RaiderStation is the ultimate Las Vegas Raiders fan forum — join Raider Nation for bold takes, game-day analysis, news, rumors, and Silver & Black pride. Connect with fellow fans and be part of the discussion.
https://raiderstation.com/
That's a good thing!RI RAIDER wrote: Sat Dec 13, 2025 7:17 am Look on the bright side. At least coaches salaries are not part of the cap.
That one is easy. The year it was installed. While Davis voted for the cap, it killed him. Between free agency and the cap, they were the mill stones that took away his power. Before they were a thing, he could both retain his players and outbid others for key players. While he had limited funds, he spent to get and keep players he wanted. With the cap and free agency, other teams with deeper pockets and more savvy cap managers outdid the old man. He was relegated to making bad trades and even worse free agent deals for subpar players. Those two things destroyed him. Even had his talent evaluation skills remained solid, which they were not, his ability to retain his players and pay what it took were gone. While free agency was good for the players, teams suffered. You drafted a player, coached him up and watched him walk unless you paid him is value. The dollar killed this team, both from a free agency perspective and from a cap perspective.Sold My Soul wrote: Fri Dec 12, 2025 7:00 pm Question.....
When has the cap made any difference one way or the other to this organoization?
Anyone...anyone....
You sir are correct. The difference in cap space is relevant on how close to winning a Super Bowl a team is....DrDUne wrote: Fri Dec 12, 2025 10:38 pm Yes, they’ve been terrible either way, but it matters.
You can look at just about any roster on Over The Cap and with some level of confidence guess the roster cuts in the offseason. Saved cap space relative to the dead cap hit if cut or traded.
It’s strange to me that (and not accusing you directly of this) the same people who tell you the Raiders are in great shape because they have $100M+ in cap space will turn around and also tell you that $40-$60M+ in dead cap is no big deal. One is great and the other is somehow negligible, in the same breath.
Attyla wrote: Sat Dec 13, 2025 10:50 am That one is easy. The year it was installed. While Davis voted for the cap, it killed him. Between free agency and the cap, they were the mill stones that took away his power. Before they were a thing, he could both retain his players and outbid others for key players. While he had limited funds, he spent to get and keep players he wanted. With the cap and free agency, other teams with deeper pockets and more savvy cap managers outdid the old man. He was relegated to making bad trades and even worse free agent deals for subpar players. Those two things destroyed him. Even had his talent evaluation skills remained solid, which they were not, his ability to retain his players and pay what it took were gone. While free agency was good for the players, teams suffered. You drafted a player, coached him up and watched him walk unless you paid him is value. The dollar killed this team, both from a free agency perspective and from a cap perspective.
To fix this, we have got to get the first part right. We have got to become solid talent evaluators. If we get that right, the second part matters less since we are able to get that player into an organization that is good enough that they are wanting to stay so they agree to more team friendly deals. Brock and Aston will walk as soon as possible if we do not get that first part right.
Sad but true 100%Sold My Soul wrote: Sat Dec 13, 2025 4:21 pm You sir are correct. The difference in cap space is relevant on how close to winning a Super Bowl a team is....
If you are knocking on the door, teams are willing to mortgage their future to acquire the assets needed to achieve their goal.
Having been a Raider fan all these years should have soured you on spending for "name" talent when the team is so far from competing it has become league wide knowledge the Raiders will offer a final huge payday to guys on their way out of the league.
Football wise, never. However, I can think of a legitimate answer to this question. Back when Reggie McKenzie started running things he purged a large portion of the roster and created tons of dead cap. The Raiders were one of the few teams that put themselves at risk of being penalized for not meeting g a certain threshold for pay out of cap to current players. I believe the penalty would have been payment to all players over the 4-year period to cover the deficiency. I do believe the team wound up restructuring signing bonuses to roster bonuses to pay out players that were considered to be in their immediate plans in order to avoid the penalty. Bottom line, we paid out a bunch of players that took us nowhere so we were back to square one once McKenzie was let go.Sold My Soul wrote: Fri Dec 12, 2025 7:00 pm Question.....
When has the cap made any difference one way or the other to this organoization?
Anyone...anyone....
Very few are worth keeping in 2026.chucker wrote: Sat Dec 13, 2025 6:30 am It's great to have a lot of cap space. It's not great to have only 32 players under contract in 2026 - the fewest in the NFL. However when you look at our list of FAs, it's not like we're losing difference-makers, partly because we don't have many difference-makers on the roster.
Personally I don't worry much about dead cap because it's a symptom of past decisions. I'm more concerned with the future decisions and making sure we don't fck up again. Just don't retain a player you don't want because you want to avoid dead cap - keeping that guy doesn't remove the dead cap, it just means you effectively have dead cap taking up a roster spot. If all your dead cap is due to bad decisions, then someone should probably lose their job. In our case, much of the dead cap is due to decision makers who are gone or a guy who is hopefully gone soon (Carroll).
Joel Corry covered this a bit earlier (generally the best along with Overthecap for this stuff):vtraider wrote: Fri Dec 12, 2025 4:03 pm My main question is when and how will it effect our cap once the Wilkins stuff is sorted out. I know right now we are at the second highest. But I'm definitely not a cap guy. So just curious both outcomes where it will take our cap number
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/agen ... n-the-end/Until there is a resolution either through an arbitrator's decision or settlement, 40% of the disputed amount is salary cap charge. That's $14.1 million in this case. The grievance increases Las Vegas' 2025 cap charges for Wilkins by $5.98 million to $24.117 million.
The Raiders have a $29.775 million 2026 cap charge or dead money by releasing Wilkins. It's because of the proration in Wilkins' 2026 and 2027 contract years as well as the dummy/voiding 2028 contract year relating to his $24 million signing bonus and $20.5 million roster bonus.
Based on available public information, there seems to be some facts favorable to Wilkins although one can never know what an arbitrator might find persuasive. Speculation of there being more than meets the eye with Wilkins' unwanted kiss is building. Wilkins having engaged in other behavior that's more inappropriate could be a game changer.
The arbitrator deciding in favor of the Raiders would produce a $14.1 million cap credit that would help offset the $29.775 million in 2026 dead money. Wilkins winning his grievance would result in $21.15 million of additional salary cap charges for the Raiders in 2026.
Any guess on the grievance result and timeline?chucker wrote: Wed Dec 17, 2025 6:12 am The Wilkins situation is worth watching because it can swing cap space in either direction. I'm sure it's being hotly debated behind the scenes, but we are hearing nothing. You'd hope it would be resolved before FA.
I'm purely guessing. I'd guess that it will get resolved prior to the start of the new league year - the beginning of FA - because both sides will want it resolved by then. As for the result, it's hard to say. The length of time involved already suggests that it could go either way. If it was a clear result in favor of the player, I think it would be over long ago.