Can someone explain salary cap?

[walzav29]

I've heard the Bengals are a little over 50 million under the cap. I'm under the impression, that the Bengals will be required to spend 95% . So 114,000,000 is where the Bengals need to go and are at 71,000,000 . Does anyone know the actual numbers? If this is the case (which I doubt) then where will the Bengals spend the money?

I could be wrong on everything. I am no capologist.

[HoosierCat]

I believe the minimum spending requirements are 1. league-wide and 2. measured over several seasons. So it is not the case that individual teams have to each spend to 95% of the cap, but rather that the league has to collectively spend to 95% of the cap over a period of IIRC three years. Since some teams like the Redskins will spend cash over the cap in individual years, other teams can spend less than 95% and the league as a whole will still meet its goal.

That said, I don't think it will end up mattering for the Bengals. They have always preferred pay as you go accounting and always use up most or all of their space simply by refusing to push money into later years. That was why they couldn't get any of Palmer's signing bonus back, because they had written it off early. This has the benefit of freeing up cap space down the road, but declining to play cap games also means they can easily be outbid in free agency.

IMO the real cap story is that it has stopped going up, and that limits the cap games you can play. "Cap jail" appears to have returned. That theoretically would let the Bengals be bigger players since every team will theoretically be more conservative with spending, but we will see how theory stands up to reality in a few weeks.

Anyone heard anything about talks with MJ or Moobs?

[walzav29]

I seen something on twitter that it was fairly certain they would use franchise tag on Smith. How accurate? Don't know. It seems to me under the new salary cap scenario it is of the utmost importance to resign your own free agents along with drafting great.

[combatbengal]

We hav a lt of cap space but we also have a lot of FA that we ned to deal with. A lot of the def side of the ball. I found his info on google, hpe it helps

The salary cap is essentially a set amount of money that each of the NFL's 31 teams is allowed to spend on player salaries for any given year. At first glance, that amount of money may seem a lot. When you factor in an average of 57 players on an NFL roster during the season that amounts to a salary of around $1.18-million per player. Again, a lot of money -- however, each team usually has a few big-money players, like a star quarterback or running back. Let's suppose a team has two star players, each with a salary of $8-million per year. This cuts the cap room to $51.4-million for 55 players, cutting the average salary of the remaining players by $245,000 each.

Because salaries have continued to grow at a rate outpacing the salary cap, teams have found ways to circumvent the cap. Signing bonuses don't count toward a team's cap for a given year. A player who receives a signing bonus gets more money for that year than his recorded "salary," leaving more room in the cap for the other players.

Say, for example, a player wants a seven-year, $60-million contract. Let's say that the owner decides to give that player an $11-million signing bonus, which is all paid out in the first year but gets factored into the cap as prorated over the course of the seven-year contract ($11-million / 7 years = $1.57-million per year). Most NFL contracts are "back-ended" -- most of the base salary is located in the last two or three years of the contract. If we suppose that our player's contract is structured so that he has a base salary of $2-million the first year, with higher base salaries in the final two years of the contract, the $13-million (base salary + signing bonus) paid out in the first year appears as $3.57-million to the cap! The advantage of signing bonuses for the owner is that he now has more money to spend under the cap. This is how the Washington Redskins ran up a total payroll of $92.41-million in the 2000 season when the cap was $67-million. The advantage for the player is that all signing-bonus money is guaranteed to be paid, whereas an NFL contract is not guaranteed.

There are drawbacks to signing bonuses for the owner, however. Because the bonus is guaranteed to the player, if the player is released, traded or waived, all of the bonus money that was being prorated throughout the length of the contract is accelerated to the present year. So, if our team released its star player after the third year of his contract (before June 1) for whatever reason, the entire remainder of the bonus, almost $6.3-million, will have to count toward the cap the next year (if the team releases the player after June 1, only the yearly $1.57-million will count the next year, and the remainder will count the subsequent year).

Some teams have gotten themselves in trouble using signing bonuses, running up huge portions of cap room taken up by players who haven't played for them in several years. With so much less money to spend than their rival teams, they have little chance of fielding a very competitive team for that year, as the best free agents usually go where the money is.

[HoosierCat]

According to reports tonight the cap has bumped up to $123 million, an increase of 1.9%.

[Kazkal]

Well if you ask Hobson were only like 2 million under...

[membengal]

I keep reading this thread title in a Brick Tamland voice.

Can someone explain...lamp?

Can someone explain...rug?

[cincyhokie]

Here's the PFT list of each team's remaining cap space:

/>http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/27/team-by-team-cap-space-as-of-march-26/

Here is an article in Bleacher Report on the Bengals cap room and their plans with it.

/>http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1585070-why-are-the-bengals-saving-all-of-their-cap-space

QUESTION:

If the Bengals claim that they are saving 7-9 million for draft picks, how are the Steelers who are 2.5 over the cap and looking to sign Ahmad Bradshaw, going to be able to sign THEIR draft picks?

Not criticizing, not trying to be negative. Just curious as to how there are team to team discrepancies. Also there seems to be alot of "need to's" and "must's" thrown around when I think there are a myriad of ways to manipulate the cap.

[COB]

True, myriad of ways to manipulate the cap. The Brown/Blackburn Axis of Evil is surely schooled on the myriad of options regarding cap manipulation. But they are not willing to use all those techniques.

Andre Smith should be drawn and quartered.

[TJJackson]

Andre Smith should be drawn and quartered.

I am just about to the point of "plus one" on this topic

sign, or go away

[cincyhokie]

There's a middle ground amongst opinion. By no means am I saying that the Bengals are the root of all that's impure...however, I'm not about to fall into the propaganda mindset of Geoff Hobson.

The Bengals more than likely choose to do their business the way they choose. It provides a narrow window of success if done properly.

But let's not throw around assumptions that "they NEED to save 7-9 million for the rookies" when 1/3 of the league has less than 8-9 million of space. These bulls**t cover-up's are insulting. Just call it what it is....

[HoosierCat]

The Bengals more than likely choose to do their business the way they choose. It provides a narrow window of success if done properly.

That is precisely the case. Yes, they will need cap space to sign rookies...but that won't be needed until July. And between then and now there are many steps that could be taken to create more cap room. Reaching a long term deal with MJ, for example. As for the other favorite element of hobsonization, the injury cushion, yes, they will need some room but not until the fall, by which time roster cuts may have changed the cap picture.

Hobson has defended his approach to reporting the cap numbers as being reflective of how the FO does business. We're being BS'ed as usual, but he's just passing it along, not creating it.

[cincyhokie]

The Bengals more than likely choose to do their business the way they choose. It provides a narrow window of success if done properly.

That is precisely the case. Yes, they will need cap space to sign rookies...but that won't be needed until July. And between then and now there are many steps that could be taken to create more cap room. Reaching a long term deal with MJ, for example. As for the other favorite element of hobsonization, the injury cushion, yes, they will need some room but not until the fall, by which time roster cuts may have changed the cap picture.

Hobson has defended his approach to reporting the cap numbers as being reflective of how the FO does business. We're being BS'ed as usual, but he's just passing it along, not creating it.

Good points. The Bengals have had some off the field and on the field success the past few years. That's good and it warrants the benefit of the doubt...for now.

The Bengals' window is narrow. It'll be interesting when they see their season becoming the "all in" season. I see it as 2015 or later. I think they know damn well this team isn't going anywhere past a division championship the next 2 years.

[HoosierCat]

The Bengals' window is narrow. It'll be interesting when they see their season becoming the "all in" season. I see it as 2015 or later. I think they know damn well this team isn't going anywhere past a division championship the next 2 years.

Maybe. I think a case can be made that it's "all in" time right now. The Bengals have not been this stocked with talent since 2005 (and I think the argument can be made, not since the late 1980s). However, their top-tier talent is starting to come up for renewal and, bottom line, the outlook for holding on to all of it is fraught with peril. This year, while they still have the core under contract and risk at worse losing Moobs, seems to me an ideal time to shoot the moon. But clearly I do not know how hard it is to run an NFL team.

What I fear is that the Bengals' conservative approach results in a talent treadmill; that lose JJ, draft Kirkpatrick is the pattern for the future. The team ends up spinning its wheels, struggling to reach long term deals with talent and deploying an overpriced tag to rent a guy for one more year. And they just never get over the hump.

If they do what they say they want to do, resign Smith, work out a long term deal with MJ, and extend Dunlap and Atkins I will feel MUCH better. But that is a tall order...

[cincyhokie]

The Bengals' window is narrow. It'll be interesting when they see their season becoming the "all in" season. I see it as 2015 or later. I think they know damn well this team isn't going anywhere past a division championship the next 2 years.

Maybe. I think a case can be made that it's "all in" time right now. The Bengals have not been this stocked with talent since 2005 (and I think the argument can be made, not since the late 1980s). However, their top-tier talent is starting to come up for renewal and, bottom line, the outlook for holding on to all of it is fraught with peril. This year, while they still have the core under contract and risk at worse losing Moobs, seems to me an ideal time to shoot the moon. But clearly I do not know how hard it is to run an NFL team.

What I fear is that the Bengals' conservative approach results in a talent treadmill; that lose JJ, draft Kirkpatrick is the pattern for the future. The team ends up spinning its wheels, struggling to reach long term deals with talent and deploying an overpriced tag to rent a guy for one more year. And they just never get over the hump.

If they do what they say they want to do, resign Smith, work out a long term deal with MJ, and extend Dunlap and Atkins I will feel MUCH better. But that is a tall order...

I'm not sold that a team that has no OT, SS, and OLB going into the draft therefore expecting to find 3 starters (if Smith is not resigned), is "all-in".

If it's not time, in their eyes, then it's not their time. That's fine. But as you just mentioned with JJ, let's hope they don't make that mistake again and begin spinning their wheels.

But we all know how hard it is to run an NFL franchise. And we all know that the Bengals take what they are given when it comes to FA, the Draft, and their "plan". They just aren't pro-active. It's all about where the conditions, fortunes, and mis-fortunes "find" them.

They're in a good spot right now. But we shouldn't think for one second that when things go south that it won't be "that's the way the market fell" or "the talent just wasn't where we needed it to be"...or for God's sake..."the ox-cart is in the ditch and it's unfortunate".

[ArmyBengal]

There is a ton of assumption that JJoe not coming back is all on the organization.

If anyone recalls, Zimmer was fired up because he thought it was a done deal with JJoe coming back.

Then he goes to Houston and bitches about not getting free gatorade.

Lets not pretend all of this lies at the feet of the front office.

When a player is a free agent, it's their choice. It doesn't matter how much they offer if a player doesn't want to be here.

Clearly they though they were there with JJoe and he left.

I've made the comment many times that maybe Dre just doesn't want to be here anymore.

There could be a myriad of reasons for that as well, but bottomline is, he doesn't have a reason to do a deal right now.

It's the business of the game and you can't blame a player for what they do in that regard.

No, i'm not happy about how things have gone, but it has more to do with them doing what they said they were going to.

While tagging MJ keeps him here this coming season, it doesn't quite marry up with taking care of their own either.

No extensions either ?? They really need to get on the ball.

[HoosierCat]

Actually I would say that it is all on the front office. Just not the way that is usually meant.

I think everyone gets that the Bengals are not the Redskins or Cowboys or Patriots. They are one of the league's small-market teams and are never going to be able to throw around money that Dan Snyderbrenner can. If they have a good player who gets into free agency and a big-market teams wants them, kiss them goodbye.

So, given the constraints of the maket and their preferred pay-as-you-go accounting, there is only one way to win: hope for a strong run of good drafts (check) then pick a year to go "all in" and make a run at the Lombardi. This is that narrow window hokie mentions. He think they haven't quite hit that window yet. I think they are right in the heart of it. Further I am deeply skeptical of their ability to keep their core guys going forward.

Hopefully I'm wrong and hokie is right.

[cincyhokie]

Actually I would say that it is all on the front office. Just not the way that is usually meant.

I think everyone gets that the Bengals are not the Redskins or Cowboys or Patriots. They are one of the league's small-market teams and are never going to be able to throw around money that Dan Snyderbrenner can. If they have a good player who gets into free agency and a big-market teams wants them, kiss them goodbye.

So, given the constraints of the maket and their preferred pay-as-you-go accounting, there is only one way to win: hope for a strong run of good drafts (check) then pick a year to go "all in" and make a run at the Lombardi. This is that narrow window hokie mentions. He think they haven't quite hit that window yet. I think they are right in the heart of it. Further I am deeply skeptical of their ability to keep their core guys going forward.

Hopefully I'm wrong and hokie is right.

And my theory is contingent on them keeping their core guys, as you mentioned.

[GapControl]

We paid Travelle Wharton quite a bit of money last year. Anyone know how he hits on the cap during his contract? Knowing the bengals history in free agency, seems a little odd they spent so much on an OL who is aging rapidly. Maybe he is affecting their current plans with other signings, extensions, etc...

[ArmyBengal]

If you want to read, here's an arguement for just that:
/>http://www.cincyjungle.com/2013/2/20/4002812/bengals-salary-cap-casualty

[HoosierCat]

Yep, that's exactly what I was talking about upthread. The Bengals are quick to point out how they have to have cap space for future needs, but never mention that they will create it as a byproduct of roster moves. That said I'm in no rush to dump Wharton. Anderson and Allen are junk.

[COB]

A recent Sports Illustrated issue had an article in it that tried to explain why the free agent market has changed so much. It said a lot of teams have decided to quit doing backloaded deals. They instead are going to front loaded deals to stay out of cap hell, and the article cited the Bengals modus operandi as a model for what most of these teams are trying to do. It also said the absence of the Redskins and the Cowboys, who are serving a salary cap penalty this season for trying to shove so much stuff into the uncapped year, is hurting the free agent market.

The article said teams are just flat out shying away from, or refusing to do, mega deals. They cited the 100 million dollar deal the Redskins did for Haynesworth, which turned their cap situation into a trash fire, as a very real lesson many of the clubs are learning. One giant deal can wreck your team, while one player can rarely carry your team.

I can't remember who wrote it, (read it on a plane last week), but the writer said a lot of teams are determining that they'll pay a certain amount for a particular position, and if their player either over performs or under performs, they'll look for a new guy when that player's contract runs out. He used some language to pretty much say, and I'm paraphrasing but it gives the true meaning of what he was writing, that teams have learned a huge dollar player rarely helps your team on a level commensurate with the salary, and that they can just get a guy who plays almost as well for a regular salary, so that is what they're doing.

One factor I think he overlooked but which I think is a huge contributor: The wage scale for first contract players. Free agents aren't just competing with each other and rookies anymore. They are now competing with each other, and with players, who though they may be young, are going to play for a lot, lot less than a high profile veteran. Why pay a big dollar vet when you can get a rookie on a 4 year deal that will cost you a third or a half of what you'd be paying the vet?

There is a sea change in how GMs are looking at the free agent market. In the large picture, the NFL players' union's inability to bare-knuckle it in negotiations (because it's members all want paid like right now and don't have the sand to handle a year, or even a few games, without checks) has finally manifested itself in this very significant shift of power.

[HoosierCat]

That all sounds about right to me. I don't know if the piece pointed it out, but the crux of the matter is the cap is now going up much less each year than it was previously. That allowed teams with lots of ready cash -- meaning lots of unshared revenues -- to stay ahead of cap jail. For these teams the league was already effectively uncapped. The playing field is still not level but it has tilted back toward smaller market squads. One thing to consider is that the league is still full of "old CBA" contracts. Once these pass I expect the big money guys will find ways to push things back in their direction.

I think the lesson about huge dollar players has been apparent for a while. Remember how fans were all wtf? when Kaesvaharn got a fairly respectable deal from NO? Teams have figured out that investing a little more in the middle of the roster has a bigger payoff than just throwing your top dollar guys a few million more.