The number that REALLY matters when trading/cutting players

[ctpatsfan77]

I've seen enough of this over the last 24 hours that I feel compelled to post something.

SALARY CAP NUMBERS ARE IRRELEVANT when it comes to cutting or trading players.

What matters is the actual money still owed to the player.

That is the money "saved" when a player is released. Since 2010 is probably going to be uncapped, the normal "cap hit" doesn't exist. Moreover, the signing bonus proration has already been paid, so it really doesn't matter, since it's a "sunk" cost.

Similarly, if a team wants to trade for a player, it doesn't make one iota of difference what his cap number is with his current team. For example, if 2010 is capped, Adalius Thomas' cap number is $9.5M. But a team that takes him on now would only have to pay his salary (and workout bonus, etc.), which is about half of his cap number.

 

[Pats726]

I've seen enough of this over the last 24 hours that I feel compelled to post something.

SALARY CAP NUMBERS ARE IRRELEVANT when it comes to cutting or trading players.

What matters is the actual money still owed to the player.

That is the money "saved" when a player is released. Since 2010 is probably going to be uncapped, the normal "cap hit" doesn't exist. Moreover, the signing bonus proration has already been paid, so it really doesn't matter, since it's a "sunk" cost.

Similarly, if a team wants to trade for a player, it doesn't make one iota of difference what his cap number is with his current team. For example, if 2010 is capped, Adalius Thomas' cap number is $9.5M. But a team that takes him on now would only have to pay his salary (and workout bonus, etc.), which is about half of his cap number.

I think a LOT of assumptions are being made...Jumping the gun here???

 

[pats1]

I've seen enough of this over the last 24 hours that I feel compelled to post something.

SALARY CAP NUMBERS ARE IRRELEVANT when it comes to cutting or trading players.

What matters is the actual money still owed to the player.

That is the money "saved" when a player is released. Since 2010 is probably going to be uncapped, the normal "cap hit" doesn't exist. Moreover, the signing bonus proration has already been paid, so it really doesn't matter, since it's a "sunk" cost.

Similarly, if a team wants to trade for a player, it doesn't make one iota of difference what his cap number is with his current team. For example, if 2010 is capped, Adalius Thomas' cap number is $9.5M. But a team that takes him on now would only have to pay his salary (and workout bonus, etc.), which is about half of his cap number.

Right, it's the "cap hit if released/traded" that matters (which is the signing bonus proration, the money already "sunk.")

But when people take into consideration cap numbers, they are doing it relative to the player's value. Basically, they say "Is Player X really worth Y dollars against the cap?" That argument holds less water in an uncapped year, but the outstanding salary doesn't.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I think a LOT of assumptions are being made...Jumping the gun here???

At least here, I'm not stating I think Thomas will be/should be traded. I'm merely pointing out that the fact that his scheduled 2010 cap hit of $9.5M is irrelevant.

As another example, someone suggested trading for Lee Evans. The financial question in that case is not what his cap hit is, but what he is scheduled to make over the next few years.

But I'm not asking meaningless questions, like whether or not Moss is worth $10M+.

 

[IcyPatriot]

I think in their enthusiasm some fans are forgetting one thing. Belichick has a salary structure on the team that will not be altered ... it's not happening. I think he altered it a bit when he brought in AT ... and it hurt the locker room ... he won't do it again. I'd love to hear more about this and I think we will in future years when former players start talking.

Capped or uncapped is irrelevant ... the signings we have seen is what we will continue to see. Bill will do what he can to keep Mankins and Wilfork as they are the best in their units he can safely pay them without hurting the structure.

The highest earner of a unit has to be that units best player or it throws off the entire system Bill employs.

 

[Pats726]

At least here, I'm not stating I think Thomas will be/should be traded. I'm merely pointing out that the fact that his scheduled 2010 cap hit of $9.5M is irrelevant.

As another example, someone suggested trading for Lee Evans. The financial question in that case is not what his cap hit is, but what he is scheduled to make over the next few years.

But I'm not asking meaningless questions, like whether or not Moss is worth $10M+.

I understand....THIS uncapped year is one path..BUT the fact is at this point..this uncapped YEAR MAY happen or may not...and that is why there will not be many big moves for awhile..

 

[pats1]

I understand....THIS uncapped year is one path..BUT the fact is at this point..this uncapped YEAR MAY happen or may not...and that is why there will not be many big moves for awhile..

I think it's 95-5. They will have to know within a month or so, it affects free agency, which starts on on March 5. They may even reach a new CBA but include the uncapped 2010 free agent rules to avoid a late major change.

 

[Metaphors]

All good points...but this is exactly the reason why I don't believe 2010 will actually be uncapped when all is said and done.

If the cap is gone forever, so is revenue sharing. Without revenue sharing, Buffalo and Jacksonville are gone almost immediately. A couple of other teams will face yearly solvency questions. Several other teams will muddle along essentially serving as farm systems for Dallas, Washington, Jersey Prime, Jersey Jr, etc. TV contracts go way down since the majority of games are dogs or blowouts. Nobody is a winner in this scenario.

If the cap reappears in the next CBA, the accounting rules will be almost impossible to reset immediately. There will undoubtedly be a boatload of transactions where (as you describe) the post-2009 prorated cap hits essentially disappear. If they disappear in some cases, I can't see how it would be legal to keep them in any cases. That makes the first couple of years of a resurrected cap a complete mess.

So look for an a new CBA with a cap or an extension of the current CBA sometime before the new league year begins.

 

[upstater1]

I think in their enthusiasm some fans are forgetting one thing. Belichick has a salary structure on the team that will not be altered ... it's not happening. I think he altered it a bit when he brought in AT ... and it hurt the locker room ... he won't do it again. I'd love to hear more about this and I think we will in future years when former players start talking.

Capped or uncapped is irrelevant ... the signings we have seen is what we will continue to see. Bill will do what he can to keep Mankins and Wilfork as they are the best in their units he can safely pay them without hurting the structure.

The highest earner of a unit has to be that units best player or it throws off the entire system Bill employs.

It's not a question of altering the salary structure (which is being altered mostly by the fact that the salary cap went up 50% in a few years) but rather, maintaining the SAME salary cap structure while frontloading contracts so that a lot of that contract weight can be pushed into the first (uncapped) year.

The amount of money paid out stays the same (relative to the rise in the cap, that is) but the way you account for it changes.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

So look for an a new CBA with a cap or an extension of the current CBA sometime before the new league year begins.

The problem is there are too many issues, and I suspect not enough time left to solve them.

Heck, the first offer from the owners to the NFLPA didn't even happen until some time in November.

Moreover, remember there are some owners—including Bob Kraft—who think that an uncapped year would, in the long run, benefit them.