PDA

View Full Version : Salary cap report, if there were a salary cap


BMarsh615
03-21-2010, 04:14 PM
From PFT

[Editor's note: Here are the team-by-team salary cap figures, if there were a salary cap in place this year. The numbers are current, but some contracts from the past couple of days are not yet reflected.]

AFC East

Buffalo Bills: $98 million.

Miami Dolphins: $112 million.

New England Patriots: $112 million.

New York Jets: $120 million.

AFC North

Baltimore Ravens: $117 million.

Cincinnati Bengals: $85 million.

Cleveland Browns: $101 million.

Pittsburgh Steelers: $116 million.

AFC South

Houston Texans: $114 million.

Indianapolis Colts: $124 million.

Jacksonville Jaguars: $81 million.

Tennessee Titans: $115 million.

AFC West

Denver Broncos: $105 million.

Kansas City Chiefs: $79 million.

Oakland Raiders: $132 million.

San Diego Chargers: $104 million.

NFC East

Dallas Cowboys: $153 million.

New York Giants: $118 million.

Philadelphia Eagles: $124 million.

Washington Redskins: $134 million.

NFC North

Chicago Bears: $132 million.

Detroit Lions: $106 million.

Green Bay Packers: $126 million.

Minnesota Vikings: $134 million.

NFC South

Atlanta Falcons: $117 million.

Carolina Panthers: $104 million.

New Orleans Saints: $135 million.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers: $79 million.

NFC West

Arizona Cardinals: $91 million.

St. Louis Rams: $92 million.

San Francisco 49ers: $109 million.

Seattle Seahawks: $122 million.http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/14/salary-cap-report-if-there-were-a-salary-cap/

I'm kind of surprised Denver is 22nd in the league in spending. I would have thought we would have been closer to the top 10.

azbroncfan
03-21-2010, 04:47 PM
From PFT

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/14/salary-cap-report-if-there-were-a-salary-cap/

I'm kind of surprised Denver is 22nd in the league in spending. I would have thought we would have been closer to the top 10.

Denver has been pretty cheap after the Carter, Griese, TD, IHOP all blew up and made the cap a mess.

Tombstone RJ
03-21-2010, 04:49 PM
So, what would the cap number be for 2010?

Lev Vyvanse
03-21-2010, 05:07 PM
So, what would the cap number be for 2010?

About $135 million.

Durango
03-21-2010, 09:27 PM
So, the Broncos are spending at roughly the same rate as Cleveland, San Diego, Detroit and Carolina. Wow. Great company.

Killericon
03-21-2010, 10:00 PM
It doesn't look like anyone's really taken advantage of the lack of a salary cap, but some teams are taking advantage of no cap floor.

BowlenBall
03-21-2010, 10:04 PM
Arizona in 32nd place -- no surprise there. I think the salary cap floor was created with the Bidwells in mind.

Hercules Rockefeller
03-21-2010, 10:15 PM
It doesn't look like anyone's really taken advantage of the lack of a salary cap, but some teams are taking advantage of no cap floor.

Which shouldn't shock anyone, this is exactly what just about everyone thought would happen.

tsiguy96
03-21-2010, 10:15 PM
Arizona in 32nd place -- no surprise there. I think the salary cap floor was created with the Bidwells in mind.

bucs?

Hercules Rockefeller
03-21-2010, 10:15 PM
Arizona in 32nd place -- no surprise there. I think the salary cap floor was created with the Bidwells in mind.

Tampa, KC, Jax, and Cincy are all below Arizona.

Kaylore
03-21-2010, 10:21 PM
It doesn't look like anyone's really taken advantage of the lack of a salary cap, but some teams are taking advantage of no cap floor.

This is only a shock to people who didn't dig a little deeper. There is no cash on hand and the new rules prevented any kind of player movement with more transition tags and many rising stars being delegated RFA's, not to mention all the rules in place for limiting what the top eight teams can do in FA, this is much more restrictive.

Some of us were pointing this out years ago.

SoCalBronco
03-21-2010, 10:25 PM
Denver has been pretty cheap after the Carter, Griese, TD, IHOP all blew up and made the cap a mess.

While some big name signings didn't work out....they hardly made Denver's cap a "mess". Denver was always able to maintain a competitive franchise even when they had just a relatively small amount of money to spend under the cap. The Broncos never were forced to engage in the type of massive salary shedding that basically killed the 49ers and to a lesser extent, the Titans. We've had our misses, but they never created a significant cap crisis.

Rather, it would appear that Bowlen simply decided to make a significant cut back in the level of his financial support. Shanahan recieved alot of grief for producing essentially three straight .500 products. What most people ignore is that for the last few years of his tenure, Denver actually ranked in the Top 5 in the NFL in wins per dollars spent, based on the Pat Kirwan study. Since we only won about half our games, that suggests we basically didn't spend anything (relative to the rest of the league). While that doesn't totally exculpate the staff for its errors, it nonetheless puts a very large share of the responsibility on Bowlen himself. To be fair to him, when I say responsibility it doesn't necessarily equate with "blame". It really depends on why Bowlen did that. Maybe he doesn't have the financial resources he once did. Maybe he just felt philosophically that this would be a better approach...I don't know. I wouldn't blame him for changing his philosophy to some extent....but if we're .500 and we're still in the Top 5 for wins per dollars spent, it suggests that its more than a small shift in philosophy. I mean'...its understandable to see him cut back somewhat, that's perfectly reasonable...but that kind of statistic implies a massive cut back...which makes it hard for any coach to succeed.

Killericon
03-21-2010, 10:33 PM
This is only a shock to people who didn't dig a little deeper. There is no cash on hand and the new rules prevented any kind of player movement with more transition tags and many rising stars being delegated RFA's, not to mention all the rules in place for limiting what the top eight teams can do in FA, this is much more restrictive.

Some of us were pointing this out years ago.

Allow me to put on my cap.

http://marktwainssecretary.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/istockphoto_1778141-dunce-cap.jpg

cutthemdown
03-22-2010, 12:43 AM
At some point Broncos have to spend some money, they got lucky with the one yr deals this yr.

eddie mac
03-22-2010, 05:58 AM
Dont confuse 2010 spending with the salary cap. Remember that those numbers above include money for teams that was spent years ago and is still prorating.

Drek
03-22-2010, 07:47 AM
What most people ignore is that for the last few years of his tenure, Denver actually ranked in the Top 5 in the NFL in wins per dollars spent, based on the Pat Kirwan study. Since we only won about half our games, that suggests we basically didn't spend anything (relative to the rest of the league). While that doesn't totally exculpate the staff for its errors, it nonetheless puts a very large share of the responsibility on Bowlen himself. To be fair to him, when I say responsibility it doesn't necessarily equate with "blame". It really depends on why Bowlen did that. Maybe he doesn't have the financial resources he once did. Maybe he just felt philosophically that this would be a better approach...I don't know. I wouldn't blame him for changing his philosophy to some extent....but if we're .500 and we're still in the Top 5 for wins per dollars spent, it suggests that its more than a small shift in philosophy. I mean'...its understandable to see him cut back somewhat, that's perfectly reasonable...but that kind of statistic implies a massive cut back...which makes it hard for any coach to succeed.

Its a disingenuous statistic in a capped/floored NFL though. The floor was 87.6% last year, and as far back as 3 years ago it was still 84%. That statistical divide is pretty small, when you rank it on a 16 game win/loss record where teams go 2-14 and 14-2 respectively pretty much every year gives far too large a divide between the two comparatives.

This isn't like baseball where there is no cap or floor and you have salaries ranging from $23M to $250M. That is a massive difference with huge variability in record, so a dollars per win number works well. Trying to shoehorn worthwhile evaluation out of a 16% (at most) divide? I just don't see how the margin for error isn't significantly higher than needed to be relevant.

Fact is, Shanahan missed on free agency with regularity. The last few years he stopped going after the big name guys and just missed on bargain bin types, but he was still missing left and right. He covered his ass because he could out coach and out scheme the opposition with equal regularity, at least to start a season.