"Cap League" vs "Cash League"

[CosmicBills]

I'm not sure who (if anyone) watches those multimedia segments on Buffalobills.com, but in the most recent Marv Levy show (after the Raven's game) Jim Overdorf was on explaining where the Bills stand with the cap. He explained that the league has changed from a Cap League to a Cash League and fans should consider that in regards to the Bills' upcoming FA aquisitions.

 

I know this was a huge topic when the new CBA was approved, but I am still a bit in the dark about the difference. I've heard some people say that teams in larger markets will be able to offer more in the way of signing bonuses than the small market clubs -- but doesn't that still count against the cap? If not, moreso?

 

For instance, the Bills have 40+ under the cap this season, second most in the league (I think?) -- why is it assumed that teams with lesser cap room will be bigger players in the FA market if, as Overdorf said on the show, The Bills aim to opperate right at the cap limit each year. To me that means the Bills are going to be spenders.

 

So, what am I missing here? Any cap guru's out there want to explain the difference between a Cash and Cap league?

[Kelly the Dog]

I'm not sure who (if anyone) watches those multimedia segments on Buffalobills.com, but in the most recent Marv Levy show (after the Raven's game) Jim Overdorf was on explaining where the Bills stand with the cap. He explained that the league has changed from a Cap League to a Cash League and fans should consider that in regards to the Bills' upcoming FA aquisitions.

 

I know this was a huge topic when the new CBA was approved, but I am still a bit in the dark about the difference. I've heard some people say that teams in larger markets will be able to offer more in the way of signing bonuses than the small market clubs -- but doesn't that still count against the cap? If not, moreso?

 

For instance, the Bills have 40+ under the cap this season, second most in the league (I think?) -- why is it assumed that teams with lesser cap room will be bigger players in the FA market if, as Overdorf said on the show, The Bills aim to opperate right at the cap limit each year. To me that means the Bills are going to be spenders.

 

So, what am I missing here? Any cap guru's out there want to explain the difference between a Cash and Cap league?

By Cash League I am pretty certain that he is referring simply to signing bonuses as being the major element of a player contract, versus the salary. Like, just for instance, paying a 40 million dollar contract with a $20 million bonus versus a $40 million contract with an $8 million bonus. The cash extended favors the large market teams who are more flush with it. (IMO, this is a bunch of crap, sure it favors them but it doesn't eliminate the small markets from playing with the big boys but that's another thread.) And yes, it all counts against the cap the same way.

 

Players, of course, would rather take the money up front.

 

ANY conversation concerning how much a team has "under the cap" MUST also refer to the number of players under contract they have along with that number, otherwise the number itself is pretty meaningless. If you have 40 million under the cap but 30 players signed versus 40 or 45, the difference is night and day.

[Ramius]

I'm not sure who (if anyone) watches those multimedia segments on Buffalobills.com, but in the most recent Marv Levy show (after the Raven's game) Jim Overdorf was on explaining where the Bills stand with the cap. He explained that the league has changed from a Cap League to a Cash League and fans should consider that in regards to the Bills' upcoming FA aquisitions.

 

I know this was a huge topic when the new CBA was approved, but I am still a bit in the dark about the difference. I've heard some people say that teams in larger markets will be able to offer more in the way of signing bonuses than the small market clubs -- but doesn't that still count against the cap? If not, moreso?

 

For instance, the Bills have 40+ under the cap this season, second most in the league (I think?) -- why is it assumed that teams with lesser cap room will be bigger players in the FA market if, as Overdorf said on the show, The Bills aim to opperate right at the cap limit each year. To me that means the Bills are going to be spenders.

 

So, what am I missing here? Any cap guru's out there want to explain the difference between a Cash and Cap league?

 

My take on the cash vs cap is this:

 

the salary cap expenses for player salaries are basically covered by NFL TV money that is split evenly between the 32 teams. So spending close to the cap isnt a problem salary wise. The bills can afford it. This is the what the cap covers.

 

What the cap does NOT cover, however, is the actual # of dollars spent by a team in a given year in cash. TKO's signing bonus counts against the cap this year, but since he was paid the bonus at the time of signing, he's not getting any of that cash this year, only his salary. So while he may count say 6 mil against the cap, he will only receive 4 mil or so in actual cash payments this season.

 

Its turning into a "cash" league, because the higher revenue teams generate more cash than the lower revenue teams. So even tho both us and washington have the same cap limit, washing has much more cash to spend on signing bonuses. If they generate 100 mil in cash, thats 100 mil then can spend in signing bonuses this season, to clements, freeny, etc. If the bills generate only 25 mil in cash this year, thats 4x less cash we have to give to potential free agents.

 

So snyder can spend 30 mil for a SB for clements, and the bills realistically would NOT be able to match it, because we lack the cash that the redskins have.

 

hope this helps.

[beausox]

I'm not sure who (if anyone) watches those multimedia segments on Buffalobills.com, but in the most recent Marv Levy show (after the Raven's game) Jim Overdorf was on explaining where the Bills stand with the cap. He explained that the league has changed from a Cap League to a Cash League and fans should consider that in regards to the Bills' upcoming FA aquisitions.

 

I know this was a huge topic when the new CBA was approved, but I am still a bit in the dark about the difference. I've heard some people say that teams in larger markets will be able to offer more in the way of signing bonuses than the small market clubs -- but doesn't that still count against the cap? If not, moreso?

 

For instance, the Bills have 40+ under the cap this season, second most in the league (I think?) -- why is it assumed that teams with lesser cap room will be bigger players in the FA market if, as Overdorf said on the show, The Bills aim to opperate right at the cap limit each year. To me that means the Bills are going to be spenders.

 

So, what am I missing here? Any cap guru's out there want to explain the difference between a Cash and Cap league?

 

 

I believe it works like this: The signing bonus is up front money. Say the contract is 50 mil for 10 years. Say 15 mill is paid immediately - that is the up front signing bonus. The player gets that whatever. The remainder - 35 mil- is paid in more or less equal measure over life of contract IF the player is not cut. The 10 mil is amortized over length of contract. I do not believe any NFL player has a "guaranteed" contract

So "rich" teams NYG Dal, Wash et al can outbid small market teams- Cinci, Buff, GB- for available talent. But fear not the grave yard of sports owners is littered with multi-millionaires who squandered resources.

You would think that Ralph would be more con

[stuckincincy]

ANY conversation concerning how much a team has "under the cap" MUST also refer to the number of players under contract they have along with that number, otherwise the number itself is pretty meaningless. If you have 40 million under the cap but 30 players signed versus 40 or 45, the difference is night and day.

 

Very good point, and one to remember...

[CosmicBills]

By Cash League I am pretty certain that he is referring simply to signing bonuses as being the major element of a player contract, versus the salary. Like, just for instance, paying a 40 million dollar contract with a $20 million bonus versus a $40 million contract with an $8 million bonus. The cash extended favors the large market teams who are more flush with it. (IMO, this is a bunch of crap, sure it favors them but it doesn't eliminate the small markets from playing with the big boys but that's another thread.) And yes, it all counts against the cap the same way.

 

Players, of course, would rather take the money up front.

 

ANY conversation concerning how much a team has "under the cap" MUST also refer to the number of players under contract they have along with that number, otherwise the number itself is pretty meaningless. If you have 40 million under the cap but 30 players signed versus 40 or 45, the difference is night and day.

 

Interesting. So then why do you think Nate is out of the Bills' price range? Assuming he wants to come back all things being equal? Or do you?

[CosmicBills]

Its turning into a "cash" league, because the higher revenue teams generate more cash than the lower revenue teams. So even tho both us and washington have the same cap limit, washing has much more cash to spend on signing bonuses. If they generate 100 mil in cash, thats 100 mil then can spend in signing bonuses this season, to clements, freeny, etc. If the bills generate only 25 mil in cash this year, thats 4x less cash we have to give to potential free agents.

 

So snyder can spend 30 mil for a SB for clements, and the bills realistically would NOT be able to match it, because we lack the cash that the redskins have.

 

hope this helps.

 

I understand this -- I think. But here's my question. What's stopping Ralph from using his own money on Signing Bonuses? Other than him not wanting to?

 

For the most part, all these owners are billionares with loads of cash. I know people like to paint Ralph as being stingy (and maybe that's justified), but is there anything preventing him from dipping into his own cash to pay? Or is it in the CBA that the only monies you can use are the ones generated by the organization itself?

[Kelly the Dog]

Interesting. So then why do you think Nate is out of the Bills' price range? Assuming he wants to come back all things being equal? Or do you?

My take on Nate is this: He's going to test the open market, and he'd be a fool not to. He thinks he can get a $20 million bonus from someone, and a 60 million contract, like Champ Bailey did. The Bills, and Ralph, obviously think that is quite expensive, and Ralph has been on record I think saying that he thinks cornerbacks are overpaid for their worth. He isn't out of what they can afford him but he may be out of what they think he is worth, regardless of how good he is.

 

Ralph is also, at this point in time, crying poor to the league so the Bills get favorable standing in these qualifier meetings. It's important he do that even though I think he is lying a little. It will end up good for the Bills. But what he can't do is cry poor AND then spend 20 mil in a bonus for Nate. That would kill him in his quest. So they are in a bit of a quandry. Hopefully those qualifiers will be set up before FA, otherwise I don't count on the Bills signing any big names with large bonuses whether they can afford it or not.

[Kelly the Dog]

I understand this -- I think. But here's my question. What's stopping Ralph from using his own money on Signing Bonuses? Other than him not wanting to?

 

For the most part, all these owners are billionares with loads of cash. I know people like to paint Ralph as being stingy (and maybe that's justified), but is there anything preventing him from dipping into his own cash to pay? Or is it in the CBA that the only monies you can use are the ones generated by the organization itself?

Nothing is stopping him but he won't do it, and no one else will. That said, he very very likely does have the cash to play with the big boys because the team generates a TON of cash before the majority of the expenses need to be paid. Furthermore, there has never been a 20 million dollar bonus (although there will likely be this year) and NO team is going to sign two players to 15-20 million bonuses. So it's not like these teams in the big cities are going to spend 70 million in bonuses. And furtherfurthermore, what you pay out in bonuses this year you make up in all subsequent years. The Redskins have been paying out huge money in bonuses and eating dead money for years but the amount in salary they are paying out each year is that much less than other teams.

[Fan in San Diego]

I still don't see it. Signing bonus still count againts the cap. So if you blow the wad on one player, it counts against the cap and you have less room to sign other players.

[Fan in San Diego]

By the way, when does Free Agency start ?

[Bill from NYC]

Nothing is stopping him but he won't do it, and no one else will. That said, he very very likely does have the cash to play with the big boys because the team generates a TON of cash before the majority of the expenses need to be paid. Furthermore, there has never been a 20 million dollar bonus (although there will likely be this year) and NO team is going to sign two players to 15-20 million bonuses. So it's not like these teams in the big cities are going to spend 70 million in bonuses. And furtherfurthermore, what you pay out in bonuses this year you make up in all subsequent years. The Redskins have been paying out huge money in bonuses and eating dead money for years but the amount in salary they are paying out each year is that much less than other teams.

 

Not saying you are wrong, but how is Brown doing it with the Bengals? He extended Jones and Anderson for HUGE dollars, and I think he just gave 32 million or so to a DE. Is Brown more rich than Ralph? I was never under this impression.

[Kelly the Dog]

I still don't see it. Signing bonus still count againts the cap. So if you blow the wad on one player, it counts against the cap and you have less room to sign other players.

If you sign Nate to a seven year, 70 million dollar deal with a 21 million bonus, it may count only 4-5 mil against the cap this year.

[Kelly the Dog]

Not saying you are wrong, but how is brown doing it with the Bengals? He extended Jones and Anderson for HUGE dollars, and I think he just gave 32 million or so to a DE. Is Brown more rich than Ralph? I was never under this impression.

He's doing it because he can afford it, the same way Ralph can afford it. Ralph just complains that he can't when he can. And the 32 mil was the total on the deal, spread out over 5 years or so. There are a ton of ways around this, like guaranteeing a player 10 mil this year and 10 mil next year. Or doing what the Vikings did with Antoine, giving him a 12 mil first year salary.

[Bill from NYC]

He's doing it because he can afford it, the same way Ralph can afford it. Ralph just complains that he can't when he can. And the 32 mil was the total on the deal, spread out over 5 years or so. There are a ton of ways around this, like guaranteeing a player 10 mil this year and 10 mil next year. Or doing what the Vikings did with Antoine, giving him a 12 mil first year salary.

 

Sure, but add up the bonuses to those 3 and I guarantee it comes to more than 20 million dollars.

 

EDIT: When you are being outspent by the notoriously cheap Paul Brown, maybe it is time to sell the team.

[Kelly the Dog]

Sure, but add up the bonuses to those 3 and I guarantee it comes to more than 20 million dollars.

That's my point. He and Ralph can easily afford that. I only said that no team is going to spend 30-40 million in bonuses on two players (15-20 each) or 70 million in bonuses in one year.

[Ramius]

Sure, but add up the bonuses to those 3 and I guarantee it comes to more than 20 million dollars.

 

he was saying no one has handed out $20 mil to a single player in a one time shot.

 

Even peyton, who has the record for biggest bonus, at 35 mil, was paid in 2 installments of 17.5 mil in each of his first 2 years of the deal.

[Bill from NYC]

he was saying no one has handed out $20 mil to a single player in a one time shot.

 

Even peyton, who has the record for biggest bonus, at 35 mil, was paid in 2 installments of 17.5 mil in each of his first 2 years of the deal.

 

Gotcha, but you know R-Man, many of us are sitting here concerned that Ralph will go for the big bucks on ANY player. It is getting a bit played; know what I mean?

[Ramius]

Gotcha, but you know R-Man, many of us are sitting here concerned that Ralph will go for the big bucks on ANY player. It is getting a bit played; know what I mean?

 

i agree completely. i dont like the tone coming out of OBD on a lot of the cap talks. i know we cant spend cash freely like snyder down in DC, but at some point, you need to pony up some cash and make an attempt to sign (or re-sign in NC's case) a high profile large dollar player. With the cap increases, salaries are going to increase as well, so a lot of salaries that seem high really wont be when you look at the big picture.

[Rubes]

Although it was alluded to earlier, keep in mind that, at least in the past, most of the money in these huge contracts is back-loaded. That means when a player signed a gigantic contract, most of the money was put into salary in the later years of the contract. Since NFL contracts aren't guaranteed, the chances of the player actually seeing that money is slim. The team can either re-work the contract (pushing the money even further into the future), renegotiate the contract anew, or just cut the player and not worry about it.

 

Particularly because of the higher cap, players (or more specifically, their agents) are now trying to seek more guaranteed money (ie, bonus money). I'm not smart enough to really figure out the ramifications of that, though.