Cap Impact of #6 or vet (e.g. Briggs)?

[freddyg12]

I posed this question at the end of one of the marathon Briggs' threads;
For our resident capologists, which will likely impact the cap more, signing the #6 pick or Briggs or some other vet?

Let's assume that there will be significant inflation in the top 10 rookie contracts this year. If the #6 gets the same guaranteed money as Briggs would, how does this impact the cap? The reason I ask is because of the requirement I believe that teams have to allocate a certain percentage to rookies. I'm not sure how that works or if there is much of any difference, but in year's past I recall us never being concerned with having sufficient cap space to sign high paid rookies. Of course trading down would save us $ & gain more roster spots.

Any input is appreciated.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

POSTED 7:31 p.m. EDT, March 28, 2007
'SKINS WILLING TO PAY $20 MILLION GUARANTEED TO BRIGGS
The Chicago Sun-Times reports that, if the Bears and Redskins work out a deal for linebacker Lance Briggs, the 'Skins will pay the franchise-tagged free agent $20 million in guaranteed money as part of a deal that averages $7.5 million per year.
The Redskins have offered to swap first-round picks with the Bears for Briggs. Chicago would get the No. 6 overall pick, and Washington would take the No. 31 selection.
Under the trade chart, the move results in a net gain of 1,000 points for the Bears, which is equivalent to the No. 16 overall pick.
Multiple league insiders expect the Bears to balk. The No. 6 pick lands in the high-rent district, and the Bears might not be inclined to pay a rookie a ton of money. If we were calling the shots in Chitown (and Bears fans everywhere should rejoice in the fact that we don't), we'd ask for the No. 6 pick straight up, and then we'd slap the two picks together in an effort to make a play for one of the few guys that Rex Grossman can't overthrow -- receiver Calvin Johnson.


briggs will cost more

[Schneed10]

Last year, Vernon Davis was the 6th player selected and got $14 million in guarantees, and a total of $25 million over 5 years, good for an average of $5 million per year.

The year before, Pacman got $13.68 million in guarantees.

There will be some inflation on top of Vernon Davis's deal for the 6th pick this year, but it will certainly not top the proposed $7.5 million per year Briggs would hypothetically receive.

[BrudLee]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Last year, Vernon Davis was the 6th player selected and got $14 million in guarantees, and a total of $25 million over 5 years, good for an average of $5 million per year.

The year before, Pacman got $13.68 million in guarantees.

There will be some inflation on top of Vernon Davis's deal for the 6th pick this year, but it will certainly not top the proposed $7.5 million per year Briggs would hypothetically receive.

So much of the guaranteed money has to do with position, though. If Davis was a WR rather than a TE, his number would have been higher.

[Hog1]

Hmmmm, ball park money for either............rookie or experienced, and proven badass. In those terms, it starts to look more palatable.
And NO, I DID NOT SAY PULL THE TRIGGER ON THE BRIGGS DEAL

[dmek25]

the whole things makes me laugh. Briggs is a proven commodity. picking number 6 is a crap shoot. with that being said, we do not need Briggs. i think Joe and the boys are setting up one helluva of a smokescreen

[celts32]

What's the impact on the DL and the secondary after half the salary cap is invested in LB's?