Spending to the Cap

[Cheesebeef]

KGMEJason, I understand completely how the cap works.

If you are looking at actual cap dollars, and the cap is 100, here's how the Cards have spent their money the last 5 years.

90, 90, 85, 90, and this year 90. Even if they spend 100 every year, they would still be behind most of the NFL. Why? Because here's how a good portion of the NFL spend : 95, 100, 110, 120, 65. Many of the teams go along near the cap and sooner or later push the envelope and make a run in the years with 110, 120. If the Cap doesn't increase enough, they eventually have to have a down year and strip their team like SFO or TEN. If the cap keeps going up, you can spend 110, 110, 110 for quite a while like the current Eagles and New England. Teams that only spend 100, 100, 100 or like the Cards 90, 90, 90 are at a disadvantage.

I'm not saying that Green and Graves are not building a good team. I'm saying that in 2004, if they added a qualtiy vet OG, they would have probably made the playoffs, and in 2005, if they added 1 more quality vet, they would have gone deep into the playoffs. We could be entering the 2006 new stadium year with 2 years in a row of playoffs and a solid superbowl contender.

Instead, I see a possible playoff team, maybe even a div winner. I see a team that still has RG issues, and one injury away at CB or OT of going 6-10 again. What happens if A.Rolle tears his ACL? Is a 3rd rounder rookie CB good enough to start? Tate plays full time nickel? The Cards are still on the edge of being good, when spending for now, instead of saving in the future would increase the Cards chances of going deep into the playoffs.

I fulled expected because of the new stadium issues that this year the Cards would spend 110.

dude - your expectations are WAYYYYY too high - you thought last year's team - with tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumb at QB could have made the playoffs with one more RG? After being arguably one of the worst teams in NFL history one year prior?

 

[40yearfan]

The Eagles, Colts and Vikings have been able to manage their caps very well with about the same amount of cap as the Cards have been using. They seem to function OK without going into Cap hell.

 

[ThunderCard]

So as it stand right now we have about 7 million more to spend to get to the cap. Then take out 1.5 million for transactions throughout the season and you are left with 5.5 million. I think the Cards are waiting until June 1st to see if there are any servicable people that would like a fresh chance and to extend Boldin.

I thought this was another great move by the Cards and we now have what 12 million in dead cap space this year. We should have around 15-20 million again next year to play with for free agents. I get that number by the increase in salary's - 12 million dead cap weight plus the 5-8 million that should be added to the cap next year.

Next year we will be sittting pretty for any holes than need to be shored up. i still can not believe it took 1 year and 2 off-season to turn around a franchise in the cellar for so many years..

 

[john h]

Every offseason, I read a post with those words in it. Well, it's not true. It's a lie. In the last 5 years including this year, the Cards have pushed money into the current year to "look" like they are spending to the cap.

For 2005, just for Thompson, Clemment, and Shelton, the team has purposely cut them before June 1st to push money into 2005's cap just to look like they are trying to spend to the cap. How much much cap space could the cards saved? $3.6M just for those 3 players alone.

Cutting them before June 1st cost 2005 and Extra :
Thompson - $625,000
Clemment - $425,000
Shelton - $2,500,000

I would like to figure out a list of the rest of the players under contract for more than 1 year that were cut and figure out how much more money the Cards actually tried not to spend this year.

The Cards should have tried to bring in one more high profile player instead of saving for the future.

In the NFL, the future is always now.

So please post a few player names of 2005 cuts and help my memory.

The future is NOW more so for the Cards than most with the new stadium coming on line. I think we could have added one more good player rather than cut one decent player who we have no backup for. I still think the Cards more than most or more than any team in the NFL could be strapped for cash. You cannot experience a season where you lose money and not be hurt in the high finance of the NFL. I think the last I read we were worth less than any other NFL franchise. This effects your borrowing power and interest you are charged. The Bidwills are rich but compared to other NFL franchise owners they are not that rich. In there defense they can only do what there finances will allow them to do and if they have to cut some decent players that is just the way it is. You can bet any player move has some money calculations involved. For most owner the team is about making money.

 

[JeffGollin]

Obsessing on how brilliantly or poorly anyone thinks the Cardinals are or are not handling their cap dollars misses the main point, which is:

What kind of team are they putting on the football field and what W & L record they wind up with.

You can burn the midnight oil trying to figure out "who struck John" with regard to cap balances, fair or unfair players moves etc. but it will all boil down to is: "Are the Cardinals today better than they were 2 years ago?"

To me - at least on paper - you can go up and down the roster and the answer will be "yes!" (with, perhaps, the exception of TE).

No doubt each of us feels we'd be brilliant GM's who would handle the salary cap and player moves far more brilliantly than Rod Graves (or Fergy before him). Yet I'm not aware of any of us being hired to GM any NFL team.

There is a time to micro-manage - usually when the team has really gone into the dumper (then all bets are off. Every trip to the Mens Room by the staff deserves scrutiny).

But when things seem to be turning the corner, other than an occasional mildly raised eyebrow, I'm more inclined to cut Rod or Dennis a bit of slack on the minutiae of cap-management and other scintillating issues and get almost downright giddy about:

- The prospect of Kurt Warner spreading the ball around to Fitz, Q and BJ

- JJ Arrington gashing opposing defenses.

- The Oliver and Elton Show - blacktopping enemy run-defenders.

- The Chike and Bertrand "Squeeze"

- Wendell and Darnell ripping things apart inside.

- Dansby, Hayes, Blackstock and Darling Ltd.

- Two corners (Rolle and Macklin) who can cover. Plus a third (Green) "just in case."

- Griff and Adrian keeping everything in front of them.

In short (& pardon the pun): "screw the cap!"

 

[AntSports Steve]

Well, winning will fix everything.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

dude - your expectations are WAYYYYY too high - you thought last year's team - with tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumb at QB could have made the playoffs with one more RG? After being arguably one of the worst teams in NFL history one year prior?

It's the "everything is Spikes' fault" argument that's so popular around here.

 

[Cheesebeef]

It's the "everything is Spikes' fault" argument that's so popular around here.

what I love is that for years with Kendall and LJ and BIG we continually changed the parts around them, yet the O-line was continually horrendous. Sorry Charlie - at some point when you look at interchangeable parts - especially those parts which had any success other places (I don't remember Spikes killing Pittsburg's line singlehandedly) and look at hwat is constantly there - youmight, just might think - hey - maybe it's the guy that are ALWAYS there that are the problem!

 

[JasonKGME]

You gave a great explaination of how that cap works, but it didn't support this conclusion, IMO. Show me the Cardinals actual numbers instead of hypotheticals and that will support it; but I thought there was even a year here recently when the Cards were in danger of being fined because they hadn't spent enough money.

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/teamdetail.aspx?team=1&year=2004

According to the USA Today with actual #'s the Cardinals actually "SPENT" from 2000-2004 Spent a total of $360,466,117 of a possible cap of around $357 million (around cap is because only #'s I can find on caps for thos years are the short form of the #'s i.e. cap for 2000 was $62.7 Million, but in reality may have been more like $62,717,256 but I dont have the exact #)

So that means over the last 5 years the cards have actually spent MORE then the cap amount by about $3 million (guess what we have dead money on the cap next year currently of about $5 million) means we have spent all but a whole whopping $2 million of the cap total over that 5 year period, so we were short an average of $400,000 per year, I can see why everyone thinks we dont spend up to the cap now.


We ranked 13th out of team spending in the league from 2000-2004, low and behold the 2 lowest teams are the teams working thier way out of the cap hell they put themselves into in teh late 90's/very early 00's. San Francsisco was the lowest with actually spendings of $291,769,266. The highest over those 5 years is Philadelphia at $390,819,249.

 

[AntSports Steve]

In 2003 (I think) the Cards were more than $10M under the cap. They were going to have to give the players extra money because they were below the CBA min spending limit. But, just before, they restructured several contracts to take up most of that $10M, often moving future spending into the current year. That spending didn't help the 2003 team one bit. Now, almost all those extended players (except for Big I think) are gone. Basicly wasted money.

What I'd like to see this year, after Boldin's contract has been handled, is use the Philly loophole and push any extra cap into next year. At least that way, the team can use the Philly loophole over and over again until they actually feel like really trying to win. Next year, the Cards are going to lead the league in available cap space again.


Oh, Per that website, the Cards spent the most in the league in 2000.

Anyone remember what they spent their money on that year? Big signing bonuses?

 

[ajcardfan]

At least that way, the team can use the Philly loophole over and over again until they actually feel like really trying to win.

Sure, Dennis Green is not really trying to win. His ego is so small, he'll be happy with a few years of 6-10. He doesn't really care about that million dollar playoff bonus. And, the Bidwills just offered that to him as a cover for the fact they want to lose forever.


Dude, just because they make decisions you don't agree with, or understand, it doesn't follow that you're the one who cares about winning the most. Besides, if you stepped back and took a broader view, you'd see teams that have finagled the maximum out of the cap (like you want) the last decade with big bonuses and small salaries, pushing off cap hits (Washington, Dallas, Seattle, etc) haven't been successful. The best teams have built via the draft, not signing a lot of flashy free agents, and resigning their own. I have no clue if the Cards can ever sniff the level of success that Philly and NE have, but I'd rather see them try it that way than the other way.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Next year, the Cards are going to lead the league in available cap space again.

oh man - THE HORROR OF BEING IN A PERFECT POSITION TO SIGN YOUR OWN FREE AGENTS AS WELL AS SIGN OTHERS TO BOLSTER THE TEAM! Especially when you have had GREAT drafts in the last two years and ultimately tyhat is where a team is built and down the road when those player smtaure THEY WILL HAVE TO BE RESIGNED AS WELL! What the hell is this team thinking with that kind of thinking? Holy cow - what idiots!


ARE YOU KIDDING ME STEVE? You keep throwing an extra bit of unbelievable foolishness with every next post.

 

[Renz]

In 2003 (I think) the Cards were more than $10M under the cap. They were going to have to give the players extra money because they were below the CBA min spending limit. But, just before, they restructured several contracts to take up most of that $10M, often moving future spending into the current year. That spending didn't help the 2003 team one bit. Now, almost all those extended players (except for Big I think) are gone. Basicly wasted money.

What I'd like to see this year, after Boldin's contract has been handled, is use the Philly loophole and push any extra cap into next year. At least that way, the team can use the Philly loophole over and over again until they actually feel like really trying to win. Next year, the Cards are going to lead the league in available cap space again.


Oh, Per that website, the Cards spent the most in the league in 2000.

Anyone remember what they spent their money on that year? Big signing bonuses?

Did the release of L.J. Shelton really inspire this post? Suddenly, the signings of Okeafor, Warner, Berry, Macklin etc. and our last two drafts are meaningless? The hiring of Dennis Green?

You are going to seriously look at what the organization has done the last year and say they aren't trying to win? Come on! You don't believe that.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I hereby dub AntSports Steve - LEADER OF THE DARKSIDE!

I will retain my position as leader of the realists, thank you very much but for all those who truly want to see what the Darkside is like, follow Steve's lead.

Dude - you're still talking about 2003 - it was a bad year for everything - give it a mulligan and move on.

 

[AntSports Steve]

I'm not the leader of the Darkside. I fully expect to finally after 14 years of season tickets to actually attend a home playoff game this year.

But, I'm unhappy with cutting Shelton. For the crummy $500K cap savings (that they won't spend), they could have had OT insurance to keep my playoff hopes alive. I don't care what you say, none of the backup OT on the current roster are anything but a 1 or 2 game bandaid. None of them would be an average starter if they had to play OT for an extended period of time. So, I'd like the Cards to pickup a June 1st cut of OT for insurance. Hopefully someone that's started a few games and was cut because of average play and an above average salary.

I also don't like any of the RG so far. The rookie could pan out, but Bridges was the weak link last year and unless he's greatly improved, he's the weak link again. Go get a vet with some RG experience. Getting Ross is not that much of an improvement.

I like the way Green has built the team. But, I think that last year if the Cards kept Kendal and added a vet RG, the team would have found a way to go 8-8. That would have been good enough to win the division last year and I would have gotten my home playoff game.

I think this offseason has been great so far. I think they could have done more. I am also of the belief that if the Cards ever needed to spend extra to win, that this would be the year. For the owners, there is too much riding on it not to pull out all the stops.

I just don't see the signs of them "pulling out all the stops to win". If they won't do it this year, that means to me, that they'll never do it.

I'm not asking them to be stupid and waste money. I am just asking them to plan and budget, find the right players, and do the best they can do.

Not bringing in 1 more quality free agent this offseason is Graves and the budgets fault. Getting rid of Shelton is Greens fault. If he wants Shelton gone, then fine. But first wait till June 1st and see what's out there, get the OT depth the team needs, and the cut his ass.

 

[JasonKGME]

I'm not the leader of the Darkside. I fully expect to finally after 14 years of season tickets to actually attend a home playoff game this year.

But, I'm unhappy with cutting Shelton. For the crummy $500K cap savings (that they won't spend), they could have had OT insurance to keep my playoff hopes alive. I don't care what you say, none of the backup OT on the current roster are anything but a 1 or 2 game bandaid. None of them would be an average starter if they had to play OT for an extended period of time. So, I'd like the Cards to pickup a June 1st cut of OT for insurance. Hopefully someone that's started a few games and was cut because of average play and an above average salary.

I think the above is the heart of the problem, you feel that the Cards cut Shelton to excellerate the cap into this year so they wouldnt have to pay his salary, and this is my main disagreement with you. I think they cut Shelton because he didnt buy into DG "system", and if he doesnt buy in he could end up being our David Boston of 2005 if we keep him (i.e. sitting at the end of the sideline away from all the other players bringing the team chemistry down. If Shelton didnt believe in what DG is trying to do all he could do would be to mess up team chemistry, and if he was a guarenteed starter that would have a huge impact on the team performance then I MIGHT be willing to put up with the attitude, but when he is going to just be a backup and we brought in someone to be the starter you just cant afford to have a defeatest attitude on the team in a backup role.

 

[ajcardfan]

So, I'd like the Cards to pickup a June 1st cut of OT for insurance. Hopefully someone that's started a few games and was cut because of average play and an above average salary.

He's not a June 1st cut, but there's this LJ Shelton fella just released who fits that definition to a "T". Maybe we'll sign him.

 

[Cheesebeef]

But, I think that last year if the Cards kept Kendal and added a vet RG, the team would have found a way to go 8-8.

cause that plan seemed to be working so well over the previous 4 offseasons.

 

[BigDavis75]

cause that plan seemed to be working so well over the previous 4 offseasons.

Our savior Pete Kendall.

 

[AntSports Steve]

I'm not a Kendal lover. But he was signed quickly for a very good salary for a guard. And he did his share to help the Jets get to the playoffs. I though he was an injury waiting to happen, but he made it thru 2004 playing at a very high level.

Is it only me or does anyone else think that if the Cards OL was just a little bit better last year, maybe the Cards could have beat the 49ers. Just another 2 or 3 first downs running the ball, taking a little more time off the clock?

 

[CronosCard]

"..And in this corner.."

AntSportSteve:
All this conjecture about what Dennis Green and the Cards are thinking and plotting and reasoning for their own gains.. Come on, is this the Communist Hearings? Look objectively, AntSportSteve, at what he's brought only this year, and only in the FA period, and what he's paid for it.. The only question about overpaying I ever heard was about Oliver Ross, since he supposedly was the "Weak" spot of the Steelers' record-breaking Running Game last year.. "I'll take me some more of that please, Sir.." You saying that the Cardinals are still Cheap lacks validity and your arguments ALL lose weight because of it. Re Read that last sentence, AntSportSteve, because I appreciate that passion of yours in stating yourself. I feel, however, that you don't work things all the way through position-wise at times.
AntSportsSteve, I don't know you or your background, as you do not know me or mine. As respectfully as I can state this "Just LOSE IT".. No offense meant, but I'll Guarantee you that Lonnie Junior is smiling as he counts his 3.3mil or whatever this year, and that he is over the Cardinals and what they did.. We should be too.

I am more concerned about the way DG handled the Kendall affair! Regardless, I am not an NFL employee, or possess NFL Caliber knowledge, so I, in order to search for my own truth,
MUST defer to DG in all his handlings of the Az Cardinals, until he really steps on his pecker and all of us pundits can drill him..Here's to DG never stepping on it while with the Cards!!! !!!

 

[john h]

I'll give Green/Graves my trust - maybe they didn't WANT any of the other FA's, or the other FA's turned them down?

Do you really think that if Denny wanted a FA, and the only thing holding us up was cap room, that something would have been done to get it?

And it would be stupid to spend money on a FA just to spend cap room. They still need room for Quan, as well.

The final decision on how much money we spend is not Graves or Green but the Bidwills. If the Bidwills layed down a budget then Green and company will have to live with it no matter who was available and whether Green wanted a player in FA or not. Green and Graves do not have complete budget authority. You can take that to the bank. You can bet Green would have liked one or two of those early FA's that we might have got and you can also be sure they were given a budget as in any company that is trying to make a profit.

 

[john h]

I pretty much agree with this, that was my point on Surtain who was a trade not a FA. If you know you're almost assuredly going to cut Shelton, and I've been saying that for 2 months now at least, why not instead time it so you take less cap hit this year and use that money to lock up a guy like Surtain?

Maybe you never had a chance at him or Jordan or any of the other guys, if that's the case, then you cut the guys before June 1 anyways. But I would argue that this team with Surtain is probably going to win 1-2 more games than we will without him because I think no matter how good Rolle and Green are they're going to make mistakes, and there will be plays that Surtain might make, that they won't simply due to lack of experience.

That's why I said yesterday I assume this means we'll be a bigger player in FA next year? Because if we're not, there's no sense saving caproom for next year.

I'm not mad we cut Shelton I figured that was coming, but I am a bit perturbed that we wasted so much caproom this year because I'm not yet convinced we're really going to use it next year.

How do they prove me wrong, simple, extend Boldin this year, next year maybe it's Dansby or Dockett or another young guy who we extend and use some of that caproom. Then it makes sense, but if we just save caproom for next year, but never use it next year, then I agree with Steve it's kind of silly.

It's like people we all know who save money or vacation time, for a vacation they never take. Sure it's fiscally sound to have money tucked away, but if you're stressed out all the time, take the vacation. It's good in the NFL to have money in case you need it, but if you never spend it, and don't win the Superbowl, one can argue that maybe you SHOULD have spent it on one more key guy?

Does anyone seriously think that Green can spend to the CAP. He like any Executive has a budget established by the Bidwills and their accountants. None of us know what the budget is but you can be sure it is well under the CAP. There are players out there that Green or any other head coach would like to have had but you work with what ever amount of money the owners give you to work with. This is supposed to be a money making enterprise but is the only team in the NFL to lose money. Clearly they have to limit their spending to some degree or make cuts in other areas which is hardly possible. With crowds of 30,000 we will rarely spend all of our CAP money. We are between a rock and a hard place. Spend money and get good players and become a winner in time or hope you get lucky and produce a winner spending less than what the league allows you. Our methods in the past have produced decades of losing. In the long run money wins out. If you spend less than your competitors then over time you will be a loser. There may be a blip along the way but it will just be a blip.

 

[Russ Smith]

Does anyone seriously think that Green can spend to the CAP. He like any Executive has a budget established by the Bidwills and their accountants. None of us know what the budget is but you can be sure it is well under the CAP. There are players out there that Green or any other head coach would like to have had but you work with what ever amount of money the owners give you to work with. This is supposed to be a money making enterprise but is the only team in the NFL to lose money. Clearly they have to limit their spending to some degree or make cuts in other areas which is hardly possible. With crowds of 30,000 we will rarely spend all of our CAP money. We are between a rock and a hard place. Spend money and get good players and become a winner in time or hope you get lucky and produce a winner spending less than what the league allows you. Our methods in the past have produced decades of losing. In the long run money wins out. If you spend less than your competitors then over time you will be a loser. There may be a blip along the way but it will just be a blip.

John by definition EVERY NFL team CAN spend to the cap. The cap is a fixed % of money they get from the tv contract, every team has enough money to spend to the cap. Where it differs is on signing bonuses and things that require more outlay of CASH. The Cards haven't spent to the cap consistently, Steve has made that point repeatedly. So where is that money, in an account waiting for a big signing bonus need, or just in an account?

Saving money for a future year like Cheese described is a great idea, the problem is recent history shows us we do the same thing NEXT season we push money into the following. The only year we really deviated from that was pre _green when we HAD to extend players to avoid a penalty for not spending a high enough % of the cap. People forget when ripping Graves and Mac for those extensions, the team HAD to spend the money or get fined, that they extended some guys who weren't that good is obvious, but reality is they had little choice, if they'd taken the fine, we'd never have heard the end of it.

 

[JasonKGME]

John by definition EVERY NFL team CAN spend to the cap. The cap is a fixed % of money they get from the tv contract, every team has enough money to spend to the cap. Where it differs is on signing bonuses and things that require more outlay of CASH. The Cards haven't spent to the cap consistently, Steve has made that point repeatedly. So where is that money, in an account waiting for a big signing bonus need, or just in an account?

Once again I fail to see where nayone can show me the the Cards have consistantly failed to spend to the cap. According to the #'s in the USA Today over the last 5 years they have spent MORE money then the cap, not less money folks, MORE money.


Once again I state if you want to argue about HOW they have spent thier money (i.e. saving it and resigning thier own below average players, or overspending for other too old to play any more players) thats fine and an argument you would have very valid points, but do not argue that they are not spending the money.