Cap to the Cap

[Kelly the Dog]

Is this fact or just your opinion?

 

Going by some unofficial numbers at BillsZone. The Bills have :

 

$46.8 is salaries

$20.1 amortized

$6.8 in other bonuses

$2.4 in what they call dead cap space.

 

Which leaves $32.1 left under the cap.

 

If these numbers are close where is the rookie money accounted for?

Because the Bills are making up words like "cash to the cap", and arbitrarily making up figures that they will spend on certain things. They have already publicly said they have accounted for the rookies monies. The rookies monies in cap dollars will be about 4-5 million, and in actual dollars about 10 million. These are ballpark figures but close. But the cap dollars that the league keeps track of, will be somewhere around the 90-95 million mark, which is above the 85% minimum. And the amount of real dollars the Bills will be spending is 54 (salary and bonus), + 10 (rookies) + 30 free agents = 94 million ballpark.

[JoeF]

In an effort to make things clearer, here was my question to Chris Brown: "In response to your cash to cap explanation, I believe you left out the other side of the amortized bonuses that are hitting the cap in 2007, which I would guess amount to $20m or so. If the Bills are truly going to be using a cash to cap philosophy, that would add $20m to the $30m figure under the cap. If the Bills are truly committed to paying $105m or so in cash to players in 2007, they will have to spend $50m more. Also, is the cap floor (I believe 85.2% in 2007) at all a concern to the Bills front office?"

 

Here's his response: "No the Bills have already factored those other amortized bonuses from previous years, and I didn't want to convolute the explanation. It's difficult enough as it is. Talking to Jim Overdorf, they are not concerned about meeting the minimum requirement for NFL teams to spend.

And no they don't have to spend $50 million more. They are spending $30M at most this year and that's it.

The best way to look at this is ignore the salary cap rules and amortized bonuses and everything and just know that when the Bills reach $30 million in base salary for 2007 and bonuses they will be done signing free agents. Hope that helps."

 

Thanks BR---the only question I have is does the $3 or 4M we will make in tenders to our own RFA's count against the $30M or have they already been accounted for as well...if they are not in there it probably buys us another player. Marv said we would sign between 4 and 5 guys in the RFA/UFA market...that means 1st year money of $6-7 Million per man--that will probably net us some decent players....

[Kelly the Dog]

Thanks BR---the only question I have is does the $3 or 4M we will make in tenders to our own RFA's count against the $30M or have they already been accounted for as well...if they are not in there it probably buys us another player. Marv said we would sign between 4 and 5 guys in the RFA/UFA market...that means 1st year money of $6-7 Million per man--that will probably net us some decent players....

According to Chris Brown it has not been accounted for already and is part of the 30 million. It's my opinion they may not even tender Shaud Williams and Tim Anderson, or else at the very minimum, which is 850,000. But he also said they may mess around with a few contracts to get a couple more million in cash to play with to offset this. IMO they will still pay out close to 30 mil to FA not counting the RFA. And again, we need to replace or re-sign at least 10 positions.

 

http://www.buffalobills.com/news/news.jsp?news_id=4621

[Kelly the Dog]

Except fpr 2 things;

 

1. In the first year, theh base salary would be the minimum allowed under the CBA, not $3 mil.

 

2. It is likely unlikely that the Bills would pay the the entire bonus in year 1. They would guarantee the entire bonus, and maybe have to up to cover the time value of money, but would pay out the cash over 2 years. With a $23 mil contract over 6 years, the Bills would attempt to equalize the cash payments over the life of the contract more than a typical back loaded contract designed solely to maximize current cap space.

He and I were just using the round figures as examples, but yes, you're right, it wouldn't be 3 million each year and closer to 1-2. On the second point, they may indeed do that for some guys although Marv has implied that it won't matter in their arbitrary figuring. If they do as you said, which is possible, and they don't count it in their figuring, which I doubt, we will have several more million to play with. Even without that, we will be able to sign about 5 Larry Tripplett, Robert Royal, Josh Reed kind of players, which would all count 5-6 or so million in their philosophy. But that includes our own guys, too.

[DeLuca1967]

Because the Bills are making up words like "cash to the cap", and arbitrarily making up figures that they will spend on certain things. They have already publicly said they have accounted for the rookies monies. The rookies monies in cap dollars will be about 4-5 million, and in actual dollars about 10 million. These are ballpark figures but close. But the cap dollars that the league keeps track of, will be somewhere around the 90-95 million mark, which is above the 85% minimum. And the amount of real dollars the Bills will be spending is 54 (salary and bonus), + 10 (rookies) + 30 free agents = 94 million ballpark.

 

The league doesn't keep track of the entire $109 salary cap? That doesn't make sense.

 

The BillsZone numbers seem to be accurate. I think you're wrong here. The rookie cap is part of the entire cap figure

of $109 million. The Bills already have $77 of that allocated. Add say $10 million for the rookies and you have $21 million left.

 

Maybe the Bills plan on cutting Spikes and saving the $4.5 in base salary he is due and thats part of their #30 million.

[Kelly the Dog]

The league doesn't keep track of the entire $109 salary cap? That doesn't make sense.

 

The BillsZone numbers seem to be accurate. I think you're wrong here. The rookie cap is part of the entire cap figure

of $109 million. The Bills already have $77 of that allocated. Add say $10 million for the rookies and you have $21 million left.

 

Maybe the Bills plan on cutting Spikes and saving the $4.5 in base salary he is due and thats part of their #30 million.

Apparently, like some people do don't windows, you don't do listening, reading, comprehension, deduction, attention, addition, thought, reason, or cogitation.

 

More specifically, of course the league keeps track of the salary cap numbers, that's what I said they did when I used the words "the cap dollars the league keeps track of". They only worry when you go over or under, neither of which has a chance of happening.

The Billszone numbers are right.

Of course the rookie cap is part of the $109

It doesn't matter how much the Bills have allocated they aren't going to come close to the salary cap number in real dollars, cap dollars, or Delucadollars.

The team already said they allocated money for the rookies, Chris Brown said it, I said it, others said it. You ignored it.

[BuffaloRebound]

He and I were just using the round figures as examples, but yes, you're right, it wouldn't be 3 million each year and closer to 1-2. On the second point, they may indeed do that for some guys although Marv has implied that it won't matter in their arbitrary figuring. If they do as you said, which is possible, and they don't count it in their figuring, which I doubt, we will have several more million to play with. Even without that, we will be able to sign about 5 Larry Tripplett, Robert Royal, Josh Reed kind of players, which would all count 5-6 or so million in their philosophy. But that includes our own guys, too.

 

 

I think you pretty much nailed it. Kelsay (if his price tag doesn't escalate), a starting caliber CB to replace Clements, a starting caliber OG, a backup LB, perhaps another depth OG (if Gandy isn't retained) or depth DT in Free Agency. LB, DT, and RB would be my guess as the Day 1 picks. If Spikes is cut, then perhaps a starting caliber LB is targeted in Free Agency as well. But I don't see the Bills getting any huge names in free agency.

[DeLuca1967]

Apparently, like some people do don't windows, you don't do listening, reading, comprehension, deduction, attention, addition, thought, reason, or cogitation.

 

More specifically, of course the league keeps track of the salary cap numbers, that's what I said they did when I used the words "the cap dollars the league keeps track of". They only worry when you go over or under, neither of which has a chance of happening.

The Billszone numbers are right.

Of course the rookie cap is part of the $109

It doesn't matter how much the Bills have allocated they aren't going to come close to the salary cap number in real dollars, cap dollars, or Delucadollars.

The team already said they allocated money for the rookies, Chris Brown said it, I said it, others said it. You ignored it.

 

And you ignore the question. It's pretty simple so I think you can understand. Where do the rookie dollars come from? So Chris Brown says "the Bills have accounted for". Where are they counting it from? It's coming from the $30 million. Where the Bills stand in regards to the caps floor and limits is meaningless to the conversation.

 

If you don't know just admit it. Hell, if Marv doesn't know and it's his job it's OK that you don't.

[Ramius]

And you ignore the question. It's pretty simple so I think you can understand. Where do the rookie dollars come from? So Chris Brown says "the Bills have accounted for". Where are they counting it from? It's coming from the $30 million. Where the Bills stand in regards to the caps floor and limits is meaningless to the conversation.

 

If you don't know just admit it. Hell, if Marv doesn't know and it's his job it's OK that you don't.

 

 

Its called reading, something you arent too fond of. We'll spend $30 mil total money on free agents. That will bring us no where near the salary cap limit. It means ralph will pay out roughly $90 mil in real money this year, and we'll have used maybe 95 million or so in cap space. The rookies will all easily fit in under the leftover cap space, and ralph will have plenty of cash left over to pay the rooks as well.

[Acantha]

And the amount of real dollars the Bills will be spending is 54 (salary and bonus), + 10 (rookies) + 30 free agents = 94 million ballpark.

I know you're using "ballparks", but where did the ballpark of 54 for salary and bonuses come from? Looking at the numbers he quoted from Billszone, that number would be closer to 75. I know Billszone could be wrong (but are normally fairly accurate for this info), I'm just wondering where all the numbers, including yours, are coming from.

 

EDIT:

 

Trying to re-read all this, I think your 54 number comes from the salaries and "additional bonuses", but leaving off the amortized bonuses since under the new logic those number would have already been accounted for. Is that it?

[Kelly the Dog]

I know you're using "ballparks", but where did the ballpark of 54 for salary and bonuses come from? Looking at the numbers he quoted from Billszone, that number would be closer to 75. I know Billszone could be wrong (but are normally fairly accurate for this info), I'm just wondering where all the numbers, including yours, are coming from.

 

EDIT:

 

Trying to re-read all this, I think your 54 number comes from the salaries and "additional bonuses", but leaving off the amortized bonuses since under the new logic those number would have already been accounted for. Is that it?

Not only already accounted for but already paid, up to 5 years ago. They really are talking about paying out cash, this year. The additional bonuses are being paid in cash this year.

[Kelly the Dog]

And you ignore the question. It's pretty simple so I think you can understand. Where do the rookie dollars come from? So Chris Brown says "the Bills have accounted for". Where are they counting it from? It's coming from the $30 million. Where the Bills stand in regards to the caps floor and limits is meaningless to the conversation.

 

If you don't know just admit it. Hell, if Marv doesn't know and it's his job it's OK that you don't.

Do you even know how to use a checkbook?

 

Look, the Bills take in and make money. They are a business. They have income and expenses. The league controls those expenses, sort of, by this thing called a salary cap. The Bills take in somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 million dollars this year in cash. It comes from the TV contracts, merchandise, ticket sales, luxury boxes, concessions, corporate sponsorships (local and league-wide) etc. That's 200 million coming in to their bank account.

 

They PAY their players and staff and travel (and other expenses). This year, they will PAY, in cash, for the players, approximately 47 mil in player salaries (as of now), 7 mil in bonuses paid this year, 10 mil or so to rookies (which counts all bonuses and first year salary), and 30 mil to FAs (some of our own and some new guys). That's 47 + 7 + 10 + 30 = 94 million. The rookie money isn't "coming from" anywhere, other than their bank account.

[Lurker]

Do you even know how to use a checkbook?

 

Look, the Bills take in and make money. They are a business. They have income and expenses. The league controls those expenses, sort of, by this thing called a salary cap. The Bills take in somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 million dollars this year in cash. It comes from the TV contracts, merchandise, ticket sales, luxury boxes, concessions, corporate sponsorships (local and league-wide) etc. That's 200 million coming in to their bank account.

 

The PAY their players and staff and travel (and other expenses). This year, they will PAY, in cash, for the players, approximately 47 mil in player salaries (as of now), 7 mil in bonuses paid this year, 10 mil or so to rookies (which counts all bonuses and first year salary), and 30 mil to FAs (some of our own and some new guys). That's 47 + 7 + 10 + 30 = 94 million. The rookie money isn't "coming from" anywhere, other than their bank account.

Good explanation.

 

What the Snyder's of the world are doing is akin to tapping their "home equity line" to pay bonuses that can be easily repaid in future years by their sure-to-grow cash flow. RW can't play that game.

[OCinBuffalo]

The rookie money isn't "coming from" anywhere, other than their bank account.

Thanks Kelley for:

 

1. Explaining this so well.

2. Having the patience to explain it so well despite consistent heckling from DeLuca.

 

Unlike him, I can read and comprehend. Overall, this doesn't sound so bad. In fact, it sounds as if it's part of a multiple year plan. Has anyone considered that "cash to cap" this year allows for us to be extremely flexible in 2008? Some might say "big deal" but here's why it is a big deal:

 

1. We have no idea how good our drafted players from last year are. We know they don't suck. But we don't know how good they are. If they show significant progress this year, that tell us to sign FA/draft for position in 2008.

 

2. We don't know where the holes are definitively. Sure there are a few positions that may seem obvious but not many. Due to #1 we really have no idea where our biggest concerns are for the team as a whole. I.E. Will Ellison develop into a pro-bowler or merely a steady contributor. If its the former, then maybe he can eventually play MLB. If its the latter, and Crowell can't do the job as well as we like, then in 2008 we will have the $ and space to go sign a top FA because it will be clear that we need to do that, at that position, right f'in now.

 

3. This last season was a rebuilding year. Yes, but here's what else that means: the core(rotten IMO) of this team was ripped out and replaced. That process will continue this off-season(good). With this new core, we don't know how much holdovers like NC, LF-B, TKO etc. are worth to us. I.E. Anyone who says that loosing Nate/keeping Nate is a definitive recipe for failure/success is simply basing this on a slew of assumptions - not fact. The real fact is we don't know how well this team will work together. I.E. we all hope that the team responds to our values in Western and Central New York: hard work, unselfishness, team concepts, handling your business properly while not at work, etc. But what if they don't? Or worse, what if sudden success next year takes their collective egos for a spin? At that point we will be saying: Thank God we didn't spend guaranteed money on those idiots. Thank God Marv was smart enough not to give away huge paydays with no incentive to perform during the season(a.k.a. Washington Redskins) And most important, Thank God Marv has the flexibility to get new people in here.

 

Or how about this? And this is also an important element: Thank God Marv didn't build in divisions amongst the players between the "haves and the have nots"(a.k.a. Dallas Cowboys). What, if any, team concept did Dallas display last year? I know, they went to the play-offs. NOT hard to do in a conference where teams make it in with 8-8 records, and little Manning at QB, AND, you played an easy(compared to ours) schedule in 2006.

 

So, it's clear that we are in need of flexibility above all things for this year. After this year, when we know more about who can do what, I think that will be the time to drop big bucks on one or two clear, immediate need guys. Let's see how the draft goes as well. I think that by next year at this time, things will make a whole lot more sense.

[Ctown]

Just as we will be spending "Cash to the Cap" (~109 Million), there is also "Cash under the cap" or what the actual salary outlays are for this year. Does anyone have that number? Say for example it is 50 Million, the bills would theroretically have 59 million in cash to pay for new salaries. So if we were to sign clements this year and he gets a 15 million bonus plus say 3 million in salary, that would take our available cash to spend down to 41million. Our actual cap number would be adjusted by some number less that than.

 

I don't think things are as bad as people make them out to be. Sure the bills are not going to spend $150million in salaries, but I believe in the law of diminishing returns, such that the higher amount of money you spend on players, the returns you get decrease as you spend more.

[Kelly the Dog]

Just as we will be spending "Cash to the Cap" (~109 Million), there is also "Cash under the cap" or what the actual salary outlays are for this year. Does anyone have that number? Say for example it is 50 Million, the bills would theroretically have 59 million in cash to pay for new salaries. So if we were to sign clements this year and he gets a 15 million bonus plus say 3 million in salary, that would take our available cash to spend down to 41million. Our actual cap number would be adjusted by some number less that than.

 

I don't think things are as bad as people make them out to be. Sure the bills are not going to spend $150million in salaries, but I believe in the law of diminishing returns, such that the higher amount of money you spend on players, the returns you get decrease as you spend more.

It's a good idea to read the thread you post in.

[Dan]

I don't think things are as bad as people make them out to be. Sure the bills are not going to spend $150million in salaries, but I believe in the law of diminishing returns, such that the higher amount of money you spend on players, the returns you get decrease as you spend more.

Thank you.

 

The problem here is some people want huge contracts given to big name free agents. However, they neglect the fact that Marv has said for years that that's not how he thinks you should build a team. Ralph, of course, supports this approach. So last year, despite everyone's thoughts to the contrary, the Bills were one of the more active clubs in Free Agency. Yet, we were destined to have the worst record in the league. And when that didn't happen, many of these same posters accused the team of doing more harm than good by winning.

 

So, now, before any players are really signed or released; we're once again destined to have the worst record in the league because the Bills aren't signing all the big name free agents that they see on SportsCenter. Forget mortgaging the future, forget worrying about JP, JP and LE contracts a year or so from now, forget all acts of rationality. It's much easier and more fun to just call the ownership and managment of the team names and scream the sky is falling.

 

Now we have a new axe to grind - cash to cap. Most have no idea what that even means; probably never evevn heard of it before the other day (like myself). Yet, rather than try to understand it; its just easier and more fun to assume Ralph is cheap and Marv is old, the sky is falling, and we'll have the worst record in the league all because Marv is spending "Cash to the Cap", whatever that means.

[Acantha]

Now we have a new axe to grind - cash to cap. Most have no idea what that even means; probably never evevn heard of it before the other day (like myself). Yet, rather than try to understand it; its just easier and more fun to assume Ralph is cheap and Marv is old, the sky is falling, and we'll have the worst record in the league all because Marv is spending "Cash to the Cap", whatever that means.

Actually, despite all the arguing...and take away a couple of people, most of the posts about the subject since the press conference have been people trying to get a clear understanding of what exactly cash to the cap means.

[Dan]

Actually, despite all the arguing...and take away a couple of people, most of the posts about the subject since the press conference have been people trying to get a clear understanding of what exactly cash to the cap means.

Agreed. I'm sorry; I didn't mean to imply no one is trying to (or actually does) understand what it means. I was referring to a few people that argue for the sake of arguing and have ignored all the attempts in this thread and others to explain what Marv was talking about.

[Kelly the Dog]

Agreed. I'm sorry; I didn't mean to imply no one is trying to (or actually does) understand what it means. I was referring to a few people that argue for the sake of arguing and have ignored all the attempts in this thread and others to explain what Marv was talking about.

If you weed through the wackos and nonsense it has been explained quite clearly. As the saying goes, it's not rocket surgery. I have been one of the biggest critics of the policy but I don't think the team is doomed at all. And I don't need to see a lot of big names brought in, or money spent foolishly.

 

But this team, any team, is like a house. We happen to have been a fixer-upper. You can spend a lot of foolish money on fixing up your house, like the Redskins, and it makes it no better. In fact, the neighbors laugh at you and it falls apart. But if you think your house is not a LOT better with the home improvement of Nate Clements, one of the top three guards, Drew Bennett, or a few others which the Bills cannot sign because of this unnecessary, self-imposed policy, you're mad.