Roster/Salary cap thoughts

by John Boy on Jan 17, 2009 8:19 AM CST

I was wondering what the rules are about filling out a roster. The "maximum" limit is 53, is there a minimum limit? My thinking is that if a team is close to the limit on their cap, can they choose to go with a smaller roster, say 50, and use the money they would have spent on the other 3 and use it on one of the 50? If you have a roster of 50 active, and then your regular practice squead, that's gotta cost less than a full roster of 53, right? I know there are limits on how much of the salary cap they HAVE to pay, a certain percentage of their revenues have to go to player salary and bonuses, but can that be used on a lesser number of players. I suspect that there is a minimum roster size, just can't find it anywhere. I know that the smaller roster would have an impact on things like Special Teams, etc, and that would have to be taken into account, but If there is no minimum roster size then that might be a way to release someone, take the hit this year and still be a player in the FA market, and then make it back up next year.

Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.

Tweet Comment 3 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I might be wrong

but I think you need at least 45 players on the roster. Thats also the number of active players on game day

"Ask Philly was it hard tryin' a stop TO, he da main reason that the fans would come fo'."

by aussie_cowboy on Jan 17, 2009 8:25 AM CST reply actions

3 things

1. a smaller roster would be a disadvantage
2. only the 51 highest paid players count towards the cap
3. the last few guys on the guys are playing for something pretty near the minimum, so not having them wouldnt save that much $

so cutting 8 people and having a smaller (disadvantaged) team would save 6 salaries and then if you had an injuries you end up signing guys so you could dress 45 on game day.

by 325424 on Jan 17, 2009 8:58 AM CST reply actions

I wasn't aware of the hightst 51 deal

I mentioned that the last guys were probably scrubs anyhow, so you are correct in that you aren’t saving THAT much money. I wasn’t alking about going all the way down to 45, just like 50 or something. The amount of money save is probably not worth the effort.

by John Boy on Jan 17, 2009 9:45 AM CST up reply actions