What does cash to cap mean?

[BertSquirtgum]

Buddy Nix mentioned spending all the cash to cap. What the hell does that mean? Does that mean he can spend all he wants up to the cap or just a certain amount?

[BLeonard]

I'm not a cap expert or anything, but how I understand it is this:

Let's say the NFL cap is $100 million.

Now, the Bills sign a player for a 3 year deal, that has a $15 million signing bonus. The NFL cap would spread that out over the duration of the deal... So:

2012: $5 mil
2013: $5 mil
2014: $5 mil

So, the bonus would only count $5 mil on each year's cap.

The Bills, using "cash to the cap," do not spread the bonuses out, so all $15 mil counts on the first year of the deal. Which means, in their eyes, they only have $85 mil left to spend ($100 mil cap - $15 mil). The NFL would say they have $95 mil left to spend ($100 mil cap - $5 mil counted this season).

So, right there, the Bills would essentially be handicapping themselves $10 million.

Hopefully that makes sense. I'm sure a capologist can explain it better, but that's pretty much the gist of it.

-Bill

[BertSquirtgum]

So basically the Bills have their own cap. Not the cap of the NFL which is 120$ million I believe. If true, what I get from that is the Bills are limiting themselves on being able to get players in free agency and signing their own. Pretty stupid if you ask me.

[Ickybaluky]

So, right there, the Bills would essentially be handicapping themselves $10 million

Comes out in the wash, though.

In your example, yes they count the extra $10 in the current year, but they have $10M less they account for in future years.

Basically, they are willing to spend actual cash to the cap, not the accounting figure. In the long run, it is the same.

People make a lot of this, but really most teams have budgets. Most businesses do as well. In the end the how is as important as the how much.

[Philagape]

Don't amortized bonuses still count against future NFL caps no matter what the team does? If so, it doesn't buy any space in the NFL's eyes.

[BLeonard]

Comes out in the wash, though.

In your example, yes they count the extra $10 in the current year, but they have $10M less they account for in future years.

Basically, they are willing to spend actual cash to the cap, not the accounting figure. In the long run, it is the same.

People make a lot of this, but really most teams have budgets. Most businesses do as well. In the end the how is as important as the how much.

In a sense, yes, but at the same time, if the don't end up spending the money they don't account for in future years, it results in the team being less able to be competitive, specifically in the Free Agent market.

The only advantage I see to "cash to the cap" is the fact that, they could, for example, cut Fitz right now and it would have no effect, bonus wise, on their 2012 cap, since all of Fitz's bonus would have been counted on the 2011 cap. It provides a bit more flexibility in that aspect.

-Bill

[ghz in pittsburgh]

In terms of NFL cap, it's a wash.

In terms of cash flow, it's a big deal. The owner needs a deep pocket to make it happen, though I have to believe they can go to any bank to borrow and pay the interest.

[BLeonard]

Don't amortized bonuses still count against future NFL caps no matter what the team does? If so, it doesn't buy any space in the NFL's eyes.

Correct. But, with "cash to the cap," since they essentially take it all on at once, it "frees up" that space, in the event that the team cuts the player.

At least that's how I understand it.

Also, I've posted this a few times, but it is relevant here: http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Closing-the-books-on-2011.html



The new CBA has, for the first time, provided teams a valuable benefit: the ability to carry over remaining Cap room into the following year.

Teams no longer need to go through that charade. Thus, teams will have adjusted Caps of much more than the projected 2012 Cap number of around $125 million. A team like the Buccaneers, for example, with $25 million remaining in Cap room, may have an adjusted 2012 Cap of close to $150 million.

The question for the NFLPA is: will teams actually spend all of this Cap room? Keep in mind, there are no team spending minimums until 2013, and teams can “free ride” this year and next.


So, for the 2012 season ONLY, teams that didn't spend up to the cap can roll over that money and tack it on to the 2012 cap, which would actually raise the Bills' cap for 2012.

So, if the 2012 cap is $125 million and the Bills ended 2011 at $15 million under, they could, in essence, spend $140 million on the 2012 cap...

But, with no salary floor, does anyone honestly think they'll take advantage of that? I don't.

-Bill

[BertSquirtgum]

I don't know about anyone else but I had lost faith in Buddy. After watching the press conference my feelings about him have changed. Seems like he actually does know what he is doing and does actually have a plan.

[delectrolux]

Somewhat related, but the Cap floor starting in 2013 is cash spent, so a signing bonus will count fully towards the 89% of the cap in the year it is given (just like the "Cash to Cap" philosophy).

Basically it means that if the Bills give out two signing bonuses of $20M each year (which seems like a realistic number), then that's $40M toward the 89%. So if the Cap is $140M, 89% of that is about $125M. Subtract the $40M in bonuses, the Bills only really have to spend about $85M in salaries to hit the floor. Not exactly a spending frenzy...

[BLeonard]

I don't know about anyone else but I had lost faith in Buddy. After watching the press conference my feelings about him have changed. Seems like he actually does know what he is doing and does actually have a plan.

My problem with Buddy isn't necessarily his "plan," per se. I think his "plan" makes sense and was pretty well thought out.

My problem with Buddy is his "plan B." It's great to say you need this and that and that you're gonna do this and that. What happens if your initial plan doesn't work? What's your backup?

Best example I can give is Tyson Clabo fro last year... Obviously, we needed O-Line help and apparently, we went after Clabo. But, what happened when we didn't get him? Nothing. That's what I have a problem with... No "plan B."

Another good example is Merriman. I have no issue with them kicking the tires and seeing if he had anything. But, they depended on him to not only be a force, but play a full 16 game season. Their "plan B" apparently, was Spencer Johnson at OLB, because that's what they did when Merriman went down.

I'm cool with his "Plan A." But, what's his "plan B," if Plan A doesn't go as planned?

-Bill

[X-Era]

:popcorn:

[Buddo]

My problem with Buddy isn't necessarily his "plan," per se. I think his "plan" makes sense and was pretty well thought out.

My problem with Buddy is his "plan B." It's great to say you need this and that and that you're gonna do this and that. What happens if your initial plan doesn't work? What's your backup?

Best example I can give is Tyson Clabo fro last year... Obviously, we needed O-Line help and apparently, we went after Clabo. But, what happened when we didn't get him? Nothing. That's what I have a problem with... No "plan B."

Another good example is Merriman. I have no issue with them kicking the tires and seeing if he had anything. But, they depended on him to not only be a force, but play a full 16 game season. Their "plan B" apparently, was Spencer Johnson at OLB, because that's what they did when Merriman went down.

I'm cool with his "Plan A." But, what's his "plan B," if Plan A doesn't go as planned?

-Bill


I know what you mean, but I'd make a couple of observations.

Some of the Plan B does occur, but is more predicated on draft picks and player improvements, and we didn't get all of that this year.

For example, for all that people wanted Moats moved back outside, even when he was, his impact was negligible. Batten also did next to nothing, apart from get a boneheaded roughing penalty, that I believe put him in the doghouse. Both of those guys were probably part of 'plan B'.

Haiston became 'Plan B' for not signing Clabo, and worked out pretty well in the end, although as much by accident than design.

I think it also needs to be said that you can't get everything right, or all that you want, every off-season, but the more you do get, obviously, the better off you will be in the long run.

[madness]

About half the teams in the league now use cash to cap.

[Michael82]

About half the teams in the league now use cash to cap.
I don't know where I read it, but I heard that 22 teams in the NFL currently use cash to the cap.

[BLeonard]

I don't know where I read it, but I heard that 22 teams in the NFL currently use cash to the cap.

Not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to see an article stating which teams do and don't use "cash to the cap."

One thing I do know: If 22 teams are indeed using it, then 21 of them that use "cash to the cap" have made the playoffs this century.

Personally, if they want to use "Cash to the cap," fine. But don't trot Ol' Buddy out and say "we're gonna spend all of the cap," when that isn't what's really going on... It's deceitful at best and at worst, an outright lie... Because, according to the NFL rules, they can spend more than they are... They simply choose not to, based on their way of managing the cap.

My bet is, if the Bills weren't in the middle of a 12 year playoff droght, "cash to the cap" would be a non-issue. Personally, if I had been doing something the same way for 12 years without success, I'd look into doing things a different way.

-Bill

[better days]

Not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to see an article stating which teams do and don't use "cash to the cap."

One thing I do know: If 22 teams are indeed using it, then 21 of them that use "cash to the cap" have made the playoffs this century.

Personally, if they want to use "Cash to the cap," fine. But don't trot Ol' Buddy out and say "we're gonna spend all of the cap," when that isn't what's really going on... It's deceitful at best and at worst, an outright lie... Because, according to the NFL rules, they can spend more than they are... They simply choose not to, based on their way of managing the cap.

My bet is, if the Bills weren't in the middle of a 12 year playoff droght, "cash to the cap" would be a non-issue. Personally, if I had been doing something the same way for 12 years without success, I'd look into doing things a different way.

-Bill

I have read something similar, but don't recall the # of teams using it.

So far for the Bills cash to cap has equated to cash for crap.

[Extremebillsfan247]

Buddy Nix mentioned spending all the cash to cap. What the hell does that mean? Does that mean he can spend all he wants up to the cap or just a certain amount?

In short it means he is only limited by the cap in how much he can spend on players. So, he is basically saying if the Bills don't go out and sign the big name free agents, that it's his fault. Nix has the trust of Ralph Wilson to go out and sign who ever he needs to improve the team. It's up to Nix to manage that responsibility effectively. Now, that doesn't mean Ralph Wilson still doesn't have input at some level. Ultimately all decisions still have to go through him before they are implemented. But who we bring in via free agency, and how much we spend on players falls on Nix's shoulders. That's how I see it anyway.

[BertSquirtgum]

About half the teams in the league now use cash to cap.

All the ones watching the playoffs at home.

[streetkings01]

So basically the Bills have their own cap. Not the cap of the NFL which is 120$ million I believe. If true, what I get from that is the Bills are limiting themselves on being able to get players in free agency and signing their own. Pretty stupid if you ask me.According to Jerry Sullivan, 20 other NFL teams use cash to the cap also..........so it's more of an NFL thing then a Bills thing.

[OpIv37]

According to Jerry Sullivan, 20 other NFL teams use cash to the cap also..........so it's more of an NFL thing then a Bills thing.

and if the other 20 teams jumped off a bridge, should we do it too?

It all comes down to winning. If the Bills were winning, no one would even be talking about cash to cap. But, when we consistently spend less than other teams and consistently lose, suddenly the fact that there is capacity to get better players under NFL rules becomes VERY relevant.

This team fails to attract big-name FA's every year. This team lets good players walk over a couple of million, or even $1 million sometimes. NFL rules don't prohibit the team from spending that money, so what gives?

Sign some quality FA's, keep guys who are playing well and win some games-suddenly no one cares. But when we can't get FA's, can't keep our own players and can't win games while going "cash to cap," suddenly the "cheap" moniker becomes very apt.

[mrbojanglezs]

Cash to cap is easier to manage.

[Michael82]

Cash to cap is easier to manage.
Exactly. You dont go into cap hell like Butler got them into.

[stuckincincy]

Buddy Nix mentioned spending all the cash to cap. What the hell does that mean? Does that mean he can spend all he wants up to the cap or just a certain amount?

Well, you've been posting here and there for years. Watching, following pro football for years. And you don't know that that means? Amazing. :pimped:

[BertSquirtgum]

Well, you've been posting here and there for years. Watching, following pro football for years. And you don't know that that means? Amazing. :pimped:
How does one talking about football mean I should know the inner workings of how money is being spent by the football team. Good one cool guy.

[clumping platelets]

Cash to cap = NFL adjusted salary cap (different now that teams can carry over cap space from previous season without gimmicks)

Simply means that a team will spend in real money terms whatever their salary cap is or very close to it.

Means a team usually will use more roster bonuses and guaranteed salaries instead of signing bonuses that way they limit exposure to dead cap.