With a lot of teams apparently WAY under the cap (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

With the advent of the increased salary cap last year, we saw a lot of players get free agent deals that many felt were not justied. From what I'm reading, there appears to be several teams in position to be $30-$40 million under the cap gfor the 2007 season. I don't know how accurate those numbers are and which teams really have that much space, but it does seem that a lot of teams transferred cap hits and counted them towards the 2006 cap with some creative accounting.

That being said, with so many teams having so much money to essentially blow, won't that again serve to inflate free agent contracts?

For example, I've been reading many teams off season wish lists (certainly nothing offical) by posters, reporters, etc. and the Patriots's Asante Samuel is on almost every one of them. Listing to Samuel, he has compared himself statistically this year to Champ Bailey. Given the marketplace, is there a chance that he gets Bailey-like money from someone in dire need of his services?

It looks like there are not a ton of elite free agents this year, so I'm wondering if they all get a boatload of money and then some and second tier free agents will get paid like royalty when they aren't really worth it.

I suspect like last year that teams looking to work on a budget and try to shortchange players or get a hometown discount will be out of luck and will have slim pickens to spend their money on.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

The good players will get paid. Guys like Samuel & Clements.

Some teams will overpay for average guys. But then those teams always do that.

There will be a lot of teams that don't spend to the cap this year. These squads have to put up with the fans that don't understand that you don't HAVE to spend every dime you can. The Vikings, for example, have done a pretty good job of not overspending on average talent just because they could.

 

[Banger]

It looks like there are not a ton of elite free agents this year, so I'm wondering if they all get a boatload of money and then some and second tier free agents will get paid like royalty when they aren't really worth it.I suspect like last year that teams looking to work on a budget and try to shortchange players or get a hometown discount will be out of luck and will have slim pickens to spend their money on.

I think the Chargers will run into the hometown discount problem with Diehlman and will lose him to free agency. I agree with the 2nd tier player theory as well. A player like Stallworth will probably get a lot more than he's worth considering his spotty performance (prior to this year) and his injury history (throughout his career).

 

[David Yudkin]

The good players will get paid. Guys like Samuel & Clements.Some teams will overpay for average guys. But then those teams always do that.There will be a lot of teams that don't spend to the cap this year. These squads have to put up with the fans that don't understand that you don't HAVE to spend every dime you can. The Vikings, for example, have done a pretty good job of not overspending on average talent just because they could.

And the question I have (in theory) is what do the Vikings have to show for not spending to the cap?I'm not saying all teams should try to spend every cent they have, nor am I suggesting that a team can't win and not spend money. But it seems to me that if you leave money on the table, there's a decent chance that your team could have had more depth, more talent, more wins, etc.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

The good players will get paid. Guys like Samuel & Clements.Some teams will overpay for average guys. But then those teams always do that.There will be a lot of teams that don't spend to the cap this year. These squads have to put up with the fans that don't understand that you don't HAVE to spend every dime you can. The Vikings, for example, have done a pretty good job of not overspending on average talent just because they could.

And the question I have (in theory) is what do the Vikings have to show for not spending to the cap?I'm not saying all teams should try to spend every cent they have, nor am I suggesting that a team can't win and not spend money. But it seems to me that if you leave money on the table, there's a decent chance that your team could have had more depth, more talent, more wins, etc.

But the impossible question to answer is "Would they have been better if they HAD spent more money?" Given the players available, I personally don't think so.

 

[msommer]

The good players will get paid. Guys like Samuel & Clements.Some teams will overpay for average guys. But then those teams always do that.There will be a lot of teams that don't spend to the cap this year. These squads have to put up with the fans that don't understand that you don't HAVE to spend every dime you can. The Vikings, for example, have done a pretty good job of not overspending on average talent just because they could.

And the question I have (in theory) is what do the Vikings have to show for not spending to the cap?I'm not saying all teams should try to spend every cent they have, nor am I suggesting that a team can't win and not spend money. But it seems to me that if you leave money on the table, there's a decent chance that your team could have had more depth, more talent, more wins, etc.

But the impossible question to answer is "Would they have been better if they HAD spent more money?" Given the players available, I personally don't think so.

So now it is the draft AND the cap, eh Andy? I find your comment interesting as I clearly remember that many Vikes fans on this board blasted Red McCombs for NOT spending. I can;t remember who so please don't take this as an attack.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

So now it is the draft AND the cap, eh Andy?

See my sig.

I find your comment interesting as I clearly remember that many Vikes fans on this board blasted Red McCombs for NOT spending. I can;t remember who so please don't take this as an attack.

In fairness, McCombs did NOTHING when he owned the team. EVERYTHING was on the cheap. So those fans were right in blasting him, but some went overboard in expecting him to spend every dime.

 

[x260bm]

I don’t think there is going to be much out there this season. I think most of the players that have any real value will be resigned by their teams. Looking over the list of potential free-agents I don’t see a lot of players that are going to command large contracts to begin with.

 

[Buckna]

It's inevitable that whatever % the Cap increased by, veteran salaries will increase by a similar amount over time. The main difference is the lag as current players are under contract for multiple years. The smarter clubs will try to hold onto their excess right now and move it into future years to offset the increased cost of labor as salaries slowly catch up.

Isn't there that well documented trick where a team adds tons of incentive bonuses to contracts that are virtually unattainable by the player (say something like a $5M bonus for scoring 50 TD's) that is added to this year's cap, and if not reached, then it's then carried over to the next year? Some teams (I think the Vikings were the most notorious under Red McCombs because he never wanted to spend money) have been employing this for a long time.

 

[Fantasy_Freak]

Side question concerning the topic, if a player is Franchised do they average the prior year salaries or the next year salaries? Being a Bears fan and knowing Lance Briggs will be available if they franchise him do they use 2006 salaries or 2007 salaries?

Thanks

 

[Phurfur]

The good players will get paid. Guys like Samuel & Clements.Some teams will overpay for average guys. But then those teams always do that.There will be a lot of teams that don't spend to the cap this year. These squads have to put up with the fans that don't understand that you don't HAVE to spend every dime you can. The Vikings, for example, have done a pretty good job of not overspending on average talent just because they could.

And the question I have (in theory) is what do the Vikings have to show for not spending to the cap?I'm not saying all teams should try to spend every cent they have, nor am I suggesting that a team can't win and not spend money. But it seems to me that if you leave money on the table, there's a decent chance that your team could have had more depth, more talent, more wins, etc.

Actually the Vikes have been very active the last two years and what do they have to show for it? They couldn't even beat the "cheap?" Packers who had a team loaded with 1st year players. Spending money because you have it is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

 

[GregR_2]

It's inevitable that whatever % the Cap increased by, veteran salaries will increase by a similar amount over time. The main difference is the lag as current players are under contract for multiple years. The smarter clubs will try to hold onto their excess right now and move it into future years to offset the increased cost of labor as salaries slowly catch up.Isn't there that well documented trick where a team adds tons of incentive bonuses to contracts that are virtually unattainable by the player (say something like a $5M bonus for scoring 50 TD's) that is added to this year's cap, and if not reached, then it's then carried over to the next year? Some teams (I think the Vikings were the most notorious under Red McCombs because he never wanted to spend money) have been employing this for a long time.

According to the CBA copy on nflpa.org, the loophole is still in there.

© Incentives.(i) Any and all incentive amounts, including but not limited to performance bonuses, shall be included in Team Salary if they are “likely to be earned” during such League Year based upon the player’s and/or Team’s performance during the prior year. In the case of a Rookie, or a Veteran who did not play during the prior season, in the event that the NFL and the NFLPA cannot agree as to whether such performance bonus is “likely to be earned,” such disputes shall be referred to the Impartial Arbitrator. Any incentive within the sole control of the player (e.g., non-guaranteed reporting bonuses, off-season workout and weight bonuses) shall be deemed “likely to be earned.”

 

[Gr00vus]

From my econ 101 class:

When demand is greater than supply, prices go up.

Add to that dynamic the relative overabundance of available funds and I can see nothing but inflation this year.

Seems like a good season to sit out of the FA market to me.

 

[David Yudkin]

Actually the Vikes have been very active the last two years and what do they have to show for it? They couldn't even beat the "cheap?" Packers who had a team loaded with 1st year players. Spending money because you have it is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

I suspect that the fan base would rather see a team spend money and have things not work out than not spend the money and stay stagnant. I know the franchise would rather make money than lose money, so there is a tradeoff both ways.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Actually the Vikes have been very active the last two years and what do they have to show for it? They couldn't even beat the "cheap?" Packers who had a team loaded with 1st year players. Spending money because you have it is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

How do you define "very active?" Must be different from me as I don't think signing Fred Smoot, Pat Williams, and Steve Hutchinson to be "very" active. As an aside, I think they hit on two of the three.The Packers may have beat the Vikings this year, but I don't think that's a very good bellweather for either squad.

 

[fatkid]

Side question concerning the topic, if a player is Franchised do they average the prior year salaries or the next year salaries? Being a Bears fan and knowing Lance Briggs will be available if they franchise him do they use 2006 salaries or 2007 salaries?Thanks

I don't know the answer, but I think this question is key to the entire free agent market. If last years numbers, or this years contracts before new players sign, I can see a number of players who are about to hit free agency getting Franchised. I doubt that any of the big names hit Free Agency this year, as the teams know that other teams will be able to gifve huge offers. It is much cheeper for them to hold them for a year at the current Franchise salary rates than it would be to try and sign them in this market. Also, teams now have the wiggle room where they can both Franchise one guy and still sign other free agents. Also, does anyone know what the cap is going up to? This year was ~102 Million. (I went and looked it up 109 Million is the estimate)Finally, I expect some absurd contracts this offseason. The combination of most good players being franchised, teams having more money, and GMs and owners looking to improve their teams means the few players who reach free agency should be richly rewarded.

 

[fatkid]

Side question concerning the topic, if a player is Franchised do they average the prior year salaries or the next year salaries? Being a Bears fan and knowing Lance Briggs will be available if they franchise him do they use 2006 salaries or 2007 salaries?Thanks

I don't know the answer, but I think this question is key to the entire free agent market. If last years numbers, or this years contracts before new players sign, I can see a number of players who are about to hit free agency getting Franchised. I doubt that any of the big names hit Free Agency this year, as the teams know that other teams will be able to gifve huge offers. It is much cheeper for them to hold them for a year at the current Franchise salary rates than it would be to try and sign them in this market. Also, teams now have the wiggle room where they can both Franchise one guy and still sign other free agents. Also, does anyone know what the cap is going up to? This year was ~102 Million. (I went and looked it up 109 Million is the estimate)Finally, I expect some absurd contracts this offseason. The combination of most good players being franchised, teams having more money, and GMs and owners looking to improve their teams means the few players who reach free agency should be richly rewarded.

I went and looked up the answer at NFLPA.comA team can franchise a player at either the top 5 salaries last year, or the top 5 salaries for this year at the end of the Restricted Free Agent Signing period.I am guessing that most teams would rather Franchise a player at the average from last years #s for one year rather than try to get into a bidding war with the teams that have 20+ million under the cap.

 

[massraider]

From my econ 101 class:When demand is greater than supply, prices go up.Add to that dynamic the relative overabundance of available funds and I can see nothing but inflation this year.Seems like a good season to sit out of the FA market to me.

Yeah, I agree with this. I would think the smart teams, knowing they're going to have a lot of cap room, would spend this offseason using that room to lock up their own core players.You take a guy with a big salary over the next few years, and take $5 mill of it somewhere. Give him a roster bonus in 2007 instead, and you push that saving into the future.

 

[GregR_2]

...That being said, with so many teams having so much money to essentially blow, won't that again serve to inflate free agent contracts?For example, I've been reading many teams off season wish lists (certainly nothing offical) by posters, reporters, etc. and the Patriots's Asante Samuel is on almost every one of them. Listing to Samuel, he has compared himself statistically this year to Champ Bailey. Given the marketplace, is there a chance that he gets Bailey-like money from someone in dire need of his services?...

Others have mentioned something along these lines, but do be clear, what do you consider "Bailey-like money"? Do you mean what Bailey got then at 2004 salary cap prices, or what he would get today at 2007 salary cap prices?He got a 7 year 63m contract. So would you consider Assante Samuel getting the same contract to be Champ Bailey like? Or would Samuel have to get what Champ would if he signed today, which is probably a 30% jump so more like $80+m over 7 years?

 

[perry147]

From my econ 101 class:

When demand is greater than supply, prices go up.

Add to that dynamic the relative overabundance of available funds and I can see nothing but inflation this year.

Seems like a good season to sit out of the FA market to me.

Yeah, I agree with this. I would think the smart teams, knowing they're going to have a lot of cap room, would spend this offseason using that room to lock up their own core players.You take a guy with a big salary over the next few years, and take $5 mill of it somewhere. Give him a roster bonus in 2007 instead, and you push that saving into the future.

This is the smart thing to do - look for some vets to have their deals reworked this offseason. Although I still think UFA's like Jeff Garcia will still land big money.

 

[massraider]

From my econ 101 class:

When demand is greater than supply, prices go up.

Add to that dynamic the relative overabundance of available funds and I can see nothing but inflation this year.

Seems like a good season to sit out of the FA market to me.

Yeah, I agree with this. I would think the smart teams, knowing they're going to have a lot of cap room, would spend this offseason using that room to lock up their own core players.You take a guy with a big salary over the next few years, and take $5 mill of it somewhere. Give him a roster bonus in 2007 instead, and you push that saving into the future.

This is the smart thing to do - look for some vets to have their deals reworked this offseason. Although I still think UFA's like Jeff Garcia will still land big money.

Oh, I don't think the UFA's this year will be wanting. And I am sure there will be some overpaying. Here's what I really wonder about: In the past, you'd see a flurry as soon as the FA period started. It was generally considered good form to "get yours" before the money dried up. This year, I don't see that as a major concern. I wonder if the FA period will drag out a bit more.

 

[David Yudkin]

[Others have mentioned something along these lines, but do be clear, what do you consider "Bailey-like money"? Do you mean what Bailey got then at 2004 salary cap prices, or what he would get today at 2007 salary cap prices?He got a 7 year 63m contract. So would you consider Assante Samuel getting the same contract to be Champ Bailey like? Or would Samuel have to get what Champ would if he signed today, which is probably a 30% jump so more like $80+m over 7 years?

It would not shock me at all if Samuel asked for an average of $10 million per year total. So 5 years at $50 million with maybe a $15 million signing bonus included in that.

 

[Z-Dog]

From my econ 101 class:When demand is greater than supply, prices go up.Add to that dynamic the relative overabundance of available funds and I can see nothing but inflation this year.Seems like a good season to sit out of the FA market to me.

The FA market isn't an economic market - it's a label. The market, economically speaking, is the labor market for NFL players. Teams can and will sign their own players to extensions too, and that money comes out of the same pot. But the whole point is that player salaries will rise - it's part of the collective bargaining agreement that although there is a hard cap, there is also a floor - teams must spend a certain percentage of revenue os player salary. As revenue goes up, more money must be spent on a group of players that is basically the same size.What this means is that 2nd-tier players SHOULD command the salaries that 1st-tier players commanded in years past, and a team like the Pats, that refused to pay premium salaries in years past, when the cap did not expand much at all, would be mistaken to continue that strategy. Of course, it still is a problem to pay a bad player.

 

[Gr00vus]

The FA market isn't an economic market - it's a label

I can't go sign guys coming out of college to deals - I have to draft them. Whoever I draft must be considered in my overall player budget, but that is a relatively fixed quantity, based on where I draft. These players are not in the "market." The rest of the available player pool is comprised of players in various stages of free agency, which is a market. UFA's definitely represent a well defined market in which ability to pay is nearly the sole determining factor in successful competition (intangibles like location, tradition, team success are factors too, but usually only when the money is close). This year there is more available money than ever before, there is also a seeming scarcity of high quality options in relation to other years. Even if there was the same money pool available last year, there would be inflation due to insufficient supply. The fact that there will be even more money than last year will simply exaggerate the inflation.It's a double whammy that would make me want to be very conservative this year in consideration of free agent acquisitions. I'd definitely want to take a hard look at what will come on the market in the next few years, which players I would be better off extending who are already under contract with me and what will be available through the draft in comparison.

 

[Phurfur]

Actually the Vikes have been very active the last two years and what do they have to show for it? They couldn't even beat the "cheap?" Packers who had a team loaded with 1st year players. Spending money because you have it is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

I suspect that the fan base would rather see a team spend money and have things not work out than not spend the money and stay stagnant. I know the franchise would rather make money than lose money, so there is a tradeoff both ways.

Unfortunately the fan base knows nothing about economics and I suspect most of them are in debt up to their eye balls. Throwing money at problems is a Government solution not a Private Sector solution.

 

[Two Deep]

I think Indy should go after a guy like Kevin Curtis for their third receiver spot. Wayne has never been one to stretch the field and Harrison appears to me to have lost that ability. Curtis would be a nice compliment to those two and probably would be reasonable money wise.