Saints 2021 Cap Situation (Must See) **Eagles on page 2 ***Steelers/Falcons on page 3

[w87r 5,001]

3 hours ago, tweezy32 said:

Bet they move MT to save money and try to get some good picks for him

They lose more money by trading him, it doesn't free up any cap space. They would actually lose a $1.2m more than just keeping him.($18.8m vs $20m)

 

They can save close to $9m against the cap this year, with a restructure as I laid out above though. Really the only option for them.

 

 

$12.6m base reduced to $1m

 

$11.6m ÷ 4(remaining years on contract)= $2.9m per season.

 

$2.9 × 3 = $8.7m savings for 2021

[FortheWin 231]

Saints are in full rebuild mode. Word is they will resign Winston for cheap next year and then reset the cap for the future. 

[w87r 5,001]

27 minutes ago, FortheWin said:

Saints are in full rebuild mode. Word is they will resign Winston for cheap next year and then reset the cap for the future. 

That is their only option.

 

 

Hope they mean Winston for $1 or $2m because thats about all they can afford after gutting the team like in the OP to just get back into the positives.

 

Would be a good chance for Winston to recoup his value on the market. To start for a tear under Payton.

[chad72 7,127]

32 minutes ago, w87r said:

That is their only option.

 

 

Hope they mean Winston for $1 or $2m because thats about all they can afford after gutting the team like in the OP to just get back into the positives.

 

Would be a good chance for Winston to recoup his value on the market. To start for a tear under Payton.

 

Winston will keep them competitive and we will see if he can cut on his turnovers. It was difficult to watch Brees not stretch the field past 20 yards at all throughout the game. 

 

Once Brees is gone, you can pencil in the Bucs for a top 2 seeding in the NFC for sure.

[chad72 7,127]

I would sign Emmanuel Sanders for the Colts, he is a great route runner and will definitely improve the options for our WR corps. I would also not mind one of their younger OL - Armstead or Ramczyk on our team as well.

 

It sure is going to look like a garage sale there.

[w87r 5,001]

Ok, next up is the Eagles, going to delve into what the need to do to get back to positive cap space and be able to field a roster.

 

2021 cap space: -$53.3m(negative)

64 players on active roster

Release/Trades:

Zach Ertz $4.7m cap savings

Desean Jackson $5.1m cap savings

Derek Barnett $10m cap savings

Marquise Goodwin $4.5m cap savings

 

Total savings: $24.3m

 

Updated cap space: -$29m(negative)

60 players on active roster

Restructure:(estimated savings)

Fletcher Cox $7m savings

 Darius Slay $7.2m savings

Javon Hargrave $6m savings

Brandon Brooks $6.8m savings

Lane Johnson $6.3m savings

Isaac Seumalo $1.5m savings

 

 

Total saving: $34.8m

 

Cap Space: $5.8m

60 players on roster

 

 

Thats about all I can see(might be a couple that save them less than $1m but will need to be replaced so does veey little good really), good news for them they are over active roster space and every signing will knock $780k or more off of whoever they signed for top 51 roster cap. #6 pick is pretty expensive though.

[Superman 9,187]

5 hours ago, w87r said:

They lose more money by trading him, it doesn't free up any cap space. They would actually lose a $1.2m more than just keeping him.($18.8m vs $20m)

 

They can save close to $9m against the cap this year, with a restructure as I laid out above though. Really the only option for them.

 

 

$12.6m base reduced to $1m

 

$11.6m ÷ 4(remaining years on contract)= $2.9m per season.

 

$2.9 × 3 = $8.7m savings for 2021

 

June 1 trade of Thomas saves the Saints $12.8m.

[Zoltan 541]

21 hours ago, w87r said:

Happened to Jaguars to. Couple years back they had all that cal space, spent it on a bunch of guys, did make AFC Championship game, but them had to burn it down.

 

I think they knew what they were doing and decided to go all out with Brees last couple years and knew they would have a total rebuild once he had to retire

 

Possibly positioning themselves for one really bad year, and a first overall pick to look for a new QB

[Zoltan 541]

1 hour ago, w87r said:

Ok, next up is the Eagles, going to delve into what the need to do to get back to positive cap space and be able to field a roster.

 

2021 cap space: -$53.3m(negative)

64 players on active roster

Release/Trades:

Zach Ertz $4.7m cap savings

Desean Jackson $5.1m cap savings

Derek Barnett $10m cap savings

Marquise Goodwin $4.5m cap savings

 

Total savings: $24.3m

 

Updated cap space: -$29m(negative)

60 players on active roster

Restructure:(estimated savings)

Fletcher Cox $7m savings

 Darius Slay $7.2m savings

Javon Hargrave $6m savings

Brandon Brooks $6.8m savings

Lane Johnson $6.3m savings

Isaac Seumalo $1.5m savings

 

 

Total saving: $34.8m

 

Cap Space: $5.8m

60 players on roster

 

 

Thats about all I can see(might be a couple that save them less than $1m but will need to be replaced so does veey little good really), good news for them they are over active roster space and every signing will knock $780k or more off of whoever they signed for top 51 roster cap. #6 pick is pretty expensive though.

 

There Alshon Jeffrey contract is horrendous he is getting paid big money, and he is a terrible receiver 

[w87r 5,001]

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

June 1 trade of Thomas saves the Saints $12.8m.

They have to operate under the cap before that though.

 

Don't see how they get there without a restructure of Thomas first, which will make that figure even higher.

 

 

What's your thoughts on my post?

[w87r 5,001]

5 minutes ago, Zoltan said:

 

I think they knew what they were doing and decided to go all out with Brees last couple years and knew they would have a total rebuild once he had to retire

 

Possibly positioning themselves for one really bad year, and a first overall pick to look for a new QB

They definitely did, but I dont think its a 1 year fix as they will have to push more money into the future this offseason.

[Superman 9,187]

45 minutes ago, w87r said:

They have to operate under the cap before that though.

 

Don't see how they get there without a restructure of Thomas first, which will make that figure even higher.

 

 

What's your thoughts on my post?

 

I'm looking up some of the post June 1 stuff per the new CBA, to make sure I understand it. June 1 is now a misnomer; it's the first Monday after the draft, I think. Anyway, I think they can navigate that kind of contract situation under the CBA. But I don't think they're going to trade Michael Thomas.

 

I also don't think they'll trade or cut Taysom Hill. I see him as their starter next season.

 

The rest of it, yeah, they have to make drastic decisions. and 2021 is probably a reset season for them. Same for the Eagles.

[CR91 6,362]

Saints were in trouble regardless. Unless they plan on Taysom Hill being their QB moving forward, they need to replace Brees

[w87r 5,001]

44 minutes ago, Superman said:

also don't think they'll trade or cut Taysom Hill. I see him as their starter next season.

Yeah I just listed Taysom as another option to relieve some cap.

 

Think I might even of posted that in a post after saying they could,  it would make everything else pretty much a formality.

[tweezy32 353]

What a bad year for our players contracts to come up on us! Just imagine if we had like 2-3 more years on Nelson and smith and Leonard! We could go be grabbing a lot of these guys from them! Too bad we don’t have a lot of money for them

[Colts1324 395]

14 minutes ago, tweezy32 said:

What a bad year for our players contracts to come up on us! Just imagine if we had like 2-3 more years on Nelson and smith and Leonard! We could go be grabbing a lot of these guys from them! Too bad we don’t have a lot of money for them

This is why drafting a QB/Eason panning out would be ideal for when this happens again. I have stated I'm all for Stafford, but it further restricts you. 
 

We will have about $85 million  committed to Buckner($21 mill), Leonard($19 mill), Nelson($19 mill), Kelley($11 mill), & B. Smith($15 mill) alone after next season. 
 

The issue with having so much talent is eventually you have to get rid of some. I wouldn't be surprised if we trade a star in a few years because we can't afford to pay them(like the 49ers) for a high draft pick. 

 

[Colts1324 395]

14 minutes ago, tweezy32 said:

What a bad year for our players contracts to come up on us! Just imagine if we had like 2-3 more years on Nelson and smith and Leonard! We could go be grabbing a lot of these guys from them! Too bad we don’t have a lot of money for them

This is why drafting a QB/Eason panning out would be ideal for when this happens again. I have stated I'm all for Stafford, but it further restricts you. 
 

We will have about $85 million  committed to Buckner($21 mill), Leonard($19 mill), Nelson($19 mill), Kelley($11 mill), & B. Smith($15 mill) alone after next season. 
 

The issue with having so much talent is eventually you have to get rid of some. I wouldn't be surprised if we trade a star in a few years because we can't afford to pay them(like the 49ers) for a high draft pick. 

 

[NewColtsFan 8,286]

20 minutes ago, Colts1324 said:

This is why drafting a QB/Eason panning out would be ideal for when this happens again. I have stated I'm all for Stafford, but it further restricts you. 
 

We will have about $85 million  committed to Buckner($21 mill), Leonard($19 mill), Nelson($19 mill), Kelley($11 mill), & B. Smith($15 mill) alone after next season. 
 

The issue with having so much talent is eventually you have to get rid of some. I wouldn't be surprised if we trade a star in a few years because we can't afford to pay them(like the 49ers) for a high draft pick. 

 

 

I could easily be wrong about this,  but I think you're high on Nelson, Leonard and Smith.    Maybe not by a lot,  but by enough that the Colts will have more money left than you think.

 

***I think Q can pick the length of his deal.   I'm guessing he'll have the following options.  4/60 (15) or 5/80 (16) or 6/102. (17)

***I think Leonard is looking at roughly   4/56 (14)  5/75. (15)

***I think Smith is looking at                    4/50 (12.5)  5/65 (13)

 

The keys to all three deals are....   the signing bonus and the amount guaranteed at signing --- these two are often confused, but they are not the same.   

 

[NewColtsFan 8,286]

As well run as the Saints are,  they are historically a weird team with regard to the Salary Cap.

 

In a 4 year run over 5 years,  2009-2013, (Payton didn't coach in the NFL in 2012 due to BountyGate)   Sean Payton won 48 games.  13, 11, 13, and 11.    

 

But in 2014, there was a 3-year stretch where Payton's Saints went 7-9, 7-9, and 7-9.    So what happened?

 

Payton didn't get dumb over night and stay dumb for 3 years.    The Saints were in what may have been the worst Salary Cap Heck in NFL history.   Took them 3 years to dig their way out.    People on this website wondered if the Colts might be able to steal Payton from New Orleans to replace Pagano?

 

Oh,  and since 2017,  in a 4-year stretch. Payton's Saints have won 49 more games.   That's not an accident.  They've been out of Salary Cap Heck for four straight years.    But would now appear to be re-entering........

 

I guess they balance between the good years and the bad years.   But they don't blame their head coach for the financial decisions that are made.

 

[csmopar 7,179]

Like I said months ago, there's 12 teams OVER the cap.  Bills(right at the cap), Titans and Bears and probably the Vikings, all of which are over the cap by less than 8 million can make easy, painless moves to get back under the cap without disruption to their rosters.  Course, that's not figuring on any signings, including the upcoming draft picks so they will have to be a little bit creative.

 

Chiefs, Texas, Raider, Rams, Packers and Falcons are between 15 million and 33 million over the cap. Expect some more drastic moves here too, especially with some of the starters,  I see some big time movements there.

 

However, the Steelers only have 35 players signed and are still  31+ million over so I'm not sure how they are going to do it. So really, they're in the next category

 

Saints, Eagles- Lets face it, very drastic and full rebuild mode. Even if Brees retires and the Eagles move Wentz, it doesn't help them very much. at 99 million and 52 million over the cap respectively, I see a LOT of their quality players moving. Has too. May not be a super star, but they've got some solid depth and starters that will get some money elesewhere.

 

As for the rest of the league, there's 6 teams sitting at minimal cap space, almost none after draft picks are figured in. I don't see many drastic moves from those 6. Maybe someone likes 49ers if they restructure someone or something.

 

That leaves 14 teams to fight over the players those first 12 most likely releases/trade. Tampa's effective cap is just 16.8 million, again, without the rookie reserve set aside. Really, the teams in pretty decent positions to sign their own and possibly pick up a really solid starter cast away or two are really the Bengals, Washington, New England, Indy, the Jets and the Jags. Of all the teams that made it to the post season, we have the most cap space of any of those teams. By far With the most players under contract too.  That part is KEY

 

I said a while back that I think we see a record number of 1 year prove it type deals where players who normally would be getting record setting contracts, end up with less than they would in a normal year, simply due to the 30 million reduction in cap. it really narrows what teams are going to be able to get in on the action.  Less bidders, with less money, typically results in lower prices. 

[w87r 5,001]

2 hours ago, csmopar said:

However, the Steelers only have 35 players signed and are still  31+ million over so I'm not sure how they are going to do it. So really, they're in the next category

I will do them next.

[RollerColt 2,491]

So what I'm getting from reading and researching this, is that veteran players are really screwed for this offseason. There's going to be quite a bit of free agents who will have to take significant pay cuts just to be employed. There's a lot of teams in cap trouble...

[csmopar 7,179]

39 minutes ago, w87r said:

I will do them next.

Looking at it too, it’s crazy

[Superman 9,187]

I think the league is going to try to make some concessions to soften the blow for this season, especially if they don't have to borrow from future years to keep the floor of $175m. I don't think they will want the mess of having so many recently contending teams turned upside down, a couple dozen good veteran players hitting FA and forced to take massive pay cuts, etc.

 

So if they can, they'll find a way to bump the cap up to $190ish in 2021. JMO.

[FortheWin 231]

Just now, Superman said:

I think the league is going to try to make some concessions to soften the blow for this season, especially if they don't have to borrow from future years to keep the floor of $175m. I don't think they will want the mess of having so many recently contending teams turned upside down, a couple dozen good veteran players hitting FA and forced to take massive pay cuts, etc.

 

So if they can, they'll find a way to bump the cap up to $190ish in 2021. JMO.

I have heard reports for a few weeks now that the cap will be flat and be at $195 for the reasons you stated. I think with the vaccine now here, the owners see the light at the end of the tunnel in terms of getting the fans back next season.

[FortheWin 231]

Guess I spoke too soon.  Cap projects to be closer to $180.

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/01/19/salary-cap-could-be-in-the-range-of-180-million/

[Superman 9,187]

7 minutes ago, FortheWin said:

I have heard reports for a few weeks now that the cap will be flat and be at $195 for the reasons you stated. I think with the vaccine now here, the owners see the light at the end of the tunnel in terms of getting the fans back next season.

 

Same.

 

And it makes sense, IMO. They set a cap floor of $175m, intending to borrow from future years, if necessary. Recent reports suggest that might not be necessary, that the cap would be slightly higher than $175m even without borrowing from future years. So with these teams stuck in bad cap situations -- due to an unforeseen global event, not just because of bad cap management -- and the ripple effect it would have to get them all under the cap, I'm wondering if they'll work something out. The basis for the agreement is already set.

[RollerColt 2,491]

12 minutes ago, Superman said:

I think the league is going to try to make some concessions to soften the blow for this season, especially if they don't have to borrow from future years to keep the floor of $175m. I don't think they will want the mess of having so many recently contending teams turned upside down, a couple dozen good veteran players hitting FA and forced to take massive pay cuts, etc.

 

So if they can, they'll find a way to bump the cap up to $190ish in 2021. JMO.

They're going to have to do something. At this point, there might be a lot of vets who won't even be able to play. Teams that do have some cap space will be reluctant to spend too much and end up like everyone else. 

[w87r 5,001]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Same.

 

And it makes sense, IMO. They set a cap floor of $175m, intending to borrow from future years, if necessary. Recent reports suggest that might not be necessary, that the cap would be slightly higher than $175m even without borrowing from future years. So with these teams stuck in bad cap situations -- due to an unforeseen global event, not just because of bad cap management -- and the ripple effect it would have to get them all under the cap, I'm wondering if they'll work something out. The basis for the agreement is already set.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/01/19/salary-cap-could-be-in-the-range-of-180-million/

 

Looks like they are looking at the $180m range.

 

Disregard just saw it posted above.

[w87r 5,001]

14 minutes ago, FortheWin said:

Guess I spoke too soon.  Cap projects to be closer to $180.

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/01/19/salary-cap-could-be-in-the-range-of-180-million/

Which makes sense. I figured if it went up from the cap floor it would be minimal. Obviously this isn't the final answer, but more likely.

 

As I've mentioned before the NFL lost 16million people for in game attendance. Projects out at $50m+ per team.

[Superman 9,187]

22 minutes ago, w87r said:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/01/19/salary-cap-could-be-in-the-range-of-180-million/

 

Looks like they are looking at the $180m range.

 

Disregard just saw it posted above.

 

But here's my point: They set an artificial floor at $175m, and would have borrowed from future years to adjust the cap, so it didn't go any lower than that. For these projections at $180m, it's my assumption that those are based on what the cap would be without any adjustments, no artificial cap.

 

So now, they could still make the same kind of adjustment they were prepared to make, and bump the cap up to $190m or so.

[w87r 5,001]

19 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

But here's my point: They set an artificial floor at $175m, and would have borrowed from future years to adjust the cap, so it didn't go any lower than that. For these projections at $180m, it's my assumption that those are based on what the cap would be without any adjustments, no artificial cap.

 

So now, they could still make the same kind of adjustment they were prepared to make, and bump the cap up to $190m or so.

The $175m was the floor. Even at that it was probably going to be 2-3 years of lower cap to break even to money lost. If they didnt borrow from future cap then the floor would be much lower than the $175m this year. It will rake 2-3 years of reduced cap to recoup $50m+ in attendance dollars lost.

 

 

Its my assumption that, that $180m is the adjustment for this season(from $175m), not that it will still be more to make on top of it.

 

We all know what happens when we assume something though.

[Superman 9,187]

1 minute ago, w87r said:

The $175m was the floor. Even at that it was probably going to be 2-3 years of lower cap to break even to money lost. If they didnt borrow from future cap then the floor would be much lower than the $175m this year. It will rake 2-3 years of reduced cap to recoup $50m+ in attendance dollars lost.

 

 

Its my assumption that, that $180m is the adjustment for this season(from $175m), not that it will still be more to make on top of it.

 

We all know what happens when we assume something though.

 

Just re-read the PFT article, and your read is probably right. Any adjustment up from $175m still appears to be based on borrowing, not great than expected revenue. So it's still all up in the air.

[w87r 5,001]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Just re-read the PFT article, and your read is probably right. Any adjustment up from $175m still appears to be based on borrowing, not great than expected revenue. So it's still all up in the air.

Yeah who knows. Hopefully it does come in around $195m. Would be great for us.

[Superman 9,187]

53 minutes ago, w87r said:

Yeah who knows. Hopefully it does come in around $195m. Would be great for us.

 

I think we're in good shape either way, it just adjusts our strategy with some extensions, and maybe we can't add another FA. 

 

For a team like the Eagles, it completely changes their approach. If the cap is $175m, they can't keep Wentz without completely gutting the rest of their roster.

[w87r 5,001]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I think we're in good shape either way, it just adjusts our strategy with some extensions, and maybe we can't add another FA. 

 

For a team like the Eagles, it completely changes their approach. If the cap is $175m, they can't keep Wentz without completely gutting the rest of their roster.

The Eagles are not as bad shape as Saints, clearly, but looks like they would only have to cut 4 guys then restructure a few.

 

 

Problem with Wentz for them is trading him only frees up a little over $800k in cap space this year(2021).

 

Now they can wait till after June 1st amd save more this year and put some dead cap till next year, but similar to Michael Thomas they would have to be operating under the cap before then.

[csmopar 7,179]

2 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Same.

 

And it makes sense, IMO. They set a cap floor of $175m, intending to borrow from future years, if necessary. Recent reports suggest that might not be necessary, that the cap would be slightly higher than $175m even without borrowing from future years. So with these teams stuck in bad cap situations -- due to an unforeseen global event, not just because of bad cap management -- and the ripple effect it would have to get them all under the cap, I'm wondering if they'll work something out. The basis for the agreement is already set.

Right. But for teams like the Saints and Eagles that were 50 and 70 million OVER The cap prior to Covid, they shouldn’t make any concessions. Now teams like the Titans that are only over because of the reduction, I’m fine with them doing something for those teams

[Superman 9,187]

9 minutes ago, w87r said:

The Eagles are not as bad shape as Saints, clearly, but looks like they would only have to cut 4 guys then restructure a few.

 

 

Problem with Wentz for them is trading him only frees up a little over $800k in cap space this year(2021).

 

Now they can wait till after June 1st amd save more this year and put some dead cap till next year, but similar to Michael Thomas they would have to be operating under the cap before then.

 

The Saints have a more obvious path to get under the cap. The Eagles are kind of stuck.

[w87r 5,001]

5 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Right. But for teams like the Saints and Eagles that were 50 and 70 million OVER The cap prior to Covid, they shouldn’t make any concessions. Now teams like the Titans that are only over because of the reduction, I’m fine with them doing something for those teams

How do you do one with out the other?

[Superman 9,187]

5 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Right. But for teams like the Saints and Eagles that were 50 and 70 million OVER The cap prior to Covid, they shouldn’t make any concessions. Now teams like the Titans that are only over because of the reduction, I’m fine with them doing something for those teams

 

I don't think we're talking about doing something to help those teams, just trying to minimize the league-wide fall out. Having a higher cap has the same effect across the board.

 

But, it's only the Saints and Eagles that are insanely over the expected cap. Rams and Falcons are at $32m, everyone else is under $30m. So the cap drop to $175m (or whatever) is hurting those teams more moderately over the cap, while the Saints and Eagles are in a different category.

 

Still, projections were for the 2021 cap to jump by $20-25m, then another $30-35m in 2022. Teams were building toward those higher caps, including the Saints and Eagles.