Capologist - Nee Some Help (1 Viewer)

[BlueOnion]

Spending could continue

When free agency opened last month, the Vikings were an NFL-best $31 million under the $102 million salary cap. Less than a month later, Minnesota has plummeted to 11th in the league, with $13.5 million in room under the cap.

That is largely because of the addition of all-pro Steve Hutchinson's record contract for a guard. Hutchinson will count a team-high $13 million against the 2006 cap. In addition to a $6 million roster bonus and a $2 million base salary, Hutchinson has a $5 million clause that counts against this year's salary cap but won't be earned.

Trying to wrap my head around this. Hutchinson's cap number will include a portion for 5 million this year, but Hutchinson will not earn?

I assume this must be a likely-to-be-earned insentive and the impact next year will be an extra 5 million of cap space next year, but the wording throw me off.

 

[ShaqAttaq]

i interpret the clause the same way you do.

 

[Birdie048]

IIRC, there was a new part of the CBA that required teams to have cap space for the bonuses that a player could earn THIS YEAR, and not have the cap impact NEXT YEAR.

This could be the how it is being applied.

 

[Bri]

(iii) At the end of a season, if performance bonuses previously included in a Team’s Team Salary but not actually earned exceed performance bonuses actually earned but not previously included in Team Salary, an amount shall be added to the Team’s Salary Cap for the next League Year equaling the amount, if any, by which such overage exceeds the Team’s Room under the Salary Cap at the end of a season.

* Any incentive bonus that depends on a player’s individual performance in any category not identified in Exhibit B hereto automatically will be deemed “likely to be earned.” Any incentive bonus that depends on a player’s individual performance in categories other than those used to assess performance at the player’s primary position automatically will be deemed “likely to be earned.”

 

[AB in DC]

I assume this must be a likely-to-be-earned insentive and the impact next year will be an extra 5 million of cap space next year, but the wording throw me off.

That's my read too.My guess is that the writer knows even less about capology than we sharks do.

 

[code]

Is it possible that the incentive is contractually classified as LTBE (because he achieved such goals last year) and therefore counts against this years cap, but is "not likely to be earned" because of something about how they intend to use him in Minny?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Is it possible that the incentive is contractually classified as LTBE (because he achieved such goals last year) and therefore counts against this years cap, but is "not likely to be earned" because of something about how they intend to use him in Minny?

Most likely it's an incentive for special teams play, which are always "likely to be earned" even though Hutchinson won't play any special teams. It's a way to transfer unused 2006 cap space to 2007.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Looks like the LTBE bonus loophole that the Iggles and Pats have been exploiting recently.

 

[BlueOnion]

I assume this must be a likely-to-be-earned insentive and the impact next year will be an extra 5 million of cap space next year, but the wording throw me off.

That's my read too.My guess is that the writer knows even less about capology than we sharks do.

There must be some truth to this. Either the writer is not aware of LTBE incentives or the writer doesn't think his audience would comprehend LTBE incentives.Thanks all for the replies.

 

[The_Hunchback]

Minny has been doing stuff like this for several years. Look back over the past few years and you will see they are right at the top with the most cap available to spend.

 

[ravnzfan]

Is it possible that the incentive is contractually classified as LTBE (because he achieved such goals last year) and therefore counts against this years cap, but is "not likely to be earned" because of something about how they intend to use him in Minny?

Most likely it's an incentive for special teams play, which are always "likely to be earned" even though Hutchinson won't play any special teams. It's a way to transfer unused 2006 cap space to 2007.

MT hits the nail on the head...ST bonuses are counted as LTBE for cap purposes, but obviously Hutch won't see the field for that purpose---the available cap space gets forwarded to '07, per Bri's post, as net amount of '06 LTBE bonuses counted but not paid gets carried forward to '07Philly has been the king of this move, IIRC, and usually has an extra 10% "available" each year