Salary Cap Bind Of Players

[Brandon22]

I Know some are talking about trading Ray Rice for some high picks in this years draft?why do they want him gone? the reason is not just that he eats our cap next year but he is also the easiest position to replace look at Lache Seastrunk out of Baylor he is the fastest and strongest RB in the Draft this Year by trading away Rice we can replace him with Seastrunk using our pick we already have plus we can draft an LT with the higher one because lets face reality we need there is no way on earth Antonio Richardson falls to number 32 and we need to worry about our offensive line protecting our franchise QB in Joe Flacco. here is the best reason I can think of Ray Rice plus I don't Know about everyone else but I rather trade Rice than Trade Ngata,Yanda,Smith,Flacco,or Oher let me know what you think of some peoples perspectives about this

[rmw10]

[NaveSenrag]

Eh. I really like Rice, but I'd trade him for a handful of 2014 picks (including a first and second rounder) if this Seastrunk guy is good enough to co-start with Pierce.

 

Didn't we hear about how one of our FO's strengths was knowing to deal or release players just when they reached the point where their career begins to decline? Rice is just on the cusp of decline for RBs, especially considering that we ran him into the ground in his first few years.

[rmw10]

Eh. I really like Rice, but I'd trade him for a handful of 2014 picks (including a first and second rounder) if this Seastrunk guy is good enough to co-start with Pierce.

 

Didn't we hear about how one of our FO's strengths was knowing to deal or release players just when they reached the point where their career begins to decline? Rice is just on the cusp of decline for RBs, especially considering that we ran him into the ground in his first few years.

 

Sigh...

 

It's not possible with his cap number.

 

 

 

RAY RICE CANNOT AND WILL NOT BE TRADED.

[beanfigger]

Trade Ray Rice, huh?  What an original idea that has never come up on this board before.

 

By the way, if we keep him, next year his cap hit is $8.75mil.  If we cut or trade him, the hit for all the rest of his dead money over the next three years will all fall to next year.  The cap hit would then be $14.25mil next year for a player who is no longer on the team

[msufan]

Trade Ray Rice, huh? What an original idea that has never come up on this board before.

By the way, if we keep him, next year his cap hit is $8.75mil. If we cut or trade him, the hit for all the rest of his dead money over the next three years will all fall to next year. The cap hit would then be $14.25mil next year for a player who is no longer on the team

thats how you end up being the jets or raiders they have no talent but lots of dead money.

[gabefergy]

Sigh...

It's not possible with his cap number.



RAY RICE CANNOT AND WILL NOT BE TRADED.

How many times have we had to say this? People still don't get it smh.

[GrimCoconut]

Let me approach this differently than most. First of all, let's entertain the idea it's doable to trade Rice. Yes, it's true that his accelerated cap space almost assuredly indicates he'll stay here for the remainder of his deal or close to it. I'm just playing devil's advocate so please relax.

Theoretically, we could trade Rice and eat the hit but also restructure a few contracts in doing so. I'm looking at Suggs, as he takes up a huge amount of cap so he would be the ideal guy since we'd free up cap by releasing Rice. We could also extend Oher now if he's in our plans. We use that freed up money to allow cap.

But let's say we want to do it next year. Not this year. Same principle applies. We trade Rice, restructure Suggs, cut a few guys, and then use what little money is left to do the business. It could work.

Problem is, it's not a move Ozzie Newsome makes. I don't think he's ever done a move like it before.

Also, I'm a huge fan of Tiny but how do you know he won't make it to us at 32 and how do you know we even win the Super Bowl? A bit premature? This class is looking loaded with pass rushers, QB, WR, TE and a few CB and S with a nice OL. There are other LT that are usually rated above him.

[SecretAgentMan]

+35 million

[The Raven]

Let's just cut Flacco. That'll save a lot of room.

[NaveSenrag]

Let's just cut Flacco. That'll save a lot of room.

I'm sure Ozzie is salivating at the thought of working around $53 million in dead cap from one player.

[K-Dog]

Let's just cut Flacco. That'll save a lot of room.

 

Two for one deal.  Rice AND Flacco. 

 

I am sure we could get some good players for those two.

[Sami84]

this might not be funny if rice is not producing .

[BloodRaven]

I Know some are talking about trading Ray Rice for some high picks in this years draft?why do they want him gone? the reason is not just that he eats our cap next year but he is also the easiest position to replace look at Lache Seastrunk out of Baylor he is the fastest and strongest RB in the Draft this Year by trading away Rice we can replace him with Seastrunk using our pick we already have plus we can draft an LT with the higher one because lets face reality we need there is no way on earth Antonio Richardson falls to number 32 and we need to worry about our offensive line protecting our franchise QB in Joe Flacco. here is the best reason I can think of Ray Rice plus I don't Know about everyone else but I rather trade Rice than Trade Ngata,Yanda,Smith,Flacco,or Oher let me know what you think of some peoples perspectives about this

 

 

[codizzle]

But so much yes

[flynismo]

this might not be funny if rice is not producing .

No, its still funny, since we are on the hook for all the money we owe him, regardless of whether he is producing or not

[runamuk]

we could trade anyone but why would we want to . we are still on the hook for Pollard and cundiff if I'm not mistaken . end of this season we have to lock down Pitta ,A. Jones,Torrey and more . correct me if any of this is wrong.

[Puntit]

... especially considering that we ran him into the ground in his first few years.

I'm not sure why you think we ran him into the ground in his first few years. He played the first couple of years as part of our "three headed monster" which also featured McGahee and McLain. So he actually got a lot fewer touches than most of the marquis RBs in the league during his early years. And he has in most years had a fullback running in front of him, which also reduces some of the wear and tear a back will take. So let's not rewrite history -- we have been quite economical in terms of not wearing Rice down.

 

The guy has 1.5 bad games behind a new center and with a new OC, and you guys are ready to consider him a has-been. Crazy.

 

Rice carries too big a cap number to even consider a trade even if it were time to trade him. But I actually think he's got a couple more good years in him. If you are going to groom someone to take his place, you do it while he is here, not dump rice and hope a rookie can make a difference. (That's exactly what Pittsburgh did with most of their offensive line, as well as dumping Mendenhall when they lined up Bell and look how well that has worked out for them.) Ozzie does a good job of grooming people -- he brought in Pitta and Dickson while Heap was still on the Roster, now brought in Juice while we still have Leach. Rookies thrown into starting roles rarely prosper -- the Marlon Brown and Matt Elam's are actually very very rare. Its why teams stow so many rookies in the practice squad, special teams or on IR -- maybe 10% of the rookies signed by NFL teams will become starters in the next 3 years. This is why having good scouts and a good draft matters -- not every guy in the first couple of rounds will make a useful transition from college to the NFL, and you can easily have a pick early in every round and have none of them pan out. (I think in the past teams like the Raiders have made this into an artform).

 

OP, you need to rethink your philosophy of football. The goal isn't to trade for trades sake or assume that every other teams castaway or practice squad player is better than every guy not performing on the Ravens.  You also shouldn't want to concede a season where you can still win in hopes of getting players who may or may not pan out down the road. If you are Cleveland and you feel the best you will do is third in your division, maybe you look at life this way. But as long as the Ravens are still in the running to be a division or wildcard winner, you never want to have this attitude or outlook. A true fan doesn't. A true fan gets upset by the idea that we would even discuss trading away Rice while he still has a lot in the tank.  This is the attitude that gets you a team like Cleveland or Jacksonville. Those fans are used to a GM who throws away silver in hopes of finding gold. Always playing for the first pick in the draft, not the Lombardi. Its a suckers play.

[Poes Crows]

3,936,000,000 that's the maximum aggregate of salaries for all NFL Teams.  Funny how we know precisely each team's salary expense. Why is that? But who knows what each NFL team's Gross and Net Profit is?  Anyone?....Anyone at all?......

 

Silence....

 

Just the faint echo of the question.

 

It gets real easy to have a one way debate when one has only half of the facts....Here the fans discuss the players and what should be done considering the constraints they have knowledge about.

 

It's generally "reported" that the NFL is a 9 Billion dollar a year entity.

 

If the Players Union is going to "open the books" in regard to what players are paid, wouldn't a fair consideration involve what the total revenues are?

 

It gets real easy to factor, consider and even adopt the management position when fed only one half of the information.

[Puntit]

3,936,000,000 that's the maximum aggregate of salaries for all NFL Teams.  Funny how we know precisely each team's salary expense. Why is that? But who knows what each NFL team's Gross and Net Profit is?  Anyone?....Anyone at all?......

 

Silence....

 

Just the faint echo of the question.

 

It gets real easy to have a one way debate when one has only half of the facts....Here the fans discuss the players and what should be done considering the constraints they have knowledge about.

 

It's generally "reported" that the NFL is a 9 Billion dollar a year entity.

 

If the Players Union is going to "open the books" in regard to what players are paid, wouldn't a fair consideration involve what the total revenues are?

 

It gets real easy to factor, consider and even adopt the management position when fed only one half of the information.

Youve tried to make this point multiple times before and I think you still miss the point. We know what the salaries are because putting together a team within a fixed cap space is PART of the game of football these days. Its strategy. Part of the offseason chess match that keeps football fans interested even during the offseason. Part of the strategy in football these days is putting together different priced pieces that can only add up to a set number and still win. Anyone who has taken part in an auction draft style game knows that that is half the fun -- how it plays out over the season is the other half. Do you go all in with a few super expensive pieces and surround them with league minimum guys, do you break the bank on one superstar, do you keep everything very balanced? Any approach can theoretically work and its very fun to see how different teams set the balance. And fans get into it, as they should.  But nobody really cares what the NFL gross or net is because that isn't part of the game from our vantage point. That's all based on cable revenue and merchandizing and things we arent integrally involved with. Whether a team makes 1 billion or 800 million because of a lucrative cable deal doesn't impact me. How much of that they pass down to the players doesn't impact me because all that matters from the fans perspective is the cap.  All that impacts me is who they can get to play within the cap space they have to play with. Which is why I as a fan care about the cap space and each players hit within that space. Get it? Suggesting that peoples interest in salary is "repulsive" as you suggested in another thread totally misses the point of a cap driven game. We don't care about who is getting rich and who isn't. We care about our GM putting together a competitive team within the rules of the game, rules which include a set cap.

[RavensPunkXVX]

Poll time; What's worse, trade threads or FA threads?

[Puntit]

Poll time; What's worse, trade threads or FA threads?

If the upshot is that we should get rid of our players for new ones who arent necessarilly any better, I'd say its a wash.

[beanfigger]

Poll time; What's worse, trade threads or FA threads?

 

I'd go with trades.  At least with some FA threads, we actually might end up with the guy being talked about.  Trade threads are empty fantasies, usually, by the OP, and rarely relate to anything actually being pursued by the team in reality.

[arnie_uk]

Are nfl teams not public companies with in our case biscotti owning 100 percent of the shares? I know a lot of the bigger football teams are like Manchester utd and you can view their yearly accounts.

Is this not the same for nfl teams

[arnie_uk]

3,936,000,000 that's the maximum aggregate of salaries for all NFL Teams. Funny how we know precisely each team's salary expense. Why is that? But who knows what each NFL team's Gross and Net Profit is? Anyone?....Anyone at all?......

Silence....

Just the faint echo of the question.

It gets real easy to have a one way debate when one has only half of the facts....Here the fans discuss the players and what should be done considering the constraints they have knowledge about.

It's generally "reported" that the NFL is a 9 Billion dollar a year entity.

If the Players Union is going to "open the books" in regard to what players are paid, wouldn't a fair consideration involve what the total revenues are?

It gets real easy to factor, consider and even adopt the management position when fed only one half of the information.

what does it matter if nfl teams make 1 mil a yr or 10 billiom? The cap still exists and thus wages have to be below that figure. They also can't make the cap say 200mil bbecause then that will ruin the parity they have as teams like the jags couldnt afford that payroll with half empty stadiums every week.

Do you want a situation with no cap and the teams with the richest owners wining year in year out?

[Puntit]

Are nfl teams not public companies with in our case biscotti owning 100 percent of the shares? I know a lot of the bigger football teams are like Manchester utd and you can view their yearly accounts.

Is this not the same for nfl teams

I don't think there's any real secret that NFL teams make a lot of money. If you google Biscotti's net worth, I bet you get lots of estimates. So what.

 

I'm not sure why that poster is so obsessed with the notion that we have 30 billionaires screwing over several hundred millionaires. At any rate, as I explained, the only reason most of us care what players are earning has nothing to do with his well being, but exclusively has to do with the cap and how it impacts the product our team can put on the field to be competitive. He and his union and lawyers can worry about his well being. I just care that we make good $ decisions such that the 53 guys we put out there are the best 53 we can squeeze under the cap number.

[Brandon22]

Let me approach this differently than most. First of all, let's entertain the idea it's doable to trade Rice. Yes, it's true that his accelerated cap space almost assuredly indicates he'll stay here for the remainder of his deal or close to it. I'm just playing devil's advocate so please relax.

Theoretically, we could trade Rice and eat the hit but also restructure a few contracts in doing so. I'm looking at Suggs, as he takes up a huge amount of cap so he would be the ideal guy since we'd free up cap by releasing Rice. We could also extend Oher now if he's in our plans. We use that freed up money to allow cap.

But let's say we want to do it next year. Not this year. Same principle applies. We trade Rice, restructure Suggs, cut a few guys, and then use what little money is left to do the business. It could work.

Problem is, it's not a move Ozzie Newsome makes. I don't think he's ever done a move like it before.

Also, I'm a huge fan of Tiny but how do you know he won't make it to us at 32 and how do you know we even win the Super Bowl? A bit premature? This class is looking loaded with pass rushers, QB, WR, TE and a few CB and S with a nice OL. There are other LT that are usually rated above him.

I Really Love the Idea to cut a few players if they dont restructure and we could Restructure Haloti Ngata's Deal to 8 million in stead of 16 and also cut Marshal Yanda's Salary in Half along with Terrell Suggs

[bauer77]

I Really Love the Idea to cut a few players if they dont restructure and we could Restructure Haloti Ngata's Deal to 8 million in stead of 1 and also cut Marshal Yanda's Salary in Half along with Terrell Suggs

 

Not attacking you at all, but please stop suggesting this. There's no one out there right now that we have to put all that extra money into future years. Do you want to end up like the steelers? just mortgaging their future by just pushing that money back. No thanks.

[Poes Crows]

Actually, yes, a salary cap is not in the best interests of the players.

 

Its easy to see why when high skill veterans are left out in the Salary Cap Squeeze.  Players make the league, not owners. Who roots for owners?

 

Among the owners it is a healthy thing to "Revenue Share". Sharing the media money keeps all the teams healthy and ensures the continuation of the NFL.

 

Now, If an individual owner wants to pay a player beyond what his league worth is. It should be his right to do so even if he goes into the "red".

 

What's objectionable is the artifice that's been constructed with the aid of the Player's Union to limit what players can "collectively" make so that owners may enjoy a covert windfall.

 

I don't believe raising the salary cap is the answer. The players will face the same issues of being highly skilled but finding themselves left out in the mix. 

 

The players have to realize what's going on and urge their union to take strong action from this point forward.

[beanfigger]

Actually, yes, a salary cap is not in the best interests of the players.

Its easy to see why when high skill veterans are left out in the Salary Cap Squeeze. Players make the league, not owners. Who roots for owners?

Among the owners it is a healthy thing to "Revenue Share". Sharing the media money keeps all the teams healthy and ensures the continuation of the NFL.

Now, If an individual owner wants to pay a player beyond what his league worth is. It should be his right to do so even if he goes into the "red".

What's objectionable is the artifice that's been constructed with the aid of the Player's Union to limit what players can "collectively" make so that owners may enjoy a covert windfall.

I don't believe raising the salary cap is the answer. The players will face the same issues of being highly skilled but finding themselves left out in the mix.

The players have to realize what's going on and urge their union to take strong action from this point forward.

The salary cap fluctuates based on the percentage of profit that the players union negotiated with the league for. They get that percentage, so if the TV stations decide to throw even more money at the league, the cap will go up. That's how I understand it.

If there were no salary cap and owners could just sign and pay whoever whatever they wanted, the Seahawks would have all the best players because they have the richest owner. Even Bisciotti mentioned this, I believe. It would become like baseball where a handful of teams' payrolls are more than the rest of the league combined. The Yankees have something like 5 or 6 players who make more than the Astros entire team. That is not good for the sport.