Is Cash to Cap even WORSE than I thought???

[patmoran2006]

IN a thread about Langston Walker, "Night Train" said this. I'm not saying that he's accurate or wrong, I'm just quoting what he said. I started this thread because the other was about Langston Walker but strayed into a whole other more important topic after reading it.
===========================================================

His pay really isn't that extreme.

His base salary in 2007 is 1 Mil, with another 2 Mil in bonuses this year. He's due more in guaranteed $$ but much of his contract is backloaded in the last 2 years, meaning it's a 3 year deal at about half the published figure. He'll never see those larger bonuses and salaries in year 4.

Dockerys' contract is in reality 4 years. Prior to year 5, a large bonus in the spring is due,followed by 3 years of a very high base salary. He'll never see it.

These published figures are only impressive to the agents seeking clients. The players rarely, if ever, see the entire completion of these backloaded contracts.
========================================================
To that, I replied this.
IF his base pay is only $1 million this year with another $2 million in bonuses, then why is his Cash to Cap figure $7 million for 2007?

And I'm not accusing this, I am ASKING you this question. If Dockery is basically a four-year deal and you're saying he wont see the final few years of his contract, are you telling me we will count him $13.5 million against our Cash to Cap this year, and that he will STILL get cut after four years anyway?

If that's what your saying, then it makes the Cash to Cap even MORE DUMB and Discraceful than I thought before. That would mean we're HEAVILY penalizing our cash to salary cap upfront, and then we STILL will be cutting guys later on because they're contract is still backloaded?

How is the contract backloaded when all the guarentees and signing bonus goes into our salary cap UPFRONT?
========================================================
I ask this, because I am no contract expert and on occasion get confused about the Cash to Caponomics.

But isn't the Cash to Cap designed for us to pay ALL of the guarentees and bonuses UPFRONT? That puts a huge dent into our cap the first 1-2 years but in the later years of 5-6 year deals shouldnt the player be playing for just his BASE salary after getting everything else up front?

OR..

Is this a DOUBLE whammy/**** job to the fans of the Bills? Like say with Dockery, are we COUNTING all his guarentees/bonuses up front against our cap, but still PAYING Him his bonuses spread out over the cap, making what we have to pay him in year 5 the same as any other team in a regular salary cap?

To be more specific... Hypothetically in year five Dockery's cash to cap figure is only $3.5 million. But we still owe him another $5 million in bonuses, so we cut him becuase we'd actually have to pay him $8.5 million-- even though his entire bonus went up front in year one of cash to cap?

The latter BETTER not be true, because IF it is, then Ralph Wilson is even a bigger, cheaper ******* than I thought he was.

Someone please correct me and tell me that Dockery's "Cash to Cap" number this year is $13.5 million and that's he's ALSO getting PAID $13.5 million this year; not just his 2007 base salary + 1/7th (7 year deal) of his bonuses and guarentees this year. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[patmoran2006]

I"ll cite Nate Clements as a prime example for my question.

SF gave him $22 million in guarentees and bonuses. He signed an eight year contract. So SF spreads that out over 8 years. SO his cap figure in SF is his base salary + 1/8 of his bonus, no?

Lets say Buffalo had signed Clements for math sake to the exact same deal.
Their cash to cap policy is to ammortize it upfront. So that means in year one Clements would count his bonus/guarentee plus 2007 base up front, no? His cash to cap for 2007 with Buffalo would be over $22 million?

Having said that, is that a number that GOES on the Bills books for 2007, or are they actually PAYING clements that money upfront?

If they're NOT paying that upfront. In year 3-4 or whatever, they're STILL (buffalo) going to cut Clements because he's due such a large roster bonus; even though he went on the Cash to Cap books for all that money upfront???

[The Spaz]

We're doomed again...

[patmoran2006]

Good answer.

Would you like to address the specific QUESTION?

[The Spaz]

Good answer.

Would you like to address the specific QUESTION?

Would you like to post other than the same old ****?

[Mr. Pink]

This is a very legitimate question...at least in my opinion.

And it hasn't been posted before, nor answered.

[patmoran2006]

I"ve been under the assumption that if Dockery's cash to cap figure is $13.5 million for this year, its because he got paid his ENTIRE signing bonus and guarentees up front.. ****in up our salary cap in the short term and making it more cap friendly on the back end since the money has already been paid out.

But if its only going against Cash to Cap in THEORY and his bonuses are still being spread out, we cut him anyway because he's too expensive to pay in year 5, yet he STILL put a ridiculous dent in our 2007 cap anyway.

[The Spaz]

This is a very legitimate question...at least in my opinion.

And it hasn't been posted before, nor answered.

The title says is it worse than he thought which means he has wrote about it before. He makes threads that are the same but just switches it up a little and makes a big debate over the samething.

[gr8slayer]

The title says is it worse than he thought which means he has wrote about it before. He makes threads that are the same but just switches it up a little and makes a big debate over the samething.
Damn those wannabe journalists.

[patmoran2006]

The title says is it worse than he thought which means he has wrote about it before. He makes threads that are the same but just switches it up a little and makes a big debate over the samething.
IF I say its "worse than before" (and by the way I didn't claim that, I asked a question in the title)

That means I wrote about Cash to Cap before yes---- but things that Night Train brought to my attention have obviously not been.

[Mr. Pink]

The title says is it worse than he thought which means he has wrote about it before. He makes threads that are the same but just switches it up a little and makes a big debate over the samething.


Yes and no on this to an extent. After reading this though, I'm curious as to if even though Dockery counts as 13.5 against the cap now...and he's really only being a paid a third of that. It does make the cash to cap theory sound extremely flawed if it does indeed work out that way.

[Philagape]

A few weeks ago I wondered if the NFL recognizes cash to cap. I couldn't find an answer anywhere, and some here told me it does, but I just had to take their word for it.

It would not surprise me in the least if that were not the case, that cash to cap has absolutely nothing to do with future cap room and is just a convenient rationalization for tightwad spending. Not in the least.

[patmoran2006]

LOL.
How hommerific.

Legitmate question, legitmate discussion.

And mudslinging answers. Keep going, you are proving what your contributions to discussions are worth more with each post.

Again, I'd like someone with some actual knowledge to discuss the topic. Im sure as I sift through the Homer personal attacks-- there has to be a person or two to add some actual insight.

[Philagape]

Yes and no on this to an extent. After reading this though, I'm curious as to if even though Dockery counts as 13.5 against the cap now...and he's really only being a paid a third of that. It does make the cash to cap theory sound extremely flawed if it does indeed work out that way.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't. As far as the NFL is concerned, we still have a lot of room under the cap. I still have yet to see a definitive answer as to whether the NFL recognizes cash to cap in any way. All I've seen is a few here saying it does, with no proof.

[patmoran2006]

A few weeks ago I wondered if the NFL recognizes cash to cap. I couldn't find an answer anywhere, and some here told me it does, but I just had to take their word for it.

It would not surprise me in the least if that were not the case, that cash to cap has absolutely nothing to do with future cap room and is just a convenient rationalization for tightwad spending. Not in the least.
that is EXACTLY what I am asking the board, and what I am trying to find out for myself.

Is the Cash to Cap serve to actually pay our signess exactly what their cash to cap figure for that year is.. Or is everything STILL spread out just as it is with every other team; which in the process only accomplishes the feat of more quickly tying up our cap than anyone else.

[Michael82]

I don't know why everybody is *****ing about the cash to the cap thing. Do you really believe that Ralph will stick to this when they finally get close? I don't! I think that this is just getting used now to get the team to save some money for when the team is ready to move to the next step. Look at the 49ers as one of the biggest examples. They did the same kind of thing a few years ago and now that they finally got something going...they spent a ton of money to help push their team to the next level.

[Dr. Lecter]

My understanding is this:

Cash to cap is way to count all money in the present and not use the "credit Card" that often gets teams into problems in the future. You elect to count all money given to a player in the calendar year against the cap, including bonus's and base salary. You do not spread the bonus out.

If the Bills keep using Cash to cap (which they might not since there is a new revenue sharing deal), they if there a big bonus due in 2012 (or whenever) than that bonus will count against the cash to cap in that year. However, many of these deals just have large base salaries in those years. From what I have seen of the Bills contracts, they have most of the bonus this year, and the salaries are not as big in terms of escalating as other teams do because the Bills are not spreading the bonus amount out.

Now, let's return to panicing about other areas.

[patmoran2006]

My understanding is this:

Cash to cap is way to count all money in the present and not use the "credit Card" that often gets teams into problems in the future. You elect to count all money given to a player in the calendar year against the cap, including bonus's and base salary. You do not spread the bonus out.

If the Bills keep using Cash to cap (which they might not since there is a new revenue sharing deal), they if there a big bonus due in 2012 (or whenever) than that bonus will count against the cash to cap in that year. However, many of these deals just have large base salaries in those years. From what I have seen of the Bills contracts, they have most of the bonus this year, and the salaries are not as big in terms of escalating as other teams do because the Bills are not spreading the bonus amount out.

Now, let's return to panicing about other areas.
Excellent post.
Now let me respectfully rebuttle.

It is like having a credit card.. But IF I am right about how they're paying this money out (and I never said I was, I asked and said I 'think' I am)-- then its like having a credit card but with no intention of paying off your debt.

If Cash to Cap is done the right way and the way I originally thought it was-- the Bills dont have "Credit Card" but a "Debit Card"-- when they sign a guy like Dockery-- they are using the Debit Card to pay all the upfront money now, which in turn naturally counts against our "Cash to Cap".

So is that the case? Are they using the Debit Card to pay up all this money that counts NOW against Cash To Cap? OR... are they imploding our salary cap with UPFRONT numbers (Dockery $13.5 million) but then STILL spreading out things evenly over the length of the contract as the other 31 teams do as well? Which of course leads to cuts near the latter years of contracts.

If so, it's absolutely dispicible.

[patmoran2006]

I don't know why everybody is *****ing about the cash to the cap thing. Do you really believe that Ralph will stick to this when they finally get close? I don't! I think that this is just getting used now to get the team to save some money for when the team is ready to move to the next step. Look at the 49ers as one of the biggest examples. They did the same kind of thing a few years ago and now that they finally got something going...they spent a ton of money to help push their team to the next level.
Cash to Cap isn't a football personnel thing. It's an ECONOMIC thing.

By his very own words, WIlson uses Cash to Cap as the only method that Buffalo can be "economically viable" in WNY.

[Dr. Lecter]

I think the purpose of cash to cap is so they have a relatively large amount of cap space each year. There is no,or little dead space in the cap and so the cap is not clogged by bonus money given to players. It also, in theory, eliminates the need for renegotiation like the Pats did this year with Brady, as that stuff kills you down the road.

It also allows them to cut a player like Walker or Dockery if they are a bust or when they decline w/o the cap hit that they got from trading Spikes.

[mikemac2001]

PAt its like having a dollar and buying a candy bar.... Jp losman is our snickers try to enjoy it but just remember its a snickers bar

[Dr. Lecter]

Cash to Cap isn't a football personnel thing. It's an ECONOMIC thing.

By his very own words, WIlson uses Cash to Cap as the only method that Buffalo can be "economically viable" in WNY.

That was before the new revenue sharing too. It might change, it might not.

[Philagape]

Do you really believe that Ralph will stick to this when they finally get close?

In a second

I really believe the base reason for cash to cap is the NFL has become too expensive for this market.

[Michael82]

Cash to Cap isn't a football personnel thing. It's an ECONOMIC thing.

By his very own words, WIlson uses Cash to Cap as the only method that Buffalo can be "economically viable" in WNY.
Cash to the cap was also before the NFL finally came up with revenue sharing agreement. I wouldn't be surprised if they loosen it a bit yesterday.

[Michael82]

I think the purpose of cash to cap is so they have a relatively large amount of cap space each year. There is no,or little dead space in the cap and so the cap is not clogged by bonus money given to players. It also, in theory, eliminates the need for renegotiation like the Pats did this year with Brady, as that stuff kills you down the road.

It also allows them to cut a player like Walker or Dockery if they are a bust or when they decline w/o the cap hit that they got from trading Spikes.
Excellent post! :bf1:

[patmoran2006]

I think the purpose of cash to cap is so they have a relatively large amount of cap space each year. There is no,or little dead space in the cap and so the cap is not clogged by bonus money given to players. It also, in theory, eliminates the need for renegotiation like the Pats did this year with Brady, as that stuff kills you down the road.

It also allows them to cut a player like Walker or Dockery if they are a bust or when they decline w/o the cap hit that they got from trading Spikes.
That post makes me CLOSER to understanding what you're saying.

Not having a ton of dead cap space is obviously a positive of it.

However- having dead cap space doesnt begin IMO to make up for the enormous dents put in the cap upfront by signings.

TWO FA's this year alone counted over $25 million in cash to cap. That doesnt begin to make up for the dead cap space they may leave later on should they be cut. By the way, the type of players we're signing shouldnt be cut at any point. We are signing guys in their 20's, not vets in their 30's with maybe 2 good years left.

and my biggest problem (If I am correct in theory, I dunno) is that we're putting such a huge dent in our year to year cap with each signing, yet still spreading out things over the length of the contract? Which would mean they're going to get cut on the backend anyway-- and Im' going by Night Train's statement here.

[Ickybaluky]

By adhering to their self-imposed "Cash to Cap" rules, the Bills will have a lot of leftover cap room at the end of the year. The question is what do they do with it.

In the NFL, everyone has the same cap and the same rules to account for how salaries (of all types) are accounted for. These accounting rules allow bonus money paid in advance to be amortized into future years for accounting against the cap. The Bills will always be far under the cap, because they are only going to spend up to the actual cap. The NFL will account for any pre-paid bonus money in the same manner as other teams, so the Bills will have extra room because they will stop spending when actual cash reaches the cap.

The "credit card" approach (to use Dr. Lecter's term) means teams pay large signing bonus money and spread that into the future, lowering the cap number early in the contract. This allows them to spend over the actual cap number in terms of cash spent, but only in the short term.

However, in the long-run, all teams spend to the cap. Any team that uses the "credit card", will have to account for that pre-paid money in future years. Even if they cut players, any of the pre-paid money is going to accelerate and hit their cap in that year. There is no way around that. Teams that heavily leveraged themselves in bonus money end up charging off the cost later, like the Titans did the last couple years and the 49ers did several years ago.

If the Bills are going to limit themselves to the self-imposed "cash-to-cap", they will end up the year with a comfortable excess against the cap. Teams will use the LTBE incentive accounting rules to carry that cap space over into the following cap year. The question I ask is, will the Bills do that? Or, will they just let that cap space be lost forever and start over the following season?

If they don't carry over the space, the Bills will in effect be forcing themselves to operate at a lower number than the rest of the NFL. If they do carry it over, they will be on the same plane as everyone else. It is just that instead of using a "credit card" approach, they will be banking cap room for the future.

[Dr. Lecter]

I think it depends on what you are bulding for. The Patriots, for example, added a ton to make a big run this year. But what they did, is damage their longterm ability to add and maybe even keep players.

Whereas the Bills plan allows for more longterm building and the ability to add guys each year.

Look at Kelsay: His 8 million counting this year saves 2 million each of the next 3 seasons. Dockery allows us to save ~3 million each year over the next 4 or so seasons.

There is 5 million right there.

I am not sure if this a a good approach or not. But I do like the fact that each year the Bills can be buyers for 2-3 players or be able to extend an Evans or Losman early without cap issues.

Sticking all of Lynch's and Poz's money into this year will be sweet, when the Bills can plug the holes on offense next year with a #2 WR, a TE and the such between the draft and FA.
With a young defense, a half young offense and space next year I still like the long term outlook of the team.

[Philagape]

In the NFL, everyone has the same cap and the same rules to account for how salaries (of all types) are accounted for. These accounting rules allow bonus money paid in advance to be amortized into future years for accounting against the cap. The Bills will always be far under the cap, because they are only going to spend up to the actual cap. The NFL will account for any pre-paid bonus money in the same manner as other teams, so the Bills will have extra room because they will stop spending when actual cash reaches the cap.

So if I understand correctly, a bonus under cash to cap counts in its entirety against the teams' budget for that one year, AND spread out against the official NFL salary cap in future seasons. The same money counting against us twice. Is that correct?

[patmoran2006]

By adhering to their self-imposed "Cash to Cap" rules, the Bills will have a lot of leftover cap room at the end of the year. The question is what do they do with it.

In the NFL, everyone has the same cap and the same rules to account for how salaries (of all types) are accounted for. These accounting rules allow bonus money paid in advance to be amortized into future years for accounting against the cap. The Bills will always be far under the cap, because they are only going to spend up to the actual cap. The NFL will account for any pre-paid bonus money in the same manner as other teams, so the Bills will have extra room because they will stop spending when actual cash reaches the cap.

The "credit card" approach (to use Dr. Lecter's term) means teams pay large signing bonus money and spread that into the future, lowering the cap number early in the contract. This allows them to spend over the actual cap number in terms of cash spent, but only in the short term.

However, in the long-run, all teams spend to the cap. Any team that uses the "credit card", will have to account for that pre-paid money in future years. Even if they cut players, any of the pre-paid money is going to accelerate and hit their cap in that year. There is no way around that. Teams that heavily leveraged themselves in bonus money end up charging off the cost later, like the Titans did the last couple years and the 49ers did several years ago.

If the Bills are going to limit themselves to the self-imposed "cash-to-cap", they will end up the year with a comfortable excess against the cap. Teams will use the LTBE incentive accounting rules to carry that cap space over into the following cap year. The question I ask is, will the Bills do that? Or, will they just let that cap space be lost forever and start over the following season?

If they don't carry over the space, the Bills will in effect be forcing themselves to operate at a lower number than the rest of the NFL. If they do carry it over, they will be on the same plane as everyone else. It is just that instead of using a "credit card" approach, they will be banking cap room for the future.
Excellent, informative post.

So by what you're saying it comes down to Buffalo will have a very large salary cap figure next year, IF they decide to carry it over and then spend up to it.

[patmoran2006]

So if I understand correctly, a bonus under cash to cap counts in its entirety against the teams' budget for that one year, AND spread out against the official NFL salary cap in future seasons. The same money counting against us twice. Is that correct?
Im interested in that answer as well. It's one of the main things I've been looking for.

[Ickybaluky]

I think it depends on what you are bulding for. The Patriots, for example, added a ton to make a big run this year. But what they did, is damage their longterm ability to add and maybe even keep players.

I disagree with this. First of all the Patriots had an extra $2.5M in cap room this year because they carried it over from the year prior using the LTBE adjustment. Secondly, when you examine the Pats contracts nothing they only spent big money on one player with long-term ramifications: Adalius Thomas. Many of the players they signed are short-term deals.

The Pats are in good cap shape, both for the present and long-term. All of the Pats players paid big bonus monies are worth it, they are good players who will play to a high level. This allows them to manage their cap well, because the players they have are a good values for their performance. You get in cap trouble by overpaying players, where you aren't getting the performance to match the cap impact.

The only real difference between the Pats cap situation and the Bills is that Buffalo is not paying franchise QB-type money to Losman like the Pats are to Brady. However, you can keep your extra cap room, I'll take the QB.

[Philagape]

Whereas the Bills plan allows for more longterm building and the ability to add guys each year.

Can there be such a thing as long-term building in today's NFL? Players change teams so frequently that a team doesn't have time to build something without either losing players or having to re-sign them.


I am not sure if this a a good approach or not. But I do like the fact that each year the Bills can be buyers for 2-3 players or be able to extend an Evans or Losman early without cap issues.

In most years, those 2-3 additions will need to replace departed players. And in some years, those players we'll be "buyers" for are our own, like Kelsay this year.

2008 is the exception, when the stars align so we won't lose anyone. I think it's 2008 or never.

[G. Host]

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
IN a ...
It is impossible for anything about the Bills to be even WORSE than I (the poster formerly known as Neg Nancy) thought since you think the absolutely worst about everything.

[Ickybaluky]

So if I understand correctly, a bonus under cash to cap counts in its entirety against the teams' budget for that one year, AND spread out against the official NFL salary cap in future seasons. The same money counting against us twice. Is that correct?

It only counts once as far as the NFL is concerned. The Bills count it against the current year as well when they apply "cash-to-cap". That is why they finish the year far under the cap.

The question is, what do they do with that? If they don't carry it over then it is lost, and you can say it will be "counted twice". That cap space is lost.

The NFL doesn't care if the Bills only count signing bonus against the current year, when they figure the cap. It is amortized just like every other team.

If the Bills never paid out signing bonus, instead choosing to use roster bonus, then it wouldn't be amortized at all and there would be no excess cap room at the end of the year.

[patmoran2006]

2008 is the exception, when the stars align so we won't lose anyone. I think it's 2008 or never.
hence my "two year window" thread 2 days ago that was received with obviously very bad feedback.

2008 is without a DOUBT the year for us to be players.

We have no significant FA's of our own to take of, and we'll have amongst the most if not THE most cap room in the entire NFL going into next offseason.

After that- is when it gets real scary.. JP, Ellison and Crowell go into their final years of their deals- and we have good vets in Evans, Peters and maybe Schobel that we will have to concern ourselves with as well should they continue to prosper.

if we resign ALL Of those guys, then Cash to Cap will be a success. If we lose some of them, we're starting all over.. again

[Dr. Lecter]

I disagree with this. First of all the Patriots had an extra $2.5M in cap room this year because they carried it over from the year prior using the LTBE adjustment. Secondly, when you examine the Pats contracts nothing they only spent big money on one player with long-term ramifications: Adalius Thomas. Many of the players they signed are short-term deals.

The Pats are in good cap shape, both for the present and long-term. All of the Pats players paid big bonus monies are worth it, they are good players who will play to a high level. This allows them to manage their cap well, because the players they have are a good values for their performance. You get in cap trouble by overpaying players, where you aren't getting the performance to match the cap impact.

The only real difference between the Pats cap situation and the Bills is that Buffalo is not paying franchise QB-type money to Losman like the Pats are to Brady. However, you can keep your extra cap room, I'll take the QB.

While I did not mean to make it sound like they are dead, I do think that there might be some long term issues. They short deal guys (i.e. Stallworth and Moss) will be costly to re-sign and Brady, with his constant re-negotiations will end up with a huge cap figure at some point.

Mind you, I would love to have him, but pushing the money out has to bite them in the ass at some point, even they have been the best team I have ever seen at controlling and managing the camp.

[Philagape]

It only counts once as far as the NFL is concerned. The Bills count it against the current year as well when they apply "cash-to-cap". That is why they finish the year far under the cap.

The question is, what do they do with that? If they don't carry it over then it is lost, and you can say it will be "counted twice". That cap space is lost.

The NFL doesn't care if the Bills only count signing bonus against the current year, when they figure the cap. It is amortized just like every other team.

If the Bills never paid out signing bonus, instead choosing to use roster bonus, then it wouldn't be amortized at all and there would be no excess cap room at the end of the year.

So it comes down to the difference between a signing bonus and a roster bonus :dizzy:

But if most of what you say it true, wow. Cash to cap would be a total sham with no good accomplished whatsoever.

[patmoran2006]

It only counts once as far as the NFL is concerned. The Bills count it against the current year as well when they apply "cash-to-cap". That is why they finish the year far under the cap.

The question is, what do they do with that? If they don't carry it over then it is lost, and you can say it will be "counted twice". That cap space is lost.

The NFL doesn't care if the Bills only count signing bonus against the current year, when they figure the cap. It is amortized just like every other team.

If the Bills never paid out signing bonus, instead choosing to use roster bonus, then it wouldn't be amortized at all and there would be no excess cap room at the end of the year.
So what you're saying is going by the way the Bills are doing business currently, in reality it is counting twice?
A bit confused

[Dr. Lecter]

The NFL doesn't care if the Bills only count signing bonus against the current year, when they figure the cap. It is amortized just like every other team.


The team can elect not to amortize the bonus.

[patmoran2006]

So it comes down to the difference between a signing bonus and a roster bonus :dizzy:

But if most of what you say it true, wow. Cash to cap would be a total sham with no good accomplished whatsoever.
That's what I think too.. and that's not really even an opinion--it's kind of black and white for anybody to see.

[Philagape]

The team can elect not to amortize the bonus.

No offense, but I want an official source on that.

[Ickybaluky]

Everyone spends the same amount in the long-term, unless they spend less.

Think about it, if a team spends over the cap by paying big signing bonus then they will have to account for it at some point. There is no way around that.

Teams that spend over the cap for several years reach a point where they have to spend under. For instance, when the Titans ran into cap trouble a couple years ago they had to cut a bunch of players and take big dead money cap hits. They had about $45M in dead money, which means their cap was that much less than everyone else. That is why they had to keep so many rookies.

[Dr. Lecter]

No offense, but I want an official source on that.

None taken, but I am pretty sure though on that.

When Clump wakes up, he can chime in.

[patmoran2006]

So it comes down to the difference between a signing bonus and a roster bonus :dizzy:

But if most of what you say it true, wow. Cash to cap would be a total sham with no good accomplished whatsoever.

If accurate.

That means in reality we really aren't carrying over any extra cap room to redo contracts for guys like Losman and Evans. WE'd be the same as everyone else, with the exception of spending far less money

[Ickybaluky]

The team can elect not to amortize the bonus.

No, they can't. They must account for them as outlined in the CBA.

Any pre-paid money (signing bonus, salary advances, etc.) are amortized over the length of the contract. There is no way around that, you have to follow the CBA.

[patmoran2006]

No, they can't. They must account for them as outlined in the CBA.

Any pre-paid money (signing bonus, salary advances, etc.) are amortized over the length of the contract. There is no way around that, you have to follow the CBA.
Does that mean then that Dockery's contract is still amortized over the length of the contract?

And yet he STILL counted $13.5 million against the Cash to Cap for the Bills in 2007?

This is the single-biggest answer I've been waiting to hear.

[Ickybaluky]

So it comes down to the difference between a signing bonus and a roster bonus :dizzy:

But if most of what you say it true, wow. Cash to cap would be a total sham with no good accomplished whatsoever.

Only if they don't carry over the extra room. If they do, then their cap is higher than everyone else the following year and they can spend more cash. In the long-term, they will spend the same as everyone else.

If they don't carry it over, they will spend less.

[Ickybaluky]

Does that mean then that Dockery's contract is still amortized over the length of the contract?

And yet he STILL counted $13.5 million against the Cash to Cap for the Bills in 2007?

This is the single-biggest answer I've been waiting to hear.

I'm not sure what the Bills are doing, but if they are going to only spend to the actual cap while paying out signing bonus, they are going to finish the year under the cap. The signing bonus is going to be accounted for in the manner outlined in the CBA.

However, if they carry that extra room over into the following year, they don't lose anything. It is merely a matter of timing.

[Dr. Lecter]

Does that mean then that Dockery's contract is still amortized over the length of the contract?

And yet he STILL counted $13.5 million against the Cash to Cap for the Bills in 2007?

This is the single-biggest answer I've been waiting to hear.

If he is right, then all the Bills needed to do was make his bonus a roster bonus and it all counted this year.

[Philagape]

Only if they don't carry over the extra room. If they do, then their cap is higher than everyone else the following year and they can spend more cash. In the long-term, they will spend the same as everyone else.

If they don't carry it over, they will spend less.

But you said a team can't choose to not amortize the bonus. Isn't that the same as carrying over the extra room? I've never heard that unused cap room can be carried over year to year.

[Ickybaluky]

If he is right, then all the Bills needed to do was make his bonus a roster bonus and it all counted this year.

They can't make a signing bonus a roster bonus. It has to do with when it is paid. If it is paid in advance, it is amortized. You can't un-amortize it.

The only way around that would be if the player paid back the money. If that happened, the Bills would be credited against the cap the following season.

[patmoran2006]

If he is right, then all the Bills needed to do was make his bonus a roster bonus and it all counted this year.
Which would lower his cap figure toward the backend of his contract, right?

If your answer is yes.. then what matters is did the Bills make his bonus a roster bonus.

If they did. Then its simply kind of the opposite of a back-loaded contract.

If they DIDNT.. Then we basically charged OURSELVES $13.5 million against the cap this year, AND he still has by CBA and regular cap standards, a backloaded contract.

Right?

[Dr. Lecter]

Amortized Bonuses: Signing bonuses can be "amortized" over a number of years. This practice allows for a player to receive large upfront money but spread out or "amortize" the cap hit over many cap years. In 2007, signing bonuses can only be amortized for 6 yrs (thru 2009). See LINK (http://www.nflpa.org/Members/main.asp?subPage=CBA+Extension+Features)


This is from Clump's thread here:

http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/showthread.php?t=60943

[patmoran2006]

They can't make a signing bonus a roster bonus. It has to do with when it is paid. If it is paid in advance, it is amortized. You can't un-amortize it.

The only way around that would be if the player paid back the money. If that happened, the Bills would be credited against the cap the following season.
What the ****...

So going by what you know, we're pretty much just ensuring that we spend LESS money than anyone else by doing business this way?

[Dr. Lecter]

They can't make a signing bonus a roster bonus. It has to do with when it is paid. If it is paid in advance, it is amortized. You can't un-amortize it.

The only way around that would be if the player paid back the money. If that happened, the Bills would be credited against the cap the following season.

Agreed.

But if the bonus was never a signing bonus and was always a roster bonus it would definetly count this year.

[Ickybaluky]

But you said a team can't choose to not amortize the bonus. Isn't that the same as carrying over the extra room? I've never heard that unused cap room can be carried over year to year.

The extra cap room is due to some monies that were actually paid being accounted for in future years. If Buffalo spends to the actual cap, that leaves room because of the accounting of the bonus.

The money is carried over via a rule in the CBA that any incentive added to a contract during the season is considered LTBE (likely to be earned). LTBE incentives count against the cap, thus the players cap number will go up.

If a team wants to carry over any excess cap room they will add an incentive clause into some players contract that will never be earned, thus raising his cap number. For instance, you might add a clause to Brian Moorman's contract that pays him X amount of money if he leads the team in rushing. Since it is added during the season, it is considered LTBE, even though it will never be earned. That eats up the extra cap room the team has.

At the end of the year, incentives earned (or not met) are accounted for and the following seasons cap is adjusted. Since that large LTBE incentives would not actually be earned, it results in a cap credit the following year.

That is a common trick teams use to carry over cap room.

[patmoran2006]

Amortized Bonuses: Signing bonuses can be "amortized" over a number of years. This practice allows for a player to receive large upfront money but spread out or "amortize" the cap hit over many cap years. In 2007, signing bonuses can only be amortized for 6 yrs (thru 2009). See LINK (http://www.nflpa.org/Members/main.asp?subPage=CBA+Extension+Features)


This is from Clump's thread here:

http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/showthread.php?t=60943
This is one of the better and more debated discussions we've had in a long, long time here.

SO the Bills say amortize Dockery's bonus over six years... And they STILL have a cash to cap figure of $13.5 million for Dockery this year. ?

I think Clump needs to come out with an article.

[Michael82]

If the Bills never paid out signing bonus, instead choosing to use roster bonus, then it wouldn't be amortized at all and there would be no excess cap room at the end of the year.

BINGO! You solved the problem. If you remember, a lot of the articles talked about how Dockery, Kelsay, Walker basically got big bonuses. They weren't necessarily signing bonuses. I actually remember reading they got big roster bonuses for this year and extra ones in future years. If this is the case...the bonus only counts for this year and then all we gotta worry about is their salary for the future year, unless they have a roster bonus next year too. :up:

[Bulldog]

The way I see cash to cap is Buffalo will treat each signing bonus like the NFL treats a roster bonus, which is to accelerate all the bonus into the current financial year. Thus meaning the only money that Buffalo will count against the cap in future years is the base salaries as dictated per the contract signed by player X. In a system like this, the earlier years are going to be tight to say the least. But as time wears on, Buffalo should have more than enough rooom to sign free agents like the rest of the teams do. In theory, the longer this type of spending continues, Buffalo's cap space should increase with each passing year as the Bills are only counting the base salaries as opposed to amortizing the bonus over the length of the contract.

I know what Pat is getting at. He's saying that Buffalo will count the entire signing bonus against the cap this year, and then in the future years the players salary will be calculated based on his base salary + the amortized bonus money. If that does indeed happen, then Buffalo is taking the hit twice and thats completely unacceptable.

[Ickybaluky]

Agreed.

But if the bonus was never a signing bonus and was always a roster bonus it would definetly count this year.

True, but then the Bills would not have the extra cap room they currently have. They have most certainly paid out some signing bonus money.

[Dr. Lecter]

I remember last year the Bills used LTB with Shaud Williams by giving him a bonus so a million or so if he scored 3 TD's in one game. It counted against last years cap and they got credit this year.

[Dr. Lecter]

Depending on whem the guarenteed money is paid out.

[Ickybaluky]

I remember last year the Bills used LTB with Shaud Williams by giving him a bonus so a million or so if he scored 3 TD's in one game. It counted against last years cap and they got credit this year.

Yes, that is an example of carrying over the extra cap room.

[patmoran2006]

The way I see cash to cap is Buffalo will treat each signing bonus like the NFL treats a roster bonus, which is to accelerate all the bonus into the current financial year. Thus meaning the only money that Buffalo will count against the cap in future years is the base salaries as dictated per the contract signed by player X. In a system like this, the earlier years are going to be tight to say the least. But as time wears on, Buffalo should have more than enough rooom to sign free agents like the rest of the teams do. In theory, the longer this type of spending continues, Buffalo's cap space should increase with each passing year as the Bills are only counting the base salaries as opposed to amortizing the bonus over the length of the contract.

I know what Pat is getting at. He's saying that Buffalo will count the entire signing bonus against the cap this year, and then in the future years the players salary will be calculated based on his base salary + the amortized bonus money. If that does indeed happen, then Buffalo is taking the hit twice and thats completely unacceptable.
Thank you VERY MUCH.

That is 100% accurate as to what I am trying to find out.

I've been under the assumption that it goes by what you said in paragraph one. After reading Night Train's statement I started wondering if we are taking a DOUBLE HIT. When I say double hit I mean the salary cap that the NFL goes by (with amortized bonuses) PLUS our self-policed own salary cap hit.. Which your right is COMPLETELY unacceptable.

[patmoran2006]

True, but then the Bills would not have the extra cap room they currently have. They have most certainly paid out some signing bonus money.
According to Clump's cap page.. NOT counting the rookies to sign, the Bills stil have like over $19 million in salary cap room.

what do you think that means in terms of Dockery, Walker and Kelsay?

[Ickybaluky]

Depending on whem the guarenteed money is paid out.

Right, so a guaranteed roster bonus paid next year will count against next years cap, because the actual money isn't paid until then. The player is guaranteed to receive the money, but it won't be accounted for until actually paid. A roster bonus is considered compensation for only the season it is paid in.

However, a signing bonus paid up front is pre-paid, thus is amortized. It is considered compensation for the life of the contract, and isn't considered fully earned until the contract is complete. That is why you can go after a signing bonus if a player defaults on his contract, but you can't go after a roster bonus.

[Ickybaluky]

According to Clump's cap page.. NOT counting the rookies to sign, the Bills stil have like over $19 million in salary cap room.

But, that extra room won't be lost unless it is not carried over to 2008.

[patmoran2006]

But, that extra room won't be lost unless it is not carried over to 2008.
What would make us NOT carry it over into 2008?.. this is what I am confused about.

[Philagape]

But, that extra room won't be lost unless it is not carried over to 2008.

So during the season, the Bills can take any leftover cap room and offer LTBE bonuses that may or may not be earned, and the ones that are not earned may be carried over. Did I get it?

[Bulldog]

What would make us NOT carry it over into 2008?.. this is what I am confused about.

Exactly what you and I just talked about. By taking the "double hit", Buffalo in essence will not carry over any of the remaining space.

[Ickybaluky]

So during the season, the Bills can take any leftover cap room and offer LTBE bonuses that may or may not be earned, and the ones that are not earned may be carried over. Did I get it?

Exactly. It is a common practice. That extra room will also give them the space to sign Losman and Evans, since those will require larger cash outlays.

The cap is the cap. Teams all pay the same in the long-run (unless they spend less). You can't go over the cap in the long-term.

In the short-term you can spend over the cap, using signing bonus money. In that circumstance, if taken far enough, a team can get into trouble and have to cut players and take dead money hits. That forces them to spend less in the future.

It is all a matter of timing. If the room is carried over each year, then the team loses nothing. If they don't carry it over, then you have a beef.

[Michael82]

Just for the record, Dockery's contract was basically just a 5-year deal worth $23 million. There was a lot of money in roster bonuses in the future. :::


Derrick Dockery's contract is worth $49 million over seven years, including a stunning $18 million guaranteed.
To put in perspective, future Hall of Fame LT Orlando Pace got a $15 million bonus to sign two years ago. Dockery has never made the Pro Bowl, but will reportedly make $18 million over three years and $23 million over five years. It's essentially a five-year deal.
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFL&id=177

[Ickybaluky]

Exactly what you and I just talked about. By taking the "double hit", Buffalo in essence will not carry over any of the remaining space.

Have they said this?

[Michael82]

Have they said this?
no, it's just more guessing. Actually from what I heard from Clump and the Buffalo News...the Bills use that LTBE option many times and used it last year in a bunch of contracts.

[patmoran2006]

I am no capologist.

But they ****ing BETTER carry over what they're not spending now.

IF they dont (and I cant fathom they wouldnt) I'd love for somebody to try and tell me Ralph is NOT cheap.

[Ickybaluky]

I am no capologist.

But they ****ing BETTER carry over what they're not spending now.

IF they dont (and I cant fathom they wouldnt) I'd love for somebody to try and tell me Ralph is NOT cheap.

If they do, it would make sense. It would make it easier for them to sign the likes of Evans and Losman when the time comes.

[Bulldog]

Have they said this?

No. I was just explaining to Pat what was meant by saying that Buffalo will not carry the extra cap space over. Put in plain english, if Buffalo chooses to calculate a players salary using his base salary + the amortized bonus money, they they in essence will not carry any of the cash over to the follwoing season using a cash to cap policy.

[patmoran2006]

If they do, it would make sense. It would make it easier for them to sign the likes of Evans and Losman when the time comes.
Yep they better be.. Thats the ONLY possible explanation where I can see Cash to Cap working; is resigning both of them as well as other key FA's in 2008 like Crowell and Ellison.. And extending Peters as well when he far outplays his contract, which is coming soon.

But to accomplish even most of that that money HAS to be carried over. Evans and Losman are going to cost FAR more than it cost to sign Dockery.

[Philagape]

I'm getting pretty excited about 2008.

After that, I'll wait and see.

[Dr. Lecter]

NE39 was right. Signing bonus's must be spread out.


Signing Bonuses.
(i) Proration. The total amount of any signing bonus shall be prorated over the term of the Player
Contract (on a straight-line basis, unless subject to acceleration or some other treatment as provided in this
Agreement), with a maximum proration of six years, in determining Team and Player Salary, except that:
http://www.nflpa.org/cba/cba_pdf/Article_XXIV_Guaranteed_League-Wide_Salary,_Salary_Cap,_and_Minimum_Team_Salary.pdf

Page 65.

[patmoran2006]

NE39 was right. Signing bonus's must be spread out.





Signing Bonuses





.
(i) Proration. The total amount of any signing bonus shall be prorated over the term of the Player
Contract (on a straight-line basis, unless subject to acceleration or some other treatment as provided in this
Agreement), with a maximum proration of six years, in determining Team and Player Salary, except that:






http://www.nflpa.org/cba/cba_pdf/Article_XXIV_Guaranteed_League-Wide_Salary,_Salary_Cap,_and_Minimum_Team_Salary.pdf

Page 65.
So does that mean he has a $13.5 figure for this year (cash to cap) according to our methods of cap management, and ALSO still has signing bonus spread out as well over six years in regards to the NFL salary cap?

[PromoTheRobot]

Is Cash to Cap even WORSE than I thought???
What isn't to you, Pat?

PTR

[Dr. Lecter]

So does that mean he has a $13.5 figure for this year (cash to cap) according to our methods of cap management, and ALSO still has signing bonus spread out as well over six years in regards to the NFL salary cap?

It depends how much of the 13.5 million he receives this year, how much is signing bonus (as opposed to guarenteed salary) and other details on the structure of the deal.

[patmoran2006]

It depends how much of the 13.5 million he receives this year, how much is signing bonus (as opposed to guarenteed salary) and other details on the structure of the deal.
OK.. then it hammers home the point.

He DEFINITELY has a cash to cap figure of $13.5 million for this year.. AND quite conceivably parts of that money in cash to cap for this year also goes towards regular salary cap figures in future years.

Man, I hate this crap. I pray Wilson find an owner and sells this team in the next 2 years.

[raphael120]

Learn from the Sabres.

Winning = $$$$$$$$$

[casdhf]

OK.. then it hammers home the point.

He DEFINITELY has a cash to cap figure of $13.5 million for this year.. AND quite conceivably parts of that money in cash to cap for this year also goes towards regular salary cap figures in future years.

Man, I hate this crap. I pray Wilson find an owner and sells this team in the next 2 years. You're wrong, again ...

Under "cash to cap" the bonus is all eaten up the first season. So, for season 2 it will count against the NFL cap, it would not hamper "cash to cap" spending.

Marv has said we'll never spend to the cap, so it doesnt really matter what the real hit is.

[The Spaz]

What isn't to you, Pat?

PTR


Nice!:clap:

[Throne Logic]

Finances can be manipulated in many, many ways that most of us could never understand.

Just from a novice viewpoint, I can see this in a way that makes sense, assuming it is accurate.

Say Buffalo signs an FA for 5 years. Their goal is to avoid spreading out large signing bonus money into future years (the "credit card" ideal). So, you announce that you've signed him for 5 years for $40 M, including bonuses. What does that mean?

How about this:

Year 1: $24 M guaranteed base salary, no signing bonus. Player doesn't care what you call it, so long as that money is guaranteed to go into their account.

Years 2 - 5: Veteran minimum for salary + 3.5 million roster bonus. Player stays, he gets a total of $4 M for each year. If he gets cut, he's gone with little cap hit.

Seems to makes sense to me. No dead CAP hits anywhere. Player gets his large amount in the first year then continues to get quite a nice amount as he continues. If he doesn't work out with the team, he can be cut without any CAP-related problems.

That's how I'd do it.

[patmoran2006]

You're wrong, again ...

Under "cash to cap" the bonus is all eaten up the first season. So, for season 2 it will count against the NFL cap, it would not hamper "cash to cap" spending.

Marv has said we'll never spend to the cap, so it doesnt really matter what the real hit is.
If I'm wrong.. again
Then why are NE, Lecter and others saying that according to CBA rules that bonuses are amortized by up to 6 years?

[Dr. Lecter]

Just signing bonus's Pat. That is key. As I recall, Kelsay has something like a 6 million roster bonus.

[Yasgur's Farm]

I'm not gonna even attempt to read pages 3 thru 5...

The way I understand it is this (No proof or links) -

Whenever money is paid out (guaranteed), the NFL gives the option of counting it all on the current years cap, or amortizing it over the length of the contract. If it's been amortized, it must be accounted for in full at the time the player is cut, traded, or retires. In the cap to cash scenario ( I hate that over used word) there would be no such thing as dead cap.

Hypothetically... If Dockery had a signing bonus of $10M... and a roster bonus of $7M due in 2009... the Bills would count all $10M + salary in 2007... and, if his services were to be retained in 2009, they'd account for all the roster bonus + salary in 2009.

That means he could be cut at any time without any dead cap,

[Philagape]

Whenever money is paid out (guaranteed), the NFL gives the option of counting it all on the current years cap, or amortizing it over the length of the contract.

Signing bonus no, roster bonus yes ... that's what we concluded in pages 3-5

[Yasgur's Farm]

Signing bonus no, roster bonus yes ... that's what we concluded in pages 3-5How 'bout escalators? Clump... Where are you?

[patmoran2006]

Clearly, we need more facts..

This thread was actually posed as a question because I am unsure.

My biggest question was and remains.. Dockery counts $13.5 cash to cap this year. What does he count against the actual SALARY cap in future years? And does the league not give a **** about what our cash to cap is, which if so means we're screwing ourselves over TWICE if your outlook is you want to have extra salary cap room to spend on our keys guys coming up in the next few years.

[casdhf]

He will count more against the salary cap than he will against cash to cap.

[casdhf]

If I'm wrong.. again
Then why are NE, Lecter and others saying that according to CBA rules that bonuses are amortized by up to 6 years?

Signing bonus. If a player doesn't reach a bonus, 2010 roster bonus for example, it does not count.

[Ickybaluky]

Signing bonus. If a player doesn't reach a bonus, 2010 roster bonus for example, it does not count.

You guys are making it seem harder than it is. If the money is paid in advance (like a signing bonus), then it is amortized equally over the life of the contrast.

Right now, bonuses can be amortized 6 years, because that is 2 years beyond the current CBA. Next year it will be 5 years, the year after 4, etc.

A roster bonus or regular salary is counted in the year paid. If it is guaranteed and the player is released, it is still accounted for because it has to be paid to the player. For instance, Derrick Dockery received $18M in guarantees of some form or other. If he is cut, the Bills are going to take a hit on any of that guaranteed money that hasn't been paid yet.

There is only one way to account for the cap, and it is outlined by the CBA. The league doesn't give a crap about "cash to cap". That is something the Bills have imposed on themselves.

Cash to Cap merely means the actual monies spent in a given year. Thus, if Dockery received $13.5M this year, that is how much the Bills count on their budget. The league is still going to account for it as outlined in the CBA.

[patmoran2006]

At the end of the day.

Cash to Cap BLOWS-- let's hope either
A) Its a short term thing
B) We have a different owner in 2 years.

[Michael82]

At the end of the day.

Cash to Cap BLOWS-- let's hope either
A) Its a short term thing
B) We have a different owner in 2 years.
:rolleyes:

[clumping platelets]

I"ll cite Nate Clements as a prime example for my question.

SF gave him $22 million in guarentees and bonuses. He signed an eight year contract. So SF spreads that out over 8 years. SO his cap figure in SF is his base salary + 1/8 of his bonus, no?

Lets say Buffalo had signed Clements for math sake to the exact same deal.
Their cash to cap policy is to ammortize it upfront. So that means in year one Clements would count his bonus/guarentee plus 2007 base up front, no? His cash to cap for 2007 with Buffalo would be over $22 million?

Having said that, is that a number that GOES on the Bills books for 2007, or are they actually PAYING clements that money upfront?

If they're NOT paying that upfront. In year 3-4 or whatever, they're STILL (buffalo) going to cut Clements because he's due such a large roster bonus; even though he went on the Cash to Cap books for all that money upfront???

signing bonuses can only be amortized for 6 yrs

roster bonuses fully count in year paid unless converted to signing bonus

[SquishDaFish]

So the Bills are prob paying mostly roster bonus so it counts this year?

[Yasgur's Farm]

So the Bills are prob paying mostly roster bonus so it counts this year?That's the way I see it... And that's probably the way it's going down.

[alohabillsfan]

[QUOTE=patmoran2006]This is one of the better and more debated discussions we've had in a long, long time here.

You can't debate what you don't understand!:oops:

[alohabillsfan]

Let me get this straight, pat, you have complained, argued and ridiculed the Owner and Front Office of the Buffalo Bills repeatedly over the cash to the cap philosophy yet you don't understand how the cap works IRT bonuses etc.. LMFAO!

WOW, I must now start another thread of the Bills FO sucks and the Owner i cheap blah blah, blah.

P.S. I believe with the increase in parking revenue will save the franchise! /sarcasm

[patmoran2006]

Let me get this straight, pat, you have complained, argued and ridiculed the Owner and Front Office of the Buffalo Bills repeatedly over the cash to the cap philosophy yet you don't understand how the cap works IRT bonuses etc.. LMFAO!

WOW, I must now start another thread of the Bills FO sucks and the Owner i cheap blah blah, blah.

P.S. I believe with the increase in parking revenue will save the franchise! /sarcasm
Uhhhhhh.
No, I do pretty much understand it. I didnt understand the difference between roster and signing bonuses and how they are amortized.

And either way, its still a STUPID philosophy if you're trying to get the best players on your team. Hence the topic "is cash to cap even worse than I thought"... if you dont think its stupid now I guarentee you that you will in 2008 if its still around, trust me.

And how is it stupid? Its stupid when you sign a good guard, fat overated tackle and resign a borderline starting DE and it counts for over $32 million against your cap in one season.. That's how.

and as NE39 stated, the Bills dont HAVE to carry extra cap room over to the next season, and if I'm a betting man with Wilson as owner I'll bet they won't.-- which does make it even WORSE-- which means we're overpaying on the cap this year with no more cap room than the other teams next year- should they be paying these guys signing bonuses more than roster bonuses.

[alohabillsfan]

[QUOTE=patmoran2006]Uhhhhhh.
No, I do pretty much understand it. I didnt understand the difference between roster and signing bonuses and how they are amortized.

That is a pretty important part of the argument and it only takes a basic understanding of the CBA.

//Signed//
Junior Capologist

[patmoran2006]

[quote=patmoran2006]Uhhhhhh.
No, I do pretty much understand it. I didnt understand the difference between roster and signing bonuses and how they are amortized.

That is a pretty important part of the argument and it only takes a basic understanding of the CBA.

//Signed//
Junior Capologist
Continue to be ignorant and ignore ALL the other aspects of it. Typical

[Michael82]

That's the way I see it... And that's probably the way it's going down.
EXACTLY! But don't tell that to pat. He won't have it. :ill:

[alohabillsfan]

[quote=alohabillsfan]
Continue to be ignorant and ignore ALL the other aspects of it. Typical


Ignorance is starting 100 threads on cash to cap and how it dooms the franchise yet failing to understand the basics of the CBA.

Let's now speculate that we are paying twice! Give me a break...

[Dr. Lecter]

At the end of the day.

Cash to Cap BLOWS-- let's hope either
A) Its a short term thing
B) We have a different owner in 2 years.

Tell me how you know it blows when you have not seen the results of it yet?

[casdhf]

He clearly doesn't understand it.

Cash to cap values will be higher some years than the real cap hit, other years it will be lower. In the end, it'll probably just about even out.

[Philagape]

Cash to cap will work if ....

-- The bonuses are roster bonuses instead of signing bonuses
-- As much money in LTBE bonuses as possible is carried over

With no major FA next year, our cap room could be staggering

I DEMAND a Super Bowl run in 2008

[patmoran2006]

He clearly doesn't understand it.

Cash to cap values will be higher some years than the real cap hit, other years it will be lower. In the end, it'll probably just about even out.
Actually, quite the contrary.

I'm keenly aware that some years the cash to cap value is higher and some years lower then the "real" cap hit.

Like this year.. Whitner is only counting around 3.5 mill against the cap, yet his cash to cap number is over $9 million.. To the contrary, Schobel, Losman and Tripplett are all guys where the cap hit is larger than the cash to cap hit.

That's not my point, and your missing the real issue of the thread.

Fast foward to offseason 2008. Cash to Cap means will we ONLY spend money up until the salary cap for that year..

Having said that. How do you resign free agents JP Losman, Keith Ellison and Angelo Crowell? Do you have any idea of the type of contract Losman will likely be able to demand (and maybe the REAL reason for thinking ahead and drafting Edwards now?).. And then let's be sure to mention Lee EVans and Jason Peters-- AGAIN who Im positive will have far outplayed the mediocre contracts they are currently playing under.

How in God's name do you expect to be able to keep all these key guys intact over cash to cap? The simple answer is; it WON"T happen.

If Dockery, Walker and Kelsay took up over $33 million in cash to cap this year; what do you think that number will be for Losman, Crowell and Ellison? They'll probably double that.

UNLESS-- The Bills give out SIGNING BONUSES for these guys and extend Evans and Peters the same way; which would spread things out by up to six years. That makes all the difference in the world.

Its the only way this team keeps its best players in tact, whether you feel like seeing that or not.

If they continue in 2008 to implement their cash to cap policy and use roster bonuses to make the cap hit up front like they do now; then you can say goodbye to a big part of the nucleus of this team.

[patmoran2006]

Cash to cap will work if ....

-- The bonuses are roster bonuses instead of signing bonuses
-- As much money in LTBE bonuses as possible is carried over

With no major FA next year, our cap room could be staggering

I DEMAND a Super Bowl run in 2008
IF they choose to carry this cap room over til next year.

If the answer is yes.. They can go out on the free agent market and sign the best DT and best #2 WR on the market; and still have a pile of cap room left. ONe thing is for certain; but committing to a championship run and carrying over the extra cap room saved this year, they will have THE if not one of the biggest cap excess figures in the league next offseason.

Combine that with young talent now and there is not a reason in the world to not have a Super Bowl contending team in 2008.

[HAMMER]

What a Maroon.

[Ickybaluky]

If you carry the extra cap room over a year, then the only difference is timing.

Basically, via "Cash to Cap", the Bills will spend the actual amount of the salary cap each year on player compensation. No more, no less. The NFL accounting rules mean that the cap charge may be less, depending on how much of the money paid out is in the form of a signing bonus.

If the Bills carry that extra cap room over, it means they have a higher cap the following year. As long as they carry that room over (through the LTBE loophole), nothing is lost.

Other teams may spend over the cap in actual money some years, while spending under the cap in others (to balance it off). In the long run, they will be spending right to the cap just like Buffalo. The only difference is how it is accounted for each year, not how much is spent.

However, if any extra room isn't carried over then cap room is lost, and the Bills will be in effect spending less. Since they carried the extra room over last year (via incentives), it is hard to criticize what they are doing until they actually lose cap space.

[patmoran2006]

Why did the Buffalo News say it would be difficult to sign Darwin Walker to a contract extension due to 'cash to cap', yet according to Clump's page not counting the signing of rookie's to come we still have about $19 million under the cap?

[Philagape]

Why did the Buffalo News say it would be difficult to sign Darwin Walker to a contract extension due to 'cash to cap', yet according to Clump's page not counting the signing of rookie's to come we still have about $19 million under the cap?

I don't know why his total cash to cap is about the same as the regular cap hit ... it should be much higher, given these individual numbers on the same chart:

L. Walker's cap hit is $3 mil, but under cash to cap it's $7 mil
Kelsay's discrepancy is $6 million.
Dockery, almost $7 mil

[Dr. Lecter]

Why did the Buffalo News say it would be difficult to sign Darwin Walker to a contract extension due to 'cash to cap', yet according to Clump's page not counting the signing of rookie's to come we still have about $19 million under the cap?

Lynch and Poz will have decent sized deals for one. PLas they will likely go into the season with a couple of million available to sign injury replacements.

[Yasgur's Farm]

True... Between the 2 of them there will probably be $11-12 M roster bonus to be accounted for.

[Philagape]

I don't know why his total cash to cap is about the same as the regular cap hit ... it should be much higher, given these individual numbers on the same chart:

L. Walker's cap hit is $3 mil, but under cash to cap it's $7 mil
Kelsay's discrepancy is $6 million.
Dockery, almost $7 mil

OK another factor is that for the players already under contract, many of them have a cap hit higher than their cash-to-cap number. That's because a portion of their signing bonus counts against this year's cap, but since that bonus was already paid in full, it doesn't count as cash this year.
For example, Losman's 2007 cap hit is $3.532 million, but the actual cash he's receiving is $2.3 mil. That adds up.

[henrybacker]

Do you really believe that Ralph will stick to this when they finally get close?

close to what? the bottom of the league? If you mean close to winning the super bowl, ralph will long be gone by then.

[Dr. Lecter]

Yeah, because a Ralph owned team has never been in a Super Bowl.