Oh, it does.
15 thoughts - free agency
- Thread starter Gandhi
- Start date
Well, it is obviously a fair point, but I guess it depends on how much you value a backup quarterback. Certainly in a situation where your starter is injury prone, having a good replacement can be the difference between success and failure longterm.
But I would say that I have a lot of confidence in Murray when he is on the field, and I believe that he can take the team far. I certainly don't want to replace him.
I don’t know, Cardiac. They had structured the contracts in a way so that it affected their salary cap to the point where they were over the allowed number, and you cannot do that. You cannot break the rules – it is just easy to get around them. Yesterday I heard a longtime general manager say that “outside the NFL people talk about cap. Inside the NFL people talk about cash.” This way, the Bills save cash, and I am sure that makes the owner happy.
I should also add that the point about the salary cap, and how it is meaningless, is not mine. I mean, I do think there is some logic to it, but overall it is based on numerous articles and interviews with longtime NFL executives and analysts.
It has not been a soft cap for that long, Oaken, but the most important is how you use your money.
Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Bingo.I don’t know, Cardiac. They had structured the contracts in a way so that it affected their salary cap to the point where they were over the allowed number, and you cannot do that. You cannot break the rules – it is just easy to get around them. Yesterday I heard a longtime general manager say that “outside the NFL people talk about cap. Inside the NFL people talk about cash.” This way, the Bills save cash, and I am sure that makes the owner happy.
I should also add that the point about the salary cap, and how it is meaningless, is not mine. I mean, I do think there is some logic to it, but overall it is based on numerous articles and interviews with longtime NFL executives and analysts.
BigDavis75
Making a Comeback
Nfl has a hard cap, the nba and mlb have a soft cap. A cap going up on a yearly basis does not make it a “soft cap”.Oh, it does.
Krangodnzr
Captain of Team Conner
I agree that this is true, but the guarantees for a contract have to be put in an escrow account. Owners with lots of cash can put more money aside for these contracts, while more cash poor owners just don't have the cash.I don’t know, Cardiac. They had structured the contracts in a way so that it affected their salary cap to the point where they were over the allowed number, and you cannot do that. You cannot break the rules – it is just easy to get around them. Yesterday I heard a longtime general manager say that “outside the NFL people talk about cap. Inside the NFL people talk about cash.” This way, the Bills save cash, and I am sure that makes the owner happy.
I should also add that the point about the salary cap, and how it is meaningless, is not mine. I mean, I do think there is some logic to it, but overall it is based on numerous articles and interviews with longtime NFL executives and analysts.
This isn't speculation, it was said about the Cardinals alot during the Bill Bidwill days. Granted it's probably a lot better than it once was, but he still can't compete with the really rich owners.
Business of Football: Understanding Salary Cap, Dead Money
With NFL teams about to open their wallets, here's a refresher course on the salary cap and an explanation of why we've seen bigger dead-money cap hits lately.
www.si.com
Andrew Brandt was vice president for the Packers for nine years where he, among other things, negotiatied all player contracts and handled all salary cap-things. Since then he has been an alalyst- and councellor on business and legal aspects in sport for ESPN and Sports Illustrated.
You are absolutely right, Krang, and I think it is a much overlooked aspect. That was why I mentioned it in the original post, because it is very important. I don't think that Michael Bidwill can easily throw around with major checks like other owners can, and thus, I think other teams have an advantage on the Cards in that regard. For example, if the Cards and Cowboys wants the same player, Jerry Jones will win every single time.
Dude is expressing his opinion on the definition of hard cap.Business of Football: Understanding Salary Cap, Dead Money
With NFL teams about to open their wallets, here's a refresher course on the salary cap and an explanation of why we've seen bigger dead-money cap hits lately.
Andrew Brandt was vice president for the Packers for nine years where he, among other things, negotiatied all player contracts and handled all salary cap-things. Since then he has been an alalyst- and councellor on business and legal aspects in sport for ESPN and Sports Illustrated.
He is wrong. His career experience adds zero authority to his opinion.
Oh man. Why play with my emotions!
Totally_Red
Air Raid Warning!
Don't taunt us with the Christisn Wilkins talk then settle for some third string practice squad reject.
As the old commercial said, "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature" or lie to Josh Weinfuss.
BigDavis75
Making a Comeback
Business of Football: Understanding Salary Cap, Dead Money
With NFL teams about to open their wallets, here's a refresher course on the salary cap and an explanation of why we've seen bigger dead-money cap hits lately.
Andrew Brandt was vice president for the Packers for nine years where he, among other things, negotiatied all player contracts and handled all salary cap-things. Since then he has been an alalyst- and councellor on business and legal aspects in sport for ESPN and Sports Illustrated.
Basically every source on the internet says NFL is hard cap, you initially said it was “soft” because it increases every year which is wrong. This guy is saying that cash spend can go over the hard cap amount which is correct and also doesn’t make it a soft cap.
It’s fine to be wrong about this.
Okay.
Yes, it is. It is complicated stuff. No worries.
I think the issue is in the understanding of what a hard cap is, added with the possibility of using cash over cap to spread out signing bonuses, and what that actually makes the cap into. It's fair to be confused.
BigDavis75
Making a Comeback
Sheer delusion ^
Ouchie-Z-Clown
I'm better than Mulli!
Eh they’ve been sssbtialky admitted he’s too expensive. Don’t waste your heartache.
Krangodnzr
Captain of Team Conner
Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Oh, he can compete, and he can do so without risking his base wealth. Competing would risk the insane amounts of profits he and his family can pull in year in, year out, so he mostly chooses not to spend the cash.
The absolute last thing we as Cards fans need to do is start making excuses for this clown franchise and clown owner. C'mon, man!
Stout
Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Baloney. Can we please stop posting Bidwill excuses right before free agency? It sets up the "Well, I really don't blame them for not signing FAs because Bidwill can't" crap excuses.
I think the misunderstanding is because you are focusing on the exact definition in the dictionary, while I care more about what it actually means. It is not very reader-friendly to read, so I left it out of the original post, but okay, I can explain it a little.
A soft cap means that teams can be above the salary cap number during the start- and end of a league year. A hard cap is the opposite – that teams must be within the parameters of the salary floor and salary cap. Then there is an aspect called “cash over cap,” which literally means the amount of cash a team spent about the established salary cap limit. I don’t have the updated numbers, but last year, on average teams spent a little more than 243 million, even though the salary cap limit were set at a little more than 224 million dollars. Another example is that the Browns spend about 284 million in actual money, and thus in reality were over the cap while officially being under it.
You could argue that the possibility of manipulating the salary cap into a soft cap started already back in 1993 where a salary cap was included in the CBA and contained a rule about proration of contracts. It would probably be more fair, though, to argue that the changes truly started in 2006 when it was included in the CBA that revenues would play a bigger role in determining the salary cap. The CBA was then re-negotiated in 2008 where one of the main elements were a raise in the salary cap minimum (what teams had to spent on players) which made understanding of managing the salary cap more important than ever. I guess you could say that the salary cap truly turned into a soft cap in 2014, when the NFL agreed to TV deals that would improve the cost for the networks with 63%, and thus also start the on-going rise in the salary cap ceiling, and in 2021 a new deal was struck that increased the amount with 80%.
As I said, I understand that this stuff is complicated. I am sure you are right (I haven’t looked it up) that the dictionary definition is that the NFL are using a hard cap, but the reality is different, and that is all that matter to the Cardinals. Thus, it is fine that fans don’t research about these things, as the only important to know is that salary cap is merely an accounting tool. The real elephant in the room is the funding rule, as mentioned by @Krangodnzr, @Stout and me in this thread, and the soft cap plays a big part in that too. Actually, I should have included it more in the original post. Sorry about that.
Ouchie-Z-Clown
I'm better than Mulli!
My autocorrect just speaks some foreign language I no longer recognize.
Probably why he is no longer employed by a NFL team. For any given year, thats true. But eventually the cap will be a issue, look at the Bills, do you believe they really wanted to release all those good players?Business of Football: Understanding Salary Cap, Dead Money
With NFL teams about to open their wallets, here's a refresher course on the salary cap and an explanation of why we've seen bigger dead-money cap hits lately.
Andrew Brandt was vice president for the Packers for nine years where he, among other things, negotiatied all player contracts and handled all salary cap-things. Since then he has been an alalyst- and councellor on business and legal aspects in sport for ESPN and Sports Illustrated.
"This is why Kyler Murray's recent extension with the Cardinals contains a reported $70M less in total guarantees than the (Deshaun) Watson deal: "For Watson," Mike Florio writes, "Browns owner Jimmy Haslam must deposit $169M into an escrow account by March 31, 2023. ... (That's) quite possibly a check that Cardinals owner Michael Bidwill can't afford to write." (https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profo...als-from-fully-guaranteeing-kyler-murray-deal)
Anyway, it is not only if he can do it or not, Stout, but if he wants to do it. I think that what Krang meant (and what I do too) is not that Bidwill don't have the money, but that he might not have them in cash. It is not like he has blank checks lying around in drawers and cabins. It takes time to release 100 million+ from whichever asset they have them tied up in, and maybe he even have to convince his siblings to help in some cases. Other owners are not in the same situation, and that gives them a massive advantage.
Again, it is not an excuse for Bidwill. He can certainly participate in the signing bonus-party, if he wants to. One way could be to have done the groundwork for the last couple of months, so that he is ready when the action starts.
