San Jose Bills Fan Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 With both sides in the NFL stoppage working in earnest towards an agreement, some small details are starting to form like condensation on the outer walls of the negotiating room. One of these wet spots is the discussion about the nature of a new salary cap. One of the details pertaining to the salary cap comes from the owners offer to the players back on March 11th. In that proposal, the owners stated that they'd be willing to increase the salary floor… the minimum that teams would be required to spend on players salaries. The specific proposal was that teams would be required to spend to at least 90% of the salary cap ceiling. As explained in PFT by Florio: "This would prevent teams from relying on “dead money” arising from trading or cutting players with large contracts in order to meet the minimum, and it would require all teams to spend a lot of money. If this provision makes it into the final deal, it means that teams on the low side of the spending equation (and several were millions below what the cap floor would have been in 2010) will have to spend a lot of money in 2011. That money could be spent via pursuing free agents, and there will be plenty of free agents available if, as expected, the minimum threshold moves from six year back to four. Or it could be spent on young players already on the roster who merit extensions." http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/15/next-cba-likely-will-require-plenty-of-teams-to-spend-plenty-of-cash/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Estelle Getty Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 daddy likes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maryland-bills-fan Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I hope they put in somethings like a minimum pension for retired players and some health care for retired players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 With both sides in the NFL stoppage working in earnest towards an agreement, some small details are starting to form like condensation on the outer walls of the negotiating room. One of these wet spots is the discussion about the nature of a new salary cap. One of the details pertaining to the salary cap comes from the owners offer to the players back on March 11th. In that proposal, the owners stated that they'd be willing to increase the salary floor… the minimum that teams would be required to spend on players salaries. The specific proposal was that teams would be required to spend to at least 90% of the salary cap ceiling. As explained in PFT by Florio: "This would prevent teams from relying on “dead money” arising from trading or cutting players with large contracts in order to meet the minimum, and it would require all teams to spend a lot of money. If this provision makes it into the final deal, it means that teams on the low side of the spending equation (and several were millions below what the cap floor would have been in 2010) will have to spend a lot of money in 2011. That money could be spent via pursuing free agents, and there will be plenty of free agents available if, as expected, the minimum threshold moves from six year back to four. Or it could be spent on young players already on the roster who merit extensions." http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/15/next-cba-likely-will-require-plenty-of-teams-to-spend-plenty-of-cash/ should be 100% that way old Ralphy would have no excuses to keep or get players, Im sure that the Toronto deal is more than enough to cover the "shortfall". the only thing bigger than Ralph's greed is his ego by not selling the naming rights to the stadium, which could also be used for players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 You realize of course, that this is just going to raise the average salary across the league? It doesn't mean that the Bills will be able to add an extra superstar or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDaDdy Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I love this idea. Unfortunately for the Bills it might mean over paying even more for mediocre talent Ralph has always had the cut off his nose to spite his face approach when it comes to homegrown superstars that finally want to get their pay day. He would rather pay the Chris Kelsay's of the world a boat load of cash than pay and keep the Jason Peters, Pat Williams, Antowaine Winfields of the football world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 The Bills spend money. It will affect a lot of other teams who usually don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clearwater cadet Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 If this keeps up, the Bills might be forced out of town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 You realize of course, that this is just going to raise the average salary across the league? It doesn't mean that the Bills will be able to add an extra superstar or two. Sounds like it would cut guaranteed money, too...which I don't think would be a bad thing. I'd willingly see them trade 5-year, $30M contracts with a $15M signing bonus for 5-year, $42M with a $3M signing bonus. Unless they're suggesting that guaranteed money paid a traded player simply won't count towards the cap. It wouldn't surprise me if that was in the fine print, as it would benefit greatly franchises like the Cowboys or Redskins at the expense of smaller market teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Linen Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 should be 100% that way old Ralphy would have no excuses to keep or get players, Im sure that the Toronto deal is more than enough to cover the "shortfall". the only thing bigger than Ralph's greed is his ego by not selling the naming rights to the stadium, which could also be used for players. Right because if he sold the naming rights, you would say he's giving the money to players. You people can't be satisfied. Furthermore, aren't you the one that keeps calling him cheap and greedy? Well than that means he has money and won't spend it, why would he need more from selling naming rights? Fans (loosely used) like you contradict yourself constantly and I find it silly. You're trying to say Ralph is cheap but in turn you're trying to give him ideas to make more money to pay for "shortfalls". Which is it hombre? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfreak Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) I like it, but I am sure Ralphie won't. I am not buttering any guys buns, please that is a mental picture I didn't need. I love this idea. Unfortunately for the Bills it might mean over paying even more for mediocre talent Ralph has always had the cut off his nose to spite his face approach when it comes to homegrown superstars that finally want to get their pay day. He would rather pay the Chris Kelsay's of the world a boat load of cash than pay and keep the Jason Peters, Pat Williams, Antowaine Winfields of the football world. That is highly likely too, very good point. It has been years since the top free agents in the NFL would have even considered coming to Buffalo. The way the organization has been run, the lack of excitment in the area, the weather among other things has turned the top tier players off. But oddly, when players do come here (often because it is their only choice), the majority of them really end up liking it. It has really always been like that, just like in Jim Kelly's case, he went to the USFL because he didn't want to come to Buffalo, but once he did, he has never really left. Edited June 16, 2011 by billsfreak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stony Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Sounds like it would cut guaranteed money, too...which I don't think would be a bad thing. I'd willingly see them trade 5-year, $30M contracts with a $15M signing bonus for 5-year, $42M with a $3M signing bonus. Unless they're suggesting that guaranteed money paid a traded player simply won't count towards the cap. It wouldn't surprise me if that was in the fine print, as it would benefit greatly franchises like the Cowboys or Redskins at the expense of smaller market teams. Don't huge signing bonuses not count toward the cap? In theory they're supposed to help teams like the Bill's, but smaller market teams generally have less cash on hand to give out big bonuses so it really negates any advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 The Bills spend money. It will affect a lot of other teams who usually don't. Doc said it but nobody is listening. Haven't the Bills always spent close to the cap? Ralph has not gone for huge bonuses, but they's spent the money haven't they? We need our capologist...who was that guy? Mike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) Don't huge signing bonuses not count toward the cap? In theory they're supposed to help teams like the Bill's, but smaller market teams generally have less cash on hand to give out big bonuses so it really negates any advantage. Signing bonuses absolutely count against the cap. Just, they can be amortized over the course of the contract. Unless, iirc, that player is traded, cut or retires; then, the balance/unpaid portion counts toward that year's cap. Ostensibly, that was Butler's choice when he released Andre, Thurman and Bruce in [ON EDIT] 2000 --- to put the Bills through a shorter-term "cap hell" in order to come out fresh the next year. Edited June 16, 2011 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfreak Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) Signing bonuses absolutely count against the cap. Just, they can be amortized over the course of the contract. Unless, iirc, that player is traded, cut or retires; then, the balance/unpaid portion counts toward that year's cap. Ostensibly, that was Butler's choice when he released Andre, Thurman and Bruce in '99 --- to put the Bills through a shorter-term "cap hell" in order to come out fresh the next year. And we haven't made the Playoffs since? If I am not mistaken, all 3 of them played their last game for the Bills in the "Music City Ripoff" which was our last appearance in the post season. Edited June 16, 2011 by billsfreak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrobot Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Here's the salary cap expenditure list, and it looks like only 3 teams (not Bills) would need to pony up. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/19/team-by-team-salary-cap-numbers-if-there-were-a-salary-cap/ One thinks about left tackle McNeill in Charger-land... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinny4sum Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Here's the salary cap expenditure list, and it looks like only 3 teams (not Bills) would need to pony up. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/09/19/team-by-team-salary-cap-numbers-if-there-were-a-salary-cap/ One thinks about left tackle McNeill in Charger-land... But..but that can't be accurate! The two "cheapest" teams made the playoffs and each won 10 games! I thought it was proven you had to spend to win.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) Here's the salary cap expenditure list, and it looks like only 3 teams (not Bills) would need to pony up. http://profootballta...e-a-salary-cap/ One thinks about left tackle McNeill in Charger-land... There's just one problem with the link, AB… Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't say what the projected salary cap would have been in 2010 (which was an uncapped year). If I recall correctly, the cap in 2009 was $128 million. If there was a cap last year it would have been about $130 million. The proposal is to spend at least 90% of the cap ceiling means that teams would have had to spend over $117 million last year. If I'm correct on this, there were 10 teams, including the Bills that didn't spend up to those conditions. The other thing that some of us are missing is that not only would the salary cap floor increase, but also that the proposal calls for "converting the salary floor into an annual minimum cash expenditure." This means that teams would no longer be able to use "dead money" as a means of filling up cap space and not actually spending cash on players. For instance, the Cheatriots* had about $10 million in "dead money" last year. So yes, it would require teams to spend significantly more cash on player compensation. In an aside, this adds quite a bit of intrigue as to exactly what the lockout was all about. Edited June 16, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Sounds like it would cut guaranteed money, too...which I don't think would be a bad thing. I'd willingly see them trade 5-year, $30M contracts with a $15M signing bonus for 5-year, $42M with a $3M signing bonus. Unless they're suggesting that guaranteed money paid a traded player simply won't count towards the cap. It wouldn't surprise me if that was in the fine print, as it would benefit greatly franchises like the Cowboys or Redskins at the expense of smaller market teams. I would like to see bonuses be no more than 10-15% of the value of the 1st 5 years of the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share Posted June 16, 2011 I am not buttering any guys buns, please that is a mental picture I didn't need. Sorry billsfreak. It's just an old saying… "butter my buns and call me a biscuit." But..but that can't be accurate! The two "cheapest" teams made the playoffs and each won 10 games! I thought it was proven you had to spend to win.. Actually, the argument as properly stated is not that "you have to spend big to win big" but rather, "ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the team that spends more, wins more." Think of the Pittsburgh Steelers or Green Bay Packers with Daniel Snyder's or Jerry Jones' war chest. If that were the case, these two teams would possibly be playing each other in the Super Bowl every year with that combination of excellence in management AND unlimited financial resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts