Question about future cap years

[2cents]

So I'm sitting here reading all these threads about signing guys and not having to worry about the cap. Others are saying we need to be careful because the cap will come back. I think this might be a big problem it there is an uncapped year and then there is a labor agreement. Players are going to want their money and teams are going to want some kind of releif for the big contracts they sign during an uncapped year. As a soon to be HR guy, this is going to be interesting to watch. If I recall, we were NOT ready for the implementation of the cap in the 90s because we routinely overpaid our vets, but didn't care. Could be an interesting story.

[jflow78]

John Clayton thinks the cap is coming back next season, he's said team owners want the cap, and so they are going to show some self-control (hmmmm). I don't know if that will happen, but if it doesn't I'm sure there will be some kind of provision added to the new CBA, something that will allow teams to pay off a big chunk of the large contracts before the new cap takes place, so that they don't take an enormous cap hit.

Another thing, and this is all my opinion, nothing else, I think the new CBA will raise the cap by as much as 30 million (up to around 150 mil) that way the players feel they're getting a substantial amount in return for dropping some of the provisions they were given in the previous CBA.

One thing I'd really love to see is some sort of shelter for resigning your own players, sort of like the NBA has, where signing your own vets will only count a certain amount against the cap, not the actual amount of the contract but a maximum. That way teams would be able to keep the guys they really want to keep, without blaming their being cut on a "salary cap" issue.

I haven't really thought that one out, but I like the idea of being able to keep your own, sort of like in the old days when, unless you traded them away, they were yours. It might be a little too much NBA (since I hate that league and I think they have/are destroying themselves as far as their off-season snooze fests go).

[Laxpunk2006]

I expect most owners to operate as if there is a cap. They may use this chance to dump some overpriced guys or slightly overspend but I don't think we're going to see record breaking deals that we wouldn't already see (Peyton Manning etc.). The fact that there are very few quality FA's this season kind of reinforces this idea.

[MartinC]

I expect most owners to operate as if there is a cap. They may use this chance to dump some overpriced guys or slightly overspend but I don't think we're going to see record breaking deals that we wouldn't already see (Peyton Manning etc.). The fact that there are very few quality FA's this season kind of reinforces this idea.

This would be the sensible approach. Use next year, if its uncapped, as a 'get out of jail free card' and dump older guys who have big contracts and are not playing up to them. We can do this with no cap hit.

Meanwhile you manage your pay roll and free agents activity as though a salary cap was in place so you dont get bitten if/when it comes back.

Personally I think if the cap goes away its going to be hard to put it back in place.

[JaxJoe]

Personally I think if the cap goes away its going to be hard to put it back in place.

I agree. I also think that in an uncapped year, some owners will go hog-wild to achieve that super bowl; even if it is a one-year opportunity. And once one owner goes for it - the flood gates will open and marque players will earn insane $$$.

[2cents]

That's what I think, some teams will go crazy thinking they are one or two guys away. Then if a cap comes back(which I doubt) they will say, hey there was no cap, now there is how could I plan this or that. I just hope we are not one of those teams that goes crazy and then gets bit when/if a cap comes back.

[dg4eva]

I am not sure why anyone thinks teams will get in trouble once the cap comes back due to this offseason's signings. With no cap this year teams will just give players huge first years salaries rather than huge signing bonuses. If the Skins sign Dansby it would be probably something like a 6 year 40 mill deal with a 20 mill first year salary making his cap number in years 2-6 very manageable.

[Manasseh]

I am not sure why anyone thinks teams will get in trouble once the cap comes back due to this offseason's signings. With no cap this year teams will just give players huge first years salaries rather than huge signing bonuses. If the Skins sign Dansby it would be probably something like a 6 year 40 mill deal with a 20 mill first year salary making his cap number in years 2-6 very manageable.

That's what I was thinking. What would keep a team from putting the majority of a player's money in the uncapped year salary? If I remember correctly, only signing bonuses are divided over the length of the contract.

[dg4eva]

That's the smart thing to do. The only concern is if the player feels like he's already gotten most of his money will he still perform.

[Est.1974]

I am not sure why anyone thinks teams will get in trouble once the cap comes back due to this offseason's signings. With no cap this year teams will just give players huge first years salaries rather than huge signing bonuses. If the Skins sign Dansby it would be probably something like a 6 year 40 mill deal with a 20 mill first year salary making his cap number in years 2-6 very manageable.

That's what I was thinking. What would keep a team from putting the majority of a player's money in the uncapped year salary? If I remember correctly, only signing bonuses are divided over the length of the contract.

I don't think that is possible due to the 30% rule in an uncapped 2010

* The 30% increase rule restricts salary increases from 2009 to 2010. For example: a player with a $500,000 Salary in 2009 would be limited to annual salary increases of $150,000 ($500,000 x 30%) beginning in 2010.

[Darth Tater]

This would be the sensible approach. Use next year, if its uncapped, as a 'get out of jail free card' and dump older guys who have big contracts and are not playing up to them. We can do this with no cap hit.

Meanwhile you manage your pay roll and free agents activity as though a salary cap was in place so you dont get bitten if/when it comes back.

Personally I think if the cap goes away its going to be hard to put it back in place.

Won't necessarily work except as it worked 3-4 years ago(best to assume it'll be like the old June 1 cuts). Pro-rations DON'T accelerate into the current year like they did before. That is, if I have a contract with 3 years remaining and $12M in outstanding pro-rations and I'm cut, the team will still have $8M in dead money in 2011 thanks to me. Now, how that $8M is handled, no one knows.

[Darth Tater]

I am not sure why anyone thinks teams will get in trouble once the cap comes back due to this offseason's signings. With no cap this year teams will just give players huge first years salaries rather than huge signing bonuses. If the Skins sign Dansby it would be probably something like a 6 year 40 mill deal with a 20 mill first year salary making his cap number in years 2-6 very manageable.

That is not easy do to the uncapped year based on CBA rules. You cannot reduce a salary from 2010 to 2011 by more than some percent (I think around 30, like pay increases). Any moneys paid as salary that exceed this are considered bonus and are subject to pro-rations. That is, if you paid Dansby 20M in the first year and 1M in years 2, about 13M would be considered bonus and about 11M would now be outstanding against the cap. Now, how that is handled by any cap rules in the new CBA is unknown.

[theboomking]

I don't think that is possible due to the 30% rule in an uncapped 2010

That's true, but I can see one strategy being to sign players to a huge one year only deal.

If you sign Wilfork, Peppers, Dansby, and Dunta Robinson to one year deals for 22, 18, 15 and 15 million, then if the new CBA includes no cap, you just extend them, and if there is a cap, you can negotiate a better deal, or let them go.

That isn't to say that is who I would sign. Peppers and Dansby are too old for my tastes.

[dg4eva]

I didn't know about that 30% rule. This stuff is getting too complicated. How about we just draft 7 or 8 great players?

[Darth Tater]

That's true, but I can see one strategy being to sign players to a huge one year only deal.

If you sign Wilfork, Peppers, Dansby, and Dunta Robinson to one year deals for 22, 18, 15 and 15 million, then if the new CBA includes no cap, you just extend them, and if there is a cap, you can negotiate a better deal, or let them go.

That isn't to say that is who I would sign. Peppers and Dansby are too old for my tastes.

A 1 year huge deal would be a very limited strategy. You sign them to such a deal, they will be true free agents in 2011. Meaning if they have a good year, its not really your option and you can't just extend them. In fact, this strategy would probably only work with those who may face a decline and are likely not to have options in 2011 or if you have no one your current roster scheduled for FA you think will be worth franchising (if that's still an option in 2011). You will have the advantage that you can try to hash out an extension without much interference. So it can work but your taking on a lot of risk.

[MartinC]

Won't necessarily work except as it worked 3-4 years ago(best to assume it'll be like the old June 1 cuts). Pro-rations DON'T accelerate into the current year like they did before. That is, if I have a contract with 3 years remaining and $12M in outstanding pro-rations and I'm cut, the team will still have $8M in dead money in 2011 thanks to me. Now, how that $8M is handled, no one knows.

I may be missing what you are saying here but essentially in the uncapped year there is no dead cap at all. The dead cap money is not reall cash its an accounting number and with no cap it just vanishes. We can cut any player, have all dead cap money roll into 2010 (not be pushed into 2011 as you are suggesting) and wash our hands with it. At least thats what I understand.

There is a nice CBA/uncapped year primer here from a Ravens site - its not the cheat sheet the NFL have posted on all the team sites. It seems to confirm what I am saying above.

http://www.profootball24x7.com/column_view.php?cid=46&id=4277&view=archive

[Est.1974]

We can cut any player, have all dead cap money roll into 2010 (not be pushed into 2011 as you are suggesting) and wash our hands with it.

This point was discussed in the CBA thread started by 'Oldskool' and is a point that seems somewhat unclear. This was posted in that thread & suggests no bonus acceleration.

The CBA rules regarding bonus acceleration into the current year when a player is released do not apply in uncapped years. Normally, in a capped year, releasing a player before June 1 would mean whatever guaranteed money allocations from future years would accelerate into the current year’s cap, which in some cases would put the team over the salary cap (like having $10million of bonus allocations accelerate into 2009 from releasing a player during 2009). However, the 2006 CBA allowed teams to designate two pre-June 1 cuts as post-June 1 cuts. If a player is released after June 1, that acceleration is divided equally into the current year and the next year, as long as that next year wasn’t uncapped (which, again, means the team would have $10M accelerate into 2009 by releasing that player before or after June 1, 2009 in this example). Trades, no matter before or after June 1, would always trigger acceleration. In an uncapped year, there is no acceleration at all; neither into the current year nor into the current year and the next year. When a player is released or traded during an uncapped year, his bonus amortizations in future years remain intact.. For example, if Player X is released in 2010 (uncapped) and has $4M bonus amortizations in 2010, 2011, and 2012, those $4M cap hits would stay in each of those four years and not accelerate.

[Darth Tater]

I may be missing what you are saying here but essentially in the uncapped year there is no dead cap at all. The dead cap money is not reall cash its an accounting number and with no cap it just vanishes. We can cut any player, have all dead cap money roll into 2010 (not be pushed into 2011 as you are suggesting) and wash our hands with it. At least thats what I understand.

There is a nice CBA/uncapped year primer here from a Ravens site - its not the cheat sheet the NFL have posted on all the team sites. It seems to confirm what I am saying above.

http://www.profootball24x7.com/column_view.php?cid=46&id=4277&view=archive

You are most definitely missing what I'm saying, just the opposite and this would prevent the strategy, especially if you think I don't know the cap dollars aren't really cash (that's why I don't like the term release fees). What I'm saying is that a person under such a contract will have $8M in amortized cap in 2011. One method would put that whole $8M in the 2011 dead pool (I think that would be the most likely way any new cap would handle it) while another could amortize that 8 over the remaining years. I guess they could just drop it but I don't see advantage on either side in doing that. There could also be no cap which makes everything moot.

[88Comrade2000]

Let Bruce Allen worry about it, that's why we hired him. :cool:

[@DCGoldPants]

I think you'll see a bunch of front loaded deals that give maybe all the signing bonus this year, and then vet min after that.......not to say those deals will be huge. But if I was an owner and was thinking ahead. I would do that.

Plus, the player gets his money earlier.....which might be a blessing and curse for motivation.

[Darth Tater]

I think you'll see a bunch of front loaded deals that give maybe all the signing bonus this year, and then vet min after that.......not to say those deals will be huge. But if I was an owner and was thinking ahead. I would do that.

Plus, the player gets his money earlier.....which might be a blessing and curse for motivation.

Front loaded deals are not an option since most of a salary decrease from year 1 is considered a signing bonus that needs to be amortized. That is, on a six year contract set at $12M in year 1 and $1M in year 2, about $9M would still not be amortized. A player gets most of the money upfront now. Basically, the high out year salaries were primarily a way to get the upfront money while keeping the cap hit low and were not intended to be paid (player would usually be renegotiated or cut). Traditionally roster bonuses and the like were set up to make the owner fish or cut bait as soon as possible. The strategy your thinking of was taken advantage of in 2008 and 2009. For instance, much of the reason AH's contract was set up as is, was to take advantage of the fact that we could eat the bonus money paid in 2010 (if uncapped) and basically only be subject to the salaries, amortization of the bonus paid in 2009 and any future monies we owe him.