erynthered Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 The Bills have plenty of cap room to sign some F/A. But will they. Cap money available: 1. San Francisco $42.1M 2. Buffalo $39.7M 3. Arizona $36.7M 4. Tennessee $36M 5. Cleveland $33.3M 6. Minnesota $32.4M 7. (tie)Jacksonville $32M 7. St. Louis $32M 9. New England $30.4M 10. Cincinnati $30.2M 11. New Orleans $29.9M 12. Green Bay $29.5M 13. New York Jets $26.1M 14. San Diego $24.6M 15. Tampa Bay $24.2M 16. Detroit $23.8M 17. Chicago $23.4M 18. Seattle $22.5M 19. Dallas $21.5M 20. Miami $17.8M 21. New York Giants $15.7M 22. Oakland $14.1M 23. Houston $13.3M 24. Atlanta $10M 25. Philadelphia $12.4M 26. Denver $7.6M 27. Kansas City $7M 28. Baltimore $5.7M 29. Indianapolis $4.9M 30. Carolina $3.4M 31. Washington $951,000 32. Pittsburgh $150,000 These numbers are fluid and can change based on bonuses, roster moves, contract extensions, etc.
Bill from NYC Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 Thanks for posting this great information! By the way, are you sure this is recent? The Bengals seem to have a ton considering they re-signed both OTs and a DE.
RuntheDamnBall Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 They do, but the better context for this, as I believe Kelly pointed out, is how many players do each of these teams have under contract? And which major FAs do some of these teams have that they're yet to sign or tender an offer to? The Bills have Clements, Fletcher, Thomas, Gandy, a few others. But they also have Willis wanting an extension; Lee Evans and JP Losman not too far off. Do these guys merit extensions more than we can overpay for our in-house UFAs and guys from outside? It should be an interesting offseason, no doubt about that. I hope it's not remarkable for its inactivity.
marauderswr80 Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 San Fran can do some damage they get some solid FA's they become an instant contender!
apuszczalowski Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 As I have mentioned before, that number is just a figure as to how much a team can spend. It doesn't mean they have the cash to actually cover that amount. So a team may have 40 million in cap space, but they may only have 30 to spend Although looking at that list, who would have thought Pittsburgh would beat out Washington for lowest cap room? Another thing, looking at that list, it doesn't look good because of how much space everyone else has, which means its even harder to attract FA because so many teams will have the room to pay them so theres more options for them. And theres not much when it comes to quality out there, so the good ones will go fast, and for lots of $$$$$$'s
apuszczalowski Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 San Fran can do some damage they get some solid FA's they become an instant contender! They were already getting better, and next year could be looking at making a serious run for the playoffs
erynthered Posted January 26, 2007 Author Posted January 26, 2007 Thanks for posting this great information! By the way, are you sure this is recent? The Bengals seem to have a ton considering they re-signed both OTs and a DE. Figures are approximate. Sources: media reports, club officials and NFL Players Association.
ganesh Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 Although looking at that list, who would have thought Pittsburgh would beat out Washington for lowest cap room? And they are yet to re-sign Big Ben and Troy Polamalu, their cornerstones on Offense and defense.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 As I have mentioned before, that number is just a figure as to how much a team can spend. It doesn't mean they have the cash to actually cover that amount. So a team may have 40 million in cap space, but they may only have 30 to spend And this comment is based on what?
apuszczalowski Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 And this comment is based on what? Its based on the fact that the NFL doesn't calculate the cap on how much money each team can spend without going into the red, and its based on other figures, so it doesn't guarantee that every team has the money to back up their cap numbers. I'm not saying that any teams definitly doesn't have the money this season, just that that figure doesn't guarantee each team will be able to spend to it. I know its a different league, but its like last year in the NHL (both leagues had caps) and the Sabres had tons of cap space, but financially they didn't have the cash to spend to it, because it would have put them into the red for operating costs last year. (they made a very small profit last year 10 mil under the cap and making it deep in the playoffs)
Kelly the Dog Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 Its based on the fact that the NFL doesn't calculate the cap on how much money each team can spend without going into the red, and its based on other figures, so it doesn't guarantee that every team has the money to back up their cap numbers. I'm not saying that any teams definitly doesn't have the money this season, just that that figure doesn't guarantee each team will be able to spend to it. I know its a different league, but its like last year in the NHL (both leagues had caps) and the Sabres had tons of cap space, but financially they didn't have the cash to spend to it, because it would have put them into the red for operating costs last year. (they made a very small profit last year 10 mil under the cap and making it deep in the playoffs) The NFL isn't anything like other leagues, it's apples and orangutans. The cap is a fixed number. Teams spend a little above (a few mil) sometimes, which needs to be paid the following year. But each team this year is getting more in CASH just from TV than they can possibly spend including the bonuses in cash (because this never gets out of hand) and then take in tens and tens and tens of millions more throughout the season in cash. To your point, when teams are paying out huge cash numbers in bonuses they simultaneously are gaining back tens of millions under the cap in bonus money they have paid out in the previous 1-7 years, for as many players on their rosters who have bonuses, which are most. So in effect, they put out too much cash in bonuses on free agents and they get back too much cash in monies attached to the cap that they don't pay out because they already have. Not to mention the dead money they already paid that is "cap money". So they do have the cash. Granted, they don't have the cash to pay three different players 15 million bonuses but no team does that anyway. And teams also, all the time, when they need cash, just switch around salaries on other players to make cap room and cash room available.
erynthered Posted January 26, 2007 Author Posted January 26, 2007 On Free agency: "As soon as the gate opens, you've got to be ready to go," Browns general manager Phil Savage said. "Last year, there were a couple cases where we couldn't even get the paper in the fax machine and (the player) was already off the market. It happens that quickly."
bbfan54 Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 Cap space comparisons between teams can sometimes be misleading because some teams have more players under contract.
Pyrite Gal Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 But they also have Willis wanting an extension; While WM certainly wants an extension, the key to this situation is that between his yardage gained going down each of the last two years and also the leverage the Bills have under the CBA, WM is in no position to hold out or force an extension. The good news for those worried about WMs amount of motivation he has every financial incentive to have a productive year this season. If he does, the Bills still hold the ability to tag him and like folks like Alexander or Jones the Bills could even tag him again. Add to this the record being that Rosenhaus clients rarely if ever hold out, the Bills are under little pressure to move him this year (and who would give up much for him if he is as bad as some folks say, there is a simple contradiction in the view that WM must go because he is not good or he is problematic to fans AND another team would trade a lot for this unaccomplished jerk) amd quite frankly even to part with him next year IF he has a good season this coming season.
JuanGuzman Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 Although looking at that list, who would have thought Pittsburgh would beat out Washington for lowest cap room? And they are yet to re-sign Big Ben and Troy Polamalu, their cornerstones on Offense and defense. Glad to see Pittsburgh is somewhat handcuffed by the cap. I would like to see the Bills make an offer at Pitt's Restricted Free Agent Max Starks and move him inside to G.
cåblelady Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 31. Washington $951,000 32. Pittsburgh $150,000 BWAHAHAHA!
erynthered Posted January 27, 2007 Author Posted January 27, 2007 BWAHAHAHA! Paul was a big Steeeeeeeeeeeelers fan, right? I miss him.
The Jokeman Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 San Fran can do some damage they get some solid FA's they become an instant contender! I didn't realize the Browns had so much room, I hope they don't intend to go after a kid from Shaker Heights, a streetcar suburb of Cleveland, that many of us know as Nate Clements.
In space no one can hear Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 They were already getting better, and next year could be looking at making a serious run for the playoffs I think the niners are moving in a positive direction- and it helps to have Frank Gore!! He had an incredible year and was a RELENTLESS, hardnosed runner all season long- no matter the opponent(kind of the ant-mcgahee) I think it would really hurt them to lose Norv Turner and I am hoping he stays put in San Fran.
generaLee83 Posted January 27, 2007 Posted January 27, 2007 31. Washington $951,000 These numbers are fluid and can change based on bonuses, roster moves, contract extensions, etc. This is a pretty pathetic number for the Skins, it is going to take monstrous maneuvering for them to land Clements IMO. A Clements deal is going to cost at least 6-8 million per year I'm guessing.
Recommended Posts