How will chris samuels's retirement affect our cap?

Will it be treated as a release,? Is he not entitled to any of his remaining money? Or is there something inbetween?

For cap purposes, a retirement has the same cap effect as a release.

If Samuels retires, next season he will take up $14.4 million in dead money, as opposed to taking up $4.9 if he were on the roster. That's an incremental hit of $9.5 million.

We currently have approximately $109 million in 2010 cap dollars tied up in 36 players. The cap (if there is one, which I don't think there will be) is expected to be $136-140 million next season.

Samuels' retirement would take our cap dollars up to $118.5, leaving us with about $18-22 million remaining in cap space. Further space could be cleared through contract restructures and the like.

It does not appear cap space would be a major constraint in the offseason, even given Samuels' retirement. But I doubt there's a cap at all, negotiations between the NFL and the players association have still not made much progress to date.

And to answer your question, if he retires, no he is not entitled to any funds beyond what he is being paid in FY 2009.

does no cap mean exactly that? basically spend what you want? yeah, i know its a dumb question

does no cap mean exactly that? basically spend what you want? yeah, i know its a dumb question

Yes. It means exactly that.

Don't expect some free agency bonanza, though. The rules governing free agency will also change in an uncapped year, restricting the movement of free agents.

does no cap mean exactly that? basically spend what you want? yeah, i know its a dumb question

I presume yes and no. Basically next year we can spend as much as we want, but I would imagine that when the CAP is put back in place all teams will have to find a way to get below it or they would have to agree on raising the CAP further to accomidate everyone.

If the cap goes away it's probably not coming back any time soon, and not in it's current form.

And to answer your question, if he retires, no he is not entitled to any funds beyond what he is being paid in FY 2009.

I didn't know that. I assumed that if Samuels retired, he would be entitled to the rest of the pay on his contract. Do you happen to know what the "logic" is behind this situation. If a team releases a player, the team is screwed, but the player is not - he still gets his money. Logically, I would think that if a player "releases" his team by retiring, then the player should be screwed, but the team should not be. If a player retires, why should the player AND the team be penalized for money that is not paid? It doesnt seem like this rule is in the benefit of the players union or the league.

Don't expect some free agency bonanza, though. The rules governing free agency will also change in an uncapped year, restricting the movement of free agents.

Wouldn't there be alot of players released with large contracts that are not playing up to there cap number?