Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: WSJ: What's Behind All the NFL Blowouts « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4

Booker Reese

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 8170
Offline
#30 : October 23, 2009, 04:05:39 PM

Well - that's not totally true Mennonman.

If we had signed Haynesworth it would have used up a large chunk of that space. You can say that we didn't - but we certainly offered Haynesworth quite a lot of money and by his account the most money.

The only good thing we've gotten out of the huge cap room this year was the ability to move Gaines Adams. If we hadn't had so much cap room the acceleration of his signing bonus would have made it difficult.

Booker Reese

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 8170
Offline
#31 : October 23, 2009, 04:06:21 PM

What I can't understand is why a player would sign a contract like that!    This is why I decided not to let my daughter become a lawyer even though she argues like one.   lol

Because it costs the player nothing, and potentially helps his team.

calicojack

*
Starter
****
Posts : 835
Offline
#32 : October 23, 2009, 04:07:40 PM

so does this mean...� � the Glazers "Capologists" cap spending is actually MUCH LESS than the what they are actually spending?� so we're pretty close to the minimum Cap amount, but the actual spending is much less.� �that figures!� � �What a freaking scam!

That is certainly what is implied.


In 2008, if actual spending was "much less" then cap spending, then the Bucs would have been bumping up against the cap ceiling. The cap floor in '08 was $98 million, and the Bucs spent - actual payments made to players - $104 million.

Only the top 51 player's salaries count against the cap.  Did you find Herron and PChuk on that USToday list?

The Dream Team

Booker Reese

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 8170
Offline
#33 : October 23, 2009, 04:21:23 PM

No - good point though on the 51 rule, I hadn't factored that in to the comparison of payroll to cap.

There are 58 players on the USA Today list, which probably explains why the USA Today numbers track relatively well with the totals from the NFL.com 5-year article but not exactly.



Madman

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5630
Offline
#34 : October 23, 2009, 04:22:13 PM

so does this mean...� � the Glazers "Capologists" cap spending is actually MUCH LESS than the what they are actually spending?� so we're pretty close to the minimum Cap amount, but the actual spending is much less.� �that figures!� � �What a freaking scam!

That is certainly what is implied.


In 2008, if actual spending was "much less" then cap spending, then the Bucs would have been bumping up against the cap ceiling. The cap floor in '08 was $98 million, and the Bucs spent - actual payments made to players - $104 million.

Your point is the Bucs are 23rd in payroll (not last) so we should lay off the Glazers?

The difference between payroll and the cap figure is signing bonuses , which are required to land quality FAs and the Bucs throw around like manhole covers.

Add payroll and signing bonuses and I believe you'll find the Bucs spend the LEAST of any team in the NFL.


Booker Reese

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 8170
Offline
#35 : October 23, 2009, 04:29:25 PM

I don't care whether you lay off of the Glazers or lay into the Glazers. That's your choice.

My point is simply this - the rationale behind the tricks on Chuk and Herron is so that you can roll over the cap money. Clearly, that roll over money hasn't been put to use like I would want, but that's primarily the reason it's done.

The payroll figures INCLUDE bonuses. Some differences between the two is that:

Payroll includes more than just the 51 highest-paid players;
Salary cap only includes portions of signing bonus.

The cap is an accounting construct - what the Glazers actually paid players is payroll, and last year, the Bucs were 23rd.

You can see the differences in "Total Salary" and "Cap Value":

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?team=30&year=2008

Booker Reese

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 8170
Offline
#36 : October 23, 2009, 04:31:50 PM

And Madman, the Bucs are last if you look over the entire period from 2004-2008.

 


Madman

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5630
Offline
#37 : October 23, 2009, 04:34:39 PM

Interesting...

Total Salary (what I assume you are referring to as payroll) includes Base + Bonuses but NOT Signing Bonus for some players like Gaines Adams... however for some players such as BJ Askew the signing bonus IS included as Total Salary.

Eh, who knows. Glazers are still cheap.  ;D

Booker Reese

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 8170
Offline
#38 : October 23, 2009, 04:43:50 PM

Yeah, the chart is a little confusing, but the reason they don't include signing bonus for Gaines in 2008 is because he signed in 2007. The guys who have bonuses included are guys like Faine, because he signed in 2008. All the other bonuses are bonuses incurred that year.

I think the signing bonus info on the page even though it happened in a previous year is because it helps explain why someone's cap value might be high.

GhostRider

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5991
Offline
#39 : October 23, 2009, 04:53:29 PM

It's all smoke and mirrors.


HughC

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1762
Offline
#40 : October 23, 2009, 07:04:46 PM

That whole LTBE incentives stuff has been tough for me to grasp completely. 
There are both LTBE (likely to be earned) and NLTBE (not likely to be earned) incentives.
LTBE bonuses do count against the cap; NLTBE bonuses do not.

To qualify as a LTBE incentive, the actual statistic had to have been reached the previous year.
If the incentive was not reached the previous year, then it is considered to be a NLTBE bonus.

For example, 'if the Bucs win at least nine games in 2009, the player makes $100k' would be a LTBE bonus.
On the other hand 'if the Bucs make the playoffs in 2009, the player makes $500k' would be a NLTBE bonus.

Then at the end of the year all the LTBE and NLTBE bonuses are accounted for, and the team's cap for the next season is adjusted either upwards or downwards depending on the net effect of what they did and did not actually have to pay.

bucs1

*
Practice Squad
*
Posts : 0
Offline
#41 : October 23, 2009, 11:40:18 PM

Kevin Demoff was an absolute genius. He pulled off things that are just too unbelievable to imagine. He came up with so many loopholes and so many creative ways to structure contracts, making the Bucs look like they spent money that they did not spend. He was so good that a lot of general managers and front offices around the league now model their ways off of Demoff.

Madman

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5630
Offline
#42 : October 24, 2009, 11:38:55 AM

Kevin Demoff was an absolute genius. He pulled off things that are just too unbelievable to imagine. He came up with so many loopholes and so many creative ways to structure contracts, making the Bucs look like they spent money that they did not spend. He was so good that a lot of general managers and front offices around the league now model their ways off of Demoff.

Hard to believe the Glazers let Demoff get away. Wasn't Demoff peeved he didn't get the GM job?

alldaway

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 37348
Offline
#43 : October 24, 2009, 11:42:31 AM

Demoff didn't create these technique or loopholes as he simply was able to apply them for the Bucs situation.  The Vikings were the first to heavy employ such an approach with regards to the cap.

Uncle Stan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17496
Offline
#44 : October 24, 2009, 11:54:24 AM

It sure would be nice if someone with facts could produce a list that was accuarate in all respects without using it to just make their point.

Haven't seen one yet, and doubt that we ever will.

That's why I don't believe any of em.

Learn to disagree without being disagreeable-Ronald Reagan circa 1981
Page: 1 2 3 4
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: WSJ: What's Behind All the NFL Blowouts « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools