Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › this idea that the Rams are tight against the cap? Demoff on that
- This topic has 5 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 3 months ago by zn.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 29, 2014 at 9:53 pm #5515znModerator
from last April
http://www.ramsrule.com/herd/list.php?13
Kevin Demoff
This question is a little easier to answer this year as it appears the next few years should seem at least modest increases in the salary cap. In previous years, with more uncertainty around how the salary cap would rise, we always expected an increase of about $1-2m per year. While we still use very conservative estimates for future years, I think we can plan for $3-5m per year for the forseeable future which is helpful because we always look at our salary cap planning in 3-4 year increments.
The most important thing we value as a franchise in our salary cap is flexiblity. The best way to preserve that flexibility is to try and write contracts that are linear meaning that the contracts are roughly the same value each year and don’t contain large pro-rated signing bonuses. With most of our bigger signings, be it our own re-signings or free agency, we try to write the contracts where the guaranteed money is in the first 2 years and then there is greater room to manuever after that. That structure is what you have seen most recently in contracts such as Chris Long, James Laurinaitis, Cortland Finnegan, Scott Wells, Kendall Langford, Rodger Saffold, etc…
Ideally we like to write those guarantees in base salaries and roster bonuses, but we also are willing usually to commit $1m/year in signing bonus proration if it helps us afford a player in a given year. Typically our contracts can be structured to be slightly lower in the first year cap wise and then slightly higher in the second year to give us more flexibility in the current year we are in. The goal is to have nearly complete flexibility after the first two years of a contract.
As for coming up with values on players, myself and Tony Pastoors, our senior assistant who manages the salary cap and plays a significant role in our front office, we will sit with the coaches and scouts to get a sense of their needs/wants in any given year. We will then sit with Coach Fisher and Les Snead to develop a strategic plan of the players or groups of players that we would like to go after and an “ideal” range that we would like to sign a player for. There is always some flexibility in that range, but we usually have an idea of a number we won’t go past in any negotiation. If a player goes past our range, we wil consider the next best alternative to sign, although sometimes that player isn’t at the same position.
As for our current situation, we have tried to manage our salary cap from the vantage point that we have the youngest team in the NFL and our young players are going to need to be paid in the next few years. As a result, we have tried to leave greater flexibility and room in the 2015-2018 years and as a result, we have taken higher “cap” charges for our veterans in 2012-2014 when the young players are on rookie contracts. We have tried to avoid the restructuring contracts for salary cap purposes only and have succeeded for the most part with one exception, which was Chris Long last year.
One last thing that I think is helpful to understand our cap situation. I don’t think we will ever be a team that has the most “room” in the NFL the way we look at contracts, but the fact that may be closer to the cap can also be misleading. We have one of the lowest amounts of signing bonus proration in the NFL both now and moving forward, which means our cap dollars are all in salary cap space that can be converted if necessary. Our goal is to always have salary cap options, not just room. But moving forward, we have both room and options and that will be imperative as we try to lock up our young core.
Honestly, we don’t really look as much by unit as people may think, we tend to look at in terms of offense/defense and starters/backups. With such a young team that has so many players on rookie contracts, the units can get skewed fairly quickly. Also, for the most part, we have not found any historical correlation between winning % and dollars spent on a certain position group. However, we do want to be fairly balanced between offense and defense. It is not a must have, but something we do monitor to make sure our dollars are allocated somewhat evenly.
One area which we have studied historically is the % of dollars that are going to starters versus non starters. Ideally you would like to be in the 65-75% range for starters, and your team can get a little top heavy at over 80%. But again, given how young we are and how many of our players are on rookie deals, that hasn’t been a ratio we have paid as much attention to, especially as we have gotten away from signing bonus and focus more heavily on salary and roster bonuses.
The goal though is to use our $133m the most efficiently that we can to get the best possible players. If that means getting out of whack in some spots but it makes us better, we will do what is best for the roster, not just what fits our models the best.
August 29, 2014 at 9:58 pm #5516znModeratorI don’t think we will ever be a team that has the most “room” in the NFL the way we look at contracts, but the fact that may be closer to the cap can also be misleading. We have one of the lowest amounts of signing bonus proration in the NFL both now and moving forward, which means our cap dollars are all in salary cap space that can be converted if necessary. Our goal is to always have salary cap options, not just room.
Okay that means this.
1. They frontload.
2. They try to maximize the frontloading, but that is flexible. They can un-do it a little when they need to. So for example it looks like they spent to the cap this year, but the truth is, the contracts are set up in such a way that they can change that easily and on short notice. What that does is create a little more space THIS year but subtract a bit from the open space they left in future years. They can trade back and forth on that.
3. That means they will LOOK like they are tight against the cap any given year, but that’s in appearance only…any time they need more space, it’s there. They simply have to re-structure someone so that they trade space now for future space.
4. It’s like you put all your money into savings, and only an allowance in checking. Let’s say this month the allowance isn’t workable because something comes up. You just put a little less in savings THIS ONE TIME, without overdoing it. It works exactly like that.
August 29, 2014 at 10:33 pm #5518TackleDummyParticipantzn, I am not sure why you are going to this effort about this. Nothing you have posted contradicts what I said. Your quote was “but that is flexible. They can un-do it a little when they need to.” That is all I said. The Rams will have to undo things a little and I named three possible sources. I do think that the Rams are close enough to the cap that they will undo things a little and I think Demoff knows exactly where he can do that. I think they need to free up somewhere from $2M to $4M. They will have to find cap space for all 53 players (instead of 51), for those on IR, and for the practice squad. Most teams keep a little extra on hand for use during the season, but Demoff keeps this closer than most teams.
August 29, 2014 at 10:58 pm #5519znModeratorzn, I am not sure why you are going to this effort about this. Nothing you have posted contradicts what I said. Your quote was “but that is flexible. They can un-do it a little when they need to.” That is all I said. The Rams will have to undo things a little and I named three possible sources. I do think that the Rams are close enough to the cap that they will undo things a little and I think Demoff knows exactly where he can do that. I think they need to free up somewhere from $2M to $4M. They will have to find cap space for all 53 players (instead of 51), for those on IR, and for the practice squad. Most teams keep a little extra on hand for use during the season, but Demoff keeps this closer than most teams.
TD, it wasn’t about you. I read threads on other boards about this–the idea that the Rams lack cap space.
An example: Re: Very True, Rams are last in NFL in cap space (who wrote that isn’t relevant).
I didn’t have in mind our earlier discussion and if I did, I would have the decency to post it in that thread with a direct address to you (I don’t like this coy “some people say” routine when in fact the person is talking to YOU).
In any event, what led me to re-find the Demoff quote was just the general issue–the perception that the Rams being last in cap space means they are actually cap tight.
The details about what they need and why and for what are pretty clear but it did not seem to be common knowledge that in fact that’s just how they play it, for the sake of the frontloading.
If we agree we agree but that wasn’t what was on my mind when I decided to dig up Demoff and look at his exact wording. So anyway while I see why you get the impression I was making this personal, all that happened is that I got into the issue itself for other reasons and just wanted to look it up and be precise about it and get it out there as a topic.
.
August 30, 2014 at 1:33 am #5535TackleDummyParticipantIn the other thread I said “Before all is said and done the Rams will have to come up with some cap space.”
They you responded to me saying “I’m not sure that’s the case.”The next thing you posted was this thread. And you say “I didn’t have in mind our earlier discussion” Really?
But in any event you are making a big mountain out of a very small mole hill. I do not recall reading anyone suggesting that the Rams were in any kind of cap trouble. Rather they say what is probably accurate, that the Rams will have to make some adjustments to the cap before tomorrow at 4:00pm eastern. The reason this will be necessary is that the Rams are currently tight against the cap. It is possible I am wrong in this, but I don’t think so.
Your effort in this thread is one of semantics that has absolutely no substance. Your statement in the other thread that essentially said that I was wrong was itself misguided.
August 30, 2014 at 1:52 am #5540znModeratorThe next thing you posted was this thread. And you say “I didn’t have in mind our earlier discussion” Really?
Yes, really TD…what got me into looking up the Demoff was posts out on the net like the one I cite (where I quoted the title: Re: Very True, Rams are last in NFL in cap space ). It was not personal, and if I had intended to continue the specific discussion directly with you, I would have just said so, and done so. If I want to challenge someone one on one, I just do it…though I also take pains to be civil. Either way that just looks to me like a minor exchange that passed and was over. Even if, as you say, we were just talking about 2 different things.
I even said so above: So anyway while I see why you get the impression I was making this personal, all that happened is that I got into the issue itself for other reasons and just wanted to look it up and be precise about it and get it out there as a topic.
I stand by all that. In the course of the day I ended up drifting into a topic that interested me and I wanted to clarify.
So, are we done here? Because IMO nothing happened between us personally, and to me the more interesting topic is how the Rams handle the cap. So let’s move on, fair enough?
So about the topic itself–I think it’s interesting that the Rams play the frontload game the way they do, to the point where Demoff has to openly explain that (in his words) I don’t think we will ever be a team that has the most “room” in the NFL the way we look at contracts, but the fact that may be closer to the cap can also be misleading.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.