- This topic has 23 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
These are the main ones. We take care of everything else and we will have about ?35 million to try to sign these players. We will do the ones that give us the most value. imo
I still haven’t done any real cutting or any restructuring and we can keep 5 or 6 of these guys. imo
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 6 months ago by .
AgamemnonLet’s say we keep Foles and Quick for 20M. We have 15 million for 6 defensive players. We keep one of our DEs and one of our CBs. Barron is replaced by Alexander and if we can’t sign Fairley, we get a 3rd round comp pick. Or we can start cutting high salaries and restructuring.
Agamemnonhttp://www.spotrac.com/nfl/st.-louis-rams/cap/2016/
This is better, but their stuff is still off. They have Brockers and the rookies there. But, they have too many active contracts listed in the total and they haven’t given anything for the salary cap increasing next year. Do that and you might get, like I did, that we have ~45+ million in space for next year.
AgamemnonLet’s say we keep Foles and Quick for 20M. We have 15 million for 6 defensive players. We keep one of our DEs and one of our CBs. Barron is replaced by Alexander and if we can’t sign Fairly, we get a 3rd round comp pick. Or we can start cutting high salaries and restructuring.
IMO? Barron and Fairley are rentals. I agree that the key ones are Foles (if he lives up to expectations) and Quick, but then there’s room for one defender.
If Westbrooks comes through, then, that eases the pain on Sims and Hayes. It is also possible that Hayes doesn’t attract much attention.
And then next year is a D-heavy draft.
But I don’t know because overthecap.com hasn’t updated for 2016 since the rookies signed. Before that they had about 51+ M in cap space.
I am doing 2 defenders plus maybe Fairley. So we aren’t too far off.
AgamemnonTHOMAS:
Demoff has planned for this moment. The Rams are scheduled to have about $60 million of salary cap room for their 2016 payroll, among the most cap space of anyone in the league.
They currently have $9.24 million of 2015 cap space, a figure that doesn’t include the Rams’ 2015 draft class. When those draft class numbers come in, the Rams should still have over $6 million in room this year, which should give them a little flexibility over the coming months when it comes to all those players they want to re-sign.
Hard to tell if he’s right about that 60 M.
Yeah, I saw 60 million too. The rookies cost about 8 million in 2016. Brockers is 6 million. So, 60 minus 14 equals 46 million. Sounds about right. Remember my figure of ~45+ million.
AgamemnonRemember my figure of ~45+ million.
+ there’s also this.
As you know the Rams often park the big front-loading cap hit in year 2 of the contract, not year 1.
That means that any deals they sign in 2016 can take advantage of 2017 cap space.
Right now, figuring 2017 with 2 more rookie classes (2016 & 2017) and with a cap or around 153 M (though it will most likely be more), then, they have about 85 M in cap space.
Though of course that will go down. Plus UFAs in 2017 include:
Chris Long
Kenny Britt
Tavon Austin
Akeem Ayers
Michael Brockers
Alec Ogletree
Garrett Reynolds
TJ McDonald
Stedman Bailey
Barrett JonesA lot will be different by 2017. It will include a lot more info on all of those players, plus 2 whole drafts, including (so far) an extra 2nd in 2016. So I can’t see them keeping more than half of those.
BUT no matter who they keep they can use 2018 cap space to do it.
.
I think the Rams, Demoff are going to do less and less of that. Cause it is really sort of a temporary band aid. Ideally you would have each year equal and no pro rated money, so that if you cut a player you would have zero dead money to account for. I think we are over a hump, talent wise. The next step is to start being more like Baltimore and teams that let high priced veterans go a year early. If we draft well, we won’t be able to keep all our talent anyway. We can be selective and keep the players that return the most value. A bonus to this is that we will get more comp draft picks.
If I am right we will probably see some of that reflected between now and 2016. I think Foles might be an exception, but after that I think we will trend away from that. Although it might be a subtle change at first.
You will still have the last year/s of a contract containing fluff. I think incentives are mostly a form of fluff, too, although not always.(being a starter and playing time would be examples.) Demoff’s new thing seems to be incentives, but I can’t always tell if they are real or fluff.
We end up at about the same place, but coming from different directions.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 6 months ago by .
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 6 months ago by .
AgamemnonYou know, Philly used to use incentives to inflate cap space. I never really checked on that and I don’t know if it is even possible under the new CBA.
NLTBE incentives, if achieved, count against the cap in the following year.
For example: You give a player a 3 year deal at 3mil/per base with 1mil in LTBE incentives for scoring 3 TD’s and a NLTBE incentive of 1million is he scores 10 TD’s.
That 1 million LTBE incentive, automatically counts against the cap for that year. However, if it’s not reached, that money not paid out carries over to the following year’s cap. So you’d have an extra 1 million the following season. Eagles used to do this with their bottom depth chart players all the time, give the 4th string RB a LTBE incentive of 3 TD’s after the offseason to fill the cap for that year, even though he probably wont get it. It would artificially inflate their cap the following year when all of these guys didn’t get those incentives.
The NLTBE incentives work opposite, they don’t count this year but if they are reached, it counts against the cap the following season. Cruz in 2011 would be a good example. If they put a NLTBE incentive on his contract that year of 8 TD’s for 3million in 2011, that 3million then gets counted into the 2012 cap .
They may have tweeked the rules on the LTBE incentives to prevent teams from taking advantage of it like the Eagles used to but I’m not sure on that,
http://boards.giants.com/showthread.php?58186-Question-on-Incentives
http://www.askthecommish.com/SalaryCap/faq.aspx
Question 1.11a
How does the NFL Salary Cap treat cash incentives?Answer: All incentives are included in team salary if they are “likely to be earned” (LTBE). LTBE incentives are performance levels that the player or team has reached in the previous year.
For example, if a quarterback threw twenty touchdowns last year and his incentive clause for this year is set at fifteen touchdowns, then this incentive is “likely to be earned.” Also, incentives that are in the sole control of the player, like non-guaranteed reporting bonuses and off-season workout and weight bonuses, are considered LTBE.
An impartial arbitrator will hear disputes between the owners and the players concerning what should be considered LTBE (especially for rookies or veterans who did not play in the prior year). Conversely, if a player did not reach the performance incentive in the previous year, the incentive is deemed “not likely to be earned” (NLTBE) and is not included in team salary.
To determine whether a clause is LTBE or NLTBE for Salary Cap purposes (i.e., not whether the player actually earned the incentive), it is necessary to look at the performance of the team in the prior season, not the current season.
For example, assume Player X receives an incentive bonus if he participates in 50% of the team’s offensive plays this season. Assume further that last season the team had 1,000 offensive plays. Therefore, as soon as Player X plays in 500 plays in the current season (or 50% of last year’s 1,000 plays), the incentive will be considered earned for Salary Cap purposes.
The same incentive is considered “not earned” if the same player in the current year only participated in one of the team’s first 502 offensive plays. In this situation, it would be impossible for the player to achieve the 50% incentive based on last year’s performance of 1,000 plays. It is important to remember that looking to last year’s performance level is only for Salary Cap purposes and will not affect the player’s right to receive a bonus for his performance in the current year.
I think that means you can’t do that anymore?
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 6 months ago by .
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 6 months ago by .
Agamemnon
This is all that is listed for the Rams on incentives, this year or next. I guess Demoff isn’t using them as much as I thought?
Agamemnon.
I think the Rams, Demoff are going to do less and less of that.
Well that’s the only thing I really disagree on in a good discussion.
If by “that” you mean frontloading with year 2, to me that not a bandaid. IMO, it’s smart policy. It’s 2 things:
1. frontloading, pay as you go, put more in the early years. It’s obvious what kind of flexibility it gives them later.
2. but they do it by putting the big frontload in year 2, not year one. That means they always have another year ahead to do that with. Every year, there’s more space next year, and when you get to next year, there’s more space the NEXT year. You use some 2016 space to make 2015 signings, but then when you get to 2016, you have 2017 space.
It looks to me like a smart way to frontload.
The other advantage of frontloading, other than the obvious one that it means they don’t suffer the bad of effects of BACKloading, is that you can always tweak it. So they can tweak a bit here or there by turning frontloaded salary into pro-rate bonus money. You obviously can’t do this TOO much cause then it erases the entire point of frontloading. But you can tweak here and there, a bit, as need arises.
We define this differently, cause you are still moving money to a later time, although not much later. but that is ok. I think Demoff will do less front loading. 😉
It isn’t a big deal, cause it won’t be a massive money move and it will be easy to see how much he uses it.
What also effect this is the size of the guaranteed money. Like you aren’t going to cut a guy after the first year. In Cook’s case the second year.
Agamemnon
Here are Demoff’s last 2 contracts. I don’t see a significantly bigger cap hit in the second year.
Agamemnon
Quinn’s contract is an extension. There was no room to add a large amount to the year the extension was made. The new money started in 2015. Foles will be the same way.
Saffold has the second year hit in it, but that is the only one I found.
AgamemnonSaffold has the second year hit in it, but that is the only one I found.
Jake Long and JL were that way, using ie. the 2nd year frontload hit.
JL had a 4.25 cap hit in 2013 when he signed, and a 9.25 cap hit in year 2. The cap hits go up by 1 M after that but the dead money goes down. This is an example of using guaranteed money upfront in the 1st couple of years to keep the dead money down later.
JamesL signed in 2012. His big cap hit was 2013, at 12.4 M and it went down after that.
CL in contrast was a year 1 front load, with 18.5 M coming out of the first year.
But those are older contracts. Is there anything after that?
JamesL was an extension, so there never was room to put a lot of money in year one.
Or Jake is an example of limited space available in the first year.
AgamemnonBut those are older contracts. Is there anything after that?
Well it was back them that I got the idea they did that. Which I held as an idea and talked about for a couple of years.
Since then, they haven’t had any major extensions or signings that went beyond 2 years, except Kendricks, who doesn’t fit the model I describe but then it’s also a lesser overall contract.
So I dunno.
But I would say that extending a guy in year 1 and using year 2 to park the big frontload, is smart policy because the alternative is to not extend him and just wait until you have year 1 cap space.
If so the results are still good, because it means that no matter where you are against the cap in 2015, you can extend someone one the basis of 2016 cap space, and then when you get to 2016, you can do the same with 2017.
So I think it’s a good policy either way. In effect it means they are never really tight against the cap, for that reason and others.
But no we haven’t seen it recently. With Britt and Kendricks there is either not much difference (but then Britt is a 2 year) or (LK) year 1 is about 1 M higher than what follows. Ayers is the same as Britt.
Guaranteed money makes a difference. But, better would be Quinn’s use of a Roster bonus that can be changed to signing bonus, for flexibility. It is a tool for cap management. It is always best though to use as little of a future budget as possible.
AgamemnonIt is always best though to use as little of a future budget as possible.
Well I agree with that, except I also don’t see the “year 2 maneuver” as really using future budget in the way that can be detrimental. It’s not like a Zygmunt death sentence backload. So I agree with your principle, BUT I exempt using just year 2 from that. To me it gives them flexibility in a lot of different ways. And notice it prevents them from having to over do the thing where you turn present hard money (salary, roster bonus) into a pro-rated bonus, because unless a deal is only 2 years, it does backload more in general. So let’s say they want to sign Foles now. Rather than backload a few different years by converting someone’s hard money in pro-rated bonus money, they just park a one-time frontload in the 2016 cap. Anyway that’s my thinking on this.
I would think of 2016 as being the first year of his extension. Is this now sematics? 😉
AgamemnonIt is always best though to use as little of a future budget as possible.
Well I agree with that, except I also don’t see the “year 2 maneuver” as really using future budget in the way that can be detrimental. It’s not like a Zygmunt death sentence backload. So I agree with your principle, BUT I exempt using just year 2 from that. To me it gives them flexibility in a lot of different ways. And notice it prevents them from having to over do the thing where you turn present hard money (salary, roster bonus) into a pro-rated bonus, because unless a deal is only 2 years, it does backload more in general. So let’s say they want to sign Foles now. Rather than backload a few different years by converting someone’s hard money in pro-rated bonus money, they just park a one-time frontload in the 2016 cap. Anyway that’s my thinking on this.
I would think of 2016 as being the first year of his extension. Is this now sematics?
Yeah, semantics, a bit. Cause the alternative, if you don’t use the extension, is to wait for 2016 to sign him.
But also…they have used new contracts that way, too. Like Long and even Saffold.
So in my mind the 2 actions overlap (ie. extensions and new contracts with bigger hits in year 2).
BUT I won’t be able to make a case until the next time they have a big FA signing, I guess.
Which is fine.
You know what they say. Working out the details on an interesting discussion regarding the intricacies of cap policy is a dish best served cold.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 6 months ago by
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
