NFP»News
RSS

Monday Money Matters

Andrew Brandt

Bookmark and Share Print This Send This January 05, 2009, 12:37 PM EST
20 Comments

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 Comment
Andrew Brandt
Jan 05, 2009
04:20 PM
Andrew Brandt

Guys-
These are some truly impressive and educated comments.
We will soon have Cap figures for all teams going forward in 2009.
As noted, it appears these teams did not want their Caps adjusted upwards in 2009, resulting in Adjusted Caps approaching 150M.
I think chances are better than 50/50 that by this time next year we will not be in an uncapped year.
Andrew

Eric Green
Jan 05, 2009
05:02 PM

Andrew,
I am not sure where to put this, but I do not like the columns in the story box (not sure what else to call it). To me, your columns are your most important asset and need to be highlighted more so than the news. Although, now that you are scooping everyone on the news, maybe it should be the other way around.:)

British
Jan 05, 2009
06:14 PM

So it seems Kansas City didn't want the PR headache of extra cap room.

Green Bay GM Ted Thompson seems to do a good job of using extra cap room to sign star players to long term deals.

By giving them a big chunk up front it makes their cap hit much less in future years, thus making them easier to keep hold of later on.

An example of this was the Aaron Rodgers contract this year.
I would have thought the Chiefs could have done something similar.

Maybe having an outgoing (lame duck?) GM hindered this process.

Packer Pete
Jan 05, 2009
09:00 PM

I know the TV contract is huge and they league splits certain revenues evenly among teams. Do those monies completely cover the $120 million player cap? (Note how I used "monies?" I'm a regular Bernie Madoff!)

If the team management undercuts the cap by $20 million, can they use this money on other expenses such as team administration or lining the owner's pockets? Is there any penalty for undercutting the cap other than bad blood between the owner and fans or disgruntled players?

London_Ben
Jan 06, 2009
04:04 AM

Andrew, fascinating as ever. As a Pats fan, I'm particularly interested in what you say about Cassel.

But I'm wondering how this might play out given timings. The Pats probably won't know until July/August time whether Brady will be good to go. They are left with very little room for manoeuvre in free agency, and surely their draft strategy would be impacted by whether they are keeping Cassel longer term on a high salary or not? In addition, any potential trade partner for Cassel will want to have their QB in place as early as possible, so as to maximise the learning period for the offence.

I'd love to see them franchise, then trade Cassel, but I can't see that happening whilst Brady's injury status is uncertain. What happens if it gets to September and Brady suffers a recurrence?

Jero d
Jan 06, 2009
09:50 AM

Pack Pete, that is what I am wondering as well. If I remember correctly, earlier in the 2000s when the cap was approx. $80M each team had around $77M from TV revenue. Now, with the cap over $100M the only articles I have seen have stated that each team sees just about enough from TV revenue to cover the cap. Two-thirds of the revenue comes from TV and two-thirds of the revenue goes to the players.

Adam
Jan 07, 2009
04:13 PM

Andrew,

Greetings from Packerland. Love the site. Enjoyed your radio interview with Chris Havel yesterday. Keep up the good work!

Todd
Jan 09, 2009
03:43 PM

Andrew - first off, thank you for your contributions to the Packers and for taking time to chat with fans while with the organization. Now my question - doesn't the NFL cap also have a "floor", and is this floor based on total available cap room for each team, and would "carry-over" money change each teams floor? The thought being that these teams could be in danger of not meeting the minimum % next year? Thanks. Go Packers!

Next 13 - 20 of 20 Prev COMMENTS

Add a Comment

* Required - Keep track of your comments Login or Register with NFP
(will not be published)