Strategies for an uncapped world

[solman]

What you don't get is I am saying teams judge players on individual basises and not comparing two player based on their cap dollars.

It doesn't matter whether you are evaluating player or comparing two different players. The argument is exactly the same.

You said:

If a player has a cap hit of $5 million this year, it is still $5 million whether it is 100% salary or a salary/amortized bonus split and a teams have to weigh every player on whether their value is worth that cap hit. So yes, amortized bonuses plays a big factor in personal decisions.

If a player in the last year of his contract has a $5M cap hit, including $2.5M in bonus and $2.5M in salary, the team will evaluate this player as if he had a $2.5M salary and NO amortized bonus.

In the last year of a player's contract, teams do NOT consider amortized bonus at all when they evaluate the player.

In the quote above, aren't you saying the exact opposite?

 

[Miguel]

I[Miguel, you have only partially adjusted your numbers to reflect Randy's recent restructuring. The columns labeled "Prorated Signing Bonus Amortization"

Fixed.

and "2009 Cap Savings if Cut or Traded" appear to be off]

I think that my number is correct.

 

[solman]

Fixed.

I think that my number is correct.

Hi Miguel.

The update (to Prorated Signing Bonus Amortization) still hasn't shown up in my browser, but I am clearly misreading the other column (2009 Cap Savings if Cut or Traded).

Why doesn't "2009 Cap Savings if Cut or Traded" equal "Total Cap Figure" minus "2009 Cap Hit if Cut". I assume that I have a fundamental misunderstanding about the meaning of one or more of those columns, but I am not sure which.

Thanks.

 

[Miguel]

Hi Miguel.

The update (to Prorated Signing Bonus Amortization) still hasn't shown up in my browser, but I am clearly misreading the other column (2009 Cap Savings if Cut or Traded).

Why doesn't "2009 Cap Savings if Cut or Traded" equal "Total Cap Figure" minus "2009 Cap Hit if Cut". I assume that I have a fundamental misunderstanding about the meaning of one or more of those columns, but I am not sure which.

Thanks.

Because if a player in the Top 51 is cut, his salary has to be replaced by someone with a $385,000 salary.

Before OTAs start, I was including the player's offseason workout bonus money as a source of cap savings.

 

[solman]

Because if a player in the Top 51 is cut, his salary has to be replaced by someone with a $385,000 salary.

Before OTAs start, I was including the player's offseason workout bonus money as a source of cap savings.

Thanks!

Does this mean that workout bonus is treated as already earned in the last column, but as not already earned in the second to last column?

 

[Miguel]

Hi Miguel.

The update (to Prorated Signing Bonus Amortization) still hasn't shown up in my browser,

I had fixed my local page but not had uploaded the page.

 

[Miguel]

Thanks!

Does this mean that workout bonus is treated as already earned in the last column, but as not already earned in the second to last column?

The other way around. Starting on Monday I will count it as already earned in the last column.

 

[Rob0729]

It doesn't matter whether you are evaluating player or comparing two different players. The argument is exactly the same.

You said:



If a player in the last year of his contract has a $5M cap hit, including $2.5M in bonus and $2.5M in salary, the team will evaluate this player as if he had a $2.5M salary and NO amortized bonus.

In the last year of a player's contract, teams do NOT consider amortized bonus at all when they evaluate the player.

In the quote above, aren't you saying the exact opposite?

I'm done arguing this point. It is only a smaller point of the overall point. We are just going in circles now. Whether teams look at the amortized money or not at all, it doesn't change the fact that teams in an uncapped NFL will be dealing with only real dollars while right now they are dealing with real dollars along with cap dollars which includes amortized bonuses.

That means that teams will approach these older bubble players like a Mike Vrabel differently in an uncapped year since the real dollar cost of cutting a veteran and adding another player tends to more expensive than retaining the player with the high salary. Right now, teams live it because it is more advantageous from a cap standpoint. Next year, they may opt just to keep the player they have than cut him and try to get another player.

That was my point. We turned this into an amortized bonus issue which is a miniscule part of my overall point.