Cap Questions

[Gandalf2300]

I believe so. The Bengals are rolling forward $15 million this year, and I imagine they'll roll about $20 million over to 2013 (they are currently 60 under).

I think it would be smart for them to do so as well. Extensions will quickly be coming for green, dalton, gresham, atkins and dunlap. An extra $20 million to use would be great. Don't need to find themselves in a situation like the steelers.

Agreed-the Steelers have reaped the success of a well built (and well paid) roster-now the salary cap chickens are coming home to roost. More key players will either have to take pay cuts or get cut in the coming weeks-and even WR Mike Wallace may walk if a team signs him and gives up a 1st round pick. The Steelers may backslide a bit in a tough AFC North, while teams with more cap space like the Bengals will be able to roll out the Brinks truck for their own players and free agents from elsewhere. If the Bengals' ownership opens up the bank vaults somewhat more than in the past, they could really become competitive in a hurry.

Will the salary floor actually help to improve the quality of the bad teams, as more money will ostensibly be available for a team like the Rams or Jaguars to sign better players? Or will poorly managed franchises continue to be lousy, except they are spending more on players? I will vote for the latter, as only so many people on the planet actually know how to select and coach professional football players.

[mikesteelnation1]

Agreed-the Steelers have reaped the success of a well built (and well paid) roster-now the salary cap chickens are coming home to roost. More key players will either have to take pay cuts or get cut in the coming weeks-and even WR Mike Wallace may walk if a team signs him and gives up a 1st round pick. The Steelers may backslide a bit in a tough AFC North, while teams with more cap space like the Bengals will be able to roll out the Brinks truck for their own players and free agents from elsewhere. If the Bengals' ownership opens up the bank vaults somewhat more than in the past, they could really become competitive in a hurry.

Will the salary floor actually help to improve the quality of the bad teams, as more money will ostensibly be available for a team like the Rams or Jaguars to sign better players? Or will poorly managed franchises continue to be lousy, except they are spending more on players? I will vote for the latter, as only so many people on the planet actually know how to select and coach professional football players.

The untenable situation we have put ourselves in cap wise, makes me Wretch. What's worse is by redoing all these deals we further tie ourselves to these guys. We keep robbing peter to pay Paul. Sure we restructure and get under the cap, but all were doing is buying these guys with credit. Tying ourselves more to these players everytime we restructure. Eventually if we should need to cut them the amortization from the pro ration of signing bonuses make it a moot point.

Omar khan and Kevin colbert are among the best front office guys. Khan may well be the best cap guy in the league. Everyone keeps pursuing him as a gm, eventhough he isn't a football guy. He's our resident cap wizard. Guess it shows the value of that talent?

I'd guess khan and colbert see a watershed with the cap based on when the new tv deals kick in and the cap spikes up, by quite a bit. That's why they're using this "no interest" finance plan now.

As far as the spending to the floor sentiment and rolling cap space forward, the two ideas are mutually exclusive. The clubs have to spend 90% cash, not cap hit to the cap starting next year. Cap hit is accounting wizardry. Spending to 90% of cash is far different.

Here's a perfect example. The bengals are crazy under the cap. Tons of money to spend. Starting next year they have to spend 90% of the cap in cash. That's current year contract figures, roster bonuses, all signing bonuses. Signing bonuses are pro rated for cap purposes, not for cash spending. Cash is money given to a player in a given year for contract, signing bonuses, or roster bonuses. Not sure if likely to be earned incentive bonuses are included in this figure (ltbe bonuses). My brain is still digesting the 30+ pages of legalese I digested to get the facts on the rule of 51.

Next year if Dalton, green, and atkins have good years all get extensions, and the signing bonus money, which is pro rated, is used to get to the 90% cash #. To me after in depth analysis, the 90% rule is just another hurdle in the accounting phase. Eventually if the guys don't pan out the amortization accelerations of signing bonuses for unworthy players can cripple a team. We need years to see the impact of that.

It means teams need to scout better than ever, and only re up guys early if they are exemplary. I'll be interested to see how the 90% cash floor impacts things 5 years down the road. Like gandalf said, I feel the worst teams will further the gap with poor spending. I think it may create a bigger chasm between the have and have nots. It may even play games with the parity the league has enjoyed for a while now.

[FrzzerBwler]

I'll admit I asked a confusing question. What I'm trying to get at: If a team is able to roll over as much as they want every year (a large amount of unused cap $) doesn't that make the floor a farce? If a team rolls 20 -30 M a year over year after year the actual amount spent is smaller than if they don't roll a larger amount over. And if this is the case how did the NFLPA miss it? Isn't the point of the floor to force frugal owners to spend?

Maybe I'm not understanding the question, but rolling over any unused cap space won't impact the cap floor. The floor is the minimum amount each team MUST spend on it's players. Since unused cap space is basically un-spent money, it cannot help a team reach the 2013 floor.

Also, the cap floor will be based on the league's hard cap figure, so any amount rolled over from year to year won't raise a team's payroll requirement.

The question I still don't know about the roll-over is whether a team can roll over the same figure year after year. For example, if a team rolls $1 Million from this year to next year, and they don't use it next year, can they roll that $1 Million over again to the following year, and so on? Or are they only allowed to roll over anything that's unused from the hard cap to the next year?

[Bengals1181]

I'll admit I asked a confusing question. What I'm trying to get at: If a team is able to roll over as much as they want every year (a large amount of unused cap $) doesn't that make the floor a farce? If a team rolls 20 -30 M a year over year after year the actual amount spent is smaller than if they don't roll a larger amount over. And if this is the case how did the NFLPA miss it? Isn't the point of the floor to force frugal owners to spend?

no the salary floor will still very much matter.

If anything in what you're asking, it makes the salary CAP a farce, because teams can theoretically spend more than the cap in a given year by rolling over money from the previous year.

[hobbes27]

I'll admit I asked a confusing question. What I'm trying to get at: If a team is able to roll over as much as they want every year (a large amount of unused cap $) doesn't that make the floor a farce? If a team rolls 20 -30 M a year over year after year the actual amount spent is smaller than if they don't roll a larger amount over. And if this is the case how did the NFLPA miss it? Isn't the point of the floor to force frugal owners to spend?

The rollover really doesn't encourage frugal owners to spend. If the owners have not been using their salary cap space in the past, all a floor does is force them to spend to their minimum. The rollover of the salary cap basically rewards teams that manage their salaries year after year.

[SpartaChris]

I'll admit I asked a confusing question. What I'm trying to get at: If a team is able to roll over as much as they want every year (a large amount of unused cap $) doesn't that make the floor a farce? If a team rolls 20 -30 M a year over year after year the actual amount spent is smaller than if they don't roll a larger amount over. And if this is the case how did the NFLPA miss it? Isn't the point of the floor to force frugal owners to spend?

As others said, the roll over doesn't impact the floor at all, only the cap room they have for the year they rolled over.

[mikesteelnation1]

I'm really interested to see how things play out these next 5 years with the transition to the 90% cash floor, mixed with the cap roll over. It's going to make the cap manager, perhaps the most important front office guy.

You have to spend the money, but lots of ways to do that. My question is this.. how does this affect the top of market deals? And in turn how does that affect other mechanisms, like the franchise number.

Here's an example: we all know the bucs and bengals have boatloads of cash available to spend to get to the 90% cash floor. Let's be hypothetical here, and say either team needs to spend over $20 mil to get there. I'll use a position that could totally destroy the franchise #, and say the bengals decide to resign gresham to a 4yr deal with every yearly salary being the vet minimum with a $20 mil roster bonus to get to the cash number.. that would raise the franchise number by almost double the following year.

[darvon]

You could just READ the CBA, it's only 300 pages.

[packa7x]

You could just READ the CBA, it's only 300 pages.

That's what I've been doing...I just have hundreds of pages for class to read in other text books and I'm required to read the WSJ everyday...plus my car broke down so I'm busy commuting to and from school as well. A lot of time is eaten up.

[darvon]

We are on it...someone will find it.