UPDATE: If The Season Started Today Ravens' Cap Space Would be $845K

[trailhiker85]

Very true -- certainly recently. But it has been the exception rather than the rule for this franchise. Let's hope it continues to be the exception.

Yeah, that's what I'm hoping as well. A few solid drafts will do wonders for the cap down the road.

[Raveninwoodlawn]

There are plenty of good teams with a lot of cap space.

Nobody is advocating for us to have $60 million like the teams mentioned. That's silly.

But almost 3/4th's of the league had at least $20+ million in space at the start of the league year...and that's without doing moves like we had to do to get more. The 2 teams in the Superbowl had almost $30 million+ under at the start of the league year if I recall correctly. You can be competitive and win a lot of games without bumping right up against the cap every year.

[bravens23]

There are plenty of good teams with a lot of cap space.

Nobody is advocating for us to have $60 million like the teams mentioned. That's silly.

But almost 3/4th's of the league had at least $20+ million in space at the start of the league year...and that's without doing moves like we had to do to get more. The 2 teams in the Superbowl had almost $30 million+ under at the start of the league year if I recall correctly. You can be competitive and win a lot of games without bumping right up against the cap every year.

You're not really looking at it the right way though. How much you had to spend when the league year opened is just a product of 1. contracts you didn't renew when they expired from the prior season or 2. players you already cut.

The Falcons spent pretty much right up to the cap in 2016... they only rolled over just a little under $1M into the 2017 cap year. The Patriots rolled over $5.3M, which is a pretty hefty sum, except even the Ravens rolled over like $2.5M, and $5.3M was actually about middle of the pack league wide.

If you want to understand why the Patriots managed to go from rolling over $5M in cap space, to having like $20-30M in cap space by the time the year began, all you have to do is look at the UFAs they didn't resign:

Jabaal Sheard: $6.8M cap hit in 2016, playing elsewhere in 2017
Martellus Bennett: $5.2M cap hit in 2016, playing elsewhere in 2017
Chris Long: $2.4M cap hit in 2016, playing elsewhere in 2017
Another $2M or so when they cut Vollmer right around the new league year point.

I mean they freed up like $14M just by cutting or non-retaining three players who probably weren't even that valuable to them anyway (Vollmer missed the whole 2016 season I believe).

Again, I don't personally consider that "cap flexibility". I consider that having a list of highly paid FAs who you don't resign for whatever reason. In the Patriots case, it likely wasn't because of a lack of cap space.

Look at it this way...

There were 14 teams who rolled over more than $6M in cap space from the 2016 to 2017 year. Of those, only 3 made the playoffs. Those were the Raiders (a bunch of really good players still on rookie deals), the Packers (a team that's always great with the cap), and the Dolphins (loosely described as a playoff team). I would also point out that none of those teams had more than $9M in carryover.

The teams that you think didn't spend that much didn't... the Browns ($50M), the Jags ($39M) and the 49ers ($39M). And their records reflected that (among other problems, obviously).

Teams that had $5M or less... Chiefs, Texans, Lions, Steelers, Ravens, Cowboys, Seahawks, Giants, Falcons

[srobert96]

You're not really looking at it the right way though. How much you had to spend when the league year opened is just a product of 1. contracts you didn't renew when they expired from the prior season or 2. players you already cut.

The Falcons spent pretty much right up to the cap in 2016... they only rolled over just a little under $1M into the 2017 cap year. The Patriots rolled over $5.3M, which is a pretty hefty sum, except even the Ravens rolled over like $2.5M, and $5.3M was actually about middle of the pack league wide.

If you want to understand why the Patriots managed to go from rolling over $5M in cap space, to having like $20-30M in cap space by the time the year began, all you have to do is look at the UFAs they didn't resign:

Jabaal Sheard: $6.8M cap hit in 2016, playing elsewhere in 2017
Martellus Bennett: $5.2M cap hit in 2016, playing elsewhere in 2017
Chris Long: $2.4M cap hit in 2016, playing elsewhere in 2017
Another $2M or so when they cut Vollmer right around the new league year point.

I mean they freed up like $14M just by cutting or non-retaining three players who probably weren't even that valuable to them anyway (Vollmer missed the whole 2016 season I believe).

Again, I don't personally consider that "cap flexibility". I consider that having a list of highly paid FAs who you don't resign for whatever reason. In the Patriots case, it likely wasn't because of a lack of cap space.

Look at it this way...

There were 14 teams who rolled over more than $6M in cap space from the 2016 to 2017 year. Of those, only 3 made the playoffs. Those were the Raiders (a bunch of really good players still on rookie deals), the Packers (a team that's always great with the cap), and the Dolphins (loosely described as a playoff team). I would also point out that none of those teams had more than $9M in carryover.

The teams that you think didn't spend that much didn't... the Browns ($50M), the Jags ($39M) and the 49ers ($39M). And their records reflected that (among other problems, obviously).

Teams that had $5M or less... Chiefs, Texans, Lions, Steelers, Ravens, Cowboys, Seahawks, Giants, Falcons

You are not looking at it the right way. The reason why the Ravens are in cap hell is because they have been one of the worst at managing the cap thus they have the highest amount of dead money in 2017. The Ravens have 18m in dead money this year compared to 1m by the Patriots or even 6m by the Steelers.
The Cowboys were the only playoff team from last year that has more than 10m in dead money and that is because of the unusual retirement of Romo.

The Ravens sure could use 12-15m in cap space to use on players that would contribute this year. Maybe they would have been able to sign Wagner. Ravens really need to get their cap under control next year.

[bravens23]

You are not looking at it the right way. The reason why the Ravens are in cap hell is because they have been one of the worst at managing the cap thus they have the highest amount of dead money in 2017. The Ravens have 18m in dead money this year compared to 1m by the Patriots or even 6m by the Steelers.
The Cowboys were the only playoff team from last year that has more than 10m in dead money and that is because of the unusual retirement of Romo.

The Ravens sure could use 12-15m in cap space to use on players that would contribute this year. Maybe they would have been able to sign Wagner. Ravens really need to get their cap under control next year.

Not really. For starters, dead money isn't nearly the factor that most fans think it is.

By definition, its a sunk cost. And in most cases, its a cost that you paid years ago.

In fact, if you go back and actually look historically (especially since the explosion of the salary cap), there's practically no correlation league-wide between teams with a lot of dead money and on-field success (i.e. Wins and Losses).

In fact, lets look recently...

In 2016, the Atlanta Falcons, a SB team, were 3rd in the league in total Dead Money, with just under $26M. The Patriots, who won the SB, were in the top 10, coming in with $17.5M.

Now you could say "OK, but that's a small sample size". OK, fine. You could show that teams like Dallas and GB were in the bottom 5 in dead money last season, which is true. But then again, so was Cincinnati and Jacksonville. So what does that tell us really?

You can frankly pick any year you want and will see that there's no correlation between Dead Money and winning football teams. You'll find a bunch of playoff teams above the league average, and a bunch below. The Patriots have had north of $15M in dead money by the end of every single season since 2012.

Now if we really want to get down to the Ravens narrative of always having a bunch of dead money, we can. Frankly, its a narrative that doesn't hold much weight. Since 2013, if you strip out the Ray Rice release (which isn't something any team can really account for), we're average across the league in dead money.

2013: $17.5M dead money (9th). Average was $14.8M
2014: $14.9M dead money (16th). Average was $14.6M
2015: $24M dead money (6th). Average was $17.2M
2016: $15.3M dead money (14th). Average was $15.5M

So the league average over the last four years is $15.5M in dead money per year, and we've had $17.9M. In total, that's $9.6M more.

For those keeping track at home, the total cap space that Rice took up in 2014 and 2015 amounts to close to $16M. So if you exclude him as a "rare item", we would be about $6M under the league average in dead money over the last four years.

Hardly warrants the narrative of "always have a ton of dead money".

[srobert96]

Not really. For starters, dead money isn't nearly the factor that most fans think it is.

By definition, its a sunk cost. And in most cases, its a cost that you paid years ago.

In fact, if you go back and actually look historically (especially since the explosion of the salary cap), there's practically no correlation league-wide between teams with a lot of dead money and on-field success (i.e. Wins and Losses).

In fact, lets look recently...

In 2016, the Atlanta Falcons, a SB team, were 3rd in the league in total Dead Money, with just under $26M. The Patriots, who won the SB, were in the top 10, coming in with $17.5M.

Now you could say "OK, but that's a small sample size". OK, fine. You could show that teams like Dallas and GB were in the bottom 5 in dead money last season, which is true. But then again, so was Cincinnati and Jacksonville. So what does that tell us really?

You can frankly pick any year you want and will see that there's no correlation between Dead Money and winning football teams. You'll find a bunch of playoff teams above the league average, and a bunch below. The Patriots have had north of $15M in dead money by the end of every single season since 2012.

Now if we really want to get down to the Ravens narrative of always having a bunch of dead money, we can. Frankly, its a narrative that doesn't hold much weight. Since 2013, if you strip out the Ray Rice release (which isn't something any team can really account for), we're average across the league in dead money.

2013: $17.5M dead money (9th). Average was $14.8M
2014: $14.9M dead money (16th). Average was $14.6M
2015: $24M dead money (6th). Average was $17.2M
2016: $15.3M dead money (14th). Average was $15.5M

So the league average over the last four years is $15.5M in dead money per year, and we've had $17.9M. In total, that's $9.6M more.

For those keeping track at home, the total cap space that Rice took up in 2014 and 2015 amounts to close to $16M. So if you exclude him as a "rare item", we would be about $6M under the league average in dead money over the last four years.

Hardly warrants the narrative of "always have a ton of dead money".

18m is a sunk cost??? Really? So that 18m in cap space would not useful right about now? We certainly could use it if we wanted to sign say Mangold. Or if we wanted to swing a trade for Carlos Hyde. The Ravens have been consistently kicked the can down the road on dead money. Next year is the first year we should have the dead money under 10m and if we are lucky under 5m. Right now they only have Pitta counting 2.2m against next years cap. Most teams will take their lumps in one year. The Ravens have pushed it out each trying to remain competitive.

New England Patriots had to deal with a bunch of dead money due to Hernandez. Same situation as the Ravens. Difference is that they are able to absorb that unexpected disaster because they get a break on Brady's contract and they don't over pay aging veterans that they eventually cut resulting in dead money.

Look at the good teams that were high in 2016 and look at their 2017 number. The good teams took their lumps in one season and are significantly lower going into this year. The Ravens maintain a consistently high which is a problem. The consistent playoff teams may have a year or two where they are high due to an unusual situation like a retirement(Romo, CJ) or discipline issue(Hernandez, Rice). The team takes the hit and brings the dead money down. The Ravens number is consistently higher than consistently good teams. Ravens 24m - 15m - 18m. Chiefs 21m - 13m - 9m. Patriots 19m - 17m - 1.6m. Packers 4m - 3m - 3m. Steelers 19m - 12m - 6.9m Broncos 5.4m - 14m - 100k Bengals 4m - 3m - 300k. Seattle 19m - 13m - 850k

At a cursory glance the Ravens average 6m a year more over the past 3 years than the consistent playoff contenders. When people complain about losing Wagner and KO and other this is why. The other thread where people are debating who to restructure, this is why. I don't see how this is sunk cost.

[Goode05]

18m is a sunk cost??? Really? So that 18m in cap space would not useful right about now? We certainly could use it if we wanted to sign say Mangold. Or if we wanted to swing a trade for Carlos Hyde. The Ravens have been consistently kicked the can down the road on dead money. Next year is the first year we should have the dead money under 10m and if we are lucky under 5m. Right now they only have Pitta counting 2.2m against next years cap. Most teams will take their lumps in one year. The Ravens have pushed it out each trying to remain competitive.

New England Patriots had to deal with a bunch of dead money due to Hernandez. Same situation as the Ravens. Difference is that they are able to absorb that unexpected disaster because they get a break on Brady's contract and they don't over pay aging veterans that they eventually cut resulting in dead money.

Look at the good teams that were high in 2016 and look at their 2017 number. The good teams took their lumps in one season and are significantly lower going into this year. The Ravens maintain a consistently high which is a problem. The consistent playoff teams may have a year or two where they are high due to an unusual situation like a retirement(Romo, CJ) or discipline issue(Hernandez, Rice). The team takes the hit and brings the dead money down. The Ravens number is consistently higher than consistently good teams. Ravens 24m - 15m - 18m. Chiefs 21m - 13m - 9m. Patriots 19m - 17m - 1.6m. Packers 4m - 3m - 3m. Steelers 19m - 12m - 6.9m Broncos 5.4m - 14m - 100k Bengals 4m - 3m - 300k. Seattle 19m - 13m - 850k

At a cursory glance the Ravens average 6m a year more over the past 3 years than the consistent playoff contenders. When people complain about losing Wagner and KO and other this is why. The other thread where people are debating who to restructure, this is why. I don't see how this is sunk cost.

How much of a cap hit did New England take with Hernandez?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bravens23]

18m is a sunk cost??? Really? So that 18m in cap space would not useful right about now? We certainly could use it if we wanted to sign say Mangold. Or if we wanted to swing a trade for Carlos Hyde. The Ravens have been consistently kicked the can down the road on dead money. Next year is the first year we should have the dead money under 10m and if we are lucky under 5m. Right now they only have Pitta counting 2.2m against next years cap. Most teams will take their lumps in one year. The Ravens have pushed it out each trying to remain competitive.

New England Patriots had to deal with a bunch of dead money due to Hernandez. Same situation as the Ravens. Difference is that they are able to absorb that unexpected disaster because they get a break on Brady's contract and they don't over pay aging veterans that they eventually cut resulting in dead money.

Look at the good teams that were high in 2016 and look at their 2017 number. The good teams took their lumps in one season and are significantly lower going into this year. The Ravens maintain a consistently high which is a problem. The consistent playoff teams may have a year or two where they are high due to an unusual situation like a retirement(Romo, CJ) or discipline issue(Hernandez, Rice). The team takes the hit and brings the dead money down. The Ravens number is consistently higher than consistently good teams. Ravens 24m - 15m - 18m. Chiefs 21m - 13m - 9m. Patriots 19m - 17m - 1.6m. Packers 4m - 3m - 3m. Steelers 19m - 12m - 6.9m Broncos 5.4m - 14m - 100k Bengals 4m - 3m - 300k. Seattle 19m - 13m - 850k

At a cursory glance the Ravens average 6m a year more over the past 3 years than the consistent playoff contenders. When people complain about losing Wagner and KO and other this is why. The other thread where people are debating who to restructure, this is why. I don't see how this is sunk cost.

Yes, its a sunk cost. Its not a variable cost, because there's nothing you can do to get rid of it.

Do you actually understand what "dead money" really is? Most of the time, its bonuses. That's all it is. Its you paid a guy X amount of a signing bonus or a roster bonus, and you cut him before the deal was done. Because bonuses get allocated out over a certain period of time, you don't get to decide years after that you don't want to take that cap impact.

And the reality is... you can't be successful as an NFL franchise unless you are willing to pay large bonuses up front to players you want to sign. Every team in the NFL does this, and do it routinely. If that contract works out, then in most cases, they're there for another contract and maybe another one, so the "dead money" just gets blended in to whatever that years impact is, and nobody cares about it.

The reality is that all of the teams you listed have virtually the same problems, with the exception of the Packers (who always manage the cap well because they rarely sign FAs and practically never sign FAs to big deals) and the Bengals, who never spend any money to begin with.

As I brought up earlier... the Patriots have had north of $15M in dead money for many, many consecutive years. And that's not just from Aaron Hernandez. He had about a 2 year impact on that. The Patriots were carrying that level of dead money back when the cap was much, much lower as well, and it didn't stop them from doing anything.

I can also tell you that its not very smart to be looking at 2017 dead money when 2017 hasn't even begun yet. If you think that some of these teams won't be cutting aging veterans with moderate salary cap numbers when we get into training camp and the preseason, then you better pay attention, because its coming. Those dead money cap figures are only going to rise on every single team in this league, including this one.

The other thing I would advise you to be careful of is to say things like "well we could really use that $18M in dead money right now". Well sure we could, except its not that simple. In order to do that, those players would need to be on the roster.

For example... we have $2.375M in dead money for Elvis Dumervil in 2017. So you say we would like to have that money to spend right? Cool, add him back to the roster. Lets pretend like we never even cut him. So we get that $2.375M back. Except none of that is the amount we actually would have had to pay him in 2017. In case you don't remember, we GAINED $6M in cap space when we cut him.

So are you saying you'd trade the $6M saved to not have the $2.375M in dead money he now has? You do realize that's a net loss in cap space right?

This is the problem I have with a lot of people and their cap analysis. Its 100% hindsight and time-machine based. I would love to see people complain about dead money when the contract is actually signed. We know what the dead money is going to be then if we decide to move on from a player early. So why don't you complain about it then, instead of waiting until they get cut and then saying "we have too much dead money"? Its not new information.

Something tells me that when we signed Ray Rice to a monster contract, they didn't think they'd have to cut him 3 years in after he knocks out his wife on camera. Something tells me when they signed Eugene Monroe to a monster contract, they didn't think that he'd want to quit football two years later.

I think you can justifiably complain about Pitta's deal. That's about it. Everything else to me is just lazy, hindsight analysis.

If you still don't understand why dead money is a sunk cost, then ask yourself this... what steps could the Ravens take, right now, to reduce their current year dead money?

(Hint: the answer is there is NO steps they can take, because they're merely picking up portions of compensation that they paid in the past). Its the same as putting a part of somebodies comp on a credit card... you get the item, but eventually you have to pay for all of it.

If there's no decisions you can make to alter a cost, then its, by definition, a sunk cost.

[bravens23]

How much of a cap hit did New England take with Hernandez?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

$2.55M in 2013, $7.5M in 2014. Basically $10M over two years.

Note that the Patriots had nearly $20M in dead money in 2015 (when they won the SB), and none of it was from Aaron Hernandez. $5M for Revis, who they simply let go after a very good 2014 season, $4M for Logan Mankins, an All-Pro player they traded, and $3.25M for Kyle Arrington (he sucks... we all know this). Heck, Mankins cost $4.25M in 2014, meaning the Patriots literally traded away a player who would have an over $8M dead money hit over two years.

They cut Jerod Mayo for a $4.4M cap hit last season, and they cut Dominque Easley two years after he was their 1st round pick, which cost like $2.3M in dead money. From what I recall about Easley, they actually lost cap space when they cut him.