Stephen Neal re-signed - 2 year deal

[emoney_33]

How do you live with yourself?

Apparently it was over your head, so I'll be more direct. List all the teams that are taking advantage of no salary cap. Which teams are close to or over last year's cap number? The patriots are at $108M according to Miguel's numbers. Last year's cap I believe was around $126M? If no team goes over at least last year's $126M number in 2010 then no team is "taking advantage" of no salary cap.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Yes, you've understood my concerns perfectly. And, in fact, if the signing bonuses made this year are NOT carried into future years, then that's a huge bonus that puts the Patriots WAY ahead of a lot of teams, especially if we sign Brady to a mega deal.

something tells me though that this will not be the case, and the signing bonuses will be spread out as they are now.

Again, I wasn't so concerned about Neal's deal as I am with the structure of all the contracts. If all the contracts look like Neal's deal and the signing bonuses are spread into future cap years, then the Patriots are not taking advantage of the uncapped year.

Wilfork's and Banta-Cain's contracts certainly took advantage of the uncapped season. We're waiting to see about Bodden, but I suspect his will also push the bulk of the guaranteed money into 2010.

 

[upstater1]

Apparently it was over your head, so I'll be more direct. List all the teams that are taking advantage of no salary cap. Which teams are close to or over last year's cap number? The patriots are at $108M according to Miguel's numbers. Last year's cap I believe was around $126M? If no team goes over at least last year's $126M number in 2010 then no team is "taking advantage" of no salary cap.

I guarantee you there have been frontloaded contracts.

Apparently you haven't seen the contracts being signed around the league.

Julius Peppers for instance is getting over $21 million this year in salary/roster bonus.

His signing bonus (presumably to be spread out in the future) is 6.5 million.

The Bears frontloaded his contract. They took advantage of the uncapped year.

 

[emoney_33]

I guarantee you there have been frontloaded contracts.

You can have frontloaded contracts in any year, it's not taking advantage of anything new this year unless and until it goes over at least last year's total cap.

Julius Peppers for instance is getting over $21 million this year in salary/roster bonus.

His signing bonus (presumably to be spread out in the future) is 6.5 million.

Bonus will be prorated to future caps, this part is no different from a capped year.

The Bears frontloaded his contract. They took advantage of the uncapped year.

If the season starts and the Bears have a "cap" number that is higher than last year's salary cap while the Patriots have significantly lower, then you can use that as an example of a team taking advantage of the uncapped year while the patriots weren't. Until that happens, a front loaded contract does not automatically take advantage of anything new this year.

 

[Brarrell]

If you have read any of the USA articles over the past few weeks here is a comment from someone in the know "The real issue is not the cap, it's cash," says former Green Bay Packers vice president Andrew Brandt, an NFL business columnist for NationalFootballPost.com. "The cap is an accounting tool that can be maneuvered. Cash is real money." If you have read any of these articles lately or even visit NFP.com you know the Pats have not spent money relative to what they did in 2007. In 2008,09 and now in 10 they have been in the bottom of the league as far as spending cash as I long believed this crap about the cap is just that. I hate Michael Felger but he is right about the Pats hiding behind the cap numbers, and really what are the Pats waiting for to draft more rookies that won't make an impact in year one. Just for the record I predict they will trade the #1 pick for a second this year and a second next year and it will be the Ravens who takes advantage of them again. As I've said before it's all about the money and maybe all these guys will become very good players problem is the franchise guy is getting older and I suspect not a happy camper right now.

 

[emoney_33]

If you have read any of the USA articles over the past few weeks here is a comment from someone in the know "The real issue is not the cap, it's cash," says former Green Bay Packers vice president Andrew Brandt, an NFL business columnist for NationalFootballPost.com. "The cap is an accounting tool that can be maneuvered. Cash is real money." If you have read any of these articles lately or even visit NFP.com you know the Pats have not spent money relative to what they did in 2007. In 2008,09 and now in 10 they have been in the bottom of the league as far as spending cash as I long believed this crap about the cap is just that. I hate Michael Felger but he is right about the Pats hiding behind the cap numbers, and really what are the Pats waiting for to draft more rookies that won't make an impact in year one. Just for the record I predict they will trade the #1 pick for a second this year and a second next year and it will be the Ravens who takes advantage of them again. As I've said before it's all about the money and maybe all these guys will become very good players problem is the franchise guy is getting older and I suspect not a happy camper right now.

You do realize that the cap is a lot more than just an accounting tool right?

The bonuses they spent in 2007 (which counts as cash in 07 but not in 08 and 09) went against the 08 and 09 caps as well, and they are not permitted to spend more than the cap on players. Therefore 2007 looks a lot higher in cash vs. 08 and 09, but in the big scope of it they are spending all that is allowed to spend.

 

[larryo]

So is Ohrnberger going to get in some games this year? Anyone see him becoming a starter at some point?

 

[upstater1]

You can have frontloaded contracts in any year, it's not taking advantage of anything new this year unless and until it goes over at least last year's total cap.

You're missing the point. Peppers is getting $13 million a year, but because so much money was moved into the first year (during an uncapped year), his salary is smaller in the future, which means the Bears will have Peppers' services and he won't be busting their cap situation up. That's the point I'm making. Clearly, frontloading a contract in an uncapped year helps your future cap. The question is, what would the cap be this year? The cap tracks revenues. Some owners say they made less, so the cap would decrease. Would the Bears be able to fit $21 million in Peppers money into this year's cap? If you read the article on CBA negotiations, it's safe to say that they'll come back with a smaller cap. That does mean you can't signplayers willy-nilly for more than one year or you could get yourself into trouble But if you do sign players, you can take advantage of the uncapped year by frontloading their contracts. That strategy couldn't help the Patriots ever before because it would obviously hurt their cap that year.

Bonus will be prorated to future caps, this part is no different from a capped year.

]

I wrote "roster bonus" which is effectively a guaranteed salary which counts for that year. $21 million of Peppers money is off the books after this year, and after that, the Bears have him for $10 million a year for two more years. After that, his cap hit is negligible. He can be cut after year 3 and he will only count for $1.5 million against their cap.

If the season starts and the Bears have a "cap" number that is higher than last year's salary cap while the Patriots have significantly lower, then you can use that as an example of a team taking advantage of the uncapped year while the patriots weren't. Until that happens, a front loaded contract does not automatically take advantage of anything new this year.

First, i just don't think last year's cap number is relevant since it's clearly going to change drastically in the next round. We don't know the number but we can guess it will be lower, and that means it will be harder to fit players under your cap. But that point is irrelevant for all the reasons I stated above. If you're clearing out cap space in future years by frontloading contracts now, you're creating cap space for the future. The actual number of the salary cap is totally irrelevant to that. The point is, when you sign players, do it in a way that maximizes capacity for your future cap.

 

[emoney_33]

You're missing the point. Peppers is getting $13 million a year, but because so much money was moved into the first year (during an uncapped year), his salary is smaller in the future, which means the Bears will have Peppers' services and he won't be busting their cap situation up. That's the point I'm making. Clearly, frontloading a contract in an uncapped year helps your future cap. The question is, what would the cap be this year? The cap tracks revenues. Some owners say they made less, so the cap would decrease. Would the Bears be able to fit $21 million in Peppers money into this year's cap? If you read the article on CBA negotiations, it's safe to say that they'll come back with a smaller cap. That does mean you can't signplayers willy-nilly for more than one year or you could get yourself into trouble But if you do sign players, you can take advantage of the uncapped year by frontloading their contracts. That strategy couldn't help the Patriots ever before because it would obviously hurt their cap that year.

The second half of this paragraph is more what I am getting at. The frontloading is ONLY meaningful if it would have been DIFFERENT had there been a cap. We can assume a cap around the same as 2009 for the purpose of this debate. If the Bears go in with numbers > than the 2009 cap then I agree they took advantage of the no-cap. If they go in with numbers < 2009 cap, then the uncapped season offered no advantage.

I wrote "roster bonus" which is effectively a guaranteed salary which counts for that year. $21 million of Peppers money is off the books after this year, and after that, the Bears have him for $10 million a year for two more years. After that, his cap hit is negligible. He can be cut after year 3 and he will only count for $1.5 million against their cap.

Good points, but the same thing could have been done in a capped year.

First, i just don't think last year's cap number is relevant since it's clearly going to change drastically in the next round. We don't know the number but we can guess it will be lower, and that means it will be harder to fit players under your cap.

Last year's number is just fine in this discussion, since it's about taking -advantage- of an uncapped year. Not trying to guess what a cap would have been this year in a new CBA.

But that point is irrelevant for all the reasons I stated above. If you're clearing out cap space in future years by frontloading contracts now, you're creating cap space for the future. The actual number of the salary cap is totally irrelevant to that. The point is, when you sign players, do it in a way that maximizes capacity for your future cap.

The actual cap numbers are not totally irrelevant at all. Because the exact same thing could have been done in 2009 as long as the total cap number was under $126M. So for it to be taking advantage specifically of no cap then it would have to be with a total cap number that they probably would have been prohibited of had their been a cap.

The bottom line is that that frontloading alone does not prove using an uncapped year to their advantage unless it would have been unlikely to do be done with a cap.

 

[BradyFTW!]

So is Ohrnberger going to get in some games this year? Anyone see him becoming a starter at some point?

Pretty much impossible to say at this point. It could happen, but since nobody's really seen him play, who knows?

 

[upstater1]

The Patriots always come within a million or two of the cap.

And that's fine.

What we're talking about here is clearing about a ton of space under the cap for future years. not just a million or two.

If you don't take advantage of this uncapped year when you're signing players to new contracts (mind you, I'm not arguing that the Patriots should have signed Peppers and busted their budget) then you can't argue in the future that you tried to do everything you possibly could have to keep a player, but the salary cap didn't allow it. We've heard that argument being used by people like Mike Reiss in the past to describe the Seymour-Wilfork dynamic, and it seemed plausible to me. But in the future, it will be less plausible for teams that sign players without frontloading their contracts.

This is all just theoretical since Box pointed out that the Wilfork and Bodden contracts do indeed appear to be frontloaded BUT I think Box was emphasizing the signing bonuses when he made that statment, since he seems to believe that signing bonuses will not be included retroactively in the new CBA. Of course, then one might ask why the Chicago Bears structured Peppers' contract so differently than the Patriots structured Wilfork's contract.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

In 2008,09 and now in 10 they have been in the bottom of the league as far as spending cash

Watch what happens when Brady signs his extension.

 

[emoney_33]

The Patriots always come within a million or two of the cap.

And that's fine.

What we're talking about here is clearing about a ton of space under the cap for future years. not just a million or two.

If you don't take advantage of this uncapped year when you're signing players to new contracts (mind you, I'm not arguing that the Patriots should have signed Peppers and busted their budget) then you can't argue in the future that you tried to do everything you possibly could have to keep a player, but the salary cap didn't allow it. We've heard that argument being used by people like Mike Reiss in the past to describe the Seymour-Wilfork dynamic, and it seemed plausible to me. But in the future, it will be less plausible for teams that sign players without frontloading their contracts.

This is all just theoretical since Box pointed out that the Wilfork and Bodden contracts do indeed appear to be frontloaded BUT I think Box was emphasizing the signing bonuses when he made that statment, since he seems to believe that signing bonuses will not be included retroactively in the new CBA. Of course, then one might ask why the Chicago Bears structured Peppers' contract so differently than the Patriots structured Wilfork's contract.

This is all true but the only difference between that strategy being used in any other year vs. this year is only relevant if the total "cap" figure would have prevented that strategy in a salary capped year. For example if the Bears go in with $100M total cap figure this season, then the uncapped year had no advantage because the frontload could have been done the same in any capped year as well.

 

[upstater1]

This is all true but the only difference between that strategy being used in any other year vs. this year is only relevant if the total "cap" figure would have prevented that strategy in a salary capped year. For example if the Bears go in with $100M total cap figure this season, then the uncapped year had no advantage because the frontload could have been done the same in any capped year as well.

Yes, I agree with that, but you really think they'll be $25 million under last year's payroll?