What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Found this article to be pretty interesting... (1 Viewer)

derek19

Footballguy
Bolded the interesting part.....

INDIANAPOLIS – Baltimore Ravens president Ozzie Newsome is happy to be poor.

Salary-cap poor, that is.

"I'm just glad I don't have a lot of money to go out there and shop this year," Newsome said Wednesday as he and other NFL executives prepared for another year of free agency.

"There's going to be a lot of B players making A money this year. It's a little scary."

By that, Newsome is talking about how the league's middle class figures to cash in this offseason. Few top-shelf free agents will be on the market, but there'll be a whole lot of money to spend.

And it has to be spent.

According to the NFL Players Association, there are approximately 14 teams with $20 million or more to spend this year on free agents. The San Francisco 49ers lead the way with $35 million in cap room. Overall, there's currently about $500 million in total available money among all 32 teams.

That overall amount is a slight overstatement because it also has to cover money that will be used to tender contracts for restricted free agents, exclusive rights players and draft picks. However, it doesn't factor in many players who could be cut.

In other words, there's a lot of money potentially out there. Meanwhile, the free agents look like a batch of bruised fruit.

"It's ugly," said one general manager who didn't want to be identified. "There are going to be a couple of guys who make some astronomical money that will just blow people away. Then there's still going to be other guys who make a bundle and people will be thinking, 'How did that happen?'

"You hate to say it, but a big reason is that you don't really have a choice. Look what's happened already."

That reference pertained to the recent contracts for players like Dallas Cowboys center Andre Gurode and Miami Dolphins defensive lineman Vonnie Holliday.

Gurode, who made the Pro Bowl this year, received a six-year, $30 million deal which included a $10 million signing bonus. Holliday, who is 31, received a four-year, $20 million pact that includes $7 million in the first year.

Those prices stunned numerous executives. While Gurode is considered an above-average player, he is hardly a star. With Holliday, he's the same guy who struggled two years ago to get a two-year contract worth $5 million overall.

What excites many players, such as Atlanta Falcons cornerback DeAngelo Hall, is the trickle-up effect that an increase for mid-level players could ultimately mean.

"That's going to make it better for everybody, so that's good," Hall said.

Said Dolphins defensive lineman Kevin Carter: "I think we're finally going to get to the point where those good-but-not-great players will start to make some serious money. Then the top players will start to make that NBA money."

Carter, a 12-year veteran who is 33 and starting to think about his post-career options, then smiled: "I just wish I was a little younger."

The same thing happened to the NFL in the 1980s when the league adopted what was known as Plan B free agency. That system allowed teams to protect most of their rosters, but allowed the bottom end to be free. That caused a feeding frenzy for free agents and ultimately raised salaries across the league.

Fueling this year's likely salary push is one key change to the collective bargaining agreement negotiated last year: the addition of a higher minimum salary cap.

This year, the maximum for each team to spend is $109 million. However, teams must also spend a minimum of 85.2 percent of the cap, which is just a little under $92.9 million. In short, teams can't bow out of the spending completely. San Francisco, for instance, won't be able to sit on its $35 million. Instead, it will be forced to spend at least $22 million.

And if the 49ers don't get a player such as Adalius Thomas or Nate Clements (if not both), they will be forced to extend players they currently have and spend on lesser talents.

"It's going to be interesting to see how all the teams approach free agency this year," Minnesota Vikings vice president of football operations Rob Brzezinski said. "Yeah, I think it's likely you're going to see an explosion in salaries."

Some executives, such as Falcons president Rich McKay and Tampa Bay Buccaneers general manager Bruce Allen, downplayed that idea. McKay said that he thought the same thing would happen last year.

The difference in 2006 was that few teams had a strong sense of what was going to happen with the negotiations over the CBA, and that slowed spending.

This year, franchises have had months to plan for spending sprees. Anticipating the higher prices, many teams have protected players who might otherwise have hit free agency.

For instance, the New England Patriots tried to sign cornerback Asante Samuel to a multi-year deal during the season, offering him a contract that featured approximately $8 million in guarantees. Now, the Patriots have slapped Samuel with a franchise tag that essentially guarantees him $7.79 million for one year. Samuel was one of seven players to be tagged as a franchise player, including middling talents such as Justin Smith of Cincinnati and Cory Redding of the Detroit Lions.

That has left for slim pickings among the players.

And perhaps fewer executives who want to buy them.

Jason Cole is a national NFL writer for Yahoo! Sports. Send Jason a question or comment for potential use in a future column or webcast.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Ao.Z...o&type=lgns

 
I wasn't aware of the minimum spending requirements. Is that new this year?

Bill Bidwell is probably swinging from a cross-beam right about now.

 
If I'm a GM under the 85% mark I simply pay a bonus to a franchise player now in order to lower his base pay in future years when the FA class is better.

 
It is a mechanism the players union required in the CBA to ensure money is spent on player salaries every year. This way owners have no choice to spend rather than cutting salary expenditures in a frugal attempt to turn a profit.

 
If I'm a GM under the 85% mark I simply pay a bonus to a franchise player now in order to lower his base pay in future years when the FA class is better.
This is such an obvious move, and yet I have a feeling that it won't get done by some teams.Nnamdi Asomougha has one year on his deal, I would certainly hope the Raiders are looking to extend his deal with a sizable roster bonus.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What this should mean is a better product on the field, as veterans who were cut in prior years can now stick around the league. Rookies / younger players that are cheaper won't necessarily be forcing them out of a job due not to skilled play but because they cost less.

 
What this should mean is a better product on the field, as veterans who were cut in prior years can now stick around the league. Rookies / younger players that are cheaper won't necessarily be forcing them out of a job due not to skilled play but because they cost less.
Well, it means it for this season, anyway. But if we can assume that some stiffs are gonna get big contracts, and they already have, I'm guessing you'll see the same thing in a year or so.
 
Even better, I'm gonna restructure, If I don't see guys I like out there and I have a ton of cap room. Then I'm shifting previous bonuses to this contract year. Also I'm taking more cap hits for cutting dead weight. Pay for a stiff this year, so I don't have to pay for him next year ect..

 
I am pretty sure it is a new requirement that was added to the last CBA. If I remember right several small market teams voiced concerns over the minimum during negotiations. It was why the CBA was not passed unanimously.

 
I think that if you've already paid out a bonus you can't decide to take mroe of the cap hit this year. As for bonuses later in the life of the contract, I don't know that a team would give a player a raise now that he's not due yet - if they want to do that, why not just renegotiate a longer-term deal.

I expect that lots of teams will renegotiate with their own players. But I also think we're going to see very high first-year salaries in FA contracts, and relatively lower bonus money. Still, even this will be not so dramatic - agents will fight for high bonuses because it helps all their clients to start ringing up some of those bigger numbers.

The real thing is that some guys, like Freeney, Clements, Briggs, and Thomas are going to make ridiculous money. I hear Freeney's agent has proposed $30 million in signing bonus.

 
I don't think you'll see that many big time deal changed to front load them.

It'd be so easy for a player to hold oput, or decide he wants to renegotiate, two or three years down the line, if he decides he's now overpaid. It'd make me sick to see my team give some guy a fat roster bonus in 2007, and have him hold out in 2009.

At least with a signing bonus, you can demand a pro-rated version of it back.

 
I think that if you've already paid out a bonus you can't decide to take mroe of the cap hit this year. As for bonuses later in the life of the contract, I don't know that a team would give a player a raise now that he's not due yet - if they want to do that, why not just renegotiate a longer-term deal.I expect that lots of teams will renegotiate with their own players. But I also think we're going to see very high first-year salaries in FA contracts, and relatively lower bonus money. Still, even this will be not so dramatic - agents will fight for high bonuses because it helps all their clients to start ringing up some of those bigger numbers.The real thing is that some guys, like Freeney, Clements, Briggs, and Thomas are going to make ridiculous money. I hear Freeney's agent has proposed $30 million in signing bonus.
If you renegotiate or extend a contract, the cap hit on the bonus is always accellerated. It's the way it works.
 
I wasn't aware of the minimum spending requirements. Is that new this year?Bill Bidwell is probably swinging from a cross-beam right about now.
:lmao: That's the first thing I thought too. Having suffered that fool in St. Louis for so many years I can relate. I think the rule is called the Anti-Bidwell rule.
 
I think that if you've already paid out a bonus you can't decide to take mroe of the cap hit this year. As for bonuses later in the life of the contract, I don't know that a team would give a player a raise now that he's not due yet - if they want to do that, why not just renegotiate a longer-term deal.I expect that lots of teams will renegotiate with their own players. But I also think we're going to see very high first-year salaries in FA contracts, and relatively lower bonus money. Still, even this will be not so dramatic - agents will fight for high bonuses because it helps all their clients to start ringing up some of those bigger numbers.The real thing is that some guys, like Freeney, Clements, Briggs, and Thomas are going to make ridiculous money. I hear Freeney's agent has proposed $30 million in signing bonus.
If you renegotiate or extend a contract, the cap hit on the bonus is always accellerated. It's the way it works.
no Unamortized bonus is only accelerated if a player is cut or traded (where the contract is terminated).For an extension, the additional guaranteed money is amortized and added to the old amortization
 
I wasn't aware of the minimum spending requirements. Is that new this year?

Bill Bidwell is probably swinging from a cross-beam right about now.
:wall: the old CBA had a "minimum", it wasn't worded as it is now--what has changed is the way the minimum is expressed and calculated, plus it escalates each year by 1.2%

you can see the old verbage HERE, where teams are required to spend "at least 54% of DGR" and the league as a whole had to spend 58%

the range was 54-64 (where 64% of DGR equaled the cap)

now, the cap is 59% of TR minus benefits, and the minimum started in '06 as 84% of the cap....adding the 1.2% for '06 gives you the 85.2% reported by the OP, and for '07 it goes to 86.4%

I tried to follow the language to see how DGR differs from TR, but I was going :ph34r: trying to follow it...I've read thru the CBA as it applies to the cap and how it is figured...and how the cap numbers can be different for teams the same year (that's correct... every team does not have the same amount of money each year, as I originally thought!)

in summary...the minimum is not new---just the way it is reported and calculated

 
Last edited by a moderator:
you'll see a lot of contract extensions.
I'm guessing you're going to see a lot of starters getting those "likely to be earned" special teams bonuses...Unless they got rid of that loophole, it's pretty easy to "spend" money. Another way to take advantage would be to give out roster bonuses rather than signing bonuses to all of the players that you sign (or extend). The money is spent just the same, but it would count towards your cap this season rather than over the life of the contract. Gets you to your minimum, gets the money off the books fast, and makes it easier to cut said player when the time rolls around.Plenty of ways for teams to get creative without risking their future cap space. So yeah, not having that cap space to do those things is a real blessing Ozzie. :lmao:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
you'll see a lot of contract extensions.
I'm guessing you're going to see a lot of starters getting those "likely to be earned" special teams bonuses...Unless they got rid of that loophole, it's pretty easy to "spend" money.

Another way to take advantage would be to give out roster bonuses rather than signing bonuses to all of the players that you sign (or extend). The money is spent just the same, but it would count towards your cap this season rather than over the life of the contract. Gets you to your minimum, gets the money off the books fast, and makes it easier to cut said player when the time rolls around.

Plenty of ways for teams to get creative without risking their future cap space. So yeah, not having that cap space to do those things is a real blessing Ozzie. :confused:
that'd be the loophole that allows teams to accrue Cap Space and roll it forward...Philly has been a wiz@ this for 10 years, accruing ~$5M over the cap figure and rolling it forward each year--it's allowed them a cushion it the event that lost a bunch of players to injury, to give them added space to sign guys..and I aggree that rather than "signing bonuses" that are prorated, we'll see more restructures w/bonus money for this yr for "workouts", "reporting", "roster" etc...as you mentioned, bonuses that need to be counted this yr and not prorated

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top