wasted salary cap v overpaid FAs

[nfoligno]

Okay, so here is the question. Which is worse. Which is the lesser of evils.

 

Wasted salary cap space or overpaying for FAs.

 

Normally, I am not a big fan of overpaying for FAs, but I view this year as being different. In the past, we had plenty of our own to re-sign. That isn't the case today. In the past, we didn't seem to have nearly as much cap to work w/. This year we had anywhere from $30-34m, depending on what numbers you use. In the past, if you didn't love what you saw, you could use LTBEs and whatever other fun tricks the accountants use to eat cap today in order to epand it tomorrow, when pickings may be better. But w/ the potential of an uncapped year next year, that would end up simply as wasted 2009 cap space w/o any future benefit.

 

Even w/ the above, I still do not love the idea of overpaying for FAs. However, what if we were to look at FAs and "overpay" them in 2009 while keeping the deal in the following years far more reasonable?

 

For example, take Holt. I swear I have no idea what his market is right now, as I just do not know how other teams view him. So in response to this post, focus more on the general concept rather than purely the numbers.

 

What if we signed Holt to a 5yr/$25m deal w/ $10m up front bonus? But the key is that bonus. Make the entire amount a roster bonus. That would eat up a chunk of our 2009 cap, but we have more than enough to do this. At the same time, he would then be on the books for basically $3m/yr (less if you tier the base salaries as most contracts do). And while I realize 5 years sounds high for an older player, by making the bonus a roster bonus, you have zero cap hit down the road if you do choose to cut him at some point, thus the deal can be as high as 5 years or as low as you want. Cut him after 2 or 3 years, and what is the negative effect here.

 

I don't want to overspend on a FA if it means hurting our future. If we signed mediocre FAs to huge deals w/ regular signing bonuses, we would (a) still likely not use up all our cap space and ( feel that deal long term. However, if we overpay a FA by eating most of the deal this year, we then (a) better utilize our large amount of cap and ( prevent the deal from hurting us long term.

 

To me, a move like this seems like a win-win deal.

[Stinger226]

Okay, so here is the question. Which is worse. Which is the lesser of evils.

 

Wasted salary cap space or overpaying for FAs.

 

Normally, I am not a big fan of overpaying for FAs, but I view this year as being different. In the past, we had plenty of our own to re-sign. That isn't the case today. In the past, we didn't seem to have nearly as much cap to work w/. This year we had anywhere from $30-34m, depending on what numbers you use. In the past, if you didn't love what you saw, you could use LTBEs and whatever other fun tricks the accountants use to eat cap today in order to epand it tomorrow, when pickings may be better. But w/ the potential of an uncapped year next year, that would end up simply as wasted 2009 cap space w/o any future benefit.

 

Even w/ the above, I still do not love the idea of overpaying for FAs. However, what if we were to look at FAs and "overpay" them in 2009 while keeping the deal in the following years far more reasonable?

 

For example, take Holt. I swear I have no idea what his market is right now, as I just do not know how other teams view him. So in response to this post, focus more on the general concept rather than purely the numbers.

 

What if we signed Holt to a 5yr/$25m deal w/ $10m up front bonus? But the key is that bonus. Make the entire amount a roster bonus. That would eat up a chunk of our 2009 cap, but we have more than enough to do this. At the same time, he would then be on the books for basically $3m/yr (less if you tier the base salaries as most contracts do). And while I realize 5 years sounds high for an older player, by making the bonus a roster bonus, you have zero cap hit down the road if you do choose to cut him at some point, thus the deal can be as high as 5 years or as low as you want. Cut him after 2 or 3 years, and what is the negative effect here.

 

I don't want to overspend on a FA if it means hurting our future. If we signed mediocre FAs to huge deals w/ regular signing bonuses, we would (a) still likely not use up all our cap space and ( feel that deal long term. However, if we overpay a FA by eating most of the deal this year, we then (a) better utilize our large amount of cap and ( prevent the deal from hurting us long term.

 

To me, a move like this seems like a win-win deal.

We all have alot to complain about with the powers that be, but one thing they have did very well is handle the salary cap. We have alot space but we only have to spend 111,000,000. We dont have to spend 127 mill. Get a good value now when you sign someone and when something pops up like the Cutler deal then you have the space to make that move. Whether we have enough things to trade for him or not, I at least want them to look at it to see what might be possible. They have in the past targeted people to pay, it just didnt always work out. I remember them going after Plummer /Broncos, and he took less money to stay in Denver, at least we tried. I would just like to see the effort.

[lemonej]

That uncapped year is what is really confusing the issue to me.If you sign a guy and give him a good bonus you should be able to spread it over this year and next and if he sucked this year and you wanted to cut him next year the cap hit shouldn't make a difference since there is no cap.I'm sure the uncapped year may have rules in place for salary guidelines but I wonder how much of Albert Haynesworth and DeAngelo Hall's signing bonuses are front loaded for this year and next to manage the cap for the Skins going forward.

[nfoligno]

First, I have never been among those who give out huge props for our handling of the cap. If you have cap space, that is great, but a better evaluation for me is in how that cap space is utilized. If you are not putting good teams on the field, or improving the teams you have, then I just have to question how great of a job we are doing w/ the cap.

 

For example, what exactly did we do last year to improve the team? While you think about that, consider how we dumped over $10m in cap on a joke of a DB (Hamilton) in a way to save 2008 cap space and add to our 2009 cap space. If we then in 2009 don't utilize our space, when do we? If all you ever do is eat money today in order to create more space tomorrow, but never truly utilize that space of tomorrow, I just question how well you are handling the cap.

 

Anyone can stay under the cap. The true geniuses are those who actually improve their team and create good/great teams while also remaining under the cap.

 

Second, what the hell w/ the "we only have to spend $111m comment? Why in the world would we not want to spend the full $127m? What is the benefit to the team if we don't spend? Are you telling me there is not a player(s) who we could add w/ that extra $16m that would improve the team?

 

As for Plummer, all I have to say is what I said then. Thank God Angelo lost out on that one.

 

We all have alot to complain about with the powers that be, but one thing they have did very well is handle the salary cap. We have alot space but we only have to spend 111,000,000. We dont have to spend 127 mill. Get a good value now when you sign someone and when something pops up like the Cutler deal then you have the space to make that move. Whether we have enough things to trade for him or not, I at least want them to look at it to see what might be possible. They have in the past targeted people to pay, it just didnt always work out. I remember them going after Plummer /Broncos, and he took less money to stay in Denver, at least we tried. I would just like to see the effort.

[madlithuanian]

I think the lesser evil is overpaying. It at least addresses needs. Not doing anything may give youmore room to work in future years...but assuming you hold the same philosophy in future years...you'll basically never land a FA. In theory, every good FA is overpriced. It's paying a premium to have a previously groom the player.

 

However, the best philosophy lies in the middle. You make a huge move every now and then, but most years, try to fill as many holes with guys and contract that won't hinder your future.

 

Okay, so here is the question. Which is worse. Which is the lesser of evils.

 

Wasted salary cap space or overpaying for FAs.

 

Normally, I am not a big fan of overpaying for FAs, but I view this year as being different. In the past, we had plenty of our own to re-sign. That isn't the case today. In the past, we didn't seem to have nearly as much cap to work w/. This year we had anywhere from $30-34m, depending on what numbers you use. In the past, if you didn't love what you saw, you could use LTBEs and whatever other fun tricks the accountants use to eat cap today in order to epand it tomorrow, when pickings may be better. But w/ the potential of an uncapped year next year, that would end up simply as wasted 2009 cap space w/o any future benefit.

 

Even w/ the above, I still do not love the idea of overpaying for FAs. However, what if we were to look at FAs and "overpay" them in 2009 while keeping the deal in the following years far more reasonable?

 

For example, take Holt. I swear I have no idea what his market is right now, as I just do not know how other teams view him. So in response to this post, focus more on the general concept rather than purely the numbers.

 

What if we signed Holt to a 5yr/$25m deal w/ $10m up front bonus? But the key is that bonus. Make the entire amount a roster bonus. That would eat up a chunk of our 2009 cap, but we have more than enough to do this. At the same time, he would then be on the books for basically $3m/yr (less if you tier the base salaries as most contracts do). And while I realize 5 years sounds high for an older player, by making the bonus a roster bonus, you have zero cap hit down the road if you do choose to cut him at some point, thus the deal can be as high as 5 years or as low as you want. Cut him after 2 or 3 years, and what is the negative effect here.

 

I don't want to overspend on a FA if it means hurting our future. If we signed mediocre FAs to huge deals w/ regular signing bonuses, we would (a) still likely not use up all our cap space and ( feel that deal long term. However, if we overpay a FA by eating most of the deal this year, we then (a) better utilize our large amount of cap and ( prevent the deal from hurting us long term.

 

To me, a move like this seems like a win-win deal.

[madlithuanian]

Bingo!!!

 

Anyone can stay under the cap. The true geniuses are those who actually improve their team and create good/great teams while also remaining under the cap.

[Mongo3451]

Bingo!!!

 

QUOTE (nfoligno @ Mar 18 2009, 08:38 AM)

Anyone can stay under the cap. The true geniuses are those who actually improve their team and create good/great teams while also remaining under the cap.

Over the last couple of decades, hasn't true genius started with having a good QB? Angelo wants to be a genius, but isn't smart enough to pull it off. Conundrum

[madlithuanian]

I won't argue that!

 

You can point out the rare cases of Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer...but it's those exceptions that make the rule. And when you look at both those franchises, the D really got them there with a strong running game. And both QB's played well in the big game. Also, they never returned. At least won't with those teams. Whereas if you look at the last 10 years, guys like Brady, Roethlisberger, Warner, the Manning bros., and John Elway helmed winners. Bottom line, you must have a good QB or hope you get lucky one year. I think we missed that lone opportunity in 2006. Odds of lightning striking again and going with a fair QB are now next to nothing...

 

Over the last couple of decades, hasn't true genius started with having a good QB? Angelo wants to be a genius, but isn't smart enough to pull it off. Conundrum

[Stinger226]

First, I have never been among those who give out huge props for our handling of the cap. If you have cap space, that is great, but a better evaluation for me is in how that cap space is utilized. If you are not putting good teams on the field, or improving the teams you have, then I just have to question how great of a job we are doing w/ the cap.

 

For example, what exactly did we do last year to improve the team? While you think about that, consider how we dumped over $10m in cap on a joke of a DB (Hamilton) in a way to save 2008 cap space and add to our 2009 cap space. If we then in 2009 don't utilize our space, when do we? If all you ever do is eat money today in order to create more space tomorrow, but never truly utilize that space of tomorrow, I just question how well you are handling the cap.

 

Anyone can stay under the cap. The true geniuses are those who actually improve their team and create good/great teams while also remaining under the cap.

 

Second, what the hell w/ the "we only have to spend $111m comment? Why in the world would we not want to spend the full $127m? What is the benefit to the team if we don't spend? Are you telling me there is not a player(s) who we could add w/ that extra $16m that would improve the team?

 

As for Plummer, all I have to say is what I said then. Thank God Angelo lost out on that one.

We are required by league rules to spend the 111mill, my point is people think we have to spend 127mill, and thats not the case. I am not saying that is a good idea, just that i was under the impression we had to spend 127, so I assured others thought that. As for Plummer I am glad we didnt get him either, just we have spent and attempted to large contracts on players. They have never went out and spent big money on total busts, Wali, and Moose have had some valve not necessary up to what we spent on them. I take that back, Benson was a big money bust.