Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Bucs setting themselves up for a problem by pushing cap charges into the future? « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3

michael89156

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11414
Offline
: January 03, 2013, 12:30:57 AM


Glazers ordered Buccaneers cap clearance, spending




By Sander Philipse on Jan 2, 11:29a








The Tampa Bay Buccaneers have been light on spending on previous years, but things have changed since Greg Schiano entered the picture.





For about a decade, fans have consistently criticized the Glazers, owners of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, for being cheap. Perception that they're more concerned with Manchester United has driven those concerns, as has a lack of free agency spending and, of course, a lack of wins. There are reasons for that lack of spending, and the concerns over Manchester United are misguided (the Glazers take money out of that club, they don't put in money). Generally speaking, spending in free agency on a consistent basis is a bad strategy and will leave you with cap issues.

And yet, that's exactly what the Tampa Bay Buccaneers plan to do this year. And this time, the directive came from the Glazers. Per JoeBucsFan, Mark Dominik appeared on the Buccaneers Radio Network and said that the recent clearing of cap space in anticipation of increased spending this offseason was "ownership directed":
 

"That's from ownership directed, which I think is fantastic," Dominik said. "Because that continues the commitment from the Glazer family, what they want to do and how they want to build this football team. That's actually opened up a lot of cap room for us going into 2013, a tremendous amount."
 
That clearing of cap space will give the Bucs plenty of room to spend, as they did last season by outspending every other team in the league in free agency and in total cash spent on player contracts. They are now around $24 million below the 2013 salary cap, will be able to roll over around $6-8 million from this year and free up some extra cap space by releasing Eric Wright and Quincy Black, or re-negotiating their contracts. They have plenty of ways to spend that money, and re-signing defensive end Michael Bennett should be their main priority in that regard.

For some, it will be heart-warming to see the Bucs spending big once again. After all, they routinely spent money leading up to their Super Bowl win in 2002. Unfortunately, that consistent spending is also what hurt them in subsequent years, as they built up huge salary cap problems, forcing them to cut ties with many of the franchise's stalwarts. Letting John Lynch and Warren Sapp walk were big issues for the Bucs, and having to cut ties with Keyshawn Johnson and his massive contract didn't help either.
 
The Bucs appear to be setting themselves up for a similar problem by pushing cap charges into the future. Will that problem come with a Super Bowl win this time too, or will it result in structural problems without a real reward? This path can be successful, but it does require discretion and smart spending.




http://www.bucsnation.com/2013/1/2/3827562/glazers-buccaneers-cheap-spending-free-agency

Benchwarmer#1

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 12185
Online
#1 : January 03, 2013, 01:23:05 AM

I'd rather have cap problems and make a run at the Lombardi, than to have plenty of cap and only have 3-6 wins yearly.

Of course, I would've thrown the whole manU account at manning, so maybe I'm not the best to comment on this.

Clearly teams have to spend more on vets because of the cba, that, and the auctioning process has gotten more heated for certain positions.

yuccaneers

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2354
Offline
#2 : January 03, 2013, 02:27:54 AM

Technically, there are minimal cap constraints by turning guaranteed monies in to a signing bonus payable earlier - it is not a common practice for the Bucs and the way they maneuver within the confines of the cap.  Both Jackson and Nicks are expected to play at minimum through 2013 and its a safe bet to say through 2014.

But just for hypothetical reasons lets say the Bucs cut Jackson after the 2014 season. His base salary for 2015 is nearly $9.8 million - the two remaining installments of his guaranteed money that was turned in to a bonus, payable earlier is roughly $4.9 million if the Bucs cut him the remaining two years would accelerate in the form of dead money - however it would net the Bucs roughly $4.9 million. If he's cut after the 2015 season the Bucs would save roughly $9.8 million. Nicks contract is structured in same fashion to that of Jackson's, so the team would be in the same situation. Even if Jackson was cut after the 2013 season. The team would still save roughly $2.8 million granted there's some dead money in 2014 but its not to the point where the team could still not sign a player. The reason is that the contracts Dominik crafted have such high base salaries compared to the very low bonus monies. And, before the restructures the team could have cut Jackson or Nicks after 2013 with no ramifications whatsoever.

If you look at the cap wranglings of the Bucs under Dominik he structures all free agent contracts the same way no signing bonus monies and all the guaranteed money payable in the first two years - this forces players to continue produce but after the second year should players begin to get lazy or under produce the team can typically cut them with no strings attached.
: January 03, 2013, 02:37:39 AM yuccaneers

In Football, RESPECT is never given freely by your opponent. It must be TAKEN from them...VIOLENTLY

Great players cost a lot of money but help win games. High-priced players - a byproduct of poorly run front offices with bad scouting departments - only cost a lot of money.
"Our greatest glory consists not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall."
Oliver Goldsmith

The Franchi5e

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1638
Offline
#3 : January 03, 2013, 02:32:34 AM

I just don't know who the Bucs plan on throwing all this cash at in free agency this year. This isn't a particularly great free agent class. Welker would be a hell of an addition as our slot receiver next to V-Jax and Mike Williams though. Jarius Byrd and Brent Grimes would go a very long way in improving our secondary. And Sebastian Vollmer would be awesome as our starting RT. Hard to think we'd get all of those guys, but I think we'll atleast grab a couple of them if we throw the amount of money we can at them.

yuccaneers

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2354
Offline
#4 : January 03, 2013, 02:44:12 AM

I think they make a push for three or four fairly recognizable names: Danny Amendola, Jarius Byrd, Keenan Lewis and Sebastian Vollmer. Then sign three lower tier players CB DJ Moore, DT Sammie Lee Hill and TE Anthony Fasano the rest will be used to re-sign their own (DE Michael Bennett, LS Andrew Economos, DT Roy Miller) if they feel there is not a better option on the market. The other money could be used to extend an early offer to Mike Williams and possibly Freeman.

Also the number floated in the article of $24 million is off.

Here is my updated salary cap status for committed cash thus far for 2013: $88,984,126.00 million.

The cap is slated to Be slightly north of $120 million (88.9 minus 120 = $31.1 million available)

31.1 plus (8.5 million the team could roll over in unused 2012 cap, 13.25 million if they release Wright & Black, and the 1.63 million from the Skins and Boys salary dumping) grand total around $55.38 million to use to re-sign players, free agents and draft picks.
: January 03, 2013, 02:52:31 AM yuccaneers

In Football, RESPECT is never given freely by your opponent. It must be TAKEN from them...VIOLENTLY

Great players cost a lot of money but help win games. High-priced players - a byproduct of poorly run front offices with bad scouting departments - only cost a lot of money.
"Our greatest glory consists not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall."
Oliver Goldsmith

The Franchi5e

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1638
Offline
#5 : January 03, 2013, 02:58:06 AM

Why do you say those are the players you think the Bucs will be going after in free agency? All those you named seem logical to fill needs, but do you know something that we don't? Amendola would be a great addition if he could stay healthy.

yuccaneers

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2354
Offline
#6 : January 03, 2013, 03:04:29 AM

Personal preference - if I was the GM those would be the players I would sign - have no information just think those players would continue the culture change and provide leadership and be productive in the schemes run by the Bucs.

In Football, RESPECT is never given freely by your opponent. It must be TAKEN from them...VIOLENTLY

Great players cost a lot of money but help win games. High-priced players - a byproduct of poorly run front offices with bad scouting departments - only cost a lot of money.
"Our greatest glory consists not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall."
Oliver Goldsmith

BucNY

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 7431
Offline
#7 : January 03, 2013, 07:33:26 AM

Technically, there are minimal cap constraints by turning guaranteed monies in to a signing bonus payable earlier - it is not a common practice for the Bucs and the way they maneuver within the confines of the cap.  Both Jackson and Nicks are expected to play at minimum through 2013 and its a safe bet to say through 2014.


Yeah if I understood it right, they actually decreased the amount we owed to players in the future, not increased it. We took money that we were suppose to pay to Jackson and Nicks next year and gave it to them right now which hit our cap this year and not next year. This doesn't put us on the line for more money owed, it's less.

Am I confused?

\\\\\\\"This forum needs a poster like BucNY now more than ever\\\\\\\"
      - Everyone

JC5100

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 7843
Offline
#8 : January 03, 2013, 07:52:13 AM

$55M puts Mike Wallace in play. And Jared Cook.

: January 03, 2013, 07:55:25 AM JC5100

yuccaneers

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2354
Offline
#9 : January 03, 2013, 08:16:07 AM

Technically, there are minimal cap constraints by turning guaranteed monies in to a signing bonus payable earlier - it is not a common practice for the Bucs and the way they maneuver within the confines of the cap.  Both Jackson and Nicks are expected to play at minimum through 2013 and its a safe bet to say through 2014.


Yeah if I understood it right, they actually decreased the amount we owed to players in the future, not increased it. We took money that we were suppose to pay to Jackson and Nicks next year and gave it to them right now which hit our cap this year and not next year. This doesn't put us on the line for more money owed, it's less.

Am I confused?

All that happened was the team reduced the base salaries of Nicks and Jackson for 2013 - to free up a large chunk of cap space - by doing so they turned the monies in to a bonus - thus it is prorated over the remaining years.

In Football, RESPECT is never given freely by your opponent. It must be TAKEN from them...VIOLENTLY

Great players cost a lot of money but help win games. High-priced players - a byproduct of poorly run front offices with bad scouting departments - only cost a lot of money.
"Our greatest glory consists not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall."
Oliver Goldsmith

JoshMcCrownUs

*
Second String
***
Posts : 224
Online
#10 : January 03, 2013, 08:16:28 AM

Technically, there are minimal cap constraints by turning guaranteed monies in to a signing bonus payable earlier - it is not a common practice for the Bucs and the way they maneuver within the confines of the cap.  Both Jackson and Nicks are expected to play at minimum through 2013 and its a safe bet to say through 2014.


Yeah if I understood it right, they actually decreased the amount we owed to players in the future, not increased it. We took money that we were suppose to pay to Jackson and Nicks next year and gave it to them right now which hit our cap this year and not next year. This doesn't put us on the line for more money owed, it's less.

Am I confused?

You're partially correct in that we do lower the overall cap hit of their contracts over the next few years. However, all of the savings are realized next year, while the later years absorb the same amount of cap space as this year (bonuses are prorated throughout the life of the contract, 5 years in this case). Hence we're partially mortaging our more distant future in order to benefit our immediate future.

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15422
Online
#11 : January 03, 2013, 08:25:17 AM

I call bullsh!t . Teams like the Redskins always do this and they never face major consequences. If you are willing to pay the extra money restructuring contracts and paying guys up front you can push back cap hell indefinitely.
: January 03, 2013, 08:27:37 AM Fire Mark Dummynik

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15422
Online
#12 : January 03, 2013, 08:29:37 AM

$55M puts Mike Wallace in play. And Jared Cook.

Jared Cook would be huge, because TE is an actual need . Mike Wallace would just be straight up greed , lol.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

BucsnNoles

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1202
Offline
#13 : January 03, 2013, 08:46:03 AM

For some, it will be heart-warming to see the Bucs spending big once again. After all, they routinely spent money leading up to their Super Bowl win in 2002. Unfortunately, that consistent spending is also what hurt them in subsequent years, as they built up huge salary cap problems, forcing them to cut ties with many of the franchise's stalwarts. Letting John Lynch and Warren Sapp walk were big issues for the Bucs, and having to cut ties with Keyshawn Johnson and his massive contract didn't help either.
These people write these stupid articles with zero research.  We didn't let Lynch and Sapp go because of cap issue.  **CENSORED**....We let them go while signing the Raiders' 40 year old linemen and RB to big contracts.

yuccaneers

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2354
Offline
#14 : January 03, 2013, 08:49:59 AM

For some, it will be heart-warming to see the Bucs spending big once again. After all, they routinely spent money leading up to their Super Bowl win in 2002. Unfortunately, that consistent spending is also what hurt them in subsequent years, as they built up huge salary cap problems, forcing them to cut ties with many of the franchise's stalwarts. Letting John Lynch and Warren Sapp walk were big issues for the Bucs, and having to cut ties with Keyshawn Johnson and his massive contract didn't help either.
These people write these stupid articles with zero research.  We didn't let Lynch and Sapp go because of cap issue.  **CENSORED**....We let them go while signing the Raiders' 40 year old linemen and RB to big contracts.

Actually the decision was made by McKay and Kiffin the previous year when they signed McFarland to a large contract that they were going to allow Sapp to walk at the conclusion of his contract - Lynch came down to his neck injury and the team not thinking he could play at the same level coming back from injury.

In Football, RESPECT is never given freely by your opponent. It must be TAKEN from them...VIOLENTLY

Great players cost a lot of money but help win games. High-priced players - a byproduct of poorly run front offices with bad scouting departments - only cost a lot of money.
"Our greatest glory consists not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall."
Oliver Goldsmith
Page: 1 2 3
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Bucs setting themselves up for a problem by pushing cap charges into the future? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools