folz Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Sorry if this issue has been beaten to death and right up front I want to say that I don't claim to understand all of the nuances of the salary cap, but I don't think "spending to the cap" is a bad thing and means we are doomed. I started searching the net to find out some more info regarding Marv's spend to the cap statement...here are a few things I found. My comments are in ital. 'Patriots owner Robert Kraft yesterday guaranteed the team will spend to the salary cap in an effort to improve a squad that fell one minute short of the Super Bowl. “We’re different than some teams. We’re not just planning for this year. We’re trying to be good for a number of years. Our management team has shown over the last four to five years that wise planning has allowed us to stay in the hunt.” ' 'General manager Jerry Angelo (Bears) and his management team have secured admirable salary-cap health by using the so-called Philadelphia method of identifying top players when they are young and signing them to long-term deals before they hit the free-agent market.' 'The Colts were built through the draft, with Polian joking that people in Indianapolis think he's ''oh-for-free agency.'' They drafted 15 of the 22 players who will start in the Super Bowl. But the Colts have handed out big money despite drafting most of their players because, unlike the Bears, they have allowed many of their players to get to the cusp of free agency before cutting deals.' (Seems Marv and co. are following the example of successful teams...sign your young up and coming free agents, pick up other team's young, upcoming free agents who fit your team when available, build through the draft, and don't work for just this year but to "stay in the hunt" for a number of years to come--i.e., don't overpay for players and amorotize the future. Seems like a good plan since 1. many name free agents are past their prime or you would have to mortgage the future for and, 2. Spending like mad doesn't always equal wins--see Redskins, Falcons, Raiders, etc. ) What does the term "cash over cap" mean? To comprehend the concept of cash over cap, one has to understand that the salary cap is just a bookkeeping number, one that can be massaged by amortizing signing bonuses, among other mechanisms. The cap has never been indicative of a team's payroll. For example, the Redskin organization, believed to be the highest revenue-producing machine in the league, has had payrolls well over $100 million the last few seasons, even while the highest salary cap level ever was in 2005, at $85.5 million. The difference between a team's true payroll and its salary cap number is essentially what "cash over cap" means. How does it make good business or football sense for that matter to spend over the cap? Its worked out really well for the Redskins, right? So, if every team reached the cap figure last year of $102 mil. (not all did of course) then only the Falcons and Seahawks spent cash over the cap. One made the playoffs and one did not. If I'm not mistaken with this info, then only 1 of the 12 playoff teams from last year spent cash over the cap, everyone else spent to or under the cap--feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that. 'Pro football's New England Patriots team has become the dynasty of this era—with three Super Bowl titles in five years and a first-round playoff win last Sunday to advance in post-season play. Yet, its payroll for players—$81.1 mil. annually—ranks the Boston-area club just 16th of 32 teams in 2006. And it's not just the Patriots that succeed without big spending. The Indianapolis Colts finished the season with one of the best won/lost records at 12-4, yet its player payroll ranks just 29th. The NFL's top spender is the Atlanta Falcons with a $110.2 mil. player payroll (including Vick's contract). The Falcons finished this season 7-9 and missed the playoffs.' NFL 2006 team payrolls (not including coaching staffs) 1. Falcons - $109,047,453 2 Seahawks - $102,596,922 3 Broncos - $91,284,403 4 Panthers - $90,829,296 5 Raiders - $89,442,910 6 Rams - $88,992,209 7 Jaguars - $88,106,094 8 Ravens - $88,106,094 9 Texans - $88,106,094 10 Dolphins - $87,597,555 11 Cardinals - $85,445,369 12 Chiefs - $85,398,705 13 Giants - $84,843,650 14 Steelers - $83,424,393 15 Vikings - $83,188,187 16 Patriots - $82,399,025 17 Bears - $82,142,344 18 Jets - $81,835,781 19 Saints - $79,058,432 20 Bengals - $77,955,994 21 Eagles - $76,640,305 22 Buccaneers - $76,227,536 23 Cowboys - $75,908,597 24 Lions - $74,888,321 25 Redskins - $73,790,565 26 49ers - $73,258,880 27 Browns - $70,719,178 28 Chargers - $70,551,560 29 Colts - $65,472,365 30 Packers - $64,396,429 31 Titans - $63,107,598 32 Bills - $61,982,732 I know most will be upset to see Buffalo at 32 and moan that Ralph won't pay out, but remember how young our team was last year (which means a lot of inexpensive contracts). But also note the playoff teams from this past year were ranked 2, 8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 28, and the SB champion Colts were 29th. Only 1 team in the top 7 payrolls made the playoffs. It's not about who spends the most, but who spends the most wisely. Spending to the cap doesn't mean we won't/can't go after any free agents...but of course some will say it does price us out of the top free agents (or resigning Clements) but I think we need at least one more season of building the core and depth of the team before 1 or 2 top free agents could take us to the Superbowl anyhow. And forking out huge signing bonuses for other team's FAs is not how the last 4-6 superbowls were won, so I think the plan Marv and co. have is a good one. In another thread I also read that in order for the Bills to get to the SB with their current strategy they would have to out-scout and out-teach the other teams in the league...but isn't that what people have been saying that Pioli/Belichick and Polian/Dungy have done? Of course you have to have a top-notch front office and coaching staff to win it all. Here's hoping Marv/Jauron are giving us that and with time... I welcome any comments, discussion, arguments especially from those who feel they have a better handle on salary cap issues than I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Thanks for showing those figures, although I don't know where they came from, and they really can't be accurate*. But it reinforces my argument, and others here, that not only is Ralph cheap, but you don't have to spend "cash over cap" to compete, or pay out huge bonuses, and hardly any teams ever do. They spend less cash than the cap, or just around it and are still able to sign whomever they want. Also folz, in your first example, those guys were all talking about spending to the salary cap the way all other teams except the Bills spend, and specifically not "cash to the cap". The Bills won't be able to do that with star players. *The reason these figures can't be accurate is that it's virtually impossible, when totaling up how much cash certain teams have spent in a year on contracts, to have three teams with exactly $88,106,094. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 As I understand it this is what Marv was saying/I'm thinking Bonus money is ultimately the biggest factor in signing a player. It is the only thing in the contract that is guaranteed to the player. The league allows teams to spread out bonus money over the life of the contract. What Marv is saying is the Bills will no longer spread out the bonus money over the life of the contract. Instead they will apply all of the bonus money dished out that year to fit under the current seasons cap. So essentially if we bring in a big name guy or two our massive cap room will shrink to just about nothing. Other teams are dishing out bonus money and spreading it threw the life of the contract while knowing that the future cap will only increase. To them a 20+ million dollar bonus on a 7 year deal would only count about 2.86 million against the cap for that season. For us it will cost 20 million toward the cap. Edit- One more point I wanted to make. While this sounds like we can't be competitive this approach will significantly lower our player liability costs. Bonus money is guaranteed, so teams like the Redskins have a much stronger attachment to a FA then a team operating under our new structure. For the Redskins the money has already been invested, to us we can simply part ways without the massive money up front clouding the decision making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Thanks for showing those figures, although I don't know where they came from, and they really can't be accurate*. But it reinforces my argument, and others here, that not only is Ralph cheap, but you don't have to spend "cash over cap" to compete, or pay out huge bonuses, and hardly any teams ever do. They spend less cash than the cap, or just around it and are still able to sign whomever they want. Also folz, in your first example, those guys were all talking about spending to the salary cap the way all other teams except the Bills spend, and specifically not "cash to the cap". The Bills won't be able to do that with star players. *The reason these figures can't be accurate is that it's virtually impossible, when totaling up how much cash certain teams have spent in a year on contracts, to have three teams with exactly $88,106,094. Not really, if they regressed toward the mean. Actually, I think it's more likely a data feed from ESPN that shows how much Ad revenue they received from covering each of these teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts