Over the past few weeks, I have written in this space about how the NFL operates on a use-it-or-lose-it basis in which Cap room left over from the previous season cannot be carried over -- meaning a team that does not eat up all its Cap room is potentially hurting its ability to compete the following year. I detailed the ways teams carry over Cap room using the necessary tactic of inserting phony incentives into a player’s contract at the end of the season so that the incentive counts on the Cap when negotiated but is credited toward the next year’s Cap when not earned (think 7 touchdown passes or 5 blocked punts, etc.).
As expected, most teams used these maneuvers to dial down their Cap room to minimal levels at the end of the season. However, in what appears to be a precedent-setting move, it appears that four teams left over $40M of Cap room on the table.
According to Salary Cap data, the Buffalo Bills and Atlanta Falcons did not use roughly $5M each of Cap room, the Cincinnati Bengals did not use $10.8M of Cap room and, astonishingly, the Kansas City Chiefs elected to not carry forward almost $22M of available Cap room to 2009, preferring to leave their money on the table in 2008, never to be used again.
With a projected $123M Cap for 2009, all of these teams are presently showing less than $100M of committed Cap expenses for the year, so having extra room does not appear to be a problem. However, from a football operations point of view, it is always better to have as much flexibility as possible, which these teams appear not to be doing.
It will be interesting to see the union’s reaction to over $43M of available Cap room being flushed away with the end of the 2008 Cap year, never to be heard from again. $43M can pay a lot of players…
As to our story that the Patriots intend to use the franchise tag on Matt Cassel in 2009, the question in my mind is: How could they not? Why would they let an incredibly valuable asset like Cassel leave without compensation? They can have rights to Cassel while monitoring two developments: Tom Brady’s rehabilitation and trade offers for Cassel. Yes, it will cost them Cap room, perhaps as much as $16M, but they now have only $105M of commitments on a projected $123M Cap. However, the cost is greater the other way. Players at that position with that talent are scarce; it makes perfect sense to protect that asset.
One final note on Cassel. As it stands now, with 2010 an uncapped year due to the NFL owners opting out of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, six years of service will be required for unrestricted free agency. Cassel, should he play for the franchise tag number in 2009, will be a restricted free agent in 2010, his services still controlled by the New England Patriots. This presents another reason why the Patriots have to tag him.
Comments
Add a CommentAmazing that the Chiefs are leaving $22m on the table.
Andrew, why do they at least not carry it over and then not use it?
Is it something about needing to use a certain percentage of available cap space each year?
One under-reported aspect of the final capped year is that LTBEs will no longer work ... which means that teams will have to spend actual salary commitments rather than phony money to get over the salary minimum. As I understand it, if the Chiefs had rolled the $22 mm to next year, they would be upping the minimum amount of salary that they would have to commit by something like $18 mm.
In that context, it is no surprise that they decided not to roll the cap space over.
Andrew,
Quick question regarding Cassel's 2010 possible RFA status, would his 2010 RFA tender have to be at 110% of his prior year salary?? If he signed his franchise tender at approx $14 mil would that mean that the Pats would have to tender him at 110% of that number in 2010??
If that is true shlynch, then I can see KC utilizing that strategy but, why not carry it with unattainable bonuses? Allow for the flexibility. Does this bonus strategy play into consideration for the uncapped 2010 season? I cannot remember off of the top of my head from reading these pieces.
Dan, that isn't waht I am getting from these teams who left money on the table. Either it may have been less than prudent cap management or $5 mil wasn't worth carrying given their intentions for 2009 and continuing into the uncapped 2010 season. I do not think it is that the ceiling has reached a point where it is too high for teams.
Wasn't the Chiefs' front office in a lame duck session, so to speak, the past month or so?
Toss my first paragraph...
It seems to make sense for the lesser market teams to leave money on the table. To restructure contracts to include phantom incentives or other devices used to manipulate the cap, the team must restructure current contracts, often with bonuses or promises of future money. Given the cash and credit availability of small market teams, they may be unwilling or unable to make those previously small commitments, especially given that they likely would not use the additional cap space anyway.
With the cap ceiling at $123 million next season, we are finally witnessing why this cap was requested by the NFLPA in 1993 to guarantee players more money, and not by the owners for the sole purpose of curtailing costs.
Modification to my point:
It appears that adjustments to the cap due to unearned LTBEs are not counted in calculating the salary minimum, or else KC must be about $4.5mm below the minimum for 2008. They would be about $5.5mm over the minimum if it is the unadjusted cap that is used to calculate the minimum.
[Creates somewhat of a question about how why that would be the case -- a team that got a bunch of NLTBEs (say, by winning a super bowl) and had their cap dropped could in theory simultaneously be above the adjusted cap and below the floor.]
That said, in any case the Chiefs were much closer to the floor than the cap this year; in a year where the cap goes up $7+ million after the cap adjustment mechanism takes effect, but expected revenues decline, it is easy to see why the team would not value additional cap space. All it would give them is a PR headache in explaining to fans why they aren't using their zillions of cap space.
Andrew - or anyone else - is there a good (accurate) site anywhere with cap figures for all the teams? I know of a couple of exceptional sites with great details (patscap.com, nyjetscap.com) for single teams, but when it comes to all 32 teams, it seems like most sites are out of date or incorrect with their figures.
Thanks
Andrew
What are chances that 2010 ends up being uncapped? Is it greater than 50/50? Not great news for the Green Bay Packers in the long term. Hope all is well with you.
In Atlanta, I wonder who is in charge of the cap. Is it McKay or Dimitroff?
With the 2008 cap at $120M what is each team's piece of the revenue sharing pie? The television revenue pie? For the 2008 eason?
Do shared revenues account for most of the cap?
-
09:40AM EST - The Wilson Wire
Wilson: Vrabel out indefinitely
Linebacker still sidelined -
Nov 20 - The Wilson Wire
Wilson: Holmgren interested in talking with Browns
-
Nov 20 - The Wilson Wire
Wilson: Bengals' Benson doubtful
-
Nov 20 - The Biggs Report
Biggs: Pierce out indefinitely with bulging disc
-
Nov 20 - The Wilson Wire
Wilson: Finnegan, Bulluck fined
-
Nov 20 - The Wilson Wire
Wilson: Ravens' Heap, Ngata questionable
-
Nov 20 - The Wilson Wire
Wilson: Banged-up Bills rule out Marcus Stroud
-
Nov 20 - The Wilson Wire
Wilson: Ravens' offense slumbering in first half
-
Nov 20 - The Wilson Wire
Wilson: Bills promote Harris
-
Nov 20 - The Biggs Report
Biggs: Westbrook out for next three games, at least
| powered by TheSeats.com |
-
Nov 21
Wilson: Vrabel out indefinitely
Linebacker still sidelined
-
Nov 20
Wilson: Holmgren interested in talking with Browns
Says he hasn't spoken to Lerner...
-
Nov 20
Wilson: Bengals' Benson doubtful
Running back has hip injury
-
Nov 20
Biggs: Pierce out indefinitely with bulging disc
Will miss Sunday's game vs. Atlanta
-
Nov 20
Wilson: Finnegan, Bulluck fined
Two Titans combined for $17,500...
Jan 05, 2009
01:00 PM
So, teams don't really care about keeping that money in a way that it will be usuable in the future...
Is this an indication that the cap ceiling has gotten so high that a few of the teams know they'll never get close to reaching it?
As for Cassel, there's no question that the Patriots would WANT to keep Cassel. They question is how can they afford to tie up that much money at one position, where they're basically paying two starters.
...and not just two starters... with Cassel being franchised, he's going to get the average of the top five QBs in the league. I assume that Brady's salary is in that range as well. So, how can they be paying two people top-five salaries?