Thread: We got $7 million more in cap space apparently

"NodakPaul" wrote:

"stjmnsota" wrote:

You know with the exception of a QB, running back, offensive linemen and linebackers, the Vikes aren't in too bad of shape as far as a loaded roster. Then take into consideration the cap money we have to spend, we should be able to solidify the team for a championship.

Now the question is, should they spend all the money to get the best names in hopes of a championship now or maybe even the next couple of years, or be a little more conservative and get the guys we really need to fill the weakest positions and use the rest to build the team for years to come with young, talented players?

Everyone talks like we should take all the money and spend spend spend. That could put us in a big pickle in about a year or two when contracts need renegotiating. Then we are f---ek for the next decade again.

I don't think we should spend it all by any means. We are in really good cap room, which gives some advantage over teams that are not. I would like to add a couple/few good FAs and look internally or to the draft for the rest. That way we will be in good cap room next year too.

Also, remember that when you bring a shitload of new people into the mix, they will under preform for the first half of a season while the gel (ummm, last year's defense?). Granted this is going to be an issue anyway because our schemes are changing, but lets not rock to boat too much.

BTW, how did the F bomb make it into that post? Webby, I think your profanity filter is slacking :wink:.

I thought that was kind of funny myself witht he "F bomb" thing. I wrote it then was going to change it, then figured they always get filtered anyway, then BANG, there it was. Oooops. Sorry.

I think we pick up a couple more key guys that are the total package (experience, talent, leadershiop) because those guys can make everyone play better. Save the rest of the money for years to come. The Vikes are in good shape to be the next dynasty if they do this right.

Number 1,2 and 3 on that list would work for me.

"singersp" wrote:

Thanks prophet.

$24 mil + $7.4 mil + $2.3 mil = $33.7 mil.

That's the more realistic number.

$24.1 million + $7.4 million(for performance incentives not being reached, if that is indeed true) + $7.5 million(new CBA) + $2.3 million = $41.3 million by my calculation.

"muchluv4smoot" wrote:

"singersp" wrote:

Thanks prophet.

$24 mil + $7.4 mil + $2.3 mil = $33.7 mil.

That's the more realistic number.

$24.1 million + $7.4 million(for performance incentives not being reached, if that is indeed true) + $7.5 million(new CBA) + $2.3 million = $41.3 million by my calculation.

-4.77 million (B Williams' contract is not calculated against the cap yet). =$36.53 mil.

"aceclown" wrote:

"muchluv4smoot" wrote:

"singersp" wrote:

Thanks prophet.

$24 mil + $7.4 mil + $2.3 mil = $33.7 mil.

That's the more realistic number.

$24.1 million + $7.4 million(for performance incentives not being reached, if that is indeed true) + $7.5 million(new CBA) + $2.3 million = $41.3 million by my calculation.

-4.77 million (B Williams' contract is not calculated against the cap yet).

His contract isn't calculated yet because he isn't signed with us either. I still totally expect B-Will to sign with another team this offseason and not end up staying here. He has said he doesn't want to be here anymore.

that sounds like a bunch of decent players to me.

Schefter wrote:

THE NUMBERS GAME

Just as the CBA has been reconfigured, so have the salary-cap numbers for the teams at the start of free agency. But the extension means that only four teams -- the Washington Redskins, the Indianapolis Colts, the Oakland Raiders and the Kansas City Chiefs -- will have to restructure contracts and/or release players to get under the cap.

The Redskins are about $7 million over the cap, the Colts about $5 million, the Raiders about $4 million and the Chiefs about $2.5 million.

But there are some teams that could practically horde the free-agent market. With the CBA extension, the Minnesota Vikings are now $31.5 million under the salary cap, the Green Bay Packers are $30 million under the salary cap, the Arizona Cardinals are $26.5 million under the salary cap and the Cleveland Browns are $24.5 million under the salary cap.

Gentlemen, start your checkbooks.

Colts will resign James and other guys will be resigned not that the CBA has increased this years Cap. We are in good position, but we will have to go and overpay athletes just like others that want the top players.

We will be taking second tier players IMO to keep the cost down.

"snowinapril" wrote:

Schefter wrote:

THE NUMBERS GAME

Just as the CBA has been reconfigured, so have the salary-cap numbers for the teams at the start of free agency. But the extension means that only four teams -- the Washington Redskins, the Indianapolis Colts, the Oakland Raiders and the Kansas City Chiefs -- will have to restructure contracts and/or release players to get under the cap.

The Redskins are about $7 million over the cap, the Colts about $5 million, the Raiders about $4 million and the Chiefs about $2.5 million.

But there are some teams that could practically horde the free-agent market. With the CBA extension, the Minnesota Vikings are now $31.5 million under the salary cap, the Green Bay Packers are $30 million under the salary cap, the Arizona Cardinals are $26.5 million under the salary cap and the Cleveland Browns are $24.5 million under the salary cap.

Gentlemen, start your checkbooks.

Colts will resign James and other guys will be resigned not that the CBA has increased this years Cap. We are in good position, but we will have to go and overpay athletes just like others that want the top players.

We will be taking second tier players IMO to keep the cost down.

I guess that $7.4 million for performance incentives was either already included in the $24.1 million of cap we had, or was not true. Still, $31.5 or $33.7 when Daunte is traded, is a ton of money to spend.