Im doing some research on this but i figured i would just ask here. Alot of posters understand this cap stuff better than me. I heard Mort talking about the Pats and how they are going to Franchise tag Cassell and how they would have $29 million tied up in 2 qbs but the thing is the cap space is going up 123 million per team. If thats true we should have tons of money to spend in Free Agency. It just did sound right to me thats why i figured i would ask here. Like said if it is true Ted Thompson better start spending.



Ok i found this and it says it goes to a minimum of $123 million from $116 million so we will still be way under the cap again so like i said he has no excuses not to go after a FA.

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/58422 

---

TT spend money on FA's!!!! :icon_smile: :icon_smile: :icon_smile:

Why would anyone think he is going to change his way of thinking?

It's not about putting together and keeping together a winning team, it's all about being young and full of potential.

PROVE ME WRONG TED AND I WILL BE HUMBLED.

---

Yes, the numbers you posted are true, but there's something else to consider. The cap is set relative to total league revenue. Of course, not all teams are created equal, so the NY Giants bring in more revenue that the Detroit Lions. Just because the cap is $123 million, doesn't mean that all teams can afford to spend up to that limit. Can the Packers? I'm not sure. You might want to see if you can find team revenue numbers for the past five years in order to determine what would be a reasonable spending limit for 2009. That may be difficult to impossible to find though.

EDIT: Typing "packers revenue" into Google brings up quite a few articles over the past 5-6 years. I won't post them all here, but they show that the Packers are consistently in the top half of the league in terms of revenue and had jumped all the way to #7 as recently as 2006. Now that's a very quick and dirty analysis of the Packers financial constraints, or lack there of, but it would suggest that we don't necessarily have to keep our hands on the purse strings.

---

Matt way i'm reading it that is what the team has to spend the league minimum. I culd be wrong but thats how i read it. Heres another interesting article i found and why MM won't be fired or other coaches. That money would count against the cap and Ted Thompson won't want that.

http://blogs.nfl.com/2008/12/14/economy-impacts-coachs-jobs-and-salary-cap/ 

---

You're correct on that. Every team must spend the league minimum, but that number will be far lower than the $123 million cap. In fact, it's usually low enough to be irrelevant. The salary floor is designed to keep teams from fielding $15 million dollar clubs like the Florida Marlins do and then pocketing the shared revenue. The NFL shares a much larger portion of its revenue amongst all 32 teams than does MLB, so the wealthy teams put this floor in to keep the other teams honest.

EDIT: Interesting tidbit from that article. The Giants were $20 million under the cap when they won the Super Bowl. Keep that in mind when you start railing against Ted Thompson because we still have $10 million in unused cap later this offseason. If you can't field a competitive team for $100 million bucks, you're the problem, not the amount of money you spend.

---

Not exact, but for a rough estimate. The Cap is expected to rise to 123 million. What I have is GB is currently sitting with 90 million of the 2009 cap used. Leaving roughly 30 million. This has not taken into consideration any money moved forward from 2008.

While 30 million sounds like a lot of money, with players that need to be signed, and hopefully extended. the amount left for FA is probably enough for 1 big signing and a couple smaller moves. Unless other moves are made. (ex. cutting clifton would save another 6.3 million), but a replacement would be needed and would offset some of that savings.

---

What makes the cap a lot more complex is that you can prorate signing bonus (as the Cowboys do with big time guaranteed money, making payments well into the future after the contract was sign), and you can also carry space into next year by throwing in "likely" to be earned money into the deal via Likely To Be Earned Incentives (IE participate 75% of ST snaps in your star QBs contract, when in fact your QB won't come close to ever playing on ST).

It's a really interesting thing.

---

I think you misunderstand the article. Coaches salaries don't count against the salary cap. Not at all. But, all coaches salaries are guaranteed. So, since Ted and Mike signed their contract extensions this year, if they were to be fired, they would still receive all the money for the rest of their contract. What the article is implying is that while some teams may be better able to afford firing a coach and paying him the remainder of his salary, some teams (like the Packers) can't afford to throw that money down the toilet, so to speak.

---

FYI - If the salary cap is going to be set at $123 million, then the salary floor, defined as 86.4% of the cap, will be $106.2 million. Every team must spend above the floor, but below the cap. Though as AADP points out, there are plenty of ways to "massage" your final numbers to ensure that you are within that range. It's the NFL equivalent of creative accounting. If Andy Fastow weren't locked up, he'd be a helluva a Capologist.

---

Well Matt im taking the floor being 123 million when they say minimum i would think. Like i said i have very little knowledge of how the cap works.

---