bills_fan Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 I have a question here... Every year, at least recently, Minnesota has been about 30 mil under the salary cap. Apparently this happens for two reasons. (1) Minnesota builds difficult to reach incentives into contracts, counting them against their cap as "likely-to-be-earned" and when they are not reached, the team receives a cap credit the following year. And (2) They do not backload contracts, thereby eliminating the need to restructure. Here is an article documenting the procedure... http://www.startribune.com/stories/510/4892214.html In essence, Minnesota operates with virtually no cap, as the team is always so far under they are able to operate based on cash on hand. They can aquire any player they can legitimately afford. My question is, why aren't we doing this, and what, if anything, is the downside?
Alaska Darin Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 I have a question here... Every year, at least recently, Minnesota has been about 30 mil under the salary cap. Apparently this happens for two reasons. (1) Minnesota builds difficult to reach incentives into contracts, counting them against their cap as "likely-to-be-earned" and when they are not reached, the team receives a cap credit the following year. And (2) They do not backload contracts, thereby eliminating the need to restructure. Here is an article documenting the procedure... http://www.startribune.com/stories/510/4892214.html In essence, Minnesota operates with virtually no cap, as the team is always so far under they are able to operate based on cash on hand. They can aquire any player they can legitimately afford. My question is, why aren't we doing this, and what, if anything, is the downside? 274082[/snapback] I don't know what the downsides are, but the Eagles do pretty much the same thing. It's one of the interesting dilemmas in this whole thing.
scribo Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 I think the thing here is that if they have $20 million extra this year, then they played down $20 million last year. That, to me, means a team playing this strategy figures to tank big time season 1 and then kill everyone the next. Tank for a few years in a row and, yes, you too could build a dream team. The big gamble with this here is not unlike the one the Deadskins have untaken over the past few years – spend a lot now in hopes of winning now and pay the piper later. The Deadskins are a very good example of why this isn’t a good idea. I say keep on keeping on – building.
Fezmid Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 The main thing the Vikes do is give roster bonuses instead of signing bonuses. A signing bonus runs is divided over the length of a contract (ie: 5 year contract with a $5 million signing bonus means that $1 million of the bonus goes against the cap per year). The Vikes give roster bonuses instead, so all $5 million counts at once, but then they're clear. The downside, as stated, is that you need a LOT of cap room initially. CW
a player to be named later Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 That explains why A. Winfield last year was the highest paid corner in the league at over 10 million. I thought it had something to do with them putting all the bonus that count against the cap into the first year. OUT
d_wag Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 I have a question here... Every year, at least recently, Minnesota has been about 30 mil under the salary cap. Apparently this happens for two reasons. (1) Minnesota builds difficult to reach incentives into contracts, counting them against their cap as "likely-to-be-earned" and when they are not reached, the team receives a cap credit the following year. And (2) They do not backload contracts, thereby eliminating the need to restructure. Here is an article documenting the procedure... http://www.startribune.com/stories/510/4892214.html In essence, Minnesota operates with virtually no cap, as the team is always so far under they are able to operate based on cash on hand. They can aquire any player they can legitimately afford. My question is, why aren't we doing this, and what, if anything, is the downside? 274082[/snapback] the bottom line is that the cap room they carried forward into '05 was on their books for '04.......so that means they could have not included these types of bonuses in their cap structure and instead they could have added more talent and used up more of their cap dollars, leaving little/no money for these types of incentives......... i would rather see a team up against the cap every year then a team that isn't spending up to it's cap limits......but minny did make the best of their situation which has allowed them to deal moss and absorb his dead cap money while still being a major player in free agency.......
obie_wan Posted March 14, 2005 Posted March 14, 2005 The Vikings have cap room due to the very simple fact that Red McCombs is a cheap bastard and has been positioning to sell the team for a few years. He has spent money no-where near the cap on players (or coaches-for that matter) in order to make the finances as entircing as possible to a new owner - cap room to spend with no dead money in the future) Their defense has been horrible for years and they have not spent the money to improve it. That would go over real well in Buffalo. Teflon Tom was able to use up the Bills cap room by giving the excess to Drew last year.
bills_fan Posted March 14, 2005 Author Posted March 14, 2005 Their defense has been horrible for years and they have not spent the money to improve it. They have the past 2 years spent cash to improve it. Think about it. They now have Phat Pat and Kevin Williams at DT, Udeze at one DE, Napolean Harris at LB, A. Winfield, Smoot & Sharper in the 2ndary, and 2 1st rd picks. These are only the players they brought in the last 2 years (thru draft or FA). They can basically have any player they want. Now I know that McCombs is cheap & positioning to sell the team, but I think they are doing something with accounting of incentives and bonuses that ensures oodles of cap room for years to come (regardless of what they spend). Why can't we do that?
obie_wan Posted March 15, 2005 Posted March 15, 2005 They have the past 2 years spent cash to improve it. Think about it. They now have Phat Pat and Kevin Williams at DT, Udeze at one DE, Napolean Harris at LB, A. Winfield, Smoot & Sharper in the 2ndary, and 2 1st rd picks. These are only the players they brought in the last 2 years (thru draft or FA). They can basically have any player they want. Now I know that McCombs is cheap & positioning to sell the team, but I think they are doing something with accounting of incentives and bonuses that ensures oodles of cap room for years to come (regardless of what they spend). Why can't we do that? 274229[/snapback] they are able to use their "accounting trickery" of not amortizing bonuses because they have an enormous amount of cap space since they have paid their players for many years. If the cap is 60 mil and they only spend 45 mil, then they have losts of cap space. The only thing creative the Vikes have done is to utilize some unlikely to earned bonus designations to carry forward the excess to future years.
dundy249 Posted March 15, 2005 Posted March 15, 2005 They have the past 2 years spent cash to improve it. Think about it. They now have Phat Pat and Kevin Williams at DT, Udeze at one DE, Napolean Harris at LB, A. Winfield, Smoot & Sharper in the 2ndary, and 2 1st rd picks. These are only the players they brought in the last 2 years (thru draft or FA). They can basically have any player they want. Now I know that McCombs is cheap & positioning to sell the team, but I think they are doing something with accounting of incentives and bonuses that ensures oodles of cap room for years to come (regardless of what they spend). Why can't we do that? 274229[/snapback] All this and I bet you they do not make it out of the first round of the playoffs still.. Lets see what Stinkpepper does without moss..we saw it last year they do not play the same without him
Recommended Posts