Football Outsiders
Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis

ESPN: Ten Should-Be Cap Casualties

This week's ESPN feature is on which teams should be using the uncapped year to jettison underproductive players.

My original list contained Jake Delhomme, who was promptly cut. I replaced him with Reggie Brown, who was promptly traded. The other nine seem to be staying on their team's roster, though.

View Full Article


9 comments, Last at 11 Mar 2010, 3:42pm

1 Re: ESPN: Ten Should-Be Cap Casualties

What is the deadline by which these players must be cut in order to benefit from the uncapped year? Could it be done in February before the next league year (if such a thing exists)?

3 Re: ESPN: Ten Should-Be Cap Casualties

The only factor that should determine whom to cut this year is the player's 2010 salary and roster bonus. What was paid to him in the past is irrelevant - that money is gone no matter what you do.

I don't know what Gholston is supposed to make this year, but if the Jets think they can get production out of him that's worth that amount, they should keep him, regardless of how much they've overpaid him in the past.

5 Re: ESPN: Ten Should-Be Cap Casualties

I think you're missing the point about the cap hits. Assuming the salary cap comes back, those expensive bonuses in the past will probably return to count against the cap for the length of the contract. So the idea is to dump the large cap hits while you can.

8 Re: ESPN: Ten Should-Be Cap Casualties

Assuming the cap comes back, even if you cut the player this year, it's entirely likely those prorated bonuses will probably still count against the first year back. It's easy to imagine the owners negotiating a new CBA that acts that way - mainly because it decreases the actual paid-out cash in 2011.

4 Re: ESPN: Ten Should-Be Cap Casualties

If you think Jerry is really going to cut ties with Roy Williams at this point, you're nuts. MAYBE next offseason, but there is a 0% chance of it this offseason.

6 Re: ESPN: Ten Should-Be Cap Casualties

Bob Sanders isn't going anywhere, but that's beside the point. He shouldn't be going anywhere, because the Colts have nothing to gain. There's no way in hell they could cut him and re-sign him cheaper as you suggested in the article. The whole premise of the article was rather weak in my estimation, with all the references to the (currently)non-existent cap. But Sanders in particular is a bad choice, this year he's due to make 2.2 million, followed by 5 and 7 in the remaining years. Obviously this is year to prove he can stay on the field and be a viable option at safety. Right now he's making a little more money than Vick did last year, and I'd say he's a lot less of a risk than that.

7 Re: ESPN: Ten Should-Be Cap Casualties

The point still stands. They should cut him now and re-sign him to the same salaries (no signing bonus). In reality, a team should do this with all of their players under existing contracts. And signing bonuses in free agent contracts should be written in as roster bonuses.

Then again, I don't know the detailed language regarding proration of signing bonuses in the uncapped year (and what may be added in the subsequent CBA).

Karl, Miami

9 Re: ESPN: Ten Should-Be Cap Casualties

Why would a player be willing to restructure for this purpose? It takes two to re-do a contract, and a GM can't approach a player and his agent and say "Hey, just in case we decide to cut you in the next year or two, will you make it easier for us to do so?"