- Joined
- Jun 26, 2010
- Messages
- 7,541
Early Salary Cap Projection
- Thread starter Memphis Ram
- Start date
-
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.
12intheBox
Legend
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2013
- Messages
- 10,315
- Name
- Wil Fay
The higher the better for us, right? Is there any reason to think differently?
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2013
- Messages
- 41,497
For maintaining our own players and not needing to kick the can down the road more sure. But it won't move the needle much at all in free agency since every team gets this. So that team also vying for a free agent and had $30 million in cap they now have a bit more than that.
12intheBox
Legend
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2013
- Messages
- 10,315
- Name
- Wil Fay
I just figure the higher the cap is, the better AD and Ramsey’s deals look.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2010
- Messages
- 7,541
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6
- Joined
- May 8, 2014
- Messages
- 41,206
The key for me on "kicking the can down the road" is doing it for players you want to stay around long term. Restructuring AD is no big deal for example.
I'm wondering if they can get through this offseason without restructuring Ramsey and saving him for next year.
Funny thing here is that the active players making big money are all guys who are living up to their deals. Hav is worth his deal, so is Woody and Kupp. Stafford too. Brock was probably worth his deal too and he's a team leader too. As to the dead cap weight Gurley comes off after 2021.
It's actually sort of crazy that the Rams have done what they have done without being that bad off on their cap. It's Demoff's expertise too factoring in there, the guy is good at what he does he just needs to quit paying guys early. Keep him away from those decisions and just stick to the cap and we're good. Because it is the signing guys early that is the Rams' real problem.
I'm wondering if they can get through this offseason without restructuring Ramsey and saving him for next year.
Funny thing here is that the active players making big money are all guys who are living up to their deals. Hav is worth his deal, so is Woody and Kupp. Stafford too. Brock was probably worth his deal too and he's a team leader too. As to the dead cap weight Gurley comes off after 2021.
It's actually sort of crazy that the Rams have done what they have done without being that bad off on their cap. It's Demoff's expertise too factoring in there, the guy is good at what he does he just needs to quit paying guys early. Keep him away from those decisions and just stick to the cap and we're good. Because it is the signing guys early that is the Rams' real problem.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2010
- Messages
- 7,541
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #9
Yes and no.
That would be higher than the $175 million originally projected, but lower than the 2020 $198,2000 salary cap number.
12intheBox
Legend
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2013
- Messages
- 10,315
- Name
- Wil Fay
i get that it’a not as high as it could be sans covid - but my question is generally - the higher it ever gets - the better for us, right?
- Joined
- May 26, 2013
- Messages
- 11,962
- Name
- River
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2010
- Messages
- 7,541
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #12
Well sure that would be better for the Rams.
Mackeyser
Supernovas are where gold forms; the only place.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 14,519
- Name
- Mack
Yeah, I called it.
Rather than truly protect the shield in all facets including economically, the fucking dumb as shit NFL owners are treating this as just another corporate decision.
It's penny wise and pound foolish. They're so fucking worried about embracing that loss to offset taxes that they're putting the health of the league in peril.
Most of the growth in the NFL fanbase is due to women and casual/fantasy fans. The core fanbase has remained flat since 2000. So, in 20 years, the core group hasn't changed, but all that growth happened... which is why we see the league giving them a lot of attention... and rightly so.
The problem stems from who those folks are. Are they gonna stick around if their favorite players are forced to sit out a year because teams can't afford them?
With a $20M cap decrease, that's $640M of salary that the teams cannot spend on players. That's more than 3 entire NFL teams under the current cap structure.
As COVID ends, we're going to see a greater realignment of interests as people start to embrace their post-COVID interests and passions.
Point is that we're at an inflection point regarding Americans and their pastimes.
Lowering the cap instead of freezing it is maybe the dumbest economic decision the league has made since the last lockout. It's so stupid, it's infuriating.
The economics are short-sighted, it harms the brand, it's going to be complete shit from a PR standpoint and just wait... even as New Orleans is up against it and screwed themselves on the cap, it's still gonna look like shit for the NFL... because they didn't have to cut the cap and the Saints are gonna have to dismantle that roster as they're currently over $112M over the cap.
It was and is still an option to freeze it and amortize the losses to ensure that the product on the field doesn't suffer, ESPECIALLY as TV talks are going to resume.
Fuck.
Heck, I'd find a way to give the "freeze the cap" presentation for free if I could... these idiots are mental...
Rather than truly protect the shield in all facets including economically, the fucking dumb as shit NFL owners are treating this as just another corporate decision.
It's penny wise and pound foolish. They're so fucking worried about embracing that loss to offset taxes that they're putting the health of the league in peril.
Most of the growth in the NFL fanbase is due to women and casual/fantasy fans. The core fanbase has remained flat since 2000. So, in 20 years, the core group hasn't changed, but all that growth happened... which is why we see the league giving them a lot of attention... and rightly so.
The problem stems from who those folks are. Are they gonna stick around if their favorite players are forced to sit out a year because teams can't afford them?
With a $20M cap decrease, that's $640M of salary that the teams cannot spend on players. That's more than 3 entire NFL teams under the current cap structure.
As COVID ends, we're going to see a greater realignment of interests as people start to embrace their post-COVID interests and passions.
Point is that we're at an inflection point regarding Americans and their pastimes.
Lowering the cap instead of freezing it is maybe the dumbest economic decision the league has made since the last lockout. It's so stupid, it's infuriating.
The economics are short-sighted, it harms the brand, it's going to be complete shit from a PR standpoint and just wait... even as New Orleans is up against it and screwed themselves on the cap, it's still gonna look like shit for the NFL... because they didn't have to cut the cap and the Saints are gonna have to dismantle that roster as they're currently over $112M over the cap.
It was and is still an option to freeze it and amortize the losses to ensure that the product on the field doesn't suffer, ESPECIALLY as TV talks are going to resume.
Fuck.
Heck, I'd find a way to give the "freeze the cap" presentation for free if I could... these idiots are mental...
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2014
- Messages
- 15,411
been saying that for years. They closed my Demoff post. Never understood The Gurley singing $ then The Jared Goff signing made me HIT my Head & do The Homer Simpson (DUH)
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2013
- Messages
- 4,885
So JJ could be franchises for $10 million.
Interesting. Considering he called the plays on d, I would do this.
Interesting. Considering he called the plays on d, I would do this.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 24,693
Ya think Baltimore will try to franchise Lamar Jackson as an RB?? Would save them a bundle. Lol
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 24,693
Well, I wouldnt cast any aspersions as of yet. The owners dont set the Cap, and with revenues down, player expenses up, the number has to be lower.
Now, once the official cap number is set, I would think the NFL could work with the players union on a temporary solution, but there are so many moving parts that it just isnt that simple to "freeze" it.
Mackeyser
Supernovas are where gold forms; the only place.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 14,519
- Name
- Mack
Iirc, the cap is set as a function of a percentage of the estimated gross revenues with players getting 47%...is that right? 47% I think... or maybe 49%. I dunno. It's around there, but don't think it's 50% yet.
Anyway, the reason the NFL and the NFLPA need to get together is to amend the CBA to allow for them to freeze the cap for 3 years. That would allow teams to recoup losses while also preventing veterans from being essentially "retired due to COVID-cap"
they could easily put in to the amendment that any increase in gross revenues beyond what is estimated was lost would obviate any remaining years of a freeze and restore the old cap formula.
So say in 2021 the cap is frozen and they renegotiate a TV deal and finally create a real online package such that the league sees another $700M in 2022. Well, since the cap only reflects $640M in dmg (and that's if the cap sits at $180M in 2021), then 2022 would resume under the old cap. If, however, the tv contracts stay the same for 2021/2022, then the freeze would remain in effect for 3 years.
I dunno about moving parts, I'd be interested to know what those could be.
What I do know is that if New Orleans has to have a fire sale, the league is gonna look like shit to the casual observer. There's also a number of guys who sat out due to COVID who are set to return. There will be a glut of 1st and 2nd tier veterans who simply cannot find work and may never get to play again if they do this.
Why the NFLPA isn't fighting for a freeze is beyond me. Maybe they don't want to set a precedent. I dunno. Seems like the NFLPA continues to work for the top players at the expense of the middle tier vets who make up the bulk of the NFL after guys on rookie contracts and that's bad for everyone...except the few top guys...
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 24,693
Who says they wont? All of your reasoning is sensical, Im not saying it isnt. But nothing is set yet, the NFL year is just concluding.
The cap isnt up to the owners to set, they dont decide it.
How the Cap is split, the players share etc, was the crux of the dissention between players/owners during last CBA, and the resolve is what we have. So the revenue numbers come in, shares are determined, Cap is set. THEN we can see what (if any) temporary agreements are made. If cap is adjusted, frozen etc from whatever the determination is, it will be a precedent event.
Mackeyser
Supernovas are where gold forms; the only place.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2013
- Messages
- 14,519
- Name
- Mack
So, it's based on prior revenues or projected revenues?
I thought they used projected revenues including tv revenues for that season and projected ticket sales, merch and other shared revenue streams.
I am only strident because I saw a tweet from a reporter saying in a question to the NFLPA, they said that the owners wanted $175 and the players were arguing for $180. If the players do end up waiting and proposing a freeze then cool.
I thought they used projected revenues including tv revenues for that season and projected ticket sales, merch and other shared revenue streams.
I am only strident because I saw a tweet from a reporter saying in a question to the NFLPA, they said that the owners wanted $175 and the players were arguing for $180. If the players do end up waiting and proposing a freeze then cool.