Quote:Just as long as you know there are 31 other teams out there also bidding on these guys. It's not like we go to the grocery store and get a Suh off the Suh shelf and a McCourty off the McCourty shelf.
Treu but Caldwell said that if a guy they want is there they will do whatever it takes to get him. Suh might not be the guy because his price tag could be higher, but someone like McCourty we can make him the highest paid FS because he is in like the top 3 FS in this league. Maybe the man 12 million a year and he will come here, 10 just won't do it.
I expect the Jaguars to carry over 25m into next year.
They spent about 113 million last year on player salary.
Knowing that over the course of 2015 and 2016 they "have to" spend more than that to fulfill the 89% rule - I could see them pushing that 113 mark up to around $135- $140 million this year.
That would be cool with me.
So - Whatever that leaves. 24-31 million left in cap space I guess.
Two big FA signings and a few mid-tier signings ought to do it if they front-load the signing bonus money a bit.
Quote:If we don't spend enough to meet the minimum, the deficit has to be paid out to the players on the roster.
I would consider it very bad, because basically, we would have blown our unused cap space on nothing. Great for the players on the roster, they would receive an across the board bonus, but in terms of roster and cap management, we would have spent a bunch of money for absolutely nothing.
Obviously we aren't going to end next year with close to $60 mill in cap space but if we come short around $5 mill or so it wouldn't be that awful. It's not like losing a draft pick or something. Slap on the wrist really.
This question reminds me of the radio commercial
"How much should I spend on an engagement ring?"
20 to 30 million. Add another 20 mill for next season.
I would want them to have 25 million but I believe they will carry over 15-20 million.
Depends on who's coming to market in the next 1-2 years, and what you want to leave to be in the hunt for those future FA. I'd say 20-30 million is a safe number, since most players fall under that.
Obviously, we don't want to spend so much as to create cap money problems in the immediate future. Understanding this up front, I would like for the team to be aggressive in f/a with an eye to getting the most 'bang for the buck'. It's been well publicized that the Jags have the most cap money available to spend and within reason I've no problem with spending it. I don't even mind us spending on players who are demanding Goliath sized contracts... provided those contracts have provisions which would protect the franchise if said player proved to be unworthy of receiving a king's ransom in payments.
We've seen it here in J'ville before; Mr. (fill in the blank) 'big name' player comes here with a humongous contract and then goes on 'cruise control'. We don't need more of that, and if we offer any record breaking contracts it needs to have provisions in it so that there is only average money guaranteed and the 'monster bucks' depends on achieving certain performance 'platforms' by that player. For example, lets say that a certain well known defensive lineman comes here with an all time high contract.... but, he is guaranteed this money only if he meets certain criteria... such as equaling the number of sacks he had elsewhere.
The point is that I think there is no problem with shelling out big money to players... provided they prove themselves worthy of it here. I would be adamantly against offering an unconditional monster contract to any 'big name' player to come to the Jaguars. Getting a 'big name' isn't in itself the point... what we want is 'big production'; I'm all for paying big money for big production on the field.
[Talking about not meeting the minimum spending level and being forced by rule to hand out the deficit to the current players on our roster.]
Quote:Obviously we aren't going to end next year with close to $60 mill in cap space but if we come short around $5 mill or so it wouldn't be that awful. It's not like losing a draft pick or something. Slap on the wrist really.
To me, it is like losing a draft pick, because you could have spent that money on a free agent, and instead, you're just spreading it out to the current players for no good reason except the fact that you failed to use the money properly.
$5M in case we have injuries and need to sign someone. I want contracts as front-loaded as possible to give us flexibility in the future.
There great part about our situation is that we can spend a lot of money this offseason and if the players don't workout we could cut if they structure the contracts in a way that will allow to be cut, by the time we have to resign 2013 and 2014 draft class.
Just in case some of you forgot - they don't have to hit that 89% figure this season. They need to average that number over a four year period.
2013-2016.
So - they'll get closer to it this year and then even closer next year. What they don't spend ends up being essentially bonus money to the players on the roster at that point in time. There is no "Penalty."
In other words - don't expect them to spend 89% of that 64.5 million in cap space figure that's being tossed around this year.
Quote:Obviously, we don't want to spend so much as to create cap money problems in the immediate future. Understanding this up front, I would like for the team to be aggressive in f/a with an eye to getting the most 'bang for the buck'. It's been well publicized that the Jags have the most cap money available to spend and within reason I've no problem with spending it. I don't even mind us spending on players who are demanding Goliath sized contracts... provided those contracts have provisions which would protect the franchise if said player proved to be unworthy of receiving a king's ransom in payments.
We've seen it here in J'ville before; Mr. (fill in the blank) 'big name' player comes here with a humongous contract and then goes on 'cruise control'. We don't need more of that, and if we offer any record breaking contracts it needs to have provisions in it so that there is only average money guaranteed and the 'monster bucks' depends on achieving certain performance 'platforms' by that player. For example, lets say that a certain well known defensive lineman comes here with an all time high contract.... but, he is guaranteed this money only if he meets certain criteria... such as equaling the number of sacks he had elsewhere.
The point is that I think there is no problem with shelling out big money to players... provided they prove themselves worthy of it here. I would be adamantly against offering an unconditional monster contract to any 'big name' player to come to the Jaguars. Getting a 'big name' isn't in itself the point... what we want is 'big production'; I'm all for paying big money for big production on the field.
You're talking about giving a player incentives. The thing is, you can't just hand out incentives in lieu of guaranteed bonus money if you actually want the guy to sign. You need to offer them a fair contract, and then to help close the deal you add incentives on top of that.
Quote:Just in case some of you forgot - they don't have to hit that 89% figure this season. They need to average that number over a four year period.
2013-2016.
So - they'll get closer to it this year and then even closer next year. What they don't spend ends up being essentially bonus money to the players on the roster at that point in time. There is no "Penalty."
In other words - don't expect them to spend 89% of that 64.5 million in cap space figure that's being tossed around this year.
As it relates...
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/124045...on-mailbag
The hope is we can get McCourty and Bulaga/Barksdale and some smaller contracts so we have a good amount of cap space left. Signing someone like Niles Paul would be nice also so we can have some TE competition. Clay would be even better but we'll probably have to overpay to take him away from Miami
Quote:As it relates...
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/124045...on-mailbag
Interesting that Clayton (or an editor) changed the wording of the early paragraphs of that article. It initially hyped the 89% thing as if the Jags had to spend this year to hit it. Glad someone fixed it to
2013-2016.
I'm not thinking about a dollar amount, but as long as we keep our future in mind. You don't want to have to let Joeckel walk in 2 years because we are paying a Tight End $12M/yr.