salary cap question for Ravor

[arnie_uk]

Think he is just trying to see why his numbers are off and he stated that it's probably his mistake. Some just want to learn how to figure out cap numbers and how contract affect cap numbers


Sent from my BlackBerry 9810 using Tapatalk

maybe its me just me lazy and that's why I don't bother going into every minute detail like Luke is doing because Brian has it all layer out for us UNO

[RavensRule21215]

anybody that had any incling about the cap and how it works knew it would cause massive ripple affects. Many names thrown out there for cuts was boldin, birk, Williams, leach, while all the while knowing we wouldn't get ellerbe, Kruger, or reed back.

It was a viable option, but would have required a few more moves to make it happen

I think we have different definitions of "viable option". Clearly, any suggestion of applying the tag could only have been effected with negative restructuring and or even more cuts than have already happened. It was a poor option at best. Yet apparently quite a popular one at the time.

[Haloti92]

The site overthecap.com is pretty good.

They have the Ravens at $8,459,254.

http://overthecap.com/nfl-cap-space.php?Year=2013

Pretty good. As for differences I see, I noticed it hadn't added Harewood's deal to the spreadsheet. It also doesn't include three $550,000 ERFA's (McClellan, Allen, and Cook) like Ravor's sheet does.

Bottomline is, I would trust Ravor more than those generic sites, though that site looks more accurate and understandable than most.

But I agree with Luke's 3rd question. If Pollard is designated a post June 1st release, and the cap savings don't come about until that date, then shouldn't he stay among the Rule of 51 until then? If so, then there will be $480,000 more space than Ravor's sheet shows. If somehow the player gets removed from the Rule of 51 (from the roster), but his base salary (and other cap hits) remain until June 1, then I would say the rules are not very logical.

[jonboy79]

I think we have different definitions of "viable option". Clearly, any suggestion of applying the tag could only have been effected with negative restructuring and or even more cuts than have already happened. It was a poor option at best. Yet apparently quite a popular one at the time.

I really don't remember all that many people desiring the tag, even short term.

As a mattr of fac, many pople agered with me that overpaying(on a long term deal) was a better option then the tag.

[GOTA]

I honestly don't recall people including that reality (the need to restructure) while they were proposing the tag as a preferred option. It was simply stated that the tag would or should be applied. Period. Clearly, that could never have happened without other cuts or restructures. So in truth, it never really was a viable, preferred alternative to begin with.

It's one of the reasons why the Ravens and Flacco were motivated to get this deal done. It would have been pretty ugly having to cut a lot of guys they would have rather kept.

[RavensRule21215]

I really don't remember all that many people desiring the tag, even short term.

As a mattr of fac, many pople agered with me that overpaying(on a long term deal) was a better option then the tag.

We remember it differently, then. The use of the tag was tossed around without any qualifiers at all, even in the media.

[RavensRule21215]

It's one of the reasons why the Ravens and Flacco were motivated to get this deal done. It would have been pretty ugly having to cut a lot of guys they would have rather kept.

And that had been my position from the outset -- that the only viable option was crafting a long term deal, in that it was the only option that was mutually beneficial to both sides.

[GOTA]

We remember it differently, then. The use of the tag was tossed around without any qualifiers at all, even in the media.

It was tossed around because if the team didn't have a choice it was going to happen. They weren't letting Flacco go and they weren't letting the Browns who were $30 million under the cap make Joe an offer.

[RavensRule21215]

It was tossed around because if the team didn't have a choice it was going to happen. They weren't letting Flacco go and they weren't letting the Browns who were $30 million under the cap make Joe an offer.

But WHILE it was begin tossed around there needed to be the qualifiers that in order for it to happen restructures and cuts would have to be made. I never saw that part of the bargain adequately discussed. In retrospect, it's crystal clear that there was no way a $20M tag could ever have been applied without massive restructures that carried with them significant negative consequences.

[B-more Ravor]

well, actually three questions.

#1) What is the current amount you have us under the cap. I'm at $8.63 using my figures but I believe I saw you say that we were about $7.7 under.

#2) Are you operating under the total salary cap figure for us as $123.678m? That was the figure I was working off and wanted to make sure that was correct.

#3) I noticed on your spreadsheet, you had moved Pollards $2.75m into the dead money section. I thought I heard you said that he would be a post June 1st release? My understanding was that, on June 1st releases, they stayed on the Rule of 51 roster until June 1st, at which point they were taken off the books. If I interpreted that correctly (which I probably didn't), that would mean Pollard's $2.75m would count towards to the Ravens cap figure until June 1st, at which point they would remove his $2m salary and eat his $750k 2013 bonus proration . His 2014 and 2015 dead money totals would count towards next years cap.

Help me out here.

1. Nothing has changed since then, they are presently $7.707M under. At least.......until Dumervil becomes official.

2. They have an adjusted Cap of $123.382M. That's the $123M Cap, plus the $1.182M carryover from the 2012 Cap, less $504K in workout bonuses and $294K in 2012 incentives carryover.

3. Pollard's base salary and bonus proration stay on the Cap til June 1st, however, the Rule of 51 is only for the top 51 players who are under contract or tendered. Since Pollard is no longer under contract, he counts in addition to the top 51 and is basically dead money. As you said, once June 1 arrives, the $2M for his base salary will drop off the Cap, leaving only the $750K bonus proration as dead money.

[GOTA]

But WHILE it was begin tossed around there needed to be the qualifiers that in order for it to happen restructures and cuts would have to be made. I never saw that part of the bargain adequately discussed. In retrospect, it's crystal clear that there was no way a $20M tag could ever have been applied without massive restructures that carried with them significant negative consequences.

It was definitely discussed on this board. That's why so many were debating it. If it was simply a question of whether or not Flacco should get the money it would't be much of an issue. It was all that stuff that went with it that worried people. That's why there was so much talk about Leach getting cut and Jacoby Jones and whether they would extend Suggs. I don't know what the local media was saying since I am not in the area but it was talked about here.

[arnie_uk]

1. Nothing has changed since then, they are presently $7.707M under. At least.......until Dumervil becomes official.

2. They have an adjusted Cap of $123.382M. That's the $123M Cap, plus the $1.182M carryover from the 2012 Cap, less $504K in workout bonuses and $294K in 2012 incentives carryover.

3. Pollard's base salary and bonus proration stay on the Cap til June 1st, however, the Rule of 51 is only for the top 51 players who are under contract or tendered. Since Pollard is no longer under contract, he counts in addition to the top 51 and is basically dead money. As you said, once June 1 arrives, the $2M for his base salary will drop off the Cap, leaving only the $750K bonus proration.

So essentially if you opt for June 1 designation your paying for al those payers plus the 51 highest salaries still on the roster?