This year's cap games winner: Kyle Eckel

[makewayhomer]

We could have a game to come up with the most ridiculous incentive for Eckel.

I vote for FGs made, with INTs as my runner-up. Can you top that?

Punt Returns for TD's?
Punting Yardage?
Sacks?

 

[makewayhomer]

Some owners would pocket the $5.6M and not consider that they were "screwing themselves"

smart owners realize that the way to make the most money is to put the best team out on the field - ie to win. they can then charge a premium for everything related to the team, b/c everyone wants to be associated with a winner.

it's hard to win these days without maximizing your cap space.

therefore, by not doing this, owners are probably costing themselves money.

 

[spacecrime]

I don't get it. how could the credit be $5.6m when his cap figure this year was $250k ish

It was. Now it isn't.

They re-did his deal, which included a $5.6 million incentive. That adds to his cap this year.

If he doesn't make the incentive this year, the Pats will get the money returned to them to spend next year.

Funny that people still call the Pats cheap, when they utilize every rule available to spend every cent they possibly can.

An extra $5.6 mil, huh? What's Dante Stallworth's roster bonus next year? Anyone know?

 

[spacecrime]

So don't think they get 5.6M extra next year, between Moss and the playoff/SB and award (MVP/Pro Bowl) incentives the Pats like to use it will be mostly gone, maybe even completely gone.

Faulty logic. That money to Moss, etc is gone whether or not the Pats move money forward or not.

No matter how you do the math, they will get an $5.6 mil more next year than they would have had, all as a result of this move.

 

[alamo]

Funny that people still call the Pats cheap, when they utilize every rule available to spend every cent they possibly can.

No, you're still living in 2005. The general perception of the Pats as "cheap" is long gone. They still aren't considered extravagant, but only a fringe element thinks they are cheap.

Faulty logic. That money to Moss, etc is gone whether or not the Pats move money forward or not.

No matter how you do the math, they will get an $5.6 mil more next year than they would have had, all as a result of this move.

My point was, I will guarantee half of the readers of this thread (and of Reiss' article) think the Pats will start next year with 5.6M space above the nominal league salary cap figure, just like they started 2007 with $4M extra. That is wrong. Incentives earned this year will eat most of it up.

 

[alamo]

No matter how you do the math, they will get an $5.6 mil more next year than they would have had, all as a result of this move.

Also, I forgot to say just now, that I am not certain that that is true at all. The accounting may well subtract the earned incentives from excess space this year even without the Eckel move. I think it's probable, though I have seen it reported both ways, so probably the Pats will not have 5.6M more based on this move alone.

 

[Oswlek]

Some owners would pocket the $5.6M and not consider that they were "screwing themselves"

I think that you are confusing cap and money. This is simply an accounting measure to transfer cap space from one season to the next. It doesn't cost the owner one red cent, it just helps the next season. There is no requirement that they spend it the next year either and they can just keep pushing it off into the next season indefinitely.

So, yes, in fact, they are screwing themselves for there is nothing to "pocket."

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Hold it a second:

In 2006 Patriots were under the cap by 76 cents
In 2007 by $536 dollars.

That is a decline of 705%. Somebody needs to look into this. Scott Pioli slipping.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Hold it a second:

In 2006 Patriots were under the cap by 76 cents
In 2007 by $536 dollars.

That is a decline of 705%. Somebody needs to look into this. Scott Pioli slipping.

Actually, it's an increase of 70500%.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Actually, it's an increase of 70500%.

Thats even worse!!! FIRE SCOTT!!!!!! :bricks: :horn:

 

[spacecrime]

Also, I forgot to say just now, that I am not certain that that is true at all. The accounting may well subtract the earned incentives from excess space this year even without the Eckel move. I think it's probable, though I have seen it reported both ways, so probably the Pats will not have 5.6M more based on this move alone.

Whatever, dude. Maybe they would have had more money in 2008 by not transferring $5.6 mil into next year, and letting this year's money expire.

I saw a wormhole in one of the early Star Trek movies. That might do the trick. But lacking a wormhole, with most accounting practices when you shift $5.6 mil for one account to another account, the other account gets $5.6 mil added to it. Accountants not on the USS ENTERPRISE are funny that way.

 

[psychoPat]

Thats even worse!!! FIRE SCOTT!!!!!! :bricks: :horn:

And do it NOW !
Before he gets this team into cap hell.

 

[alamo]

Whatever, dude. Maybe they would have had more money in 2008 by not transferring $5.6 mil into next year, and letting this year's money expire.

That's ridiculous, you're wrong there. But the move may well have not gained them anywhere close to 5.6M, and maybe nothing at all.

 

[Oswlek]

That's ridiculous, you're wrong there. But the move may well have not gained them anywhere close to 5.6M, and maybe nothing at all.

Of course it gains them cap room next year. Why else would they do it. The entire purporse of the transaction is to have the excess counted in this season and subsequently credited to the next. The Patriots have consistently done this accounting trick at seasons' end.

I'm trying my hardest to figure out what you are aiming for on this one, but I keep coming up blank.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I'm confused.
OF COURSE the move gave them $5.6 M. Period.
Now you subtract out all the other incentives, etc. that you would subtract out in ANY case.
The move...is what it is.

 

[cstjohn17]

What I am trying to figure out is what the offseason will look like, according to Reiss and Miguel the Pats are tight (~5M under) to the 2008 cap with only 43 players signed.
http://www.patscap.com/futureyears.html

- the ERFAs, RFAs and practice squad signings will push them over, and this doesn't even include the rookies

Some obvious moves:
- release Stallworth - save $6M
- release Washington - save $2M

Brady
- sign extension to reduce 2008 cao hit, future hits will be huge, who could argue if he says I want to be the highest paid player in the league

Colvin
- I like the guy but he could be on the bubble, if he is released it will save $~5M

They are going to have to get creative to free up some money, having only one college player make the team really hurts the future cap.

Miguel, anyone? What am I missing?

 

[Miguel]

This is what I emailed Mike Reiss:
"1.) You reported that the Patriots were $5 million under the 2008 cap. I
think that part of the reason is that Eckel's 2008 cap number also treats
the $5.6 million as LTBE. Add the $5.6 million to the Patriots cap space
and then your report matches up pretty well with a recent Peter King
article and with a recent Adamjt13 post.
2.) Thank you for mentioning Wilfork's escalators!!!!! I have been trying
to tell people that they needed to take into account that several Patriots
have escalators that may increase their 2008 salary.!
3.) I do not think that Moss' incentives hit the 2007 cap immediately. If
they did, how did the Patriots have enough room for Eckel's cap maneuver. I
will email the relevant CBA portion to you from my home email later tonite."

Footnotes:
Peter King article
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/12/09/week14/
4.html

So you want to know how active your team will be with a good free-
agency market coming up in three months? Here's a chart of how much
cap space each team was due to have next spring as of Saturday, along
with how many players each team has under contract:


Team Signed Players 2008 cap room
1. Tennessee 39 $40.85 million
2. San Diego 44 $33.03 million
3. Jacksonville 43 $32.69 million
4. Buffalo 49 $32.05 million
5. New Orleans 39 $31.69 million
6. Cincinnati 48 $31.45 million
7. San Francisco 48 $30.91 million
8. Cleveland 42 $30.31 million
9. Arizona 34 $30.27 million
10.N.Y. Jets 45 $27.72 million
11.Oakland 40 $25.98 million
12.Tampa Bay 48 $25.90 million
13.Miami 48 $25.56 million
14.N.Y. Giants 49 $24.47 million
15.Detroit 42 $23.50 million
16.Houston 43 $22.91 million
17.Dallas 40 $20.61 million
18.Kansas City 44 $20.27 million
19.Chicago 52 $19.80 million
20.Pittsburgh 43 $18.61 million
21.Green Bay 48 $18.37 million
22.Philadelphia 49 $17.17 million
23.Denver 49 $16.77 million
24.Minnesota 49 $14.88 million
25.New England 41 $10.93 million

Adamjt13's post
http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92536&page=3
Update (9/25/07) -- Just more info for all 32 teams. The 2007 cap room hasn't changed much since what I posted Friday, but I've added each team's cap situations for 2008. Keep in mind that some teams' 2008 cap info includes some contracts that will void after this season.



2007 CAP ROOM

Jacksonville $17.249 million
Tampa Bay $16.717 million
Indianapolis $14.041 million
Kansas City $13.096 million
Dallas $12.719 million
Green Bay $12.112 million
Buffalo $11.873 million
Seattle $10.787 million
Tennessee $9.501 million
New Orleans $9.330 million
Oakland $9.226 million
Carolina $9.087 million
N.Y. Jets $8.525 million
Philadelphia $8.374 million
Miami $8.011 million
Cleveland $7.108 million
San Francisco $6.070 million
New England $5.796 million
Atlanta $5.775 million
St. Louis $5.497 million
Denver $5.206 million
San Diego $4.305 million
Baltimore $3.929 million
Arizona $2.478 million
Minnesota $2.140 million
Pittsburgh $2.074 million
Detroit $2.054 million
Cincinnati $1.913 million
Houston $1.828 million
Washington $1.427 million
N.Y. Giants $1.199 million
Chicago $902,547



2008 CAP COMMITMENT (with number of players under contract in parentheses)

Tennessee (34) $71.842 million
San Diego (44) $79.729 million
Buffalo (44) $81.177 million
Cincinnati (44) $81.268 million
Jacksonville (42) $82.263 million
San Francisco (46) $83.472 million
New Orleans (37) $84.076 million
Arizona (36) $86.531 million
Dallas (40) $88.593 million
Miami (40) $88.622 million
N.Y. Giants (46) $89.156 million
Oakland (40) $90.133 million
Cleveland (41) $90.306 million
Houston (38) $90.951 million
Detroit (40) $91.488 million
Tampa Bay (47) $92.869 million
Kansas City (43) $94.132 million
Green Bay (47) $94.506 million
Chicago (49) $94.857 million
Pittsburgh (39) $95.017 million
Denver (41) $95.279 million
Minnesota (45) $95.794 million
Philadelphia (48) $96.051 million
N.Y. Jets (43) $98.231 million
Seattle (41) $102.206 million
St. Louis (38) $103.059 million
Indianapolis (42) $104.561 million
New England (42) $105.131 million

CBA:
"At the end of a season, if performance bonuses actually earned resulted in a Team’s paying Salary in excess of the Salary Cap, then the amount by which the Team exceeded the Salary Cap as a result of such actually paid performance bonuses shall be subtracted from the Team’s Salary Cap for the next League Year.
(iii) At the end of a season, if performance bonuses previously included in a Team’s Team Salary but not actually earned exceed performance bonuses actually earned but not previously included in Team Salary, an amount shall be added to the Team’s Salary Cap for the next League Year equaling the amount, if any, by which such overage exceeds the Team’s Room under the Salary Cap at the end of a season."
"(xxii) Any portion of an incentive bonus that is earned, but which had not been deemed likely to be earned at 100 percent of its value, will be deemed earned at the end of the season and not immediately upon attainment
of the required performance level, except: (1) as provided in Subsection (xx) above in regards to per play or per game occurrences; (2) if the incentive bonus is actually paid before the end of the season, in which case it will
count when paid; (3) if a player leaves the team’s roster prior to the end of the season and the conditions of the incentive clause are satisfied prior to leaving, in which case the entire value of the earned bonus will count
immediately; or (4) if the contract is renegotiated and the incentive has been earned prior to such renegotiation.

 

[Miguel]

Miguel, anyone? What am I missing?

1.) The Pats will redo Eckel's deal again in 2008 lowering his 2008 cap number by $5.6 million.
2.) The Top 51 rule.

 

[Miguel]

Mike's response was:
"thanks miguel. the eckel thing, i'm still trying to grasp. they had $11.2 in incentives added in the deal, split $5.6m in 2007 and $5.6 in 2008. so my understanding is they are basically taking this year's cap space and crediting themselves next year"

I then replied:

"If other Patriots earned their NTLBE incentives, then the amount of the credit will be much less. A rough formula would be
Earned LTBE + NLTBE
Minus charged LTBE
=cap debit (credit)"

Mike then provided this nugget of information:
"i saw quite a few NLTBE in players' contracts, so my hunch is that many of them did earn them"

I then replied:
"That has been my hunch all along.

"Let's say that the total of the reached NTLBE incentives is 7 million. The $5.6 million from Eckel will offset most of the 7 million and the Patriots' 2008 cap will be adjusted downward by $1.4 million and that's before the salary increases due to reached escalators." The last part was poorly written. I did not mean to imply that the Patriots' adjusted cap would be adjusted downward. I meant to say that the Patriots' available cap space would decrease once the NFLPA accounts for the reached escalators."

 

[cstjohn17]

1.) The Pats will redo Eckel's deal again in 2008 lowering his 2008 cap number by $5.6 million.
2.) The Top 51 rule.

Thank you Miguel, great information.

So Eckel $5.6, Stallworth $6, Washington $2M + the 5M they are under leaves them about $16.6 under
- minus ERFA, RFAs, and practice sqaud (~4M)

for a total of $12-13M give or take, to sign rookies and free agents.

There are going to be a lot of rookies on this team next year.