Suh and Calvin, the most feared players in the NFL

[LKP]

Staff would stil have 10 million in dead money against the cap if we got rid of him in 2016.

Suhs base salary is over 12 million. There is hardly incentive for him to extend. He could get as much if not more by playing out this year and hitting fee agency.

Unless he is afraid of injury, then I don't see why he signs an extension. Plus that is a lot of money to throw at a guy so closely watched, he is a dumb move away from a 4+ game suspension.

I still think he is gone after the year.

20 million signing bonus up front>12 over course of the year. 8 million reasons to extend. Plenty of incentive for Suh to extend.

Stafford would have dead money if they cut him but we aren't tied to him with only 11 million in dead money. Plus were are talking a new deal most likely, not a cut. Or could be a June 1st cut and have 5.5 over 2 years.

10.6+24+11 dead (and a cheap rookie 1st round QB). Very doable. Plus like I said, Calvin's number can be changed easily.

This cap numbers aren't set in stone especially the unguaranted base salaries.

 

[brewer229]

20 million signing bonus up front>12 over course of the year. 8 million reasons to extend. Plenty of incentive for Suh to extend.

Stafford would have dead money if they cut him but we aren't tied to him with only 11 million in dead money. Plus were are talking a new deal most likely, not a cut. Or could be a June 1st cut and have 5.5 over 2 years.

10.6+24+11 dead (and a cheap rookie 1st round QB). Very doable. Plus like I said, Calvin's number can be changed easily.

This cap numbers aren't set in stone especially the unguaranted base salaries.

Break it down in simplest terms. Let's use the Akins deal for Suh.


But Suh had money, hes not waiting on first big pay day. If he plays out the year.

12 million (2014)
18 million (15m signing bonus)

30 million next two years with 28.5 due

Signs extension

23 million (20m signing bonus)
6 million (2015 base)

29 million with 23m due.


This is assuming Suh gets the same contract as Akins with the exception of getting 5 million more overall (all to signing bonus)

 

[brewer229]

Plus signing suh to extension only creates about 5 million in cap space.

10 million from prior bonuses, 4 million for new signing bonus, and 3 million base. So you are still looking at a minimum of 17 million this year.

Signing Suh still creates a situation where you are riding Stafford, CJ and Suh and a bunch of young guys, old guys, and uderacheivers in the future.

 

[derrydancingclown]

Holy shit! I just read somewhere that Montell Owens retructured the last year of his contract. Our cap worries are over, this will save us like 10 MIL in cap. Wait, what? It is only going to save us $195,000. Will this nightmare never end?

 

[LKP]

Break it down in simplest terms. Let's use the Akins deal for Suh.


But Suh had money, hes not waiting on first big pay day. If he plays out the year.

12 million (2014)
18 million (15m signing bonus)

30 million next two years with 28.5 due

Signs extension

23 million (20m signing bonus)
6 million (2015 base)

29 million with 23m due.


This is assuming Suh gets the same contract as Akins with the exception of getting 5 million more overall (all to signing bonus)

Signing bonus spread over 5 years. 4 million cap hit each year. Base is up to the team and Suh. With 5 million extra in signing bonus, don't need a big of base in 2015. And Atkins base was 2.7 in his second year (2014). Third year is 2015 for Atkins. Third year is 2016 for Suh (6 million). So 2015 would be comparative to the second year Atkins base salary.

 

[LKP]

Plus signing suh to extension only creates about 5 million in cap space.

10 million from prior bonuses, 4 million for new signing bonus, and 3 million base. So you are still looking at a minimum of 17 million this year.

Signing Suh still creates a situation where you are riding Stafford, CJ and Suh and a bunch of young guys, old guys, and uderacheivers in the future.

You can have 1 million in base, 4 million signing bonus and 9.8 million other in restructures. 22.4-14.8=7.6 million in cap relief. 5.6 million if you have 3 million base.

With 5 million extra signing bonus, you can have a very low base. 20 million all at once is all Suh needs to see.

 

[LKP]

Suh 2015 3 million base(similar to Akins year 2), 4 million plus 9.8 million. 16.8 million cap number in 2015. 2016 it wouldn't rise past that. There is no 9.8 million hit for 2016. So 2016 is when you get the jump in Suh's base big time. Could be 8 million base and 4 million signing bonus money in 2016 for 12 million cap number. 8 million year 3 Suh 2016 would be greater than 5.7 million year 3 Atkins (2015).

 

[LKP]

5 year 60 million for Suh with (20 M signing bonus). 24 guaranteed (20+1 base+3 base)

1 base+ 4+9.8=14.8 cap number
3 base+4+9.8=16.8 cap number
8 base+4=12 million cap number
11 base+4=15 million cap number
17 base+4=21 million cap number

Years 3-4 can be restrucutred. 2016 Stafford gets a new deal. 2016 Calvin new deal or restructure. Or flip year 2 base and year 1 base to get more 2 million more room in 2015 and only 5.6 in cap relief in 2014.

 

[brewer229]

Signing bonus spread over 5 years. 4 million cap hit each year. Base is up to the team and Suh. With 5 million extra in signing bonus, don't need a big of base in 2015. And Atkins base was 2.7 in his second year (2014). Third year is 2015 for Atkins. Third year is 2016 for Suh (6 million). So 2015 would be comparative to the second year Atkins base salary.

I was going from Suhs perspective. If he plays out this year and becomes a FA vs signing extension this year.

Money wise he makes out better waiting. Over two years there would actually be more mine in his pocket if does not sign an extension.

My assumption included us paying him 5 million more than he would get on the free market.

 

[LKP]

I was going from Suhs perspective. If he plays out this year and becomes a FA vs signing extension this year.

Money wise he makes out better waiting. Over two years there would actually be more mine in his pocket if does not sign an extension.

My assumption included us paying him 5 million more than he would get on the free market.

Suh gets way more money this year by signing an extension this year (9 million more). That is the incentive, plus not dealing with free agency/possibly similar scheme. He could blow out his knee and only get 11 million and that's it. Suh has been paid big once too.

People said the same thing about Calvin and Stafford, waiting on a deal. But they took the fair big offers the Lions offered. 5 year 60 million is beyond a fair offer. It favors Suh.

 

[LKP]

They'll know quickly if Suh wants to be here long term. It won't be because of money. It will be because he doesn't like the new coaches scheme.


11 million from cutting Delmas/Burleson is plenty to get started in free agency. There are ways to extend Delmas similar to Quin and get 4 million in relief and Delmas long term. That's 9.5 million start.


We'll see if Suh wants to stay here. They have the ability to keep him with a good offer. If he just wants to bolt because of a new coach or scheme change. That's a different story.

 

[zyxt9]

brewer, I like u and am just hopeful you have paid attention long enough to know LKP is autistic, so don't worry too much about trying to convince him of anything because he just rocks back and forth saying stuff like "Lions were just unlucky", "Lions are the best team in NFL", etc. I've come to accept it cuz it is his coping mechanism and I have honestly come to feel sorry for him. Then again, the Lions are Super Bowl Champs 24/7, so in some ways I'm also envious of his ability to not recognize the Lions negatives.

 

[LKP]

I know more about the cap then any of you ever will. But keep thinking we can't keep all 3

 

[zyxt9]

I know more about the cap then any of you ever will. But keep thinking we can't keep all 3

And there is your problem. We know we CAN keep all 3, but for the majority around here, we recognize the cost is higher than the benefit because they eat up such a huge chunk of the cap that the Lions are not able to field a Super Bowl contending TEAM.

Maybe one of the "stats guys" on here can answer the following question: of all the Super Bowl Champions in the Salary Cap era, what team paid the highest % of cap to their top 3 $$$ guys and what was that % of the cap? I will be shocked if it is over 30%.

You know how teams with an average OL age over 30 (or is it 35?) have never won the Super Bowl? This is like that stat, only it apparently is yet to be noticed by the mainstream media and mentioned yet.

 

[cheeno]

And there is your problem. We know we CAN keep all 3, but for the majority around here, we recognize the cost is higher than the benefit because they eat up such a huge chunk of the cap that the Lions are not able to field a Super Bowl contending TEAM.

Maybe one of the "stats guys" on here can answer the following question: of all the Super Bowl Champions in the Salary Cap era, what team paid the highest % of cap to their top 3 $$$ guys and what was that % of the cap? I will be shocked if it is over 30%.

You know how teams with an average OL age over 30 (or is it 35?) have never won the Super Bowl? This is like that stat, only it apparently is yet to be noticed by the mainstream media and mentioned yet.

The Boys in the 90s spent boatloads on just a few players and had them restructure their contracts into oblivion. We do the same thing but have nothing to show for it. Extend/restructure Suh, Stafford, and CJ all day long. We need to win though for it to be a viable model. Stafford shitting the bed is more harmful to this team than the cap ever will be.

http://www3.jsonline.com/packer/arc/0904/cap828.html

 

[zyxt9]

The Boys in the 90s spent boatloads on just a few players and had them restructure their contracts into oblivion. We do the same thing but have nothing to show for it. Extend/restructure Suh, Stafford, and CJ all day long. We need to win though for it to be a viable model. Stafford shitting the bed is more harmful to this team than the cap ever will be.

http://www3.jsonline.com/packer/arc/0904/cap828.html

Yes, the Cowboys were able to do that prior to the salary cap started in 1994 and as I recall the NFL had allowed teams to be over cap for a year or two during a transition period, but they were not able to do it since. The salary cap has brought an entirely new challenge that prevents winning when top 3 make over 30% (roughly) of total cap. Again, not sure what highest % for winning team has been during cap era.

 

[cheeno]

Yes, the Cowboys were able to do that prior to the salary cap started in 1994 and as I recall the NFL had allowed teams to be over cap for a year or two during a transition period, but they were not able to do it since. The salary cap has brought an entirely new challenge that prevents winning when top 3 make over 30% (roughly) of total cap. Again, not sure what highest % for winning team has been during cap era.

Pretty sure Denver has at least 25% of their cap locked up in Manning, Clady, and Champ Bailey. Clady isn't even playing and Bailey is past his prime.

 

[tonyballs]

right, they signed 3 decent FA's and they still finished under .500. They are not a complete team. They suck in the secondary, no WR depth, no depth on the back 7. Almost every loss you make excuses because starters went out with injury. Guess what...that is becuase they have no depth...hence not a COMPLETE team!!!

They have plenty of depth in the secondary. WR is where they have no depth, injuries and a nutcase hurt that

Not many teams are a COMPLETE team.

 

[Diggler Cometh]

They have plenty of depth in the secondary. WR is where they have no depth, injuries and a nutcase hurt that

Not many teams are a COMPLETE team.

Its really the opposite situation.

One star player in the wr corps and no depth.

zero star players in the secondary and a ton of depth.

 

[zyxt9]

Pretty sure Denver has at least 25% of their cap locked up in Manning, Clady, and Champ Bailey. Clady isn't even playing and Bailey is past his prime.

It might even be closer to 30% for them, and my bet is most of the Super Bowl champions have had 3 guys in the 25-30% range, which is likely the "sweet spot" for the top 3. My guess is that when teams go over that 30% mark it is like having OL average age of over 30, it historically has been an indicator for a team that will not win the Super Bowl.

Yes, one day there may be an exception to those rules, an outlier that has everything click just right and they overcome those normally insurmountable conditions; however, most people would recognize that these are statistical indicators of more importance than TD/INT ratio, Yards, Time of Possession, Turnover Differential, Points Differential, etc. Those types of things can be skewed due to a bad game or 5. But top 3 cap over 30% and OL average age over 30 are pretty solid constraints at this point so shouldn't a GM do everything possible to not try to buck those? Unless they are more interested in trying to brag about how they beat the odds or something stupid like that, and it doesn't mean that is where the smart money bets.