Salary Cap Increase

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Looks like the NFL is adding 5% to the cap for a total of $130 million. Very, very glad the Seahawks are a team trying to hold together a solid group of performers for a Superbowl repeat versus a team like the Cowboys that are desperate for that 5%.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10487 ... 30-million

[NorthHawk]

PFT had a comment this morning that it should go up another couple next year as well with the new CBS Thursday night contract.
A good time to be signing Russell to a long term deal.

[c_hawkbob]

PFT had a comment this morning that it should go up another couple next year as well with the new CBS Thursday night contract.
A good time to be signing Russell to a long term deal.

Roger that!

[depaashaas]

PFT had a comment this morning that it should go up another couple next year as well with the new CBS Thursday night contract.
A good time to be signing Russell to a long term deal.

Just to bad they will have to wait till 2014 is over before they can even start talking

[NorthHawk]

PFT had a comment this morning that it should go up another couple next year as well with the new CBS Thursday night contract.
A good time to be signing Russell to a long term deal.

Just to bad they will have to wait till 2014 is over before they can even start talking

So when they start talking next year, they might have up to an extra 5 million in Cap Space towards his contract.

[depaashaas]

PFT had a comment this morning that it should go up another couple next year as well with the new CBS Thursday night contract.
A good time to be signing Russell to a long term deal.

Just to bad they will have to wait till 2014 is over before they can even start talking

So when they start talking next year, they might have up to an extra 5 million in Cap Space towards his contract.

Don't forget the Hawks were 2.8 mil below cap last season, teams are allowed to roll over unused cap space into next year so Hawks cap should be 132.8 mil total for 2014

[Anthony]

Don't forget the Hawks were 2.8 mil below cap last season, teams are allowed to roll over unused cap space into next year so Hawks cap should be 132.8 mil total for 2014

Given the expected cuts and or renegotiations, and contract falling off they should have in excess of 32 mil this year and probably close the same next year, so we are in good shape

[EntiatHawk]

This will be an interesting year to see who they target as the keystones of the team. I think it safe to say ET is one with RW. There is speculation on RS but I think you need him as a keystone also. But there is only so many dollars to go around and you have to be ready to shell out for RW next year.

[Irish Greg 2.0]

This is great news for us, specifically.

[HumanCockroach]

Huh, the Hawks aren't in dire straits when it comes to re signing their core players? Imagine that. Color me surprised. LOL

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Huh, the Hawks aren't in dire straits when it comes to re signing their core players? Imagine that. Color me surprised. LOL

Yup, an already well-managed team just got a little more flexibility.

[HumanCockroach]

Was a major reason I didn't understand the "panic" about the situation earlier, before knowing what the cap will be, who the Seahawks will pay, how much they will pay them ( not to mention people bundling players that won't have to be re signed in the same years) etc, doesn't make much sense to me. This team IS set up to retain whomever they want in the next several years ( not a "bad" contract that can't be gotten out of with no fuss). If they want to pay Sherman, Thomas, Wilson and hell even Bennett now, they certainly can, and without much stress.

There will be contracts that have to be reduced or cut in the next couple years, but that is the case with EVERY team in the NFL.

[RiverDog]

I don't know if anyone was hitting the panic button. All folks were saying was that it's going to be difficult to keep this team together for the next 3-5 years.

I don't understand how the fact that every team in the league getting the same amount of increase in their salary cap is going to give us a greater advantage in re-signing our players. It will have the effect of raising what all teams can afford to pay their players, so why wouldn't this increase allow more teams to bid for the services of our players and thus raise their market value?

[NorthHawk]

I don't know if anyone was hitting the panic button. All folks were saying was that it's going to be difficult to keep this team together for the next 3-5 years.

I don't understand how the fact that every team in the league getting the same amount of increase in their salary cap is going to give us a greater advantage in re-signing our players. It will have the effect of raising what all teams can afford to pay their players, so why wouldn't this increase allow more teams to bid for the services of our players and thus raise their market value?

It permits us to re-negotiate prior to them hitting FA or for tagging them.

[RiverDog]

I don't know if anyone was hitting the panic button. All folks were saying was that it's going to be difficult to keep this team together for the next 3-5 years.

I don't understand how the fact that every team in the league getting the same amount of increase in their salary cap is going to give us a greater advantage in re-signing our players. It will have the effect of raising what all teams can afford to pay their players, so why wouldn't this increase allow more teams to bid for the services of our players and thus raise their market value?

It permits us to re-negotiate prior to them hitting FA or for tagging them.

Understood. But doesn't the cap increase also increase player's expectations on what they could get if they choose to go FA?

The pie is bigger, but the slices are still the same size relative to each other.

[RiverDog]

I don't know if anyone was hitting the panic button. All folks were saying was that it's going to be difficult to keep this team together for the next 3-5 years.

I don't understand how the fact that every team in the league getting the same amount of increase in their salary cap is going to give us a greater advantage in re-signing our players. It will have the effect of raising what all teams can afford to pay their players, so why wouldn't this increase allow more teams to bid for the services of our players and thus raise their market value?

It permits us to re-negotiate prior to them hitting FA or for tagging them.

Understood. But doesn't the cap increase also increase player's (and their agents) expectations on what they could get if they choose to go FA?

The pie is bigger, but the slices are still the same size relative to each other.

[Irish Greg 2.0]

I don't know if anyone was hitting the panic button. All folks were saying was that it's going to be difficult to keep this team together for the next 3-5 years.

I don't understand how the fact that every team in the league getting the same amount of increase in their salary cap is going to give us a greater advantage in re-signing our players. It will have the effect of raising what all teams can afford to pay their players, so why wouldn't this increase allow more teams to bid for the services of our players and thus raise their market value?

All things considered, I guarantee every one of our free agents would want to stay with in Seattle, first and foremost. Could they get more money in Oakland?? Yeah. Do they want to play in Oakland??? No way. But would you rather have $4.7 million in Cleveland or Oakland or $4.3 in Seattle?

It helps us because we can keep more of our own players. We have more money available than we thought. If it's close in dollar value as compared to another team, the edge is for us. Super Bowl Champs, a coach picked by players around the league as the guy they would most want to play for, class organization with front line facilities, super rich owner, crazed fan base with immense support of the team, great camaraderie on the roster, on and on and on.

We aren't competing with other teams for players...they are competing with US. Every player is going to want to play here now, including our own. Jermichael Finley already voiced that...said his first stop would be Seattle.

If another team offered crazy amounts of money as compared to us, sure I would guess they would take it. But having extra money to play with means we can perhaps lock in Earl long term now and still be able to make competitive offers to some of the other key players.

[Oly]

Understood. But doesn't the cap increase also increase player's expectations on what they could get if they choose to go FA?

The pie is bigger, but the slices are still the same size relative to each other.

If we offer the extension in the final year of their contract, they have to weigh the certainty of the offer on the table with the team that just got them a ring, vs. the unknown of next year. With the possibility of injuries or a down year (not that many players have the humility to entertain that possibility), many of them will be happy to not risk it. Besides, the earlier they take the extension, the more likely that they can hit a second big FA pay day. You're right that many players will see a larger FA contract if they play out their cheap rookie contract, but many others will weigh that against an offer in hand and the possibility of a second FA contract.

[Agent 86]

Just to bad they will have to wait till 2014 is over before they can even start talking

So when they start talking next year, they might have up to an extra 5 million in Cap Space towards his contract.

Don't forget the Hawks were 2.8 mil below cap last season, teams are allowed to roll over unused cap space into next year so Hawks cap should be 132.8 mil total for 2014


Wow, I have to be honest, I never realized this before. Not sure why, it seems to be a big deal. Perhaps the cone of silence wasn't working that day and I didn't hear.

I was wondering how some teams had so much cap space. I guess if you know you will be terrible, you cut or trade your vets and take on more rookie salaries. Just get to the cap floor and then have ammo for next season.

[RiverDog]

I don't know if anyone was hitting the panic button. All folks were saying was that it's going to be difficult to keep this team together for the next 3-5 years.

I don't understand how the fact that every team in the league getting the same amount of increase in their salary cap is going to give us a greater advantage in re-signing our players. It will have the effect of raising what all teams can afford to pay their players, so why wouldn't this increase allow more teams to bid for the services of our players and thus raise their market value?

All things considered, I guarantee every one of our free agents would want to stay with in Seattle, first and foremost. Could they get more money in Oakland?? Yeah. Do they want to play in Oakland??? No way. But would you rather have $4.7 million in Cleveland or Oakland or $4.3 in Seattle?

It helps us because we can keep more of our own players. We have more money available than we thought. If it's close in dollar value as compared to another team, the edge is for us. Super Bowl Champs, a coach picked by players around the league as the guy they would most want to play for, class organization with front line facilities, super rich owner, crazed fan base with immense support of the team, great camaraderie on the roster, on and on and on.

We aren't competing with other teams for players...they are competing with US. Every player is going to want to play here now, including our own. Jermichael Finley already voiced that...said his first stop would be Seattle.

If another team offered crazy amounts of money as compared to us, sure I would guess they would take it. But having extra money to play with means we can perhaps lock in Earl long term now and still be able to make competitive offers to some of the other key players.

OK, so now that we have a roughly 9% increase in the salary cap we can offer Player X $4.7 M vs $4.3M before the cap expansion. How does that differ from Oakland's ability with the same 9% increase to pay Player X $5.1M now vs. $4.7M before the cap expansion?

The fact that we can entice a player to take less money because of our better odds of going back to the SB did not change with the expansion of the salary cap.

[depaashaas]

Just to bad they will have to wait till 2014 is over before they can even start talking

So when they start talking next year, they might have up to an extra 5 million in Cap Space towards his contract.

Don't forget the Hawks were 2.8 mil below cap last season, teams are allowed to roll over unused cap space into next year so Hawks cap should be 132.8 mil total for 2014


Wow, I have to be honest, I never realized this before. Not sure why, it seems to be a big deal. Perhaps the cone of silence wasn't working that day and I didn't hear.

I was wondering how some teams had so much cap space. I guess if you know you will be terrible, you cut or trade your vets and take on more rookie salaries. Just get to the cap floor and then have ammo for next season.

It don't work quite like that, just ask oakland, they did just that after can't remember his name died. You can cut your vets but guaranteed money is guaranteed and has to go on the books as "dead" money (ironic right?) against the cap, . oakland had so much dead money after they got rid of high paid vets that they had to stretch it out over last two years!! This year will be the first year that they hardly have any dead money and they have cap room of 70 mil!!! Pretty sure they will be looking at Bennett and others as they have some serious holes to fill and for the first time in three years they have the cap room to do it

[Irish Greg 2.0]

I don't know if anyone was hitting the panic button. All folks were saying was that it's going to be difficult to keep this team together for the next 3-5 years.

I don't understand how the fact that every team in the league getting the same amount of increase in their salary cap is going to give us a greater advantage in re-signing our players. It will have the effect of raising what all teams can afford to pay their players, so why wouldn't this increase allow more teams to bid for the services of our players and thus raise their market value?

All things considered, I guarantee every one of our free agents would want to stay with in Seattle, first and foremost. Could they get more money in Oakland?? Yeah. Do they want to play in Oakland??? No way. But would you rather have $4.7 million in Cleveland or Oakland or $4.3 in Seattle?

It helps us because we can keep more of our own players. We have more money available than we thought. If it's close in dollar value as compared to another team, the edge is for us. Super Bowl Champs, a coach picked by players around the league as the guy they would most want to play for, class organization with front line facilities, super rich owner, crazed fan base with immense support of the team, great camaraderie on the roster, on and on and on.

We aren't competing with other teams for players...they are competing with US. Every player is going to want to play here now, including our own. Jermichael Finley already voiced that...said his first stop would be Seattle.

If another team offered crazy amounts of money as compared to us, sure I would guess they would take it. But having extra money to play with means we can perhaps lock in Earl long term now and still be able to make competitive offers to some of the other key players.

OK, so now that we have a roughly 9% increase in the salary cap we can offer Player X $4.7 M vs $4.3M before the cap expansion. How does that differ from Oakland's ability with the same 9% increase to pay Player X $5.1M now vs. $4.7M before the cap expansion?

The fact that we can entice a player to take less money because of our better odds of going back to the SB did not change with the expansion of the salary cap.

We are just looking at it differently. We have a lot of free agents, and the more we can keep the better. More money means a better chance at keeping more of our own.

The cap is the hardline. We have more room now, which means we can squeeze in more in the cupboards. Previously, we may have only been able to keep X number of players ... just the simple math of it.

Again, my position is I don't even consider most other teams "competition" if the offers are in the ballpark. Our players will want to stay here, and we can now afford to keep a few more than we could have without the increase. We had a budget for a 60" TV before...now we can get the TV, a sound system and a new sectional.

[Eaglehawk]

The cap is the hardline. We have more room now, which means we can squeeze in more in the cupboards. Previously, we may have only been able to keep X number of players ... just the simple math of it.

Again, my position is I don't even consider most other teams "competition" if the offers are in the ballpark. Our players will want to stay here, and we can now afford to keep a few more than we could have without the increase. We had a budget for a 60" TV before...now we can get the TV, a sound system and a new sectional.

Agreed. With the situation where our team is a desired place to play, I don't see why any player who was offered more than 4.7 as opposed to 4.3 for staying with the hawks would even bat an eye.
I am worried about teams offering an extra 2-3 million in guaranteed up front money to players, in addition to their salary. Any of us here would turn down 3 million bucks(assuming it was guaranteed and that it was the difference between the package offered by a team and the hawks)?
If I were a player I would not be passing up on that money.
But I might try to make it only a 1 year contract then go back to the hawks for less, if I could, after I have made my money-- gambling that the odds would be against them winning the SB twice. In theory at least. Then pick up another ring in 2 years. Lotta if's with that scenario though.

[RiverDog]

We are just looking at it differently. We have a lot of free agents, and the more we can keep the better. More money means a better chance at keeping more of our own.

The cap is the hardline. We have more room now, which means we can squeeze in more in the cupboards. Previously, we may have only been able to keep X number of players ... just the simple math of it.

Again, my position is I don't even consider most other teams "competition" if the offers are in the ballpark. Our players will want to stay here, and we can now afford to keep a few more than we could have without the increase. We had a budget for a 60" TV before...now we can get the TV, a sound system and a new sectional.

Perhaps this might represent a small psychological change in our efforts to resign one or two of our lesser FA's whose marketability wasn't that great in the first place, say like Golden Tate, but I don't see an across the board increase in the cap as being this panacea or jackpot that others seem to be feeling it is. It certainly isn't going to change what we can offer, relative to what other teams will be offering, our really big guns, like Sherman, Thomas, and Wilson, that are going to have a half dozen or so teams bidding for their services, including contending teams and not just the Oaklands and Clevelands of the league.

Besides, I'm sure that an expansion of the salary cap was already factored into JS's assumption, as well as every other GM's assumptions, on how big of a budget they'd have to work with, so the news probably doesn't change what he was thinking of offering months earlier.

[HumanCockroach]

Who says Sherman, Thomas and Wilson get to FA? You're assuming things that may not happen, will. If they like playing here and the money is in the ball park, just don't see them refusing a great offer in Seattle to "test" the market. That has burned a lot of players the last two years, and an increase in the cap doesn't automatically mean insane spending on players across the board. Teams are being a hell of a lot more careful about making sure money is there to sign their OWN stars which those three definitely fall in to.

[RiverDog]

Who says Sherman, Thomas and Wilson get to FA? You're assuming things that may not happen, will. If they like playing here and the money is in the ball park, just don't see them refusing a great offer in Seattle to "test" the market. That has burned a lot of players the last two years, and an increase in the cap doesn't automatically mean insane spending on players across the board. Teams are being a hell of a lot more careful about making sure money is there to sign their OWN stars which those three definitely fall in to.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm simply stating that the expansion of the salary cap is not going to make it easier, nor more difficult, for us to resign the aforementioned players in the coming years.

The increase in the cap is going to give teams the ability to offer FA's 9% more money than before the expansion just as it gives us 9% more money to resign our own players.

[HumanCockroach]

Who says Sherman, Thomas and Wilson get to FA? You're assuming things that may not happen, will. If they like playing here and the money is in the ball park, just don't see them refusing a great offer in Seattle to "test" the market. That has burned a lot of players the last two years, and an increase in the cap doesn't automatically mean insane spending on players across the board. Teams are being a hell of a lot more careful about making sure money is there to sign their OWN stars which those three definitely fall in to.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm simply stating that the expansion of the salary cap is not going to make it easier, nor more difficult, for us to resign the aforementioned players in the coming years.

The increase in the cap is going to give teams the ability to offer FA's 9% more money than before the expansion just as it gives us 9% more money to resign our own players.

How do you say in one paragraph you aren't assuming something, and then back it up with the second paragraph that talks about FA offers? Do you have some info that says Sherman, Wilson and Thomas are planning on testing Free agency? Or something that says all team stars test free agency rather than sign with their current teams? Just a little info from me to you, when teams are winning, successful and a desirable franchise, their own free agents seldom leave, as long as the team makes a fair market value offer.

This isn't MLB where every free agent is looking to break some sort of record with their contract. Players in general want to continue to play for teams that win, are popular, and in general treat their players fairly, which is exactly what Seattle is. Sure there will be some tough choices, however, the increase AFFORDS them room to SIGN their own players. They no longer have to choose IF they CAN, but IF they WILL. BIG difference.

[NorthHawk]

I think what is not being considered is a team can start to negotiate with a player before his contract ends which gives an advantage.
For instance, Russell Wilson signed a 4 year contract, but they can renegotiate after the 3rd year. Nobody else can offer him a contract until his 4th year is finished unless he signs a new contract with us then they can't until his next contract is over. Advantage Seahawks.
Same thing with all of their draft choices - they get first chance at extending their contracts and with more money on the table, many will want to accept the guaranteed funds a year earlier than taking a chance on injury or a bad year.

[HumanCockroach]

Yep, North is straight to the point.

[HumanCockroach]

Yep, North is straight to the point.

[Zorn76]

Yep, North is straight to the point:)

I trust our FO to do the right thing.

[RiverDog]

I think what is not being considered is a team can start to negotiate with a player before his contract ends which gives an advantage.
For instance, Russell Wilson signed a 4 year contract, but they can renegotiate after the 3rd year. Nobody else can offer him a contract until his 4th year is finished unless he signs a new contract with us then they can't until his next contract is over. Advantage Seahawks.
Same thing with all of their draft choices - they get first chance at extending their contracts and with more money on the table, many will want to accept the guaranteed funds a year earlier than taking a chance on injury or a bad year.

That I can understand. But an expansion of the cap was widely assumed and thus what we might be able to offer Wilson or other players in his situation was already penciled in. This isn't adding anything to the equation that wasn't expected months ago. It's not a huge news item.

[NorthHawk]

It means they can sweeten the pot for some of the priority signings.
What would happen if the Cap shrunk? Even though it would be the same for all teams, we probably couldn't keep all of the players we would want (or can today) so the expanding Cap is a good thing with a number of key players up for renegotiation.

[Irish Greg 2.0]

Looks like it will be $132 million now. More the merrier.

[monkey]

For what it's worth, I understand exactly where Riverdog is coming from, and technically he's right, though so are the people pointing out the other side.
An increase in the cap is like unexpectedly sunny weather in a game when you thought it would snow or rain...it's nice, but it's equally nice for everyone at the same time. It allows EVERY team more flexibility just as Riv was pointing out.
At the same time, as others pointed out, would you as a free agent player coming off a Superbowl win, rather go to Oakland to play football for 4.7 million, or stay in Seattle for 4.1? Or for that matter, you as a free agent from any other team, same question?
So the additional cap space doesn't really help in one sense, but it does in a different sense precisely because of the environment that's been fostered in Seattle since Pete has arrived.

I'll say this too, people (I am speaking of media members who are constantly selling an angle), who are so worried about us keeping the team together, thinking it cannot be done, still have not learned the lesson that the New England Patriots have been teaching for over a decade now. They've played over a decade of mostly playoff football now, EASILY the most successful team in the modern salary cap era, and we've all seen exactly how they've done it.
They've done it by NOT worrying about keeping the team together!! They've done it by letting go of the obvious players, the Chris Clemons, Sidney Rice, Zack Miller types of players with bloated contracts who are on the wrong side of 30 or injury prone; but they've ALSO done it by oftentimes, letting go of the Golden Tate's and Michael Bennett's as well!
Even though the majority of the fans (and of course the ridiculously stupid media) wanted them to resign those types of players, and kept on predicting the end of their reign if they didn't, the Patriots stuck to what they knew to be true about those guys...they ARE replaceable! If you have a team that is consistently winning, those types of players can easily be replaced by equally young or even younger guys who just want to play for a winner, or guys like Michael Bennett was wanting to get a "prove it" contract, so they could get a big pay day later, or by veteran free agents with one or two years of high level play still left on the tires, (Jered Allen?) wanting to get a ring before retiring or guys who got cut from salary cap strapped teams (Demarcus Ware?) or ultimately, through the draft.

The cold hard truth is, if Bennett costs too much to resign (or Golden Tate or any other free agent for that matter*), then you let him walk and never look back, simple as that, and all those prognosticators saying that he's a "must keep", are fools (most of them the same fools who picked Denver in the Super Bowl, which shows how much they really know...clearly not much!).
Michael Bennett was a good player, who got even much better playing here in Seattle because 1. he was paired with other studs on the D-Line like Avril, and 2. the L.O.B. gives the d-linemen more time to make plays than what they would have on any other team.

Never forget that there are and always will be other players who can also step right in, and do what Bennett did for us, because we still have Cliff Avril and others on that line who are also great at getting to the passer, and because the L.O.B. gives them extra time to do their jobs.
Yes, Bennett is valuable, and OUGHT to be a very high priority, without a doubt, mostly because of his versatility, his ability to play all over the D-Line on any down and distance, but never forget that ultimately, he can be replaced.
The Patriots have shown that you CAN keep a team together and have years and years of success, if you are SMART in the way you go about approaching your own free agents, and I truly feel that the plan John and Pete have for this team free agents, will prove to be just that. Smart.

* The two obvious exceptions being the young franchise QB, Russell Wilson who is an ABSOLUTE must sign, and the defensive leader/QB/guy who makes Pete's scheme work, Earl Thomas. Those two guys you pay. Period. You pay them and keep them, and don't even think about it. Even guys like Richard Sherman though, in spite of being the best corner in the game, if push came to shove and he asked for too much money...well...you gotta let him walk then. Hopefully that won't happen becuase CLEARLY the Seahawks are better off with Sherman even getting paid a bunch, than with

[NorthHawk]

We've tried to find a player who can get pressure from the inside for a while. Now we have one but if Bennett goes, who might replace him? It's not like those types are easy to find.

[savvyman]

Please lets not downplay the impact that Bennett had for us last year - his contribution was huge and I am sure that Pete and John are going to do everything they can to sign him.

But I don't think they will be willing to go past 3 years or more than $7 - $* million a year for his services. If Bennett can get higher then that from another team then we will lose him.

[monkey]

We've tried to find a player who can get pressure from the inside for a while. Now we have one but if Bennett goes, who might replace him? It's not like those types are easy to find.

Please lets not downplay the impact that Bennett had for us last year - his contribution was huge and I am sure that Pete and John are going to do everything they can to sign him.

But I don't think they will be willing to go past 3 years or more than $7 - $* million a year for his services. If Bennett can get higher then that from another team then we will lose him.

I was not trying to down play Bennett's impact, if I had been doing that, it would be the opposite of what Pete and John have both been saying all along about their offseason priorities.
Obviously they both feel STRONGLY about resigning him.,
I'm just telling people that, if it happens that he wants too much, it's NOT the end of the world the way the media would have us believe.
I don't know why, but they've actively rooted against the Seahawks all along, hoping every step of the way they would fail, and now that they've won it all, it seems like they've turned their focus to hoping the Seahawks cannot repeat, and trying to make it appear that, if the Seahawks don't repeat that makes their Superbowl win somehow less impressive. They seem bound and determined to undermine fan hope for continued success by constantly harping on how difficult it is to build a dynasty.

All I am saying is, it's not as hard as the media would have you believe, the Patriots have proven time and time again it CAN be done, but to do it, you HAVE to be willing to walk away from players you would prefer to keep, when their asking price becomes too much.
No one knows what Bennett's asking price is yet, I'm just trying to preemptively quash any end of the world talk if it turns out his price is too high, NOT undersell what Bennett did, or try to say that he shouldn't be our top priority of anything like that.

[RiverDog]

It means they can sweeten the pot for some of the priority signings.
What would happen if the Cap shrunk? Even though it would be the same for all teams, we probably wouldn't keep all of the players we would want (or can today) so the expanding Cap is a good thing with a number of key players up for renegotiation.

IMO the salary cap expansion isn't going to be the deciding factor in whether we resign our core guys. We'll do what ever we have to... within reason..to keep our 5-6 All Pro players like Russell, Sherman, and Thomas whether the cap increased or not. I also don't think it will be a factor in whether or not we bring Bennett back, as he either gets a big offer we can't or won't match or he'll come home for a more modest raise. If it helps at all, it will help in retaining some of the borderline players, like Breno and McQ. I could see letting those guys go and find cheaper replacements because we can't afford them because we needed the money for the Big 3 vs. resigning them because we have some spare change in our pockets. But I can't say that I'm going to lose too much sleep because we let those guys go.

JS has to have known for a long time that the cap was going to expand between 5-10% and already had at least some of that extra money budgeted, so I can't see how news of the league confirming a 9% cap increase is going to take him by surprise as if he'd just won the Powerball lottery. I don't think it's cause for us to go out into the streets and start turning cartwheels. It's like a working stiff like me thinking I can now retire early because they raised the minimum wage.

[HumanCockroach]

The expected cap increase by all accounts I have seen was 1 to 2 % this coming year ( 124 to126), not sure where you got your 5 to 10 percent increase as 10% was NEVER discussed anywhere I have seen or heard ( hence the big bump was news worthy). Big difference between 2 million raise and almost 10 million ( or about a Sherman).

It affords them the ability to choose to pay at least one player more than 6 million a year more than was expected, how that translates to nothing in your book is beyond me. The Hawks will indeed still have to make choices, no one has said otherwise, however the choices become less drastic with a larger pull of money to draw from.

Sherman, Wilson and Thomas will more than likely be retained, and instead of drawing 35% of the cap, it will be a LOWER percentage allowing them to retain players like Bennett or Tate, or Baldwin or any other good player that they more than likely would have had to let go. Maybe they can't retain them, as opposed to they definitely can't, but that distinction is significant in my book. Equating multi year multi million dollar contracts to an increase in minimum wage ( something I doubt affects you in any way at this point) makes absolutely NO sense.