of flexibility this year.

Be careful about 2016 and 2017. The reason they are so light now is because that's when our RGIII draft picks rookie contracts expire. We'll want to resign those guys, and those 2nd contracts won't be cheap.

Wagoner is spot on with his assessments, imho.
  • Cutting Long lets us re-sign Barksdale and have some change left over. I kinda doubt Long comes back at the amount the Rams would want to pay him (ie to play LG and put Saffold at RG).
  • Cutting Wells and replacing with my Grandma Bertie would both save us money and give us upgrade at the position.
  • Cutting Langford and replace him with just some big fat fatty to rotate in for DT snaps should buy us another playmaker, or perhaps a slobber-knocker at RG.

Yeah, we'll have room this year and the future, esp if we make all the moves Wagoner suggests.
 

TheDYVKX

#TeamMcVay
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
4,703
Name
Sean McVay
We can save a lot of money but cutting two players we don't even want. That's awesome.

I'd like to see a restructure for Bradford and Langford. We could still use both of those guys.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,809
Be careful about 2016 and 2017. The reason they are so light now is because that's when our RGIII draft picks rookie contracts expire. We'll want to resign those guys, and those 2nd contracts won't be cheap.

Wagoner is spot on with his assessments, imho.
  • Cutting Long lets us re-sign Barksdale and have some change left over. I kinda doubt Long comes back at the amount the Rams would want to pay him (ie to play LG and put Saffold at RG).
  • Cutting Wells and replacing with my Grandma Bertie would both save us money and give us upgrade at the position.
  • Cutting Langford and replace him with just some big fat fatty to rotate in for DT snaps should buy us another playmaker, or perhaps a slobber-knocker at RG.

Yeah, we'll have room this year and the future, esp if we make all the moves Wagoner suggests.

Which is why I said that I don't like to push money into the future. But I'm not concerned, I love Demoff's pay as you go philosophy.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,923
Name
Stu
Nah. 2016 and 2017 are why we won't have issues this year. If you're ever in trouble, you can push money into the future. 2016 and 2017 do not have much on the books which gives us plenty of flexibility this year.

I've always been of the opinion that you don't push a lot of money forward and the Rams shouldn't need to if they make a few cuts and can restructure Sam but if need be, that would be an option.

It will be interesting. I think '16 & '17 will yet again demonstrate why KD is in the position he's in.
 

NERamsFan

Pro Bowler
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
1,741
Can everyone but Sam. That includes Joseph too. Bring back Sam real cheap and focus on one big signing like Iupati. Then stay ahead and keep a good cushion for our young, expiring contracts. Hash a trade down and take Erving, who I'm praying for in the draft. And keep Barks or sign Bualaga.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,809
Can everyone but Sam. That includes Joseph too. Bring back Sam real cheap and focus on one big signing like Iupati. Then stay ahead and keep a good cushion for our young, expiring contracts. Hash a trade down and take Erving, who I'm praying for in the draft. And keep Barks or sign Bualaga.

Could not disagree more. Look at the signings that have paid off for us and look at the signings that haven't. Do not go spend big money on a guy who has seen his play decline over the past few years as he's gotten more and more nicked up. Especially considering that we've made our best signings on guys who were "bargains".

If the Rams are going to spend big, spend it on a talented young player with a strong track record in terms of durability at an undervalued position...like Rodney Hudson(a Center).

But I would definitely not be upset if the Rams opted to go after some mid tier and bargain type FAs rather than shell out big money for a big name. I think they could get better bang for their buck that way and still have money left over to possibly extend one of our young players this year if they choose to.
 

Jorgeh0605

You had me at meat tornado.
2023 ROD Fantasy Champion
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
1,792
I'm afraid your point has still gone over my head. What mistake is Wagoner making? He listed the players actual salary but he also mentions the actual money we'd be saving, which shows he is aware of how the cap works.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,809
I'm afraid your point has still gone over my head. What mistake is Wagoner making? He listed the players actual salary but he also mentions the actual money we'd be saving, which shows he is aware of how the cap works.

I must agree with Jorge.
 

Jorgeh0605

You had me at meat tornado.
2023 ROD Fantasy Champion
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
1,792
Idk if it is just because I completely understand how it works, but I didn't bat an eye when he gave us those numbers. I also want to say that the dead money is pertinent information, but after thinking about it, it really isn't. Or at least it shouldn't be.