Fergasun Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Mort broke the story on "Mike & Mike In the Morning" that one of the remaining issues is "Cash over Cap". Does anyone have a clue what exactly the issue is? I know that the Redskins mantra has been "cash creates cap", so I don't see a "Cash Cap" as something beneficial to the Redskins at all. If the salary cap goes up to $104 M I don't think every team will be able to reach that, but I think some teams will feel the Redskins, Cowboys, Eagles, New York teams, New England, and "haves" will gain some "competetive advantage" to being in a larger market, and feel that this "cash cap" could bring "competetive balance" back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barry wilburn Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Interesting. This may relate to the ability of teams to apply significantly more REAL dollars to payroll than the salary cap dictates and through this create an advantage. If there is a rule that limits teams ability to do this, it would hurt the skins in a significant way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlsbadd Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 This might have to do with the LTBE incentives that get credited to the cap as a carry over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 If the salary cap goes up to $104 M I don't think every team will be able to reach that, but I think some teams will feel the Redskins, Cowboys, Eagles, New York teams, New England, and "haves" will gain some "competetive advantage" to being in a larger market, and feel that this "cash cap" could bring "competetive balance" back. Even if they can spend that much, many teams just don't, for whatever reason. I don't know why the fans care what a team spends, as long as it's not over the cap. Witness how much the Eagles are consistently well under the cap, even though they have the cash to spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 The Redskins (and several other teams) cash outflow to players for a given year often (always?) exceed the cap figure. Without doing major analyis, I'd think the only losers here are teams that won't (or can't) do the same thing. Maybe some of the teams that can't do the same thing are trying to harden the cap to cash outflows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flippo07 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 but I think some teams will feel the Redskins, Cowboys, Eagles, New York teams, New England, and "haves" will gain some "competetive advantage" to being in a larger market, and feel that this "cash cap" could bring "competetive balance" back. take the eagles off that list they are as cheap as it gets.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocono Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 It's interesting that that's an issue. If they do address it you might see a shorter proration period for signing bonuses from perhaps a maximum of 7 to 5 years and even elimination of the practice of delaying bonus acceleration for players cut after 6/1 to the following cap year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocono Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 take the eagles off that list they are as cheap as it gets.... http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2004 From 00 to 04 the Eagles actually outspent the Skins by 14M according to the above site. The Skins were #1 in 04 followed by the Eagles at #2 but if you go back 4 years year by year you'll see what I mean. The info on that site belies the small market teams argument because Wash and Denver spent the most in 2 of the years but Pittsburg and NO spent the most in the other 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2004From 00 to 04 the Eagles actually outspent the Skins by 14M according to the above site. The Skins were #1 in 04 followed by the Eagles at #2 but if you go back 4 years year by year you'll see what I mean. The info on that site belies the small market teams argument because Wash and Denver spent the most in 2 of the years but Pittsburg and NO spent the most in the other 2 years. And yet, despite seeing that site, our shared reality insists knowledge that invalidates that site, right? 2000 Washington Redskins $ 53,878,400 You think THAT was the payroll for the 2000 Redskins who hit $100,000,000 and had signing bonus money to Davis, Samuels, Arrington, Carrier, Sanders, Smith and George, among others? You get more and more amusing every day . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurman Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2004From 00 to 04 the Eagles actually outspent the Skins by 14M according to the above site. The Skins were #1 in 04 followed by the Eagles at #2 but if you go back 4 years year by year you'll see what I mean. The info on that site belies the small market teams argument because Wash and Denver spent the most in 2 of the years but Pittsburg and NO spent the most in the other 2 years. Do those figures include the Eagles annual practice of putting ULTBEs into contracts during the season which are automatically counted as LTBEs against the cap? While I don't think the Eagles are necessarily cheap but rather unwilling to pay large signing bonuses, I'm surprised at those totals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocono Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 And yet, despite seeing that site, our shared reality insists knowledge that invalidates that site, right?2000 Washington Redskins $ 53,878,400 You think THAT was the payroll for the 2000 Redskins who hit $100,000,000 and had signing bonus money to Davis, Samuels, Arrington, Carrier, Sanders, Smith and George, among others? You get more and more amusing every day . Art...They changed their accounting method after 00 if you check the year by year team totals. I didn't include that 00 2M difference in that 14M overall difference because that 2M number is totally useless but I was in error when I said 2000-2004. That 14M difference was in 01 02 03 and 04 when the numbers were reflective of total payroll instead of whatever that 00 number represents[probably total cap hits]. For that same reason I only referenced the biggest spender from 01 to 04.[05 isn't out yet] No those numbers aren't reflective of the Eagles and the Skins practice of carrying over unused space from one year to the next so it doesn't go unused. As far as big bonuses the Eagles have signed 2 contracts committing to 20M or more of guaranteed bonus money in a single contract in Kearse and McNabb. How many 20M or more guaranteed money single contracts have the Skins written? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 In a deal that makes Kearse the highest-paid defensive lineman in NFL history, he will sign an eight-year contract worth $66 million. The pass-rush terror nicknamed "The Freak" will receive a signing bonus of $16 million. There are additional roster bonuses of $2 million each in the first two seasons, essentially guaranteeing $20 million of the deal. http://proxy.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=1750089 Lavar Arrington $15.5 million SB $26.6 in other bonues including SB $25.6 in salary ... okay people would say hes not worth it but while Kearse underachives on the Eagles line both earned big money neither got a deal with $20 garunteed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twenty-eight Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 The term "cash over cap" refers to total player payments in a given year that exceed the salary cap for that year. Through devices like signing bonus prorations and incentives, teams have at times paid to players more actual dollars than the cap limit for that year, while at the same time staying under the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spear Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Basically, they want to firm up the cap, which just isn't practical. If this is the issue that's supposed to break the deadlock, then I don't expect a new CBA to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocono Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 In a deal that makes Kearse the highest-paid defensive lineman in NFL history, he will sign an eight-year contract worth $66 million. The pass-rush terror nicknamed "The Freak" will receive a signing bonus of $16 million. There are additional roster bonuses of $2 million each in the first two seasons, essentially guaranteeing $20 million of the deal.http://proxy.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=1750089 Lavar Arrington $15.5 million SB $26.6 in other bonues including SB $25.6 in salary ... okay people would say hes not worth it but while Kearse underachives on the Eagles line both earned big money neither got a deal with $20 garunteed Are you serious? Read your own post. Kearse got 16M in guaranteed bonuses the first year and 2M guaranteed roster bonuses the next 2 years "essentially guaranteeing 20 million of the deal." BTW I totally agree neither is worth the size of their deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwebst1 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 The term "cash over cap" refers to total player payments in a given year that exceed the salary cap for that year. Through devices like signing bonus prorations and incentives, teams have at times paid to players more actual dollars than the cap limit for that year, while at the same time staying under the cap. so the 6 mill bonus due to Lavar in July wouldn't count against our cap this year? or was that something that was included in the SB? I'm so confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Basically they're mad that the Danny has figured out a way around the cap. It's not his fault he's a genius with the numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurman Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 No those numbers aren't reflective of the Eagles and the Skins practice of carrying over unused space from one year to the next so it doesn't go unused. As far as big bonuses the Eagles have signed 2 contracts committing to 20M or more of guaranteed bonus money in a single contract in Kearse and McNabb. How many 20M or more guaranteed money single contracts have the Skins written? I didn't say they'd never pay a large signing bonus, but rather that they prefer to pay players in non-guaranteed money. The Redskins would be their polar-opposite in this regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Here's what Mort is trying to say....................High revenue teams have an advantage over lower revenue teams because they have more revenues at their disposal to sign player(s) with higher upfront signing bonus. Lower revenues teams say that that's an unfair advantage. Compound that with additional personnel an NFL organization needs to be successful and it keeps on going and going etc. "In the simplest terms, cash over cap is essentially the difference between a team's true payroll and the NFL salary cap in a given season. Many of the league's high-revenue teams, but certainly not all of them, have a considerable advantage over the clubs occupying the low-revenue rungs in terms of cash over cap. To understand the concept of cash over cap, one must understand that the salary cap is just a bookkeeping number, one that can be massaged by amortizing signing bonuses and with other mechanisms. The cap has never been indicative of a team's payroll. The Washington Redskins, believed to be the highest revenue producing machine in the league, have had payrolls well over $100 million the last few seasons, even though the highest salary cap level ever was in 2005, at $85.5 million. For the fans who can't get their heads around how this works, here's a simple example: Let's say the Redskins signed an unrestricted free agent to a five-year deal that includes a signing bonus of $10 million and a base salary of $1 million for the first season of the contract. In salary cap terms, the Redskins are charged only $3 million, arrived at by prorating the signing bonus over five years and then adding the base salary. But in real dollars expended, or payroll, that player cost the Redskins $11 million for the first year. That's a difference of $8 million between what the player was actually paid and what his cap charge was for the initial season of the contract. Multiply that example by several player acquisitions, prominent free agents or high-round draft choices, and the total cash over cap is considerable." http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2352890 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedyg Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 I think you guys understand the concept. What the small market teams want is to restrain the large market teams from spending a lot in signing bonuses etc which get amortized over the life of the contract. In essence the Skins have been paying out large $ today and utilizing future cap space (and the continual growth of the cap) to stay within the bounds of the CBA. At some point in time this trend must be ameliorated, but so far Snyder and company have made it work. But the key to making it work is having a lot of disposable cash. I guess the small market teams want to rein this in. What everyone needs to realize is that this is not what makes a team good. Coaching, player evaluation, scouting and drafts are way more important to winning. You need the money in order to compete, but that does not make the difference. The Skins got better because of the other things not their deep pockets. They were lousy a few years ago and they had a lot of money and a lot of high profile players. but their coaching, player evaluation etc etc stunk. Joe Gibbs is worth $50m in cap space. (if you could compare these 2 disparate items). As an Eagles fan he needs to go back to racing cars.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
33 Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 I'm going to try to give as simple an explanation as possible. Remember when the Skins signed Deon, Bruce, Carrier, JGeorge, etc.? The following numbers are made up, but should explain this very well. Cap that year: 75 million money the Redskins litterally paid to players on the team that season: 125 million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bricucci Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 The Redskins (and several other teams) cash outflow to players for a given year often (always?) exceed the cap figure. Without doing major analyis, I'd think the only losers here are teams that won't (or can't) do the same thing. Maybe some of the teams that can't do the same thing are trying to harden the cap to cash outflows. The bottom line is they all can. Even the so called poorer team are raking in millions of dollars in profits. Cheap scapes like Bidwell choose not to throw the money back into their team. People can knock Snyder all they want but invests his own profits back into his football team, just look at the coaching staff salaries, the Redskins Websight etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2004From 00 to 04 the Eagles actually outspent the Skins by 14M according to the above site. The Skins were #1 in 04 followed by the Eagles at #2 but if you go back 4 years year by year you'll see what I mean. The info on that site belies the small market teams argument because Wash and Denver spent the most in 2 of the years but Pittsburg and NO spent the most in the other 2 years. I dont know how they derived that or what figures they used but Snyder spent 120 million in 00 That was the year that every one said the skins were trying to buy a superbowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 I think you guys understand the concept. What the small market teams want is to restrain the large market teams from spending a lot in signing bonuses etc which get amortized over the life of the contract. In essence the Skins have been paying out large $ today and utilizing future cap space (and the continual growth of the cap) to stay within the bounds of the CBA. At some point in time this trend must be ameliorated, but so far Snyder and company have made it work. But the key to making it work is having a lot of disposable cash. I guess the small market teams want to rein this in. What everyone needs to realize is that this is not what makes a team good. Coaching, player evaluation, scouting and drafts are way more important to winning. You need the money in order to compete, but that does not make the difference. The Skins got better because of the other things not their deep pockets. They were lousy a few years ago and they had a lot of money and a lot of high profile players. but their coaching, player evaluation etc etc stunk. Joe Gibbs is worth $50m in cap space. (if you could compare these 2 disparate items). As an Eagles fan he needs to go back to racing cars.......... He will after padding the superbowl case a few more times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 I was in error when I said 2000-2004. Yes. I know you were in error. That was the purpose of my post to call your attention to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.