Cap Numbers going into 2006

[CardinalChris]

There seem to be a lot of team with a lot of money out there..... know what that means, BIG SPENDING!!!!

 

[outcent13]

hello I am a new poster but old reader. First I am not sure but wouldn't the cap going up signify that most teams have had an increase in revenue? Second you would think a top quarterback like Brees would be licking his chops to come to a team with as much offensive potential as the cards.On a lower level the same could be said for olineman.

 

[joeshmo]

There seem to be a lot of team with a lot of money out there

A little higher then most years. You are going to see a lot of teams extending their talent with 1 year left on their deals. Plus in putting ourselves in context with other teams we dont have any of our own FA's to worry about now with Rackers in the bag. We could be 1 step ahead of all the other teams becuase of that and use all of our resources on outside FA's, while other teams have to worry about their own and outside FA's.

 

[BACH]

They constantly re-sign players in mid-season (not a bad thing in itself) simply to save cap space for the next year (okay, I'm with it so far), only to do the same exact thing again the following season. That's idiotic. If you're constantly saving for the future but never spending it, you're like a millionaire who gets buried in rags because he never bought nice clothes...the money's worthless. The team needs to make a splash this year, and that will mean using as much of the new revenue stream as necessary. IF that happens, then we've turned a corner. IF NOT, we've not changed.

I'm confused... Maxing out the entire cap in April and maxing it out in october are different in what way?

I actually like the strategy. Extenting the players who are becoming FA before they are FAs. It keeps our core players from leaving and it gives Graves an exact picture of how much cap space he has available to bring in outside FAs and the luxury of concentrating on outsiders only when Free Agency starts.

We have not had any significant player becoming UFA in this last 3 seasons. That's a good thing when rebuilding a team...

 

[joeshmo]

I'm confused... Maxing out the entire cap in April and maxing it out in october are different in what way?

One or 2 less players to help the team the beginning of the year is one main difference.

But that isnt the point. Again it isnt about using all of the cap, I can care less if we go into the season with 5 mill left and we do extend or young talent during the season thats fine with me. It is about fitting as many quality players under the cap as possible, which we can do a much better job of by giving out larger signing bonuses, which lowers cap hits since bonuses pro rate over the life of the deal. Hence we can sign or retain more players with the same amount of cap space. Now that means we wont have 30 mill every offseason since those types of deals are semi back loaded but if done right we can still have over 10 mill to work with which is plenty enough for other good teams.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

The key is getting players to come here. I think Denny gives us credibility, as will the new stadium but this under acheiving season is not helping our rep around the league. I think they will make a couple big name signings (i already see Jamal Lewis or Ricky Williams coming in at a low price low risk option to split carries with JJ) but big name does not necessarily mean big money. They need to cut out all the damn PR manuevers (Warner and Smith) and quit going for "names" and go for some actual football players......

I would like to see us sign a big time player at Interior offensive line and MLB (maybe, maybe corner depending on how Rolle looks the rest of the year) and then otherwise depth depth depth......

depth at corner, depth oline, a TE who can compete for the starting job, depth at safety.....that has been our undoing this year...besides poor execution, poor discipline, bizarre play calling, and bad line play of course

 

[BigRedMO]

The key is getting players to come here. I think Denny gives us credibility, as will the new stadium but this under acheiving season is not helping our rep around the league. I think they will make a couple big name signings (i already see Jamal Lewis or Ricky Williams coming in at a low price low risk option to split carries with JJ) but big name does not necessarily mean big money. They need to cut out all the damn PR manuevers (Warner and Smith) and quit going for "names" and go for some actual football players......

I would like to see us sign a big time player at Interior offensive line and MLB (maybe, maybe corner depending on how Rolle looks the rest of the year) and then otherwise depth depth depth......

depth at corner, depth oline, a TE who can compete for the starting job, depth at safety.....that has been our undoing this year...besides poor execution, poor discipline, bizarre play calling, and bad line play of course

I think you overestimate the value players put on going to a winning team. I think, except for certain guys like Montana when he chose KC in the twilight of his career, most FAs are only intereested in the contract money, length of the contract and playing time. Emmitt Smith did not come to AZ because he thought the Cards would win. They are primarily Mercs.

 

[Joe Moore]

seattle is fine on payroll going into next year and hutch isn't going anywhere ... at worst they will franchise tag him

signing alexander may be a little more tricky (although I think that will happen as well), but hutch is staying a hawk

I heard up here in Seattle they are working on a deal for hutch. I agree he isn't going anywhere.

Any stud gaurds coming out this year?

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

New England:G Stephen Neal; OT Tom Ashworth;

Buffalo: CB Nate Clements;


Cleveland: LB Andra Davis;

Baltimore: DT Ma'ake Kemoeatu; S Will Demps;

Indianapolis LB Cato June (RFA); DT Larry Tripplett;

San Diego: QB Drew Brees;
Dallas: LB Scott Fujita;

Philadelphia: T Jon Runyan

Green Bay: C Mike Flanagan; DT Grady Jackson;

Carolina: CB Ricky Manning (RFA);

 

[BigRedMO]

Why do people not have a clue about this over and over and over again. Billy allways spends to almost the maximum allowed by the cap. Almost every year we are within a million or less on the cap space available. Once again you may disagree with HOW the money is spent, but to say he never spends to the cap is ridiculous to say the least.

PS, please check this link:

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2004


this will allow you to look up how much money was spent in payroll on any particular year, you will clearly see in a couple of eyars we actually went OVER the cap amount because of some cash spent in signing bonus, and taking it over the 5 years you can go back he has spent over the total value of the cap.

Gee I am really sorry I am complicating your day by not having a clue. I will work much harder to get a clue. I have seen one other article that confirms the salary number for the Cards that is stated in the article that started this post. Based on what Stout says the Cards are spending this year's cap amount towards next years players salaries. So it is the same as not spending it for this year. If they keep rolling that money forward to lock up players they will never spend for the current season the amount that would be possible becuase they are already putting that money for next year. That money being locked up for next year also does not have to be paid untill next year. So this would ease cash flow problems for a revenue strapped owner. It also creates the illusion for some he is spending all the money he can towards being successful this season when instead he is paying towards next year so he wont have to pay this year.

I hate to believe the Cards have sucked for 30 years because Bidwill cant afford to compete. Give me another reason that explains 30 years of pathetic football in a sport that bends over backward to create parity. Even by chance if they were not operating at a competitive disadvantage they would have lucked into a winner just like all the other 31 teams have done.

 

[Stout]

One or 2 less players to help the team the beginning of the year is one main difference.

But that isnt the point. Again it isnt about using all of the cap, I can care less if we go into the season with 5 mill left and we do extend or young talent during the season thats fine with me. It is about fitting as many quality players under the cap as possible, which we can do a much better job of by giving out larger signing bonuses, which lowers cap hits since bonuses pro rate over the life of the deal. Hence we can sign or retain more players with the same amount of cap space. Now that means we wont have 30 mill every offseason since those types of deals are semi back loaded but if done right we can still have over 10 mill to work with which is plenty enough for other good teams.

Thank you, Joe...said it better than I could. Re-signing players for the future is a good, no, a GREAT thing. But going into the season, EVERY season, with 5+ million available in cap space means you sign less quality FAs, and are less able to compete, and likely have less depth. And what's killed us this year? Lack of depth.

 

[john h]

I'm a pessimistic optimist on this one (twisted, huh?). He'll have the extra $$$, but will he spend it? If he doesn't make a splash this offseason, it will be extremely difficult to justify my remaining a fan of this team, as he'll have it but STILL won't spend it. Bidwill needs to get serious and have Graves get creative in the contract field, or else it will be same old, same old.

I have read that Graves contract is up in the Spring and it is possible he will continue with the job with no contract.

 

[BigRedMO]

Thank you, Joe...said it better than I could. Re-signing players for the future is a good, no, a GREAT thing. But going into the season, EVERY season, with 5+ million available in cap space means you sign less quality FAs, and are less able to compete, and likely have less depth. And what's killed us this year? Lack of depth.

There have been many comments about how injuries hurt the Cards so badly. It is the same talk every year. The difference between good and bad teams is not much. One or two players can make a huge difference. Once one team finds one particular weakness and then all the other teams figure it out and exploit it all season long. This can create the impression the team getting beat just outright sucks everywhere but one weakness is resulting in rout after rout. The Cards o line really could have benefitted from one or two decent back ups. The starting center on opening day was a guy who after 4 years of never making a roster was quitting football when the Cards call and say do you want to start. The Cards had no chance in that game with him in the middle of the line. It was over before the first kick-off.

There has to be a reason why the Cards have not been able to compete over the years. I see widely different cap numbers reported for the Cards and try to make sense of it. You helped me understand why they differ. Thank you.

 

[joeshmo]

The Cards o line really could have benefitted from one or two decent back ups. The starting center on opening day was a guy who after 4 years of never making a roster was quitting football when the Cards call and say do you want to start. The Cards had no chance in that game with him in the middle of the line. It was over before the first kick-off.

You have a point just a bad example. The backup to our backups were injured. You just cant plan for something like that.

 

[JasonKGME]

Gee I am really sorry I am complicating your day by not having a clue. I will work much harder to get a clue. I have seen one other article that confirms the salary number for the Cards that is stated in the article that started this post. Based on what Stout says the Cards are spending this year's cap amount towards next years players salaries. So it is the same as not spending it for this year. If they keep rolling that money forward to lock up players they will never spend for the current season the amount that would be possible becuase they are already putting that money for next year. That money being locked up for next year also does not have to be paid untill next year. So this would ease cash flow problems for a revenue strapped owner. It also creates the illusion for some he is spending all the money he can towards being successful this season when instead he is paying towards next year so he wont have to pay this year.

I hate to believe the Cards have sucked for 30 years because Bidwill cant afford to compete. Give me another reason that explains 30 years of pathetic football in a sport that bends over backward to create parity. Even by chance if they were not operating at a competitive disadvantage they would have lucked into a winner just like all the other 31 teams have done.

2000 Salary Cap - $62,172,000
2001 Salary Cap - $67,400,000
2002 Salary Cap - $71,100,000
2003 Salary Cap - $75,007,000
2004 Salary Cap - $80,582,000

2000 Cardinals Salary - $58,610,500
2001 Cardinals Salary - $74,891,809
2002 Cardinals Salary - $66,967,535
2003 Cardinals Salary - $81,034,928
2004 Cardinals Salary - $78,961,345


Total available salary cap over last 5 years - $356,261,000
Total spent by Cardinals over last 5 years - $360,466,117
So Cardinals actually have OVERSPENT the cap by $4,205,117



So if the Cardinals over a 5 year perior have OVERSPENT the cap, please explain to me how anyone could say the Cards do not spend all of thier Cap money???? Also, when the money is spent makes no difference what-so-ever, the Cards are spending the SAME amount of money as pretty much every other NFL team as far as player salary is concerned. Saying they are screwing up by paying for players salaries next year by putting it on this years contracts makes no sense. They are spending the same money as the other teams, just instead of having it hit next years cap they have it hitthe current years cap giving them $5 million more to spend next year twords free agency. Lets say they used the $5 million this year before they resigned thier own players so they had no money to resign Rackers and anyone else. So that means going into next year instead of having $30 million for free agents and noone on our team to resign we have $30 million but other players that we may end up in a bidding war and either A. Losing that player and hurting the team. B. having to pay even more to keep the player due to the bidding war. Will that help the team?

 

[Stout]

Also, when the money is spent makes no difference what-so-ever, the Cards are spending the SAME amount of money as pretty much every other NFL team as far as player salary is concerned. Saying they are screwing up by paying for players salaries next year by putting it on this years contracts makes no sense.

I'm sorry you have no sense of logic, then. Because if you go into an offseason with, say, 15 million in cap space, sign 3 players for 10 million, then you go into the season with 5 million in wasted cap space. Then you re-sign a player or two to finish up right around even. So, you spent the same as everyone else, so should compete exactly the same, right?

Problem is, Team X took 15 million in cap space into the offseason, signed SIX players for 14 million, and only kept a little bit aside for injuries. Sure, they'll not be able to extend players on this year's cap (not much of a big deal), but they go into the season with THREE MORE PLAYERS than we do.

This is just a simple scenario. If this doesn't make sense to you, or fit your brand of logic, then you're beyond help. It isn't difficult to understand. Pushing off money into the future every year means we limit our ability to sign players. That's a fact.

 

[BigRedMO]

It will take the Cardinals being in the top 5 teams in money spent on FAs in this offseason to convince me they are serious about putting a contender on the field.

 

[BigRedRage]

were moving next year and the organization is going to do every thing possible to put a winner on the field, if they dont win the why did u get a stadium card is gonna be pulled across the US and embaress the bidwills more than ever.

 

[JasonKGME]

I'm sorry you have no sense of logic, then. Because if you go into an offseason with, say, 15 million in cap space, sign 3 players for 10 million, then you go into the season with 5 million in wasted cap space. Then you re-sign a player or two to finish up right around even. So, you spent the same as everyone else, so should compete exactly the same, right?

Problem is, Team X took 15 million in cap space into the offseason, signed SIX players for 14 million, and only kept a little bit aside for injuries. Sure, they'll not be able to extend players on this year's cap (not much of a big deal), but they go into the season with THREE MORE PLAYERS than we do.

This is just a simple scenario. If this doesn't make sense to you, or fit your brand of logic, then you're beyond help. It isn't difficult to understand. Pushing off money into the future every year means we limit our ability to sign players. That's a fact.

$5 Million is 1 good FA, 2 average free agents, or as you say we can sign 3 bench warmers... Sorry Don't see the use of it, alot of time the Cards cannot sign that extra good FA because of our history, so you would rather overspend and bring in a couple of backup players, rather then lock up your star players and not have to worry about them leaving in free agency?


Also how can another team go into the season with THREE MORE PLAYERS as you put it, don't all teams have a 53 man roster, or do some teams who spend the extra $5 million get to have 56?


The other point is lets look at team A and Team B:

Team A starts the season with $15 million available in cap space, and they spend $10 million during free agency, then use $5 million to sign players to extension and then the following year going to the next free agency period with another $15 million doing the same thing spending $10 million in free agency, then $5 million resigning thier own players, then next year same thing.

Team B starts the season with $15 million available in cap space, they spend the $15 million during free agency, and use no money to sign extentions. The following year they have $15 million available but teh spend $5 million resigning thier own players, leaving them $10 million to spend in free agency which they do, leaving again no money, following year same thing $15 million in free space, spend $5 million resigning thier own players and then $10 million in free agency.



So based on above only the first year would TRULY be affected by the "resign and then spend" way of doing things, then after that both teams would be spending, once again, the SAME amount of money on free agents that the other team is spending, and since the Cards have been doing the "resign and then spend" thing for several years it should be painfully obvious from the above examples that the way they spend MAKES NO DIFFERENCE then how another team does because they spend the SAME money!

 

[joeshmo]

$5 Million is 1 good FA, 2 average free agents, or as you say we can sign 3 bench warmers... Sorry Don't see the use of it, alot of time the Cards cannot sign that extra good FA because of our history, so you would rather overspend and bring in a couple of backup players, rather then lock up your star players and not have to worry about them leaving in free agency?

5 Mill. can be 2 or 3 good players if we give out a large enough signing bonus to lower the first 3 or so years of base salary.

Also how can another team go into the season with THREE MORE PLAYERS as you put it, don't all teams have a 53 man roster, or do some teams who spend the extra $5 million get to have 56?

Not 3 more players total, but 3 more quality players in place of street scrubs.

 

[AntSports Steve]

JasonKGME if you want to believe the Cards are spending all they can to win there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

But, It's a fact that in 2005, the Cards could have pushed some salary hits into next year by cutting 5 players AFTER June 1st, but choose to instead cut them before June 1st there by moving more than $5M of cap into 2005 and making it look like the Cards are spending when they were "saving for next year".

Notice that the Cards have for the last 4 or 5 years been in the top of teams with the most money available in Free Agency. That's a very telling sign on how they have chosen to spend for players.

Teams if they want to win, sooner or later, need to make a run and start to sign better players and push money into the future. The Cards have never done this, instead, they always try to save money for next year.

Also, the Cards business-wise, need to win THIS year as the new Stadium would would generate more money if the team was a winning team when trying to sell Naming Rights, Signage, Tickets, Lux Boxes, etc. Not fielding a winning team this year probably costs the Cards millions in money they could have earned in 2006.

 

[joeshmo]

Also, the Cards business-wise, need to win THIS year as the new Stadium would would generate more money if the team was a winning team when trying to sell Naming Rights, Signage, Tickets, Lux Boxes, etc. Not fielding a winning team this year probably costs the Cards millions in money they could have earned in 2006.

Agree on everything but this part.

We are going to get huge $$$$$ for those things. The super bowl is coming to town soon and people are going to want to get in on that advertisment opportunity, now.

 

[Stout]

Jason, forget about me for a moment...you have the two big cap experts on here telling you how it is...they're right, man. We're not maximizing our cap. It's that simple.

 

[JasonKGME]

Jason, forget about me for a moment...you have the two big cap experts on here telling you how it is...they're right, man. We're not maximizing our cap. It's that simple.

There is a difference between arguing HOW they spend, as to opposed to IF they spend.

I agree totally with the idea that we are not maximizing our cap values in any current year (i.e. selling out the future to win now), and I have no problem with any team (including us if we decide to do so).

However where my argument is and has allways been is when people tell me the Cards/Bidwill are cheap and DO NOT SPEND the money. They do spend it, they may spend it poorly or unwisely, but they do spend the money.

 

[Stout]

There is a difference between arguing HOW they spend, as to opposed to IF they spend.

I agree totally with the idea that we are not maximizing our cap values in any current year (i.e. selling out the future to win now), and I have no problem with any team (including us if we decide to do so).

However where my argument is and has allways been is when people tell me the Cards/Bidwill are cheap and DO NOT SPEND the money. They do spend it, they may spend it poorly or unwisely, but they do spend the money.

We can agree on the fact they spend the money, but you've been arguing against us, and all we're saying is that we do a poor, poor job (for lack of stronger langauge) at getting good value out of our cap. I don't think there's a doubt about that.