Does it scare anyone that Tommie might be looking for 30M SB guarantee?

[BearSox]

you guys can spend all the money you want on tickets... I'll enjoy the games in the comfort of my home in front of glistening HD.

[DrunkBomber]

you guys can spend all the money you want on tickets... I'll enjoy the games in the comfort of my home in front of glistening HD.

Its not the same

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Its not the same

I agree, and I have season tickets and a 67 inch plasma HD. You can't feel the energy on HD, here comments fans make, or any of that good stuff.

 

However, watching the away games is great on HD

[Lucky Luciano]

Disagree. I have often had this argument. It is one thing to talk about the cap, but another when talking about bonus dollars.

 

For example, I could easily (and have) show how we could afford to re-sign Berrian, Briggs, extend Harris, and even add Faneca. I can show you how that can be done, and done w/ in cap space we have.

 

BUT, then you have to consider the amount of cash a team has to cough up at one time. While not exact, potential bonus dollars for those players: Berrian ($15m), Briggs ($20m), Harris ($30m) and Faneca ($15m). That is $80m that we would have to front those four players. There are a handful of owners in the league that MIGHT do that. Snyder and Jones come to mind. Most wouldn't do it because it isn't cap smart. But many flat out could not do it. It is one thing to spend all your cap allotment. Every team has the ability to do that w/ shared revenue. But the more wealthy owners can really go above and beyond.

 

you may be cutting this a bit thin don't ya think??

 

ayanbadejo - $ 599,320

barrian - $ 1,022,680

briggs - $ 7,206,000

grossman - $ 2,492,300

miller - $ 4,704,560

walker - $ 1,800,000

r. brown - $ 2,204,320

moose - $ 3,119,080

 

TOTAL - $23,148,260

 

subtract accelerated pro-rated signing bonus's

 

miller - $2,400,000 - (2 years at $1,200,000 per year)

moose - $3,000,000 - 3 years at $1,000,000 per year)

walker - $400,000 - (4 years at $100,000 per year)

 

TOTAL SAVINGS - $17,348,260

 

IF each of these players signing bonus was set at the MAXIMUM amortization of 6 years (which is unlikely) here is what it costs...

 

Berrian ($15m) $2.5 mil SB per season

Briggs ($20m) $3.33 mil SB per season

Harris ($30m) $5.00 mil SB per season

Faneca ($15m) $2.5 mil SB per season

 

TOTAL - $13.33 mil SB per season. (this accounts no money for base salary or other incentives. any guess as to what that might be?)

 

that means there is a $4,018,260 savings not counting salary or incentives of your new players.

 

2007 salary cap $109,000,000

2008 salary cap $116,000,000

 

this equals approximately a $7,000,000 increase in the salary cap from 2007 added to our $4,018,260 savings gives us a surplus of about $11 mil.

 

without including ANY amount for these new contract salaries for players you just signed or ANY money allotted to rookies, we have a difference of about $11 mil. in our 2008 season. PLUS... we have lost at LEAST our #2 quarterback, a special teams ace, a right tackle, and our #2 receiver.

 

so i have to ask... is that even possible, let alone easy, to add all these players under the salary cap as you stated and still field a team? i seriously doubt it.

[nfoligno]

Sorry, but you lost me.

 

I showed before how you can sign each of these players to deals under the cap. We have about $30m in cap space right now, and likely that will go up a bit more as a couple others are cut. We just let Brown go today.

 

You mention $13.3m in allocated SB money, and then you can add to that veteran minimum for each player, to kick up the salary hit about $4m more. That means, of the $30m we have in cap space, we could sign/ re-sign, those four players to a cost of around $18m, which still leaves us $12m in cap space.

 

The issue is not cap space. We can sign all the guys if cap were the only issue. But would we ever dole out $80m in cash at any one time?

[Lucky Luciano]

Disagree. I have often had this argument. It is one thing to talk about the cap, but another when talking about bonus dollars.

 

For example,

 

Team A offers a player a 5 year deal worth $50m, including a $10m SB.

 

Team B offers a player a 5 year deal worth $50m, including a $20m SB.

 

Team B is going to sign that player. Teams w/ rich owners can afford to dole out the bigger bonus dollars, and secure players. You can argue the McCaskey family is plenty rich, but the team is their only source of income. Counter that w/ owners who are freaking rich, independent of their team. Simply put, they have more to spend.

 

So while the cap creates limits unseen in baseball, at the same time, a team owned by a rich owner does in fact have an advantage over a team w/o one. IMHO, it is lucky for the league that Snyder is so stupid. If he were smarter, and would allow football people to make the decisions, and simply wrote the checks, it could be scary how good Wash could be. Luckily, Snyder sees to it Washington spends tens of milions on players who were great FF players 5 years prior, but currently are in the twighlight of their careers.

 

again, i will disagree with your take on this and state that cap is cap is cap and you can't go over the cap whether the owner is rich or not.

 

i understand you saying that an owner can pay out more during a season in amortized amounts over a period of time but in reality this only worked as well as you are stating in the beginning of the changeover from a non-cap to capped league for a few years and that time is over.

 

you are stating amounts in a perfect world where there are no other salary obligations but in reality the previous bonus money and other guaranteed money is coming due year after year for multiple players you signed in the past and you DON'T have some magic amount you can still spend because you are rich.

 

the amortized bonus money can ONLY be extended for a maximum of 6 years so at the most, you can spend POSSIBLY somewhat more in a very limited to non-existant amount of time and eventually it all gets paid back.

 

so no matter how you cut it you can only spend the caps limited amount which is allotted by the league from revenues and nothing more for player salaries.

[Lucky Luciano]

Sorry, but you lost me.

 

I showed before how you can sign each of these players to deals under the cap. We have about $30m in cap space right now, and likely that will go up a bit more as a couple others are cut. We just let Brown go today.

 

You mention $13.3m in allocated SB money, and then you can add to that veteran minimum for each player, to kick up the salary hit about $4m more. That means, of the $30m we have in cap space, we could sign/ re-sign, those four players to a cost of around $18m, which still leaves us $12m in cap space.

 

The issue is not cap space. We can sign all the guys if cap were the only issue. But would we ever dole out $80m in cash at any one time?

 

first of all you HAVE to subtract the cap hit from all the players you just released. that is 5.8 million dollars in guaranteed money. you can't just not count it.

 

second... although it might sound nice, do you really believe all these players are going to work for base salary? you really think faneca is going to play for $3mil a year? or briggs play for $3.75 mil a year?? or harris for $5.5 mil?

 

the $11 mil i stated is pretty close to what is left in the polk after you pay the signing bonus money and paying the released players signing bonus money. we still have lost key players and have only $11 mil to pay rookies, new signings to replace what we lost and pay the salaries of briggs, barrien, faneca and harris.

[nfoligno]

Just curious, have you looked at either LT2s cap analysis, or seen what the papers are saying. After factoring the accelerated bonus money (dead money we eat) we still saved about $10m cutting Miller, Walker and Moose. That IS counting the guaranteed money not yet counted against the cap.

 

For example, Moose had 3 years remained on his deal, w/ $3m in unallocated bonus money that was excellerated against our cap. He was due to count $3.1m against our cap, but then you subtract the $3m in dead money, and he ends up basically as wash.

 

Walker on the other hand, had 4 years left on a deal that netted him only a $500k SB. So that is $400k that we eat in dead money. At the same time, due to a written in $5.5m roster bonus due in March, and a $1.1m base salary, Walker had an expected cap charge of $6.75m. Take out the $400k in dead money, and Walker alone saves us $6.35m against the cap this year.

 

Miller was due to hit our cap for $5.8m. After eating the remaining portion of his bonus, we ended up saving $3.4m in cap space.

 

That is $9.85m in cap savings, which jives w/ the articles I have seen talking on this subject. Initially, some articles talked about our saving more than $15m, but those did not factor in the dead money.

 

In doing the math, are you counting a players entire bonus as dead money? That might explain how you are getting the numbers you are representing. You should only be factoring bonus money yet not counted. So if a player signed a 6 year deal w/ $6m bonus 3 years ago, you only count the $3m allocated bonus dollars not yet applied to the cap.

 

So we entered the money w/ around $20m in cap space, and just added another $10m w/ 3 cuts.

 

You second point questions what a player will play for. My response is, often the first year, or even first two years, of a deal are for minimal base salary when the player gets a big bonus. It is common practice. Since the player is getting a big chunk of money up front, they have no issue w/ their base salary that year being peanuts.

 

So Briggs for example. Lets say we sign him to a 6yr/$50m total deal, w/ $20m SB. That means we automatically would have a bonus allocation of $3.3m. Then you have to look at the $30m in base salary. It is not going to be spread out evenly. It is not going to be $5m a year, even if that is what it averages. More likely, it would look something like:

 

Year 1 - Base $1m + Bonus $3.3m = cap hit $4.3m.

Year 2 - Base $3m + Bonus $3.3m = cap hit $6.3m.

Year 3 - Base $4.5m + Bonus $3.3m = cap hit $7.8

Year 4 - Base $5.5m + Bonus $3.3m = cap hit $8.8

Year 5 - Base $7.5m + Bonus $3.3 = cap hit $10.5

Year 6 - Base $8.5m + Bonus $3.3 = cap hit 11.8

[nfoligno]

I am sorry. Maybe the problem is my ability to expain it. But I do not see how you can not see.

 

Every team must work w/in the salary cap. At the same time, bonus' are used to (a) give the player guaranteed money and ( allowing the team to spread out the cap hit of such.

 

I is in fact possible for us to sign Briggs, Harris, Berrian AND Faneca this year, and still be under the cap. That is a fact, and I have shown as much in other posts. At the same time, we would have to shell out something like $80 in cash, this year, for these four player's expected bonuses. While the bonus is factored against the cap over the length of the contract for the purpose of the cap, the money comes out of our budget THIS YEAR.

 

Few team owners can afford to shell out that sort of coin.

 

A better example might be to look at the Bears a number of year ago. Back then, we had a bad stadium deal. The stadium didn't generate the revenue other did due to a lack of luxury suites. In addition to that, we did not own the stadium, and did not recieve profits from concessions or parking, both of which are excluded from the shared agreement. Further, the team is our owners only source of income, as opposed to other owners who are rich from other businesses. Thus, the result was an ownership w/ a cheap label.

 

By your reasoning, there would be no reason to believe we were cheap, as we spent up to the cap each year. By your reasoning, all teams spend the same, thus no one is cheap and no one is free spending. The reality though is very different. A cheap team, like us iat the time, is less willing to shell out the big bonus dollars to bring in big time FAs. We still spent up to the cap, but did not dole out the big bonus money to get the big FAs, because that was upfront money we would have to spend, at one time. While the cap might have been $60m or $70m, a team that year could easily spend $100m of actual money due to bonus dollars. We at the time were simply not willing to do that.

 

I still may not be explaining it well, but if you understand the cap and spending, I do not see how you can argue that one team can spend more than another in any given year.