Cap management

[GG]

 

I assume that every team will always carry over their maximum amount. To not do so would be tantamount to waving a big flag and yelling "Look at me! Many of you assumed I was cheap......now I've proven it."

 

I think everybody has been discussing things under the same assumption that the max roll will always be rolled. So far there has been no suggestion that this will not happen.

 

The only reason I think a team won't roll everything over is if wants to show the illusion that it doesn't have a lot of cap space to sign players.

[Dibs]

The only reason I think a team won't roll everything over is if wants to show the illusion that it doesn't have a lot of cap space to sign players.

 

....but that illusion will only last until the media makes it public. Any team that doesn't move all of its rollover money is going to be facing a horrendous PR nightmare IMO.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Dibs

[GG]

....but that illusion will only last until the media makes it public. Any team that doesn't move all of its rollover money is going to be facing a horrendous PR nightmare IMO.

 

Not to a team that lives by cash to cap.

[Dibs]

 

Not to a team that lives by cash to cap.

 

I don't follow.

[GG]

I don't follow.

 

For a team that lives by cash to cap, a lower cap figure is certainly preferable, because it gives that team a built in excuse to be frugal. Because no one outside the league office & NFLPA really knows how much a team carries over, that team can hold back a few million each year and let it lapse. As long as they spend the minimum 89% of the unadjusted cap, they are ok under the CBA. Sure, there may be some bad PR and fan "outrage" but in the end, the team will just shrug its shoulders and move on.

[Dibs]

For a team that lives by cash to cap, a lower cap figure is certainly preferable, because it gives that team a built in excuse to be frugal. Because no one outside the league office & NFLPA really knows how much a team carries over, that team can hold back a few million each year and let it lapse. As long as they spend the minimum 89% of the unadjusted cap, they are ok under the CBA. Sure, there may be some bad PR and fan "outrage" but in the end, the team will just shrug its shoulders and move on.

 

Regarding the bolded.....

As far as I know this is incorrect. The amounts are a matter of public record. The cap sites get access to exact figures of contracts etc and give a definitive number in regards to how much money is left over after each season. If a team were to "hold back a few million" it will certainly be reported.

 

 

You also seem to be running under the assumption that teams that follow a rough C2C system are inherently trying to pay less money. As far as I am aware that certainly isn't the case......and though I can't provide a link, I am very confident(from past articles that I have read) that a vast majority of teams use some form of C2C to help manage their cash spending in relation to their income.

 

Furthermore, I am pretty sure that the C2C philosophy would not be applied by teams to the adjusted cap figures.....and that they would still use the actual cap numbers for their rough cash spending limits(it would defeat the purpose of C2C if they didn't).......likely with their own private cash rollover system added(if not already existing). Assuming this to be the case, having a bit less of the adjusted actual cap to spend will not effect the C2C in any way as the cash to actual cap will remain the same.

 

 

And sure, any team(regardless of C2C) that wants to reduce their cap can simply not rollover the full amount. My comment was to say that I believe that any team that does this will be roasted alive.....therefore I believe it will never happen. (If it ever does, feel free to call me out and give me a "told you so".)

[Sisyphean Bills]

Please correct my misunderstandings.

 

Let's say we are team X. X has an unadjusted cap of $123M. X's adjusted cap is $115M. The $8M negative adjustment is, I guess, for dead money and perhaps other penalties (like going over the cap or whatever). Team X also rolls over $10M from the previous year. That gives a new cap of $125M. I'd guess that the floor is computed from the adjusted cap of $115M, so X has to spend, just to toss out a number, $103M. The notion would be that pushing dead money into the next year, lowers the adjusted cap, which has the effect of lowering the effective floor. But the bonus is in canceling out a large percentage of the money rolled over. The rolled over money, coming from money not spent on contracts now, is canceled out by accelerating the C2C money already spent, leaving money on the table. That is, X already spent the $8M but gets an accounting charge against the saved $10M so they only effectively rollover $2M. So, the $8M on the table goes where? My bank account, I hope.

[Dibs]

Please correct my misunderstandings.

 

Let's say we are team X. X has an unadjusted cap of $123M. X's adjusted cap is $115M. The $8M negative adjustment is, I guess, for dead money and perhaps other penalties (like going over the cap or whatever)......

 

I think a definition of certain terms will help you here somewhat....

 

An "unadjusted cap"(as you put it) is merely "the cap"(which I will refer to as the base cap). This is the base amount of money each team can spend determined by the CBA rules. It works exactly like the old base cap.

 

The "adjusted cap" is the base cap plus any leftover money rolled over from the previous season(plus certain other unusual factors which for the sake of this can be considered irrelevant). In your example it would be $123m plus the rollover amount.

 

Dead money effects the base cap(and adjusted cap) in the exact same way as player contract money does. It does not alter the level of the adjusted cap(or base cap)......it merely acts as expenditure under that cap(and the base cap). The base cap and the adjusted cap remain fixed once determined at the start of each new NFL year.

 

 

......I'd guess that the floor is computed from the adjusted cap of $115M.....

 

No. The adjusted cap does not effect the cap floor. The cap floor is now determined over a 4 year period. The 4 base caps for the period are combined......and the floor is determined from that combined number(90%).

 

A team is now allowed to spend under the floor in any given year as long as they spend over the combined floor for the 4 year period. The rollover enables this to occur as a team the might spend only 80% of the base cap in year 1, can carry the unspent 20% into year 2.....spend it then instead.....and meet the cap floor requirements.

 

 

.......The notion would be that pushing dead money into the next year, lowers the adjusted cap, which has the effect of lowering the effective floor.....

 

As explained above, the adjusted cap will not be effected in this situation. Also, as the floor is now over a 4 year span, only moving the dead money from one 4 year span to the next 4 year span would effect the amount spent which counts towards the cap floors. As the first 4 year period is 2013-2016, moving any dead money from 2013 to 2014(ala Fitz money) obviously has nil effect on the overall spend.....and therefore nil effect on the cap floor.

 

 

.....The rolled over money, coming from money not spent on contracts now, is canceled out by accelerating the C2C money already spent, leaving money on the table. That is, X already spent the $8M but gets an accounting charge against the saved $10M so they only effectively rollover $2M. So, the $8M on the table goes where? My bank account, I hope.

 

You've really lost me on this one.

C2C has nothing to do with the cap rules, cap dollars or cap management. It is a philosophical approach taken where a team endeavors to spend actual physical dollars to a level that is close to the base cap in any given year. It does not effect the cap in any way.

 

 

I hope all of that was easy enough to follow.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Dibs

[Sisyphean Bills]

Thanks, Dibs.

 

I think a definition of certain terms will help you here somewhat....

 

An "unadjusted cap"(as you put it) is merely "the cap"(which I will refer to as the base cap). This is the base amount of money each team can spend determined by the CBA rules. It works exactly like the old base cap.

 

The "adjusted cap" is the base cap plus any leftover money rolled over from the previous season(plus certain other unusual factors which for the sake of this can be considered irrelevant). In your example it would be $123m plus the rollover amount.

 

Dead money effects the base cap(and adjusted cap) in the exact same way as player contract money does. It does not alter the level of the adjusted cap(or base cap)......it merely acts as expenditure under that cap(and the base cap). The base cap and the adjusted cap remain fixed once determined at the start of each new NFL year.

 

I don't think "my terms" and your terms add up. ("My terms" come directly from the table in the link that I posted, and are thus not really my terms.) The explanation that you give above does not explain the numbers. Look at the Bills line. The "base cap" for all teams is $123M, the Bills adjusted cap is $115M, and they rolled over $10M. By your definition (in bold), the adjusted cap should be $133M. However, it clearly is not.

 

As explained above, the adjusted cap will not be effected in this situation. Also, as the floor is now over a 4 year span, only moving the dead money from one 4 year span to the next 4 year span would effect the amount spent which counts towards the cap floors. As the first 4 year period is 2013-2016, moving any dead money from 2013 to 2014(ala Fitz money) obviously has nil effect on the overall spend.....and therefore nil effect on the cap floor.

 

This doesn't make sense to me. Your saying the cap window is fixed for specific years. Let's say the cap is $125M in 2013, $135M in 2014, $145M in 2015, then $155M in 2016. (How do they even know the future shared revenue here? In fact, they don't as we know they have to calculate it each year.) So, the average is $140M for those 4 years. The 90% floor is $126M. That means the floor in the first year is greater than the ceiling! Yikes.

 

You've really lost me on this one.

 

C2C has nothing to do with the cap rules, cap dollars or cap management. It is a philosophical approach taken where a team endeavors to spend actual physical dollars to a level that is close to the base cap in any given year. It does not effect the cap in any way.

 

Like you say, C2C has nothing to do with it other than it is a philosophy to manage spending in the future by limiting the spending now. If I have $20 in my pocket now, I do not even consider purchasing a $30 Bills hat. I buy the $15 one. If my next "allowance" is only $15, then the $5 that I saved means I can consider buying a new hat next year for $20 or less. But, if I charge myself an accounting fee of $4.95, then my next allowance is $15.05 and that's all I have to spend on my next hat. (Shh, now. Don't ask where the $4.95 went.)

[Dibs]

Thanks, Dibs.

 

I don't think "my terms" and your terms add up. ("My terms" come directly from the table in the link that I posted, and are thus not really my terms.) The explanation that you give above does not explain the numbers. Look at the Bills line. The "base cap" for all teams is $123M, the Bills adjusted cap is $115M, and they rolled over $10M. By your definition (in bold), the adjusted cap should be $133M. However, it clearly is not.

.....

 

No worries.....and my pleasure actually(you've probably figured that I enjoy numbers and really like talking about the cap )

 

The error you have made here though is that the $115m figure is not an adjusted cap number. The chart you provided refers to the number as "Team Cap"......and it actually is "Team Cap Spending".

 

If you scroll to the bottom of this link(from Spotrac)....

 

http://www.spotrac.c...-bills/cap-hit/

 

....you will see the figures as follows:

 

2012 Available Cap Rollover: 9,817,628

2013 Adjustment: 360,790

2013 Salary Cap: 123,000,000

2013 Adjusted Salary Cap: 133,178,418 (Bolded in the link....and you are correct, the adjusted cap was/is $133m)

 

It then goes through the expenditures:

 

Active Contracts: 89,852,071

Injured Reserve Money: 6,246,046

Dead Money: 18,574,921

Practice Squad: 816,000

....and then a total: 115,489,038 (which is the $115m "Team Cap" in your chart)

 

Lastly it provides the total cap room: 17,689,380 (which is of course the $133m adjusted cap minus the $115m expenses).

 

 

 

This doesn't make sense to me. Your saying the cap window is fixed for specific years. Let's say the cap is $125M in 2013, $135M in 2014, $145M in 2015, then $155M in 2016. (How do they even know the future shared revenue here? In fact, they don't as we know they have to calculate it each year.) So, the average is $140M for those 4 years. The 90% floor is $126M. That means the floor in the first year is greater than the ceiling! Yikes.

 

I think you misunderstood. There is no cap floor for individual years anymore. The cap floor is calculated at the end of the 4 year period(actually it would be done at the start of the 4th year when that years base cap has been determined). Teams will need to have spent 90% of the total of the 4 years to remain above the floor.

 

Using the numbers from your example.....

The total base cap for those 4 years would be $560m.

Teams will need to have spent 90% of that.....$504m.

They can chose to spend any amount in any year(within the 4 year period) without fear of being under the cap floor. For instance they could spend $80m, $140m, $90m and $200m.....reaching a total of $510m, thus remaining ahead of the cap floor.....even though two of those years were well below 90% of their individual year base caps.

 

Though this is a wiki link, it perhaps does a better job of explaining how it works than I have done(1st paragraph of the NFL section):

http://en.wikipedia....Football_League

"However, the floor is based on total cash spent over each of two four-year periods, the first running from 2013–2016 and the second from 2017–2020. A team can be under the floor in one or more seasons in a cycle without violating the CBA, as long as its total spending during the four-year period reaches the required percentage of the cap."

 

 

Like you say, C2C has nothing to do with it other than it is a philosophy to manage spending in the future by limiting the spending now. If I have $20 in my pocket now, I do not even consider purchasing a $30 Bills hat. I buy the $15 one. If my next "allowance" is only $15, then the $5 that I saved means I can consider buying a new hat next year for $20 or less. But, if I charge myself an accounting fee of $4.95, then my next allowance is $15.05 and that's all I have to spend on my next hat. (Shh, now. Don't ask where the $4.95 went.)

 

Like many people, you seem to have quite a cynical view of C2C......which is really quite unfounded. I don't recall any team claiming that they can't sign a player due to their C2C restrictions, and in fact, C2C barely hinders teams in this regard at all.

 

The only time I recall NFL teams referring to C2C was when they were initially introducing it......and it was specifically relating to the huge upfront signing bonuses given to players. Signing several large contracts in one year could mean mega dollars in cash needed for the signing bonuses. Adding the extra mega-dollars in cash debt into an individual year throws ones accounting into a spin if one doesn't have a great deal of cash on hand to cover it.

 

The solution of course was to guarantee monies in later years of the contracts. The big contract players can(and are) still signed.....but the guaranteed money does not solely come out of the first year. The large up front costs was the only reason that most teams adopted a C2C system.....and it is only ever a rough guide, with most teams spending above or below to varying degrees each year dependent on their individual contract situations.

 

 

On top of all of that, each team's cash spend is a matter of public record so they can't get away with sneaking a few million into accounting fees(or such like).....and perhaps a better analogy using your hat would be that I buy the $30 Bills hat by paying $20 today and another $10 tomorrow.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Dibs

[Sisyphean Bills]

Thanks for the explanation, Dibs.

 

No worries.....and my pleasure actually(you've probably figured that I enjoy numbers and really like talking about the cap )

 

The error you have made here though is that the $115m figure is not an adjusted cap number. The chart you provided refers to the number as "Team Cap"......and it actually is "Team Cap Spending".

 

If you scroll to the bottom of this link(from Spotrac)....

 

http://www.spotrac.c...-bills/cap-hit/

 

....you will see the figures as follows:

 

2012 Available Cap Rollover: 9,817,628

2013 Adjustment: 360,790

2013 Salary Cap: 123,000,000

2013 Adjusted Salary Cap: 133,178,418 (Bolded in the link....and you are correct, the adjusted cap was/is $133m)

 

It then goes through the expenditures:

 

Active Contracts: 89,852,071

Injured Reserve Money: 6,246,046

Dead Money: 18,574,921

Practice Squad: 816,000

....and then a total: 115,489,038 (which is the $115m "Team Cap" in your chart)

 

Lastly it provides the total cap room: 17,689,380 (which is of course the $133m adjusted cap minus the $115m expenses).

 

 

 

 

 

I think you misunderstood. There is no cap floor for individual years anymore. The cap floor is calculated at the end of the 4 year period(actually it would be done at the start of the 4th year when that years base cap has been determined). Teams will need to have spent 90% of the total of the 4 years to remain above the floor.

 

Using the numbers from your example.....

The total base cap for those 4 years would be $560m.

Teams will need to have spent 90% of that.....$504m.

They can chose to spend any amount in any year(within the 4 year period) without fear of being under the cap floor. For instance they could spend $80m, $140m, $90m and $200m.....reaching a total of $510m, thus remaining ahead of the cap floor.....even though two of those years were well below 90% of their individual year base caps.

 

Though this is a wiki link, it perhaps does a better job of explaining how it works than I have done(1st paragraph of the NFL section):

http://en.wikipedia....Football_League

"However, the floor is based on total cash spent over each of two four-year periods, the first running from 2013–2016 and the second from 2017–2020. A team can be under the floor in one or more seasons in a cycle without violating the CBA, as long as its total spending during the four-year period reaches the required percentage of the cap."

 

 

 

 

Like many people, you seem to have quite a cynical view of C2C......which is really quite unfounded. I don't recall any team claiming that they can't sign a player due to their C2C restrictions, and in fact, C2C barely hinders teams in this regard at all.

 

Though, this bit rubs me the wrong way a bit.

 

The only time I recall NFL teams referring to C2C was when they were initially introducing it......and it was specifically relating to the huge upfront signing bonuses given to players. Signing several large contracts in one year could mean mega dollars in cash needed for the signing bonuses. Adding the extra mega-dollars in cash debt into an individual year throws ones accounting into a spin if one doesn't have a great deal of cash on hand to cover it.

 

The solution of course was to guarantee monies in later years of the contracts. The big contract players can(and are) still signed.....but the guaranteed money does not solely come out of the first year. The large up front costs was the only reason that most teams adopted a C2C system.....and it is only ever a rough guide, with most teams spending above or below to varying degrees each year dependent on their individual contract situations.

 

 

On top of all of that, each team's cash spend is a matter of public record so they can't get away with sneaking a few million into accounting fees(or such like).....and perhaps a better analogy using your hat would be that I buy the $30 Bills hat by paying $20 today and another $10 tomorrow.

 

The hat thing was an analogy and I'm not sure what is difficult about it; it was meant to illustrate what I said earlier.

 

If you have any sort of budget policy, you don't spend more than the budget. Would it help if I didn't call it cash-to-cap so we can get beyond preconceptions for a second? Obviously, a budget that allows me to by a "hat subscription" for 3 years, paying $10 a year fits within the budget of $20 a year. And I understand that perfectly well. There is no "cynicism" at all and not sure why you would suggest so. Teams have stopped giving huge signing-bonus contracts with amortized bonus spread over the length of the contract in favor of roster-bonuses which kick in year to year. Yeah, I know. There never was a disagreement.

 

PS: Thanks again. That helped me understand the new cap better.

[GG]

Regarding the bolded.....

As far as I know this is incorrect. The amounts are a matter of public record. The cap sites get access to exact figures of contracts etc and give a definitive number in regards to how much money is left over after each season. If a team were to "hold back a few million" it will certainly be reported.

 

 

You also seem to be running under the assumption that teams that follow a rough C2C system are inherently trying to pay less money. As far as I am aware that certainly isn't the case......and though I can't provide a link, I am very confident(from past articles that I have read) that a vast majority of teams use some form of C2C to help manage their cash spending in relation to their income.

 

Furthermore, I am pretty sure that the C2C philosophy would not be applied by teams to the adjusted cap figures.....and that they would still use the actual cap numbers for their rough cash spending limits(it would defeat the purpose of C2C if they didn't).......likely with their own private cash rollover system added(if not already existing). Assuming this to be the case, having a bit less of the adjusted actual cap to spend will not effect the C2C in any way as the cash to actual cap will remain the same.

 

 

And sure, any team(regardless of C2C) that wants to reduce their cap can simply not rollover the full amount. My comment was to say that I believe that any team that does this will be roasted alive.....therefore I believe it will never happen. (If it ever does, feel free to call me out and give me a "told you so".)

 

I don't think you use the term "in the public record" properly. There are many sites that do a good job of keeping track of salary cap numbers, but they are not the official league records that the NFL makes public. Also, contracts are not made public, so you don't know the exact amounts of bonuses, incentives, etc that the contract entails and exactly what counts against the cap. The public sites do their best to approximate, but they're not exactly correct. Thus, it could be relatively easy for a team's exact cap figure and carryover amount to vary by $1-$2 million from the reported amounts.

 

Yes, I am explicitly saying that teams that employ a C2C spending strategy do so to control costs, including the team we're so fond of. And, BTW, how much has public pressure & exposure of Bills' contract numbers affected the spending policy at OBD?

[Dibs]

 

Though, this bit rubs me the wrong way a bit.

 

 

 

The hat thing was an analogy and I'm not sure what is difficult about it; it was meant to illustrate what I said earlier.

 

If you have any sort of budget policy, you don't spend more than the budget. Would it help if I didn't call it cash-to-cap so we can get beyond preconceptions for a second? Obviously, a budget that allows me to by a "hat subscription" for 3 years, paying $10 a year fits within the budget of $20 a year. And I understand that perfectly well. There is no "cynicism" at all and not sure why you would suggest so. Teams have stopped giving huge signing-bonus contracts with amortized bonus spread over the length of the contract in favor of roster-bonuses which kick in year to year. Yeah, I know. There never was a disagreement.

 

Sorry about that. It was your reference to the accounting fee that had me thinking you were implying that the only reason for C2C was to be able to secretly fritter away money. I got the wrong end of the stick on that it seems. Not to worry.....my long winded C2C explanation might be useful to other posters. And again, apologies for the blunt comment when it wasn't warranted.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Sorry about that. It was your reference to the accounting fee that had me thinking you were implying that the only reason for C2C was to be able to secretly fritter away money. I got the wrong end of the stick on that it seems. Not to worry.....my long winded C2C explanation might be useful to other posters. And again, apologies for the blunt comment when it wasn't warranted.

 

Ah, I see. No, I wasn't meaning to link C2C to the "accounting fee", The $4.95 was meant to imply pushing a charge from the previous year. In this thread, the "fee" is Fitzpatrick's contract dead money.

 

So, basically, this was a hypothetical to try and understand the nuances of the earlier pages of back and forth. From your explanation, it simply seems to make no sense why anyone would bother to split dead money across two years inside of a 4 year window. Yet, it was done. The fact that it is even an option seems strange as well, does it not?

 

On the other hand, if I have to spend $506M over 4 years and there is no penalty for being thrifty up front, what is to prevent us from spending $10M (save $115M), $16M (save >$100M again), $30M (etc.), and then $450M (no problem assuming I invested wisely )? It would be like getting an interest-paying loan. If I sell the team in year 3, then the new owner is on the hook for the $450M, right? (This is just a hypothetical, not trying to imply anything that extreme would be wise.)

[Dibs]

Ah, I see. No, I wasn't meaning to link C2C to the "accounting fee", The $4.95 was meant to imply pushing a charge from the previous year. In this thread, the "fee" is Fitzpatrick's contract dead money.

 

So, basically, this was a hypothetical to try and understand the nuances of the earlier pages of back and forth. From your explanation, it simply seems to make no sense why anyone would bother to split dead money across two years inside of a 4 year window. Yet, it was done. The fact that it is even an option seems strange as well, does it not?

 

The fact that it's an option isn't really that strange when you look at how the monies are figured. At the start of the NFL year, the cap figures for all existing contracts are figured and locked in. This then gives a firm figure with which teams can work from/with. Cutting a player therefore will move any unaccounted for cap dollars(signing bonus + future guaranteed money) into the following years cap numbers. The important part is that there is a need to have a firm cap figure entering into a new NFL year.

 

In Fitz's case, there was 10m of unaccounted for cap dollars. We entered the new NFL year(2013) which locked 3m of his SB money into that year.....and then when he was cut, the remaining money(7m) gets accounted for in the following year(2014). Had we cut him in the 2012 year then all $10m would be accounted for in the 2013 year.

 

 

Why split it when it doesn't make any difference due to rollover and won't effect the cap floor? I tend to think....why not?

Since you are going to have the same amount of cap room in the second year regardless of whether you split the dead money or not.....you may as well split it and leave yourself with as much cap room as you can in the first year.

 

I don't know if every team does it or not. I know I'd do it every time. You can have extra cap space now, with no ill effects on future caps. Why wouldn't you do it?

 

There is a bit of a caveat here in regards to whether the rollover can/can't be re-rolled. If rollover can't be re-rolled, then if you are planning on spending into the rollover money, you would likely put all of the dead money into that year to enable a maximum spend of that rollover money(also providing minimum side effects on the following years cap). Aside from that.....why wouldn't you?

Edited January 9, 2014 by Dibs

[Sisyphean Bills]

The fact that it's an option isn't really that strange when you look at how the monies are figured. At the start of the NFL year, the cap figures for all existing contracts are figured and locked in. This then gives a firm figure with which teams can work from/with. Cutting a player therefore will move any unaccounted for cap dollars(signing bonus + future guaranteed money) into the following years cap numbers. The important part is that there is a need to have a firm cap figure entering into a new NFL year.

 

In Fitz's case, there was 10m of unaccounted for cap dollars. We entered the new NFL year(2013) which locked 3m of his SB money into that year.....and then when he was cut, the remaining money(7m) gets accounted for in the following year(2014). Had we cut him in the 2012 year then all $10m would be accounted for in the 2013 year.

 

 

Why split it when it doesn't make any difference due to rollover and won't effect the cap floor? I tend to think....why not?

Since you are going to have the same amount of cap room in the second year regardless of whether you split the dead money or not.....you may as well split it and leave yourself with as much cap room as you can in the first year.

 

I don't know if every team does it or not. I know I'd do it every time. You can have extra cap space now, with no ill effects on future caps. Why wouldn't you do it?

 

There is a bit of a caveat here in regards to whether the rollover can/can't be re-rolled. If rollover can't be re-rolled, then if you are planning on spending into the rollover money, you would likely put all of the dead money into that year to enable a maximum spend of that rollover money(also providing minimum side effects on the following years cap). Aside from that.....why wouldn't you?

If I understand you, the ceiling for year 1 is hard and not a 4 year aggregate. So, deferring half the dead money from year 1 to year 2 has no effect on the floor or the total cap in year 2 (rollover - $5M - $5M == rollover - $10M), but it does maximize the room under the ceiling in year 1.

 

Thanks, Dibs.

[BADOLBILZ]

There is a bit of a caveat here in regards to whether the rollover can/can't be re-rolled. If rollover can't be re-rolled, then if you are planning on spending into the rollover money, you would likely put all of the dead money into that year to enable a maximum spend of that rollover money(also providing minimum side effects on the following years cap). Aside from that.....why wouldn't you?

 

I can sum up this thread:

 

Dibs: The Bills rolled 70%...$7M...of Fitz' dead cap hit into 2014 because they thought they might use all $20M in remaining cap space this season to extend contracts.

 

My take: They may have done it to prevent utilizing any 2012 cap rollover money......which doesn't count against the 4 year 89% cap floor that the Bills may not intend to otherwise spend to.

 

If they had absorbed all of Fitz' cap hit this year that would have left them with just over $11M TOTAL in cap room this season including the 2012 rollover.

 

2012 rollover was just under $10M.

 

So basically, it would have put them just over $1M away from dipping into 2012 cap room.

 

As an educated observer who has watched the Bills routinely at $20M+ under the cap.....with an average operating income of $30M per year........over the last 12 years I tend to believe management hasn't suddenly reversed direction and now doesn't intend to make money in the long run by cutting payroll costs the way they have for the last 12 years.

 

Understand my position......I don't think you have to spend to the cap to win.

 

Teams like the Eagles have repeatedly proven this is not the case.

 

But the problem I have with it is that this team is face down on the mat right now.

 

They shouldn't be reducing their chances to get up by wasting cap space.....in this case 2012 money which I don't believe can...or will be if it possibly can be..... be rolled again......and IMO after 14 years of garbage they owe it to the fans to not waste an asset in their attempt to re-establish themselves as winners.

 

Instead I believe we are just seeing business as usual for the 21st century Bills.

Edited January 11, 2014 by BADOLBEELZ

[808]

a lot of great info here