Good cap article

[MTK]

LINK

Kinda makes you wonder when this "cap hell" is finally going to strike?

[JWsleep]

Wow. $19.2! Wonder if it will get to that? Anyway, we look to be sitting pretty here.

Good post, Matty.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I must confess. I was dead, dead, dead wrong about the cap coming back to haunt us. Danny (or whomever devises the cap strategy) smartly counted on the CBA getting extended to save us in 2006 and his strategy worked.

Hmmmm, this crow sure tastes good.

[That Guy]

I guess my numbers were right then (or pretty close).

the cap wont haunt us cause of good GM choices the last 2 years now. lavar's contract was a HUGE monkey. Letting Pierce and Smoot go also saved tons of money. Smoot was offered a 30mill contract, carlos will be almost half that. That means only brunell, samuels, and wynn have bad price/performance contracts (and they aren't terrible, though still overvalued).

If the teams collectively spend more than the salary cap in a season -- which is possible since the cap is a flexible spending limit -- the cap would be automatically adjusted downward in subsequent seasons. If the teams collectively spend less than the salary cap in a season, the cap would be automatically adjusted upward in the future

anyone got specifics on the new cash over cap thing? if you can adjust your cap up, could you just keep saving till you have like 1billion in cap credits? probably a max and a 1 year carry over, but i can't see how they could have a cap and then let you go over it. i think the whole idea is stupid.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by That Guy

anyone got specifics on the new cash over cap thing? if you can adjust your cap up, could you just keep saving till you have like 1billion in cap credits? probably a max and a 1 year carry over, but i can't see how they could have a cap and then let you go over it. i think the whole idea is stupid.

Sounds to me like they are talking about the league cap number and not individual teams. As in if teams spend greater than 3.264 billion(102 mil times 32 teams) in 2006 then the cap number could be decreased from 109.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

LINK

Kinda makes you wonder when this "cap hell" is finally going to strike?

We're always "going" to be in cap hell down the road with the likes of Pastabelly and his commrades in arms doing the reporting. The best is when they quote "anonymous officials from other teams" who always predict gloom and doom. There were numerous reports that the "Skins might have to field 20 or more rookies" if there was no new CBA. These reports were of course bogus as the Skins we in line to be under the cap by only cutting 5-7 non-starters. Does anyone really believe that the cap guys from other teams (the ones bets suited to understand enough to evaluate cap situations well) spend their time diligently evaluating other teams caps for no good reason? What a crock. Skins = cap geniuses. Not one cap hell has ever occured.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

We're always "going" to be in cap hell down the road with the likes of Pastabelly and his commrades in arms doing the reporting. The best is when they quote "anonymous officials from other teams" who always predict gloom and doom. There were numerous reports that the "Skins might have to field 20 or more rookies" if there was no new CBA. These reports were of course bogus as the Skins we in line to be under the cap by only cutting 5-7 non-starters. Does anyone really believe that the cap guys from other teams (the ones bets suited to understand enough to evaluate cap situations well) spend their time diligently evaluating other teams caps for no good reason? What a crock. Skins = cap geniuses. Not one cap hell has ever occured.

While I agree that the "no CBA/20 Rookies" scenario was overblown, no CBA would have been brutal even with restructuring simply b/c we would have only prorate bonuses over four years and certain bonuses would not have been convertable as they had been in the past. The 5-year bonus proration, the ability to convert certain roster bonuses to proratable signing bonuses, and the removal of the LTBE incentives are huge for the Skins because those are the mechanisms through which Danny and the crew manipulate the cap.

Add these factors to the lower cap and, while it may not have been cap hell, it certainly would have been cap heck. I am not sure who would have been cut and I am glad we will never have to find out b/c there was undoubtedly going to be SOME pain in such a scenario. I mean, c'mon, Gibbs was asking us to pray for a CBA - and he wasn't speaking figuratively. I personally was sacrificing goats and virgins to the football gods (Complete non-sequiter: Are goat virgins a particularly powerful sacrificial item?)

With the CBA, all the old mechanisms click into place and, as long as we make relatively smart moves in who we sign (no Bruce Smith's or Deion's) we will be fine (a couple of Marcus Washington's and a Cornelius Griffin or two with a side of Salave'a please).

Thanks for the link Matty.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I personally was sacrificing goats and virgins to the football gods (Complete non-sequiter: Are goat virgins a particularly powerful sacrificial item?)

Wow - all the way through the morning and into the afternoon and not one follow-up about virginal goats.

Guess I got pwned.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

We're always "going" to be in cap hell down the road with the likes of Pastabelly and his commrades in arms doing the reporting. The best is when they quote "anonymous officials from other teams" who always predict gloom and doom. There were numerous reports that the "Skins might have to field 20 or more rookies" if there was no new CBA. These reports were of course bogus as the Skins we in line to be under the cap by only cutting 5-7 non-starters. Does anyone really believe that the cap guys from other teams (the ones bets suited to understand enough to evaluate cap situations well) spend their time diligently evaluating other teams caps for no good reason? What a crock. Skins = cap geniuses. Not one cap hell has ever occured.

the 20 rookies was totally legit. the skins got 12 guys to redo contracts though to avoid it if the cba died though, but at the time it was correct.

[BigSKINBauer]

is what they say possible? easily possible? Likely going to happen?

[JoeRedskin]

Also, based on the description of the negotiations and the sticking points between the high v. low revenue teams, I was worried that the new CBA would penalize high revenue teams who manipulated the cap - ending the "cash equals cap room" equation that Danny boy plays to the fullest. From the brief description of the "cap over cash" reprucussions in the article, however, it looks to me like excess cash spent by one team will negatively effect the cap for all the teams in the following year. If this is true, the cash = cap scenario just got even more interesting.

Danny spends big, but does so using his usual mechanisms (which other teams seem either unable to grasp or are reluctant to utilize). This creates a huge cash over cap situation in year one. In year two the salary cap plunges, BUT - b/c of the bonus and proration mechanisms incorporated by Danny, the year two cap numbers of the prior year's signing is actually LESS than their original year. Thus, the Skins are sitting pretty with the lower salary cap but other teams are forced to cut players b/c, rather than manipulate the cap, they try to have their cap number reflect actual salary.

So - Danny spends big this year, the Giants are forced to cut players next year. Muhahahahahahaaa

I seriously doubt this is actually possible, but its fun to think about. More importantly, with the new CBA, it looks like cap manipulation is going to be even more important as salary bonuses will eventually be limited to a 5 year proration rather than the current 7. Equally important, it looks like the benefit the Skins derive from Danny's ability and willingness to spend "cash over cap" will still exist.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Also, based on the description of the negotiations and the sticking points between the high v. low revenue teams, I was worried that the new CBA would penalize high revenue teams who manipulated the cap - ending the "cash equals cap room" equation that Danny boy plays to the fullest. From the brief description of the "cap over cash" reprucussions in the article, however, it looks to me like excess cash spent by one team will negatively effect the cap for all the teams in the following year. If this is true, the cash = cap scenario just got even more interesting.

Danny spends big, but does so using his usual mechanisms (which other teams seem either unable to grasp or are reluctant to utilize). This creates a huge cash over cap situation in year one. In year two the salary cap plunges, BUT - b/c of the bonus and proration mechanisms incorporated by Danny, the year two cap numbers of the prior year's signing is actually LESS than their original year. Thus, the Skins are sitting pretty with the lower salary cap but other teams are forced to cut players b/c, rather than manipulate the cap, they try to have their cap number reflect actual salary.

So - Danny spends big this year, the Giants are forced to cut players next year. Muhahahahahahaaa

I seriously doubt this is actually possible, but its fun to think about. More importantly, with the new CBA, it looks like cap manipulation is going to be even more important as salary bonuses will eventually be limited to a 5 year proration rather than the current 7. Equally important, it looks like the benefit the Skins derive from Danny's ability and willingness to spend "cash over cap" will still exist.

danny's spending over cap divided by 32 = not much change. some teams stay under the cap by 10-20mill, which raises the cap. If that's how it works, everything probably cancels out or changes the cap by less than 1-2% which isn't a big deal.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Also, based on the description of the negotiations and the sticking points between the high v. low revenue teams, I was worried that the new CBA would penalize high revenue teams who manipulated the cap - ending the "cash equals cap room" equation that Danny boy plays to the fullest. From the brief description of the "cap over cash" reprucussions in the article, however, it looks to me like excess cash spent by one team will negatively effect the cap for all the teams in the following year. If this is true, the cash = cap scenario just got even more interesting.

Danny spends big, but does so using his usual mechanisms (which other teams seem either unable to grasp or are reluctant to utilize). This creates a huge cash over cap situation in year one. In year two the salary cap plunges, BUT - b/c of the bonus and proration mechanisms incorporated by Danny, the year two cap numbers of the prior year's signing is actually LESS than their original year. Thus, the Skins are sitting pretty with the lower salary cap but other teams are forced to cut players b/c, rather than manipulate the cap, they try to have their cap number reflect actual salary.

So - Danny spends big this year, the Giants are forced to cut players next year. Muhahahahahahaaa

I seriously doubt this is actually possible, but its fun to think about. More importantly, with the new CBA, it looks like cap manipulation is going to be even more important as salary bonuses will eventually be limited to a 5 year proration rather than the current 7. Equally important, it looks like the benefit the Skins derive from Danny's ability and willingness to spend "cash over cap" will still exist.

I think that the high revenue teams agreed on some of the profitt sharing to get some of the things they wanted with the cap issues. Both sides gave a little and it is now looking pretty good for us.