Where will the cap space go???

[QuiGon]

As we sit here at this point with this much space, I am becoming more and more p!ssed about letting McGinnest walk without so much as an offer!

Here's a nickel's worth of free advice.

Don't get upset until all the chip have fallen and all the cards have been played

 

[MoLewisrocks]

No, but let me ask you this!

Purely hypothetical. Wouldn't you be upset if for some reason they had unspent money where they could have easily resigned Willie?

I know I would.

Suppose the choices are to overpay for Branch, or not spend to the cap and lose Branch next season.

Again, purely hypothetical.

Odds are the Pats will shock me and make some great moves with the space.

I'm just getting a little nervous considering how close the training camp we are, and the lack of any movement.

Basically, they can spend the money on extending there own players, or signing free agents.

I have seen or heard almost no movement on trying to sign our own players.

And there is only 1 free agent on the market worth anything anymore.

The only way they could have easily re-signed Willie involved overpaying him by about double. Willie kept saying it wasn't about the money when he likely had this deal in his back pocket for some time and was basically FOS. He simply wasn't going to finish out his career here at half price, even though that was his real market value, when he had a pal like RAC willing to overpay him for his presence and cache on a young team rebuilding.

It's the same deal with Givens and Branch. Just because you have the money now doesn't mean you overpay to keep guys. Those overpayments will dog you down the road when there are no more cap windfalls to account for your largesse.

If they cannot find value to spend it on this season, the better strategy is to roll some of it over into 2007 via creatve cap bookeeping.

And I will say it again, they can extend players through the last week of the regular season. Perhaps they prefer to see how they rebound from injury or maddening bouts of inconsistency or suckitude before they commit to some of these guys for the next 4+ years.

 

[PATSNUTme]

I've said it before and took heat but I believe a good chunk of it stays with Bob Kraft. I still believe he was not happy with the CBA and means to get back some if not all the money he felt should have been his.".

Yes I know his son was left to do the best he could with a bad situation but
Bob Kraft was not happy the way I read it and departed the country for
Israel. I wouldn't be surprised to see 5M or more stay with Mr. Kraft.
hey ... it's his company ... he can do whatever he wants.
( the above is pure specualtion but from things I have read that is what it
seems like to me)

There is always a big difference in "cap money" and actual money paid out.

Just because a team shows tha they have "spent up to the cap" doesn't mean that they actually paid that money to the players. It could be several milllion less or several million more.

So, your statement that Kraft wil put the $ in his pocket, would be no more true or false this year than any other.

 

[JR4]

There is always a big difference in "cap money" and actual money paid out.

Just because a team shows tha they have "spent up to the cap" doesn't mean that they actually paid that money to the players. It could be several milllion less or several million more.

So, your statement that Kraft wil put the $ in his pocket, would be no more true or false this year than any other.

I do not understand what you are saying.
Money under CAP is money not committed right?
The closer they are to the CAP the more money committed. So it is
certainly true Mr. Kraft will have more non-committed money in his "pocket"
if PATs don't spend to the CAP than if they did.

 

[PATSNUTme]

I do not understand what you are saying.
Money under CAP is money not committed right?
The closer they are to the CAP the more money committed. So it is
certainly true Mr. Kraft will have more non-committed money in his "pocket"
if PATs don't spend to the CAP than if they did.

I know that Miguel could explain this better.

Let say that they give a player $16mil in up front bonus on a four year contract. The player gets the $16mil but the CAP # is $4mil. That is actual money spent but a CAP amount of $4mil.

Sometimes it works the other way. That is the best that I can explain. Maybe someone else can do a better job.

 

[pats1]

I know that Miguel could explain this better.

Let say that they give a player $16mil in up front bonus on a four year contract. The player gets the $16mil but the CAP # is $4mil. That is actual money spent but a CAP amount of $4mil.

Sometimes it works the other way. That is the best that I can explain. Maybe someone else can do a better job.

Here, I'll try:

When a player signs a contract/extension, and receives a signing bonus, he recives ALL of that money UP FRONT. However, for accounting purposes, that money's cap hit is pro-rated over the life of the contract.

For example:

A player receives a 4 year contract in 2006 with a $16 mil. signing bonus, and, say, $1 base salaries every year

The signing bonus is guaranteed money because it is paid up front. The player will actually receive all $16 million of that bonus in 2006 - which means the team is paying $16 million. He'll also receive his base salary payments as he goes along.

But in 2006, there's not a $16 million cap hit. Since it's a 4-year contract, that $16 million is pro-rated. So for the first year, the team is paying the player $17 million but there is only a $5 cap hit.

In year 2, the player has already received all of his signing bonus money. The team is actually paying him just the $1 million base salary, but the next pro-ration of the signing bonus is added, making it a $5 million cap hit.

Such continues on in years 3 and 4. If a player is cut, say, between years 3 and 4, he would have already received $3 million in base salary, but since he won't be with the team for a 4th year, he won't receive the last $1 million of the base salary. He also would have already received all $16 million of his signing bonus 3 years prior.

All in all, it works out like this for this sample contract (4 years @ $1 million/year, plus a $16 million signing bonus):

Year 1: Team pays $17 million : Cap hit is $5 million.

Year 2: Team pays $1 million : Cap hit is $5 million.

Year 3: Team pays $1 million : Cap hit is $5 million.

Year 4: Team pays $1 million : Cap hit is $5 million.


What needs to be understood here is that what a team actually spends and what a team has for a cap number are two different things.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Can someone try to get a list of potential free agents for '07.

#1. Ronde Barber. Just sayin'.

 

[pats1]

Whoever has a KFFL subscription can see the lists of potential future free agents:

http://www.kffl.com/noauth.php?camefrom=/static/nfl/features/freeagents/fa.php?y=2007&cid=360

Here's a few I got from checking NFLPA, ranked by 2006 base salary:

OT Leonard Davis (ARZ)
CB Nate Clements (BUF - 2006 Fran.)
OT Jeff Backus (DET - 2006 Fran.)
DE Dwight Freeney (IND - final two years of contract voided with reached playing time trigger)
OT Willie Anderson (CIN)
CB Ronde Barber (TB)
LB London Fletcher (BUF)
DE Leonard Little (STL)
OT Todd Weiner (ATL)
S Brian Dawkins (PHI)
CB Tory James (CIN)

 

[PatsFanInVa]

It looks like there are some ongoing talks -- especially Deion -- which point to the idea that nobody is in any hurry to spend now just because it's a slow offseason.

The Pats will either do the Deion deal or not, but I think yes -- and they could spend as much or as little right now within his contract as they'd like. Someone threw out the number 6 mil they could pull from the 06 cap for Sey's deal. That takes you to 7-9 mil left. Miguel says about 3.2 mil goes to practice squad, in-season replacements, etc. That leaves from 3.8 to 5.8 million for Deion's non-prorated bonus, plus any amount of the Seymour deal they would like to forego absorbing now. In other words, if the Pats want to, they can use this money entirely on Sey and Branch, putting off future hits. But again, they won't get stupid in the process of negotiating with Deion just because they have the money.

It would seem that even if they do not get the Branch deal done now, there's 9.2 million dollars that we can consider "spoken for" in a way that moves forward costs they would pay down the road. That leaves the 3.8 to 5.8 to "get rid of," and a little restructuring on the parts of other players, whose total deals aren't in question, might be the mechanism. It may even be the case that BB/SP see a better crop to choose from in 07 than 06 at this point, and see the greater value in moving this money forward to make the play then.

So what this looks like is wiggle room for the Pats, with mechanisms in place to carry the balance forward if they can't get deals done on the terms they want. Law's still twisting in the wind, Branch's deal is yet to be completed... it seems like the idea is not to be hurting for money while these balls are in the air. Once they (and whatever else is out there) are done deals, one way or another, they'll clean up the shop before turning out the lights (i.e., get the accounting straight to best position themselves for both the remainder of 06 and 07.)

PFnV

 

[mesoslo]

All this cap room just gives them up front cash money to go after players that they/BB drools over, now and in the future.

As long as they keep winning I dont really care about the cap room.

 

[b_btrick]

One comment and one question:

I'm not sure if anyone else has said this yet, however I think it would be a great gesture for the Pats to use some of the space to give 'underpaid' (by Pats standards) players a bonus this year. Specifically Bruschi and Harrison even though both are older and returning from injury (ok, so Bruschi returned last year but still ... ). It would be a great way for the Pats to show that they can and will reward for performance beyond pay and work as an incentive for those low wage players.

As to the question, arent the 'not likely to be reached' incentives rolled over to next year so that a team can actually have more than the set cap space to use? Perhaps that wasnt the right way to say it, however, it seems to me that I have heard/read that if players have incentive in their contracts that are not likely to be reached, and they are not reached so that the money isnt paid out this year, then that money is available to be used next year. If this is so, then it would seem that the Pats would want to take advantage of that and negotiate/renegotiate contracts using incentives that would carry any extra money over to the next season rather than simply not using it this year and losing the ability to use it if necessary next year.
Of course this was under that previous CBA and may not be in the present one.

 

[pats1]

One comment and one question:

I'm not sure if anyone else has said this yet, however I think it would be a great gesture for the Pats to use some of the space to give 'underpaid' (by Pats standards) players a bonus this year. Specifically Bruschi and Harrison even though both are older and returning from injury (ok, so Bruschi returned last year but still ... ). It would be a great way for the Pats to show that they can and will reward for performance beyond pay and work as an incentive for those low wage players.

As to the question, arent the 'not likely to be reached' incentives rolled over to next year so that a team can actually have more than the set cap space to use? Perhaps that wasnt the right way to say it, however, it seems to me that I have heard/read that if players have incentive in their contracts that are not likely to be reached, and they are not reached so that the money isnt paid out this year, then that money is available to be used next year. If this is so, then it would seem that the Pats would want to take advantage of that and negotiate/renegotiate contracts using incentives that would carry any extra money over to the next season rather than simply not using it this year and losing the ability to use it if necessary next year.
Of course this was under that previous CBA and may not be in the present one.

Here's how it goes with LTBEs/NLTBEs:

A LTBE counts against the cap in Season A. The player reaches the LTBE in Season A. There is no carry-over into Season B.

A LTBE counts against the cap in Season A. The player doesn't reach the LTBE in Season A. The team receives a cap credit worth the LTBE for Season B.

A NLTBE doesn't count against the cap in Season A. The player reaches the NLTBE in Season A. The team receives a cap charge worth the NLTBE for Season B.

A NLTBE doesn't count against the cap in Season A. The player doesn't reach the NLTBE in Season. There is no carry-over into Season B.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Sarge:

One area of speculation about Willie has been that Bioli was not happy with him, because Willie refused to switch sides with Colvin, to better utilize Colvin after his hip injury. With Willie losing a step during the first half of the season as well, the Pats were going to move on without Willie unless the price for Willie was low. And they did supposedly contact Willie plenty about his contract, what he said on ESPN may have been a little dishonest.

This is all speculation, but I also read that Colvin worked at Willie's old spot in mini camp at one point this offseason.

I wasn't there, obviously, but there could be a lot more to the McGinnest release than fans are suggesting by saying that we should have resigned him. I think Bioli probably made the appropriate effort, given their view of the situation. Willie is rolling in money right now, and we don't have to face him in any meaningful games because the Browns are still a last place team in their division. We probably could only get one more year out of him, at this point. We need to develop some new players at that position, and we are trying to.

 

[b_btrick]

Here's how it goes with LTBEs/NLTBEs:

A LTBE counts against the cap in Season A. The player reaches the LTBE in Season A. There is no carry-over into Season B.

A LTBE counts against the cap in Season A. The player doesn't reach the LTBE in Season A. The team receives a cap credit worth the LTBE for Season B.

A NLTBE doesn't count against the cap in Season A. The player reaches the NLTBE in Season A. The team receives a cap charge worth the NLTBE for Season B.

A NLTBE doesn't count against the cap in Season A. The player doesn't reach the NLTBE in Season. There is no carry-over into Season B.

Ah, I see. Not a 'likely to be used' scenario then (pun intended) since any bonus would likely be reached. Unless, there were some way to establish goals that would not likely be reached, and still call them likely to be reached so that the money carried over.
What is the deciding factor in whether a goal is likely to be reached (LTBE) and not likely to be reached (NLBTE)?
I can see putting in a bonus for Brady to run for 1000 yards would be an NLBTE, however what about puttin in a condition for Seymour to get say 10 sacks? Thats not likely to happen even though its not completely outrageous.
Is it a set standard (such as a player reaching a goal he has never reached before) or simply someone sitting around saying 'thats not gonna happen' and writing it up as an NLBTE, or is it actually stipulated when the contract is signed that 'this set of goals are all LTBE and this set of goals are all NLTBE'?


Oops, kinda off topic, sorry. Just curious, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Welker83]

There is not much talent at the monent in the Free agent market. it would be foolish to go cash crazy.

I think the pats usual plan of sitting back may have back-fired on them a little this year. Ussually they could find plenty of impact guys at cheap prices, but with the inflation of the cap, and all the teams having excess cash i think a lot of the talent that ussually gets passed over was chomped up.

I think the best thing the Pats could do is:
1. Find common ground w/ Branch and sign him.
2. Re-up any good talents to long term deals.
3. Possibly sign Law... (his price will not go down till TC though...)

 

[pats1]

Is it a set standard (such as a player reaching a goal he has never reached before) or simply someone sitting around saying 'thats not gonna happen' and writing it up as an NLBTE, or is it actually stipulated when the contract is signed that 'this set of goals are all LTBE and this set of goals are all NLTBE'?

I'm not entirely sure, but I believe the NFL might dictate what's NLTBE/LTBE.

One twist is that after the season starts, any incentive added is automatically LTBE, so it can be for 1,000,000 rushing yards, which won't be reached, giving the team a cap credit for the next season.

 

[b_btrick]

I'm not entirely sure, but I believe the NFL might dictate what's NLTBE/LTBE.

One twist is that after the season starts, any incentive added is automatically LTBE, so it can be for 1,000,000 rushing yards, which won't be reached, giving the team a cap credit for the next season.

Might be an interesting way to roll over any extra space from this year. Just tack it on as incentives for one of the guys on the PS. As a PS player they wont be making any incentives and if they are picked up by another team, then again, they wont be making their incentives (at least not with the Pats) and the incentive money is available for next year.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Purely hypothetical. Wouldn't you be upset if for some reason they had unspent money where they could have easily resigned Willie?

I know I would.

Right now the question is not if the Pats have enough cap room. The question is how do they plan to burden their cap in future years.

Signing McGinest would have been affordable this year, but that contract lasts 4 years. Does that deal start to look better when he is in his decline over the second half of the contract? Nope.

That's the problem with the cap. No extra cap room doesn't "carry over" per se. But any contracts you give out WILL carry over impact to future seasons. Potentially tying the Pats hands in future years.

Sure I'd like to see the Pats make a splash as there is nothing much between now and TC. But not just to make a splash just for the sake of making a splash. That's what Daniel Snyder does. Look how many rings that has won the Skins. And they really would have been in cap hell this year had it not been for the new CBA. But I'm sure with the rate of Snyder's signings and bonuses given out he will quickly destroy the Skins future cap as well, even with the cap increases.

 

[shakadave]

Here's where i think the money should go in order:

1.) Deion Branch
2.) Ty Law
3.) Donnie Edwards
4.) Trade for Lelie

I'll go

1) Deion Branch
2) Seymour bonus-thing $6m
3) get Graham done
4) Ty Law
5) Koppen
6) Buy Wilfork a nice salmon dinner

 

[sarge]

So, now that Law is out of the question, and the Pats seem unwilling to overpay for Branch, where does the money go?

I will be furious if this team just eats the cap space!
I can't see how they are going to get close to the cap.

This team has a lot of wholes on Defense, and did zilch to address them.

At this point, if the choices are either
A. Pony up for Branch
B. Lose the cap space.

I say pony up! It isn't as if they will get to use the money saved eslewhere!