One Kind of Salary Cap Model archive***

I figure the Rams are 6-8M short for next year. There are a couple things they might do. Not resign Britt, Ayers, Reynolds, and Quick or let Brockers walk. Any combination that saves the money works. Any players they lose will have to be replaced. By younger cheaper players.

They might restructure or extend some contracts to find savings. Say, Tavon, Macdonald, Brockers, and Johnson, If they could keep these players for less than 36M, that might work. This is pretty much like predicting the weather. 😉

Also, I think we have about 1-2M left to spend of the cap. We will probably keep that unless somebody gets hurt before the season starts. imo

Robert Quinn signed a 4 year, $57,014,895 contract with the St. Louis Rams, including a $4,776,774 signing bonus, $41,171,774 guaranteed

Quinn is 8.3%, but that was before they realized the cap would increase as much as it has, imo
42M was a large guarantee, elite status, still well under the 10.1% value of a franchise DE. imo

He signed in 2014. So, the Rams got years 2016, 17, 18, and19 added for new money of $57M. The cap for 214 was$133M. They were probably figuring an increase of $5-7M/yr. I estimate that he signed for ~8.9%, which was a bargain, even back then. imo

zn wrote:

Saffold?

Cutting Saffold is another option.

I went back and redid Flacco, cause I just couldn’t believe it was that far off. I did his last 2 contracts. They covered 9yrs, 2013 – 2021. His number is then 12.3%, which is just under the franchise value for QB of 12.8%. Flacco is just under a franchise QB. That makes more sense to me. 😉

Suh is my only outlier at 11.1% vs 10.1% and that probably stays that way.

Breaking down Nick Foles’ $26.068 million extension

Breaking down Nick Foles’ $26.068 million extension
Posted August 12, 2015 ·

St. Louis Rams quarterback Nick Foles’ two-year contract extension is worth $26.068 million and includes a $3 million signing bonus, according to a source with knowledge of Foles’ deal.

Foles got $13.792 million guaranteed.

In 2015, he’s due a fully guaranteed $1.042 million base salary and has $6.068 million in total compensation with a $4.068 million salary-cap figure.

The deal has no offset language in the first year.

Foles gets a $2 million roster bonus on Sept. 1. That’s guaranteed for skill and injury at signing, guaranteed for salary cap if on the roster on Aug. 15.
Foles has an annual $4.5 million in not likely to be earned incentives based on Pro Bowl; p/t + wins or playoffs or playoff wins; p/t + wins or playoffs or playoff wins and Club/player rankings.
Foles has workout bonuses of $6,240 and $20,000 in 2015.
In 2016, he has a $.175 million base salary and a $8.75 million salary-cap figure. The salary is guaranteed for injury at signing and skill and cap if on the roster the fifth day of the 2016 league year and includes offset language.

He’s due a $6 million roster bonus on the third day of the 2016 league year, guaranteed for skill and injury at signing, guaranteed for cap if on the roster on Aug. 15, 2016 and has no offset language.

In 2017, he has a $13.25 million salary cap figure and a $10.75 million nonguaranteed base salary.

He has a $1.5 million roster bonus due on the third day of the 2017 league year.
Finally found the exact Foles contract. The offset language, for his salary this year, is the key. This means that like Finnegan, the Rams can get some or all of his salary back, even if they cut him. A trade takes them off the hook. The other team honors Foles’ contract.

There is still $1 million of the $3 million signing bonus left on the books. The best the Rams can do is gain $.75 million and that might not come this year. If he is cut, the offset kicks in next year.

It appears the $1 million of the $3 million signing bonus doesn’t have to be booked this year. The Rams can wait until next year if they want. See below.

http://overthecap.com/explaining-the-june-1st-designation/

Explaining the June 1st Designation
Posted on February 21, 2013 by Jason Fitzgerald

One of the questions I get a lot deals with what a “post June 1” cut is and how designating someone a June 1 cut helps my team. So lets talk a bit about that today.

What we are talking about here deals strictly with the acceleration of prorated bonus money onto the current years salary cap. The NFL essentially breaks up its salary cap accounting for bonuses into two periods with June 1 being the trigger date. When a player is removed from a players roster prior to June 1st all his remaining unamortized bonus money immediately accelerates onto the salary cap. To illustrate this we see how the Kansas City Chiefs gave Steve Breaston a $5 million dollar signing bonus in 2011, which was accounted as $1 million in yearly expenses over the course of his 5 year contract. When he was released just the other day he had only completed 2 years of his 5 year contract meaning the Chiefs salary cap had only accounted for $2 million of the $5 million paid in 2011. The balance of $3 million dollars immediately accelerates onto the Chiefs 2013 salary cap.

After June 1 the NFL changes the way the acceleration works. After June 1st only the current years expense remains on the books after the player is released. The balance accelerates onto the following years salary cap. So in Breastons case had the Chiefs waited until June 1st to release him his salary cap charge in 2013 would have been $1 million and in 2014 he still would be on the books at $2 million dollars.

This rule is really another way in which the league holds tremendous power over the players. In some cases the acceleration of bonus money could throw a teams salary cap into chaos, if higher than the players current cap charge as an active player. Since teams need to remain under the cap at all times once the League Year begins the potential of the acceleration onto the current years cap would prevent a players release and allow them to continue earning their salary for the year. Instead they are thrust into a pool of summertime free agents when most teams are strapped for cap space and have made many of the decisions about their roster.

I think where many people get confused, though, is when they hear that “player x” could be designated a June 1 cut and immediately jump to conclusions that it means a spending spree in March. The league allows each team to designate up to two players per year as a June 1 cut for cap purposes prior to June 1. It’s the one concession that was given to the players as it allows a player to be cut in March and have time to explore free agency but have his cap hit spread out over two seasons, thus creating more cap space in the current year. The issue though is the mechanism by which this works.

When you designate someone as a June 1 cut the player and his current contract remain on the books until June 1. Going back to the Breaston example has he been designated a June 1 cut his cap charge today would not be $1 million with $2 million on the books in 2014. His cap charge would be $5 million dollars, the same cap charge as if they never cut him at all. When June 1st hits his cap then moves down to $1 million and the other $2 million accelerate into the 2014 season. By that point in time free agency is finished and the extra cap room does not do the team much good. They would have been in a far better cap position during the important time of free agency by releasing Breaston outright as the Chiefs did.

The real purpose of the June 1 designation option is to benefit teams that have poor salary cap situations and need to either create space for rookie signings over the summer months or to cut players from the roster whose dead money charges are greater than their charge to remain on the team. In recent years this would be teams like the Dallas Cowboys and Oakland Raiders who have entered into some overpriced contracts for multiple players leaving them tight against the cap every season. The acceleration from one of these underperforming players would put the team over the cap or close enough to it to make it difficult to sign the draft class. Often waiting until June 1 is not an option because of offseason bonus money that would be due to the player if he is on the roster so the only option is to designate him a June 1 cut. So the rule gives the team the ability to avoid paying the player a bloated salary while also avoiding more cap problems. But by no means is it going to be a way to spend more money in the early stages of free agency and it does nothing to improve a teams cap position in March.

http://overthecap.com/nfl-salary-cap-super-bowl-champions-part/

The NFL Salary Cap and Super Bowl Champions, Part I
Posted on August 18, 2014 by Jason Fitzgerald

Salary cap research, at least outside of an NFL organization, is pretty much an empty field. It’s understandable as salary cap numbers were always something that would be briefly mentioned in an article about a team and were not exactly public knowledge. There were more resources when various salary cap sites doing their best to track their favorite teams began springing up. I believe Miguel’s Patscap.com was the first site. Ian Whetstone, who contributes to OTC from time to time, kept (and still keeps) these great word docs and spreadsheets detailing salary cap reports from various sources. And with sites such as OTC now there is more ability to do research on current trends. But historical data is still a tough subject to come by.

For this series of posts I wanted to get together as much accurate historical data as I could and start looking at just how Super Bowl champions spend their salary cap dollars in building a championship team. So for this series we will go all the way back to 1994 and look at how each Super Bowl team was built. My focus is on top of the roster spending because that is the area that eats up essentially half a teams’ budget and is what we discuss the most on the site.

In part 1, which is today’s entry, we are going to look at the percentage of adjusted salary cap spent on the top player, top 3 players, top 5 players, and top 10 players on a roster. In part 2 we will look at the positional allocations among the teams. Finally in part 3 we’ll take a look at these trends and apply them to today’s NFL and see which teams most closely resemble the salary cap construction of Super Bowl champions.

There are a few things to keep in mind about the numbers. One is that the 2010 Green Bay Packers are not included because the year had no salary cap and thus there is no basis to rate their salary cap spending. The second is that, when discussing the spending I will be eliminating the 1997 and 1998 Denver Broncos from the discussion. I’ll include a separate section to explain that later in this post..

Top Player Salary Cap Spending

Lowest Spender: 6.7% (Jon Ogden- 2000 Ravens)

Just 7 of the 17 Super Bowl Champions of the salary cap era spent more than 10% of their entire salary cap on their highest priced player, with four of those teams coming between the 2001 and 2006 seasons (all three Patriots champions and the 2006 Colts). In general the trend has been towards less spending in recent years with 6 of the lowest spenders having come post 2005. I would tend to think that this could be due to teams putting more of an emphasis on drafting than veteran free agent starters, though it could also be teams being more effective for one year manipulation of the salary cap.

Top 3 Salary Cap Spending

Lowest Spender: 17.4% (Ogden, Ray Lewis, & Michael McCrary- 2000 Ravens)

I was a bit surprised to see the Tampa Bay Buccaneers team rank so high since everyone associates Brad Johnson with journeyman QB, but he was highly enough compensated along with two defensive stars to push

them to the top of the list. Not surprisingly the Ravens were at the bottom as Trent Dilfer was paid more like a journeyman with just a $1 million cap hit. We have a nice spread of data here with some current teams over the average and some under the average.

I think two of the surprises are the Patriots’ 2001 and 2004 teams. These are squads that are associated with reasonable priced QB play, but all the Patriots teams had big money invested in Ty Law and the two teams had money invested in QB- by 2004 Brady had signed a pricier extension and in 2001 Drew Bledsoe was a big earner. NE overcame a lot of salary cap waste those years to win their Super Bowls. In 2001 Bledsoe was injured and replaced and in 2004 Law only played in 7 games while their third highest cap charge came from Lawyer Milloy, a player who was released a few days before the season began.

Top 5 Salary Cap Spending

Lowest Spender: 27.0% (Ogden, Lewis, McCrary, Rod Woodson, & Peter Boulware- 2000 Ravens)

On average teams allocated about 33% of the entire salary cap to just 5 players. Our two most recent NFL champions both rated above the average which was a slight jump for both teams indicating that their GMs believed in continuous spending rather than drop-offs after the top few players. In light of the last category it is not surprising to see the Bucs and Ravens rate highest and lowest. The Bucs were a veteran laden team that was near the end of their run with Jon Gruden being brought in as a replacement for Tony Dungy. The team would win just 12 games in the next two years and has been the worst futures performing Super Bowl champion, though the Giants look poised to take that title this year if they fail to advance to the playoffs. The Ravens were the very young group with a number of contributing top draft picks on the team and made the playoffs in two of the next three years, so they did better than the Bucs, but were actually towards the bottom of the list in future playoff success as well.

Top 10 Cap Spending

Lowest Spender: 44.4% (2000 Ravens)

It certainly pays to be considered a good player, as Super Bowls champions invest half of their budget on less than 20% of the players on the team. One of the interesting takeaways here is that the Seahawks ranked 2nd out of 17 teams with 55% of the cap being allocated on 10 players. I think this actually goes against the popular thought about the way the team was constructed. Because the Seahawks get so much mileage out of their young talent people but this was a team that spent on veteran talent. It shows the impact of the draft on a team as they received little from Zach Miller, Sidney Rice, and Percy Harvin and others were released this season for cap considerations.

In general the more recent trends have pushed towards lower spending on the top player on the roster with increased spending on the “above average” talent base. Since 2006 only the 2009 Saints spent less than 48.9% on their top 10 players. Perhaps the most interesting teams were the Patriots dynasty teams that were big spenders up to the top 3 players, but ended up among the bottom 6 in the top 10 category.

Overall Spending Breakdowns

I just wanted to take a small sampling of the teams to see how the league spends so much on so few players. Though there will be some differences in how teams are built, once you extend rosters out to 60+ players (these include terminated contracts obviously) we can see that about 75% of funding is spent on just 25 players and 80% of all funding on just 30 players. That is essentially our starting roster and it is why I often talk about roster turnover every year and how almost nobody is safe. If you are not an entrenched starter you either need to show potential to be one or bring value added services (special teams, multiple positions, specialized packages) to keep from getting your number called in the final days of the preseason.

Complete Salary Cap Spending
So Why No Broncos?

The 1997 and 1998 Broncos are one of the more well remembered champions of recent NFL history primarily because of the storybook ending to the career of John Elway. But this was still the earliest days of the salary cap and certain teams in the NFL were always finding ways to try to cheat the salary cap. Some violated the spirit of the CBA (I think every early CBA seemed to have some type of prior Dallas Cowboys loophole closed), but the Broncos remain were found in violation of the salary cap and were fined years later for these violations.

The general nature of the violations, which were found to run from 1996 to 1998, surrounded deferring large payments for star players like Elway. There were other types of guaranteed bonuses being promised to players to avoid proration treatment of the bonuses. Denver claimed that these maneuvers were simply done because they were having cash flow problems and that no benefit was gained despite the league penalties.

When tabulating the data it just felt wrong to agree with that assessment. The 5.5 and 5.3% that was spent on their top player was at least 1.2% less than the next closest teams. Their top 10 spending in 1997 was just 40.2%, 4% less than the 2000 Ravens. What those numbers are not so ridiculous, to expect a team with a Hall of Fame veteran QB to be playing for pennies is.

Elway’s cap charges in the Super Bowl seasons were just $2.1 and $2.6 million respectively. By comparison Dan Marino, who would be the most logical comparison, had cap charges of $4.3 and $7.6 million. Troy Aikman’s cap charges were both over $5 million in those seasons. Some may argue that Steve Young had low cap charges ($3.5 million), but that was also a team found in violation of the cap. So for the purposes of this study it just did not seem relevant to include this group as a reasonable way to look at building a team especially in light of the violations they were found guilty of.

Future Success

I wanted to also look at how the team performed in the three year period following the Super Bowl. Ranking them was solely based on playoff success with a team being awarded 10 points for winning a Super Bowl, 8 points for losing a Super Bowl, 6 points for the conference championship, and so on. Since we are going in a three year period we have limited our pool by three more teams.

The average score was 10.85 with a median of 10. The teams who invested heavily in one player were the teams who had the most success in the future. The 49ers, Patriots dynasty, and Manning Colts all were big playoff successes in the future. That slowly begins to shift as we move to top 10 spending as you get three of the lowest five in the top 6 of spending and four of the best teams in the bottom 6.

The following chart shows the salary cap spending for each of the teams discussed including the Denver Broncos. Clicking on the headers should allow you to change the sorting method. In our next part of the series we’ll see exactly where this money was spent.

Above he as figures of 9% for 1 player, 22% for 3 players, and 32% for 5 players on superbowl teams between 1994 – 2013.

I did it in 2016 for 5 regular playoff teams and got 18% for 2 players and 30% for 4 players. 12 – 14 players equals 53 – 60%. Both groups all hit the curve in the graph.

His super bowl teams, when he counted the top 10 players, never used up more than 56% of the cap. The average was ~50%.

Since everything fits the curve above, I will take that to be the optimum model. It is derived from teams in the super bowl.

2 players at 24% and 6 players at 50%. According to my theory, 2 at 24% is Ok. 6 at 50% is not Ok. Well, it could be Ok. It might even be better than OK. But it is not an ideal fit. These are averages and how well did each super bowl team fit the average?

2013 Seahawks, plotted against an average of super bowl teams.
1 player takes 8%
3 players take 22%
5 players take 34%
10 players take 55%
28 players take 76%

Seattle is not that far of the curve at any point. Seattle’s curve might not look like the curve of another team. That team might be over or under the curve at different points. Most teams will probably fit the curve though. imo There is less real difference between how teams distribute their cap dollars than it appears, at least on how close they fit the curve. imo

It is more about value. What value can you get for your cap money. A cheap QB is really big. Having a lot of young talented players is good, if it is before they get their second contract. Having players that out perform their contracts is good. Think Hayes, Donald, Gurley for the Rams. imo

. https://www.spotrac.com/blog/nfl-minimum-salaries-for-2016-and-the-veteran-cap-benefit-rule/
.
NFL Minimum Salaries for 2016 and the Veteran Cap Benefit Rule
By Michael Ginnitti • Jan 11, 2016

Each year the NFL minimum salaries increase by $15,000, up to $435k for a rookie in 2015. A player’s minimum salary is determined by his years of experience (YOE), ranging from 0 to 10 or more. The chart below shows the minimum (P5) salaries a team can contract a player to based on Years of Experience (credited seasons).

Veteran Minimum Benefits

When qualified, a player with four (4) or more years of NFL experience can earn his total minimum salary, but have a cap figure that reflects two years of experience – or in 2016, $600,000. The contract must be for only one year, and must not contain combined bonus money (signing, roster, workout) that exceeds $80,000.

For instance, let’s pretend Matt Cassel resigns with the Dallas Cowboys in 2016 on a 1 year, minimum salary contract. With 10+ years of experience, he’ll be slotted for a $985,000 base salary. With four or more years of experience (11), and a 1 year contract, Cassel qualifies for the cap hit benefit. His 2016 cap figure with the Cowboys would be $600,000

Had he received a bonus (signing, roster, workout) up to the maximum $80,000, he would have received a total $1.065M contract, with a $985,000 base salary, an $80,000 signing bonus, and a cap figure of $680,000 (600+80).

With plenty of veterans being released, or not signed back thus far in 2016, the use of the Minimum Salary Benefit Rule becomes useful both for older players looking for jobs, and teams looking to minimize their cap dollars.

Reserve/Future Contracts

Most restricted free agents will be offered 1-year tenders this offseason rather than long-term extensions. Each year these tenders rise according to CBA regulation. In 2016, teams will have the right to tender their RFA as:
1st Round: $3.635M
2nd Round: $2.553M
3rd Round: $1.671M <= I think this is only right of first refusal. I will have to check that.

NFL sets restricted free agency tenders for 2016

Restricted free agents can be held in place through the application of one of three tenders. The lowest level provides a right or first refusal. The second-round tender provides a right of first refusal and (duh) a second-round pick as compensation if the original team doesn’t match. The first-round tender carries a right of first refusal and a first-round pick as compensation.

top tier 12 [your best players. ?over ~6 million] 60% ~93.2M for 2016 [ ? Upper Limit ]
middle tier 12 [the rest of the starters. ?less than ~6 million] 26% ~40.4M for 2016 [ ? Lower Limit ]
bottom tier 36 [includes IR. less than 1 million] 14.0% ~21.7M for 2016 [ Lower Limit ]
.
I will need to check some rosters to see how this stuff fits what is actaully out there. I think the bottom tier is a limit.
All your RFAs and top draft choices[rounds 1 and 2] will be in the middle, at least ?10.
All your top and middle tier players figure to be starters.
.
Players 1 – 12 have an average salary of 7.7M.
Players 13 – 24 have an average salary of 3.37M.
Players 25 – 60 have an average salary of 603k.
.
.
The Rams top 12 at 53.8% = ~83.5 million
The Rams middle 18 at 28.9% = ~44.9 million
The Rams bottom 30 at 13.3% = ~20.7 million
Rams Cap Space = 4.0% = ~6.2 million
Total…………………. 100.0% ………. $155.3
.
The Rams, 10 of 18 are RFAs and top draft choices[rounds 1 and 2] in the middle tier.
.
Players 1 – 12 have an average salary of 7.0M.
Players 13 – 30 have an average salary of 2.5M.
Players 31 – 60 have an average salary of 690k
.
The Rams have plenty of cheap young players.

top tier 10-12 [your best players. ?over ~6 million] 72.0% ~111.8M for 2016 [ Upper Limit ]
middle tier 12-14 [the rest of the starters. ?less than ~6 million] 14.0% ~21.7M for 2016 [ Lower Limit ]
12-14 players would make an average of $1.5 million/year.
bottom tier 36 [includes IR. less than 1 million] 14.0% ~21.7M for 2016 [ Lower Limit ]
36 players would make an average of $0.6 million/year.

This is my latest attempt to create a Salary Cap Roster Model. I am looking for an Archetype, the original pattern or model from which all things of the same kind are copied or on which they are based; a model or first form; prototype. Just as I view the Pound Cake as the Archetype cake. This doesn’t mean it has to be the best cake or your favorite, it is just the model from which all cakes are derived.

With the invention of baking powder, the Pound Cake evolved into the Victoria Sponge.

See more victoria sponge recipes …
http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/mary_berrys_perfect_34317

http://www.thefootballeducator.com/build-an-nfl-roster-using-jack-welch%E2%80%99s-20-70-10-approach/

Build an NFL roster using Jack Welch’s 20-70-10 approach

It’s important to note the GM’s role keeping the big picture in focus when building an NFL roster. There are numerous avenues & angles to take when adding talent to your club; reserve futures, the draft, undrafted free agents, unrestricted free agents, trades. Like a master chef, the right combination of ingredients can bring success in the kitchen, for a GM – success on the football field.

The “Business” of Football

After reading former General Electric CEO Jack Welch’s Straight From The Gut, it appeared to me that there might a good recipe here with which to assemble a professional football team from the “big picture” aspect – the 20-70-10 approach.

Described on Welch’s official website, 20-70-10 or “Differentiation” is;

Very simply, …. based on the principle that the team with the best players wins.

So in a nut shell, Welch encouraged GE’s businesses to identify and categorize their senior executives into one of three distinct categories.

A (the top 20%) the Producers
B (the middle 70%) those Vital to group as they make up the majority
C (the bottome 10%) the Non Producers

Welch surmised your top 20% (A players) were the “best of the best” and all resources/top compensation should be thrown their way. The middle 70% (B players) were a vital part of operations, the core of your workforce. You should continue to motivate and train your B’s to eventually move into the A category and push other B’s down a level. The bottom 10% (C players) should be immediately replaced. Some call it the “rank and yank” method.

Relating it to Roster Building
.
For football purposes the “ranking” evaluation MUST be based entirely upon ability & production as evaluated by your personnel staff(coaches/scouts), then handed over to salary cap administrators for proper contract structuring and negotiation via market values (not the other way around).
.
A 53 man roster (in theory) should be made up with your top 10 to 11 players as the very best compensated. A club should lean hard on self-evaluation to ensure that the best stay in the top for a long while. It’s a burden on the club to drop out of the A (20%) category if a player is not performing (due to contract structuring and CAP hit). Not many alternatives are left other than to force a reduction or cut the player before he ever drops to the C level.

Level B (70%), or approximately 35 players, should (in theory) have true potential to move into your A range. These players are nurtured and coached hard to maximize next level opportunity. They should be identified for future extensions & compensation, but GM’s might want to even break this group into 1/3’s.

1/3 – Your top players ready to be extended into the A range. (the core of youth of your team)
2/3 – Journeyman players, roll players, special teams contributors
3/3 – Young developmental types, vets knowingly in their final year or falling in production.

The last level (C) should be targeted (5) players a club tries to replace throughout the season with street FA’s, practice squad raids & recently released players from other clubs. These players are the bottom performers as evaluated by Player Personnel. (In theory) They are lower salaried, but could be paid higher and out of their market value range as well. Hard decisions must be made to release and take the CAP hit, or restructure the contract down. Get these guys out at the end, replace them with better players when they become available.

To help rank players a club might want to require having coaches sort the squad from 1 to 53. Then have the defense rank the offense and vice versa (based on talent and not emotion). Finally, have the scouting staff do the same. An alternative could be to use an outside source for categorizing your roster.

*Note – Key must be to differentiate based on performance and ability and not just $’s being paid. Low $ players could be A level and deserving of a raise. C level players could be grossly overpaid and in need of restructure or cut.

It’s not the perfect recipe, but certainly a good menu with which to start.

Read more: http://www.thefootballeducator.com/build-an-nfl-roster-using-jack-welch%e2%80%99s-20-70-10-approach/#ixzz4DbbWSdXV