Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

salary cap question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • salary cap question

    If the rams were to release both MarK Fields(2.5 million) and Ryan Tucker(3.3 million), will the rams gain 5.8 million in cap space or will the rams take the hit?

  • #2
    they will inevitably take some kind of cap it. Depending on when they release them, the cap hit could be different. I'm not sure of dates/#s, but needless to say they would take a hit, just depends on how much.

    I would definitely be interested in seeing if those guys get cut, i'd bet fields would go before tucker....

    Comment


    • #3
      Fields, Tucker, & St. Clair

      I would like to see Fields voluntarily take a pay cut and stay with the team because we definitely need some depth and experience at the linebacker position. But, I don't think he will do that because they asked him to take a pay cut in New Orleans and he declined. I could care less about Tucker, in fact, I hope the rams cut him (good riddance Tuck) because I would like to see the rams give John St. Clair an opportunity to start.

      Go Rams!!! :ram:

      Comment


      • #4
        Like U I'd like Fields to stay , I think he handled hinself well, both on and off the pitch, it depends what the free agent market for LB's is like whether he wants to take a cut or not. If Fletcher tries the market and goes then suddenly Fields will find himself back at starter.

        Likewise with Tucker , if Jones signs a reasonable contract and if St Clair is as good as the spin coming out of Rams Park suggests then we don't need him BUT if St Clair is all hype and Jones wants big bucks then I reckon Tucker was an AOK right Tackle

        :lid:
        :helmet:
        GO CLAYMORES : DEAD BUT NOT FORGOTTEN

        Comment

        Related Topics

        Collapse

        • general counsel
          manu and the cap part 2
          by general counsel
          According to barry waller, manus 2006 salary is 1.325 million (he didnt answer as to what the total cap number is if you include the prorated signing bonus)

          barry says that if manu is cut pre june 1 (which obviously would give you the most use of the savings since presumably that is when there are better guys available to sign), we would save only 125k this year. That is a big big cap hit, over a million dollars. It wont happen guys.

          if he is cut after june 1, we would take a cap hit of a bit over 400k this year and about 600k next year.

          These numbers may not be exact, but i think it makes the point (as barry does) that it is unlikely that manu is going anywhere for this season.

          In 2006, lets throw him the ball and see if he can actually catch and get someone else on the relative cheap who can block. I have no objection to a middle round developmental tight end, but this cap view seems to rule out a high dollar free agent.

          ramming speed to all

          general counsel
          -01-30-2006, 12:20 PM
        • ManofGod
          Updated: Rams not over the cap!!!
          by ManofGod
          Many of the Rams faithful have been excited over the recent free agent moves made by the front office, but there is one problem....we are now over the mandatory salary cap. Now compared to other teams in the league who are several million dollars over the cap, the Rams 100K is laughable but this still means that unless the Rams make a few cuts and/or restructure a few contracts, several of the free agent moves made by the team will not be allowed to take effect. We have until 4pm to "make a deal", do any of you guys have an idea of possible moves the front office will make?
          -08-04-2011, 06:17 AM
        • eldfan
          (BLOG) A Look At The St. Louis Rams' Salary Cap Situation With Kevin Demoff
          by eldfan
          Ryan Van Bibber TURFF SHOW

          The NFL trade deadline is a week away. That, a rash of injuries, and a whole bunch of unmet expectations have fans wondering about the St. Louis Rams' salary cap situation. It was reported last week that the Rams had $6 million in available cap space. If only it were that simple. Rams Executive Vice President of Football Operations and Chief Operating Officer Kevin Demoff took some time to explain the team's cap situation with us recently.

          In reality, the Rams are approximately $1.345 million under the cap, in terms of "true salary cap dollars," according to Demoff. Those numbers reflect the most recent additions of WR Nick Miller and CB Brian Jackson.
          The discrepancy in the reported amount versus what Demoff calls the "true salary cap dollars" stems from the September restructure of Chris Long's contract, which freed up $4 million in space. Except it didn't free up $4 million in cap space.

          "While we freed up $4 million in the Chris Long grievance resolution, that is for a few remote salary cap contingencies that could kick in at the end of this year," Demoff explained. "So we always have to save that $4m for the end of the season. The likelihood is that $4 million will not be used this year and will roll over into 2012, which means the actual accounting of the Chris Long contract will not change as a result of the re-structure (we add $4 million in charges next year and get a $4 million credit for next year - a wash)."

          If the Rams do end up using that $4 million for contingencies this year, it would translate into a reduction in salaries owed in the 2012 season. The bottom line, however, is that money is not available for random additions, etc. this season. "The $4m was never designed to be "used" in 2011," said Demoff. "We entered the regular season with $3m of salary cap space and that should be enough to get through the season."
          The NFL salary cap is a complex beast. After the jump, Demoff explains the cap in a little more detail, and paints a picture of the Rams' cap situation for 2012.

          That $4 million aside, Demoff says that the Rams will be tight on cap space for the 2012 season, for the same reasons as this year.
          Our salary cap through 2012 is somewhat constricted because we had very high draft picks in 2008-2010. When you factor in those contracts, they account for nearly 32% of our salary cap, which means the remaining 50 players, IR and practice squad and cuts have to fit in the rest of the 68%. Factor in Steven Jackson and that number jumps to roughly 40%.

          According to Demoff, the Rams expect to have about $10 million in cap space for 2012, assuming a relatively flat cap and players returning on their current contracts as well as signing draft picks. It's also worth pointing out that most of the Rams' free agent additions this...
          -10-12-2011, 07:48 PM
        • Country
          Rams Salary Cap
          by Country
          I was wondering if anyone knew how much the Rams have in slalary cap space entering the offseason?

          I was also wondering if anyone had a chart or list of how much everyone is set to make in 2007?
          -01-09-2007, 03:23 PM
        • Nick_Weasel
          Some musings about why the Rams approach makes sense under new salary cap structure
          by Nick_Weasel
          There are different ways to build a roster in the NFL, and each team approaches it slightly differently. I've been doing a little thinking about how teams should adapt their approach based on the new CBA and the current trend of flat-to-slightly-increased salary cap each year. I think the Rams approach of not back-loading contracts and concentrating on locking up their core veterans years in advance both take advantage of the "new normal." A lot of this is just me thinking out loud so please correct me where I'm wrong.

          First, the issue of the (more or less) stagnant salary cap. This may change in the medium- and long-term, but at least for the next couple years the salary cap is expected to remain relatively flat. This affects the merits of backloading contracts and/or using huge signing bonuses to delay salary cap charges. One of the major advantages to delaying salary cap hits when the cap is growing rapidly is that the same charge is a smaller fraction of the salary cap in future years than in the current year. Let's say the salary cap is $100M (just to use a nice round number) and you have $5M in charges that you need to take. That's 5% of your team's salary cap. But if you delay the charge for a couple years to when the salary cap is (let's say) $125M, the same $5M represents only 4% of the salary cap. Salary cap inflation has solved part of the problem for you, essentially reducing the "cost" of that salary cap hit by 20% (from 5% -> 4%), while still allowing you to pay your player $5M in cash this year. If the salary cap remains at $100M though, 5% is 5% no matter when you take it.

          Second, the rookie wage scale. The days of massive (relatively speaking) rookie contracts are over. Sam Bradford signed a 6-year/$78M ($50M guaranteed) contract while a year later the #1 overall pick Cam Newton signed "only" a 4-year/$22M ($22M guaranteed) contract. But holding the overall salary cap constant, rookies making less means veterans making more. With players receiving a larger portion of their career earnings in their veteran contracts, it makes these contracts more important for them. It also means that rookies should put a larger premium on the safety of long-term contracts, especially if you are talking about offering players extensions while they still have a year or two existing under their current contract.

          For example, Sam Bradford should be less risk averse than Cam Newton when it comes to a 2nd contract - he has already made substantially more and so an injury/poor play affects his total earnings less than it would Newton. This means Newton should be more likely to accept a contract extension with a year left in his rookie contract, even if it means giving up a couple million over what he'd likely earn by waiting. A player like Bradford is better able to wait a year and test the FA waters because of the security his rookie contract afforded him (let's hope he doesn't!).
          ...
          -03-15-2013, 12:19 PM
        Working...
        X