Colts 2014 Cap Situation

[Dark Superman]

Since it seems we are done signing free agents Can anyone fill me in on what our 2014 cap situation looks like as of right now?

I'm just curious if we will have another fun filled off season signing and resigning players at will..

How much cap space does Grigs have to play with entering his third year the Colts General Manager.

[Nobody]

Someone else can give you exact numbers. We have a lot of cap again next year.

[Dustin]

Something like $30 million IIRC

[Dark Superman]

Yeah I was just curious..

I don't expect $43 million like we has this past year but I was thinking it wasn't to far off from that.

[Black-Vell]

We will have at least 30M.

 

The point of the salary cap now is that they have to spend whatever they have. that - plus the fact that contracts are leveraged against the future - are why ppl think we paid too much for our FA's. We have to spend the money so its not like we got 10 players for 130M. Its more like we had to spend 130M on 10 players. 

[Dark Superman]

Yeah I knew we had to spend so much of our money each year.. Over paying for players is one thing but if you believe they fit what you are trying to run as an organization, and give you an upgrade.. It's a win win.

[TKnight24]

Don't forget about our 1st rounder still unsigned

@mchappell51: #colts head into down time with one bit of business to finish: sign 1st-rd pick Bjoern Werner. He's looking at 4 yrs, $7.8 mil, $4.1 mil SB

[Dark Superman]

Sign the man!

[Superman]

Yeah I was just curious..

I don't expect $43 million like we has this past year but I was thinking it wasn't to far off from that.

 

As of right now, we have approximately $83m on the books for 2014. Assuming the cap stays at $123m (which it probably won't, it will probably go up modestly, just like it did this year), that's $40m in cap space.

 

However, that $83m figure doesn't include Laron Landry's 2014 salary (I still haven't seen the salary details), nor does it include Bjoern Werner's 2014 cap hit (hasn't been signed yet). Figure on Landry's cap hit taking up another $5m, and Werner's taking up another $3m, and now we're at around $91m committed to 2014. We might also reach a long term deal with McAfee, which would increase that total figure. I'm calling it somewhere around $30m in cap space to start 2014.

 

Last thing to remember, we have guys who will be free agents at the end of 2013, some of whom we'll want to resign. We might even reach terms with some of those players before the season ends. So we're probably not going to have $30m in cap space by the time free agency opens.

[AllYouNeedIsLuck]

If we have a good amount of money to spend, I would like to get our new #1 receiver via free agency. Anyone know the free agent WR's next year? That, or draft one.

 

Imagine for like a year or two: Number 1 WR, DHB if he plays well with us which is what i think will happen, Wayne, Hilton, Fleener, Allen.. That's a lot of weapons. And then after those couple of years, it would just be those players without Wayne. Still very solid. 

[Malakai432]

We have to spend the money so its not like we got 10 players for 130M. Its more like we had to spend 130M on 10 players.

Yeah but wouldn't it be better to get 130 million players for $10???

[ALuck>RG3]

If we have a good amount of money to spend, I would like to get our new #1 receiver via free agency. Anyone know the free agent WR's next year? That, or draft one.

Imagine for like a year or two: Number 1 WR, DHB if he plays well with us which is what i think will happen, Wayne, Hilton, Fleener, Allen.. That's a lot of weapons. And then after those couple of years, it would just be those players without Wayne. Still very solid.

I think of two hakeem nicks and victor Cruz

[SteelCityColt]

We will have at least 30M.

 

The point of the salary cap now is that they have to spend whatever they have. that - plus the fact that contracts are leveraged against the future - are why ppl think we paid too much for our FA's. We have to spend the money so its not like we got 10 players for 130M. Its more like we had to spend 130M on 10 players.

Not strictly true, you don't have to send it all every year,just meet the percentage criteria over the period of the CBA.

[AllYouNeedIsLuck]

I think of two hakeem nicks and victor Cruz

I would love Nicks if he could stay healthy but he's too much of a risk. 

[UKColt13]

If we have a good amount of money to spend, I would like to get our new #1 receiver via free agency. Anyone know the free agent WR's next year? That, or draft one.

 

Imagine for like a year or two: Number 1 WR, DHB if he plays well with us which is what i think will happen, Wayne, Hilton, Fleener, Allen.. That's a lot of weapons. And then after those couple of years, it would just be those players without Wayne. Still very solid.

Personally I'd rather make a play for Sammy Watkins in next years draft. Two years behind Wayne to improve his routes and learn the play book, he could be a monster!

[BrentMc11]

As of right now, we have approximately $83m on the books for 2014. Assuming the cap stays at $123m (which it probably won't, it will probably go up modestly, just like it did this year), that's $40m in cap space.

 

However, that $83m figure doesn't include Laron Landry's 2014 salary (I still haven't seen the salary details), nor does it include Bjoern Werner's 2014 cap hit (hasn't been signed yet). Figure on Landry's cap hit taking up another $5m, and Werner's taking up another $3m, and now we're at around $91m committed to 2014. We might also reach a long term deal with McAfee, which would increase that total figure. I'm calling it somewhere around $30m in cap space to start 2014.

 

Last thing to remember, we have guys who will be free agents at the end of 2013, some of whom we'll want to resign. We might even reach terms with some of those players before the season ends. So we're probably not going to have $30m in cap space by the time free agency opens.

Thanks Superman.  I was going to look this up...I know better when we have good cap guys here.  We appreciate the info.  

[Black-Vell]

Not strictly true, you don't have to send it all every year,just meet the percentage criteria over the period of the CBA.

I said 10 FA's - so obviously I didnt account for draft picks or UDFA's or practice team or whatever the heck else requires money. So common sense would tell someone with common sense that Im not talking about spending every cent on 10 FA.

 

What other posts did u find on here worthy of needing to be corrected at 1:40am? Quiet solo kind of night huh.  

[TKnight24]

I said 10 FA's - so obviously I didnt account for draft picks or UDFA's or practice team or whatever the heck else requires money. So common sense would tell someone with common sense that Im not talking about spending every cent on 10 FA.

What other posts did u find on here worthy of needing to be corrected at 1:40am? Quiet solo kind of night huh.

:attack:

[Superman]

I said 10 FA's - so obviously I didnt account for draft picks or UDFA's or practice team or whatever the heck else requires money. So common sense would tell someone with common sense that Im not talking about spending every cent on 10 FA.

 

What other posts did u find on here worthy of needing to be corrected at 1:40am? Quiet solo kind of night huh.  

 

Teams aren't required to spend up to the cap every year.

[throwing BBZ]

I said 10 FA's - so obviously I didnt account for draft picks or UDFA's or practice team or whatever the heck else requires money. So common sense would tell someone with common sense that Im not talking about spending every cent on 10 FA.

 

What other posts did u find on here worthy of needing to be corrected at 1:40am? Quiet solo kind of night huh.  

Veil your response shows you didn`t get the point the man made and are unfamiliar with what % of the Cap teams must spend to satisfy the CBA.

Is it true that we do not need to spend ANY of the projected $30M we may have for 2014 and would still be in compliance with the CBA?

[Superman]

Veil your response shows you didn`t get the point the man made and are unfamiliar with what % of the Cap teams must spend to satisfy the CBA.

Is it true that we do not need to spend ANY of the projected $30M we may have for 2014 and would still be in compliance with the CBA?

 

Yes, that is 100% true.

 

The salary cap floor is very misunderstood.

[Shepman]

The other thing remember is we have to be somewhat responsible over the next few years as we will want to sign Luck long-term. That along with signing rookie every year along with reserve eats up 30 million. I know we can't restructure until after next year,but just trying to prove a point that 30 million isn't Jack.

[SteelCityColt]

I said 10 FA's - so obviously I didnt account for draft picks or UDFA's or practice team or whatever the heck else requires money. So common sense would tell someone with common sense that Im not talking about spending every cent on 10 FA.

What other posts did u find on here worthy of needing to be corrected at 1:40am? Quiet solo kind of night huh.

More like different time zones, and a degree more civility

I wasn't really attacking you x amount on c players, but a lot of people assume you HAVE to spend the percentage each year. It came across like you thought this, I apologise if you're aware already it's over the life of the CBA.

[NewColtsFan]

Yes, that is 100% true.

 

The salary cap floor is very misunderstood.

 

OK....    if I remember correctly,  (and I make no promises of that)  teams need to spend 89% of the cap over a running 4-year window --- correct?

 

So,  while technically,  we could not spend a dollar of our Cap Space money next off-season and still be in compliance,  I think that's an important technicality because we'd be forced to spend close to every last penny over the next 2-3 years to make sure we are in compliance.  

 

Would that not be correct?

 

If you were well below the floor one year,  you'd be forced to be darn near at the ceiling the other years -- correct?

 

And, if I'm correct,   I think we can take some comfort in that.   The Irsay/Grigson/Pagano trio is not going not spend that money.    It's how they spend the money that should be the concern,   not whether they will or won't.

 

As always,  I look forward to your thoughts......

[MrNLM]

If we have a good amount of money to spend, I would like to get our new #1 receiver via free agency. Anyone know the free agent WR's next year? That, or draft one.

 

Imagine for like a year or two: Number 1 WR, DHB if he plays well with us which is what i think will happen, Wayne, Hilton, Fleener, Allen.. That's a lot of weapons. And then after those couple of years, it would just be those players without Wayne. Still very solid. 

Jeremy Maclin jumps out at me with the Grigson Connection.

[SteelCityColt]

As always, I look forward to your thoughts......

Looking at either end of the extreme would if course skew thing (spending it all, spending nothing) but my understanding of the rule is as you set out. I'm not quite sure however why it was brought in? I would have thought that the FA market would dictate a certain amount of spending. Or was it an effort to try a stop teams building less than competitive rosters. Either way you can't force teams to spend the money wisely as you say.

As for the Colts themselves, despite most saying we've overspent on FA, when look at the contracts on the whole they are on the whole quite low long term risks with plenty of get outs and I feel they building strength in depth across the team.

This of course might change when FAs such as Davis, Bethea come up for renewal let alone the rookies of last year!

[Smurphy1]

Looking at either end of the extreme would if course skew thing (spending it all, spending nothing) but my understanding of the rule is as you set out. I'm not quite sure however why it was brought in? I would have thought that the FA market would dictate a certain amount of spending. Or was it an effort to try a stop teams building less than competitive rosters. Either way you can't force teams to spend the money wisely as you say.

As for the Colts themselves, despite most saying we've overspent on FA, when look at the contracts on the whole they are on the whole quite low long term risks with plenty of get outs and I feel they building strength in depth across the team.

This of course might change when FAs such as Davis, Bethea come up for renewal let alone the rookies of last year!

 

My understanding is that it is a way to force the owners to share revenue with the players. Since the salary cap is determined by how much revenue the teams brought in together, coupled with tv deals and stuff having a floor to the salary cap is forcing the owners to share at least a certain percentage of their revenue with the players. There is a also a league wide floor of 95% I think. If these floors are not met all that happens is the league/team must pay its current roster a bonus until it reaches the floor, or something like that. So no performance affecting penalties.

[Superman]

OK....    if I remember correctly,  (and I make no promises of that)  teams need to spend 89% of the cap over a running 4-year window --- correct?

 

So,  while technically,  we could not spend a dollar of our Cap Space money next off-season and still be in compliance,  I think that's an important technicality because we'd be forced to spend close to every last penny over the next 2-3 years to make sure we are in compliance.  

 

Would that not be correct?

 

If you were well below the floor one year,  you'd be forced to be darn near at the ceiling the other years -- correct?

 

And, if I'm correct,   I think we can take some comfort in that.   The Irsay/Grigson/Pagano trio is not going not spend that money.    It's how they spend the money that should be the concern,   not whether they will or won't.

 

As always,  I look forward to your thoughts......

 

The CBA guarantees that the money will be spent, and that it will go to the players. It doesn't force teams to spend it directly on player contracts. Any team that doesn't spend up to 89% of the cap over a period of four years (2013-16, 2017-20) has to pay the shortage to the players that were on the team's roster for the applicable years. Nothing in the CBA about interest being paid on that money.

 

I'm not sure if there's a retroactive cap adjustment. For instance, if you're at 85% in 2014, and you have to cut a check in 2016 to cover that 4% shortage, does that 4% get reduced from your current year cap? If not, then it would make more sense for a team to rollover the cap space year to year, cut the check to cover the shortage, but wind up with a ton of cap space in a future year. Like I said, I'm not sure exactly how that is handled, and the CBA doesn't directly address it.

 

Also, there's a guaranteed cash spending of 95% of the cap, league-wide, for the same four year periods. Because cap figures and cash spending are not the same, you can have a team that's below the cap, but has spent more cash than the cap. (This year, pending releases and new contracts and what not, the Colts will spend approximately $80m in base salaries, plus about $37m in signing bonuses, plus probably another $5m in workout bonuses, roster bonuses, etc. That's approximately $122m in cash spending, 99.2% of the cap. But the team still has around $8m in cap space, pending Werner's contract.) The fix for any team not meeting that 95% requirement is the same: at the end of the four year period, they have to cut a check to the players that were on the roster for the applicable years.

 

In theory, this would mean that a team would be better off not spending money in any given year, since the penalty is just having to cover any shortage after four years (with no interest). If there's no cap penalty for the shortage, a team could technically roll forward $15m in cap space each season, and at the end of four years, have an extra $60m in cap space. That would help a team like ours who expect to pay big money to our quarterback no later than 2017. We could frontload the heck out of Luck's new deal and keep his future cap hits more manageable. (Imagine Joe Flacco's backloaded contract, but the opposite.)

 

In practice, teams will probably spend closer to the cap every year, roll forward a more modest $3-5m a year, and avoid having to pay money back at the end of the four year period. And along the way, a few players will get overpaid, but that's nothing new.

[BrentMc11]

Jeremy Maclin jumps out at me with the Grigson Connection.

WOW!  Good point MrNLM!!

 

I had to look back to remember more about Maclin.  19th pick.  Underachiever seemingly only due to illness.  He seems like a perfect fit with Pags and Grigs.  Of course we need to see how he does this year. 

[NewColtsFan]

The CBA guarantees that the money will be spent, and that it will go to the players. It doesn't force teams to spend it directly on player contracts. Any team that doesn't spend up to 89% of the cap over a period of four years (2013-16, 2017-20) has to pay the shortage to the players that were on the team's roster for the applicable years. Nothing in the CBA about interest being paid on that money.

 

I'm not sure if there's a retroactive cap adjustment. For instance, if you're at 85% in 2014, and you have to cut a check in 2016 to cover that 4% shortage, does that 4% get reduced from your current year cap? If not, then it would make more sense for a team to rollover the cap space year to year, cut the check to cover the shortage, but wind up with a ton of cap space in a future year. Like I said, I'm not sure exactly how that is handled, and the CBA doesn't directly address it.

 

Also, there's a guaranteed cash spending of 95% of the cap, league-wide, for the same four year periods. Because cap figures and cash spending are not the same, you can have a team that's below the cap, but has spent more cash than the cap. (This year, pending releases and new contracts and what not, the Colts will spend approximately $80m in base salaries, plus about $37m in signing bonuses, plus probably another $5m in workout bonuses, roster bonuses, etc. That's approximately $122m in cash spending, 99.2% of the cap. But the team still has around $8m in cap space, pending Werner's contract.) The fix for any team not meeting that 95% requirement is the same: at the end of the four year period, they have to cut a check to the players that were on the roster for the applicable years.

 

In theory, this would mean that a team would be better off not spending money in any given year, since the penalty is just having to cover any shortage after four years (with no interest). If there's no cap penalty for the shortage, a team could technically roll forward $15m in cap space each season, and at the end of four years, have an extra $60m in cap space. That would help a team like ours who expect to pay big money to our quarterback no later than 2017. We could frontload the heck out of Luck's new deal and keep his future cap hits more manageable. (Imagine Joe Flacco's backloaded contract, but the opposite.)

 

In practice, teams will probably spend closer to the cap every year, roll forward a more modest $3-5m a year, and avoid having to pay money back at the end of the four year period. And along the way, a few players will get overpaid, but that's nothing new.

 

My.    Brain.    Just.     Went.     Numb.    And.     Dumb.

 

I'm almost sorry I asked!     And when you started talking about retroactive,  my brain screamed!           Ahhhhhhhh!!!!!!    

 

Thanks.....   I didn't mean to inspire a Salary Cap version of War and Peace! 

 

I don't suppose a few simple "yes" or "no"  would've sufficed?!?     Yeah,  I guess not!

 

Oh well.....    excuse me while I go give myself a nice paper cut and pour lemon juice in there!!   

 

Seriously,  thanks for the 411....   (uhhhh,  I think!)

[BrentMc11]

My.    Brain.    Just.     Went.     Numb.    And.     Dumb.

 

I'm almost sorry I asked!     And when you started talking about retroactive,  my brain screamed!           Ahhhhhhhh!!!!!!    

 

Thanks.....   I didn't mean to inspire a Salary Cap version of War and Peace! 

 

I don't suppose a few simple "yes" or "no"  would've sufficed?!?     Yeah,  I guess not!

 

Oh well.....    excuse me while I go give myself a nice paper cut and pour lemon juice in there!!   

 

Seriously,  thanks for the 411....   (uhhhh,  I think!)

Nothing worse than brain freeze NCF!  You had me laughing out loud!!  

 

[Superman]

My.    Brain.    Just.     Went.     Numb.    And.     Dumb.

 

I'm almost sorry I asked!     And when you started talking about retroactive,  my brain screamed!           Ahhhhhhhh!!!!!!    

 

Thanks.....   I didn't mean to inspire a Salary Cap version of War and Peace! 

 

I don't suppose a few simple "yes" or "no"  would've sufficed?!?     Yeah,  I guess not!

 

Oh well.....    excuse me while I go give myself a nice paper cut and pour lemon juice in there!!   

 

Seriously,  thanks for the 411....   (uhhhh,  I think!)

 

That's the abridged version.

 

Go here, and start on page 81, if you really want to go crazy.

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/2011_Final_CBA.pdf

 

Seriously, the short answer is yes, you have to spend to be in compliance, but there's no grave penalty for not being in compliance. You just have to cut a check at the end of four years to make up the shortage.

[SteelCityColt]

That's the abridged version.

Go here, and start on page 81, if you really want to go crazy.

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/2011_Final_CBA.pdf

Seriously, the short answer is yes, you have to spend to be in compliance, but there's no grave penalty for not being in compliance. You just have to cut a check at the end of four years to make up the shortage.

Knowing Mr Irsay he'll raffle off the surplus cash in a Twitter contest. Abby hat pick for $4 million dollars anyone?

[englishcoltsfan]

With that money we'll need to sign:

Heyward-Bey

Bradshaw

Vontae Davis

McAfee

Angerer

Bethea

 

Plus we have about 20 lesser players becoming FAs.

[Kenny]

Nothing worse than brain freeze NCF!  You had me laughing out loud!!  

 

 

SSCCRRRUUBBBBBSSSSSSS

[TKnight24]

With that money we'll need to sign:

Heyward-Bey

Bradshaw

Vontae Davis

McAfee

Angerer

Bethea

Plus we have about 20 lesser players becoming FAs.

3 out of those 6 haven't earned a re-signing yet

Pat Angerer

DHB

Ahmad Bradshaw

All 3 have to EARN their re-signing this season

[husker61]

With that money we'll need to sign:

Heyward-Bey

Bradshaw

Vontae Davis

McAfee

Angerer

Bethea

 

Plus we have about 20 lesser players becoming FAs.

 

we don't need to sign bey, bradshaw, or angerer. they have to prove themselves first. i would put conner ahead of angerer. venatieri is also a free agent. i am not sure if mcafee s ready to be a consistent place kicker, taking up more cap space. a team could show 30 million of cap space, but that could be for 35 roster spots under contract. you have to fill the other spots, eating up a lot of the perceived cap space. i doubt there will be a lot of cap space unless the colts don't resign a lot of players on this years roster.

[throwing BBZ]

3 out of those 6 haven't earned a re-signing yet

Pat Angerer

DHB

Ahmad Bradshaw

All 3 have to EARN their re-signing this season

 

Vontae is one we would expect to be a top talent to keep. 

McAfee is good but replaceable.

 

The rest are on a watch and see list .

 

[Valpo2004]

According to this our cap hit for 2014 should be $82,691,867

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/cap-hit/2014/

 

With a 123 million dollar cap that should put us at about 40.3 mil in cap space.

 

But we won't have that by the time FA period starts.  We still have to sign Werner which will probably be about 1.6 mil in cap hit.  

 

On top of that we have to re-sign a few players that we certainly will want to keep.  

 

Here is the list of our players who will be FA's at the end of this season.

 

http://www.spotrac.com/free-agents/nfl/2014/indianapolis-colts/

 

I would guess that we have about 20 to 25 mil in cap space in 2014 after we re-sign the players we want to keep.  That will be enough to grab a couple of FA's to help out our team and do a full draft.

[TKnight24]

Vontae is one we would expect to be a top talent to keep.

McAfee is good but replaceable.

The rest are on a watch and see list .

If Bethea has another 100 tackle season he's coming back next year. Which I was already expecting him to do especially since he actually has a good safety partner.