From a Jets article ... The league's collective bargaining agreement requires that all teams spend 89 percent of the combined salary cap totals from 2013 to 2016. (The salary cap is in place to restrict what players can earn and owners have to spend; the 89-percent cap floor exists to keep cheapskate owners from purposely not spending at all Link - ( New Window )
Teams that don't reach 89 percent by 2016 must pay the difference to the NFLPA, which can distribute the money to current and former players who were on the affected rosters.
Those teams must make up that difference at a time when the salary cap is expected to rise from $133 million in 2014 to the $143 million range in 2015, based on projected league revenues.
Reaching 89 percent shouldn't be an issue for the Panthers. When they extend the contract of quarterback Cam Newton and/or give linebacker Luke Kuechly a new deal they should exceed the number.
Both should happen in the next two years, with Newton likely to get a new deal in the six-year, $100 million range sometime this year.
Still, it's interesting that Carolina's spending is so low when the salary-cap situation has been so dire. That's probably because Gettleman has had to spend less to get the cap in order so he has room to sign players such as Newton and Kuechly.
But the Panthers aren't the worst-spending team. According to a story in USA Today, the Oakland Raiders have spent the least (80.2 percent) since 2013.
Following Carolina at 80.8 percent are: New York Jets (81.16), Jacksonville (82.2), Dallas (82.6), New Orleans (86.2), Washington (87), New York Giants (87.9) and Pittsburgh (88.3).
The top spenders the past two years are: Green Bay (116), Atlanta (109.1), Seattle (107.4), Chicago (106) and Denver (105.4). scroll about 1/2 way down - ( New Window )
Please explain why the Giants are always in cap hell if they
Doubt many are awar of this 89% rule which is "true dollars" and not "air"
How big will contracts be this year and what if you are forced to cut a player? It's an easy manage this year yet going forward? Will we see larger short term deals?
is about actual cash spending, not cap space used.
A lot of the Giants cap space over the past couple years has gone to absorbing the amortized bonuses that they had given to their starting quarterback in the previous few seasons. (As well as other players, like Baas, Canty, Webster, and Kiwanuka.)
The big upfront check that will come with Eli's extension will put this back into balance.
based on things like when specific players contracts are signed, where they may be in a rebuilding stage etc. I am guessing that this usually even outs for the most part. How often do you ever hear of teams actually ending up in violation for this?
In 2013 and 2014, Eli Manning's aggregate cap hit was $12.1MM higher than the amount of money that they actually paid him during those years.
In years when large bonuses are paid (such as the first year of a contract extension, or a year like 2012 when Eli restructured $9MM of salary into bonus), the opposite is true, and the player's actual cash earnings are higher than their cap cost to the team. Link - ( New Window )
based on things like when specific players contracts are signed, where they may be in a rebuilding stage etc. I am guessing that this usually even outs for the most part. How often do you ever hear of teams actually ending up in violation for this?
This was a creation of the new CBA. The first time that a "violation" will be possible is after the 2016 season.
The Giants are currently roughly 15-16 million under the cap.. and thats without an Eli or Prince extension and the eventual reduction in pay of several player or their outright release..
Far from Cap Hell..
the SAINTS are in cap hell 23 million OVER
RE: RE: I'm sure this is somewhat cyclical for teams
based on things like when specific players contracts are signed, where they may be in a rebuilding stage etc. I am guessing that this usually even outs for the most part. How often do you ever hear of teams actually ending up in violation for this?
This was a creation of the new CBA. The first time that a "violation" will be possible is after the 2016 season.
Oh I missed that part. There has long been a minimum threshold that teams had to spend hasn't there? Is it the percentage that has changed?
is about actual cash spending, not cap space used.
A lot of the Giants cap space over the past couple years has gone to absorbing the amortized bonuses that they had given to their starting quarterback in the previous few seasons. (As well as other players, like Baas, Canty, Webster, and Kiwanuka.)
The big upfront check that will come with Eli's extension will put this back into balance.
If the floor threshold only counts actual cash spent and not the dead money applied to the cap, how can teams stay under the cap and above the threshold? I guess that's why they average over 4 years??
That's what I've ben asking. How does this format work 3 years down the line? What if a Victor Cruz type can't return and that contract goes on the dead money record?
What if the Giants resigned Eli and his knee goes like Carson Palmer? This system would never work as I see it.
is about actual cash spending, not cap space used.
A lot of the Giants cap space over the past couple years has gone to absorbing the amortized bonuses that they had given to their starting quarterback in the previous few seasons. (As well as other players, like Baas, Canty, Webster, and Kiwanuka.)
The big upfront check that will come with Eli's extension will put this back into balance.
If the floor threshold only counts actual cash spent and not the dead money applied to the cap, how can teams stay under the cap and above the threshold? I guess that's why they average over 4 years??
Let's say the Giants sign a player to a 4-year deal: $10MM salary year 1, $12MM year 2, and $15MM in each of yrs 3 & 4. They also pay him a signing bonus of $8MM.
Year 1: Cap hit is $12MM (10+8/4) while the cash expense is $18MM (10+8)
Year 2: Cap hit is $14MM, cash expense is $12MM
Year 3: Cap hit is $17MM, cash expense is $15MM
Year 4: Cap hit is $17MM, cash expense is $15MM
Because for cap compliance reasons a signing bonus is amortized over the life of the contract, the actual cash expense from year to year may be more or less than the cap hit.
In this example if the player negotiates a new contract extension for lets say 2 more years at $8MM each plus a $4MM bonus, the cash expense then again becomes greater than the cap hit in year 5 ($12MM cash vs. $10MM cap). By renegotiating Eli, Rolle and/or JPP the Giants will accomplish the same thing.
RE: Perhaps I'm mistaken, but last year didn't the Giants end up
with almost no cap space at all so we could only sign a new player if we cut a current player?
You are mistaken. The Giants last year has about $25m in cap space and signed something like a dozen FA including big deals to DRC, Jennings, Schwartz and Beason plus guys like Ayers, McLain and McBride. and they had enough left over to cover all the replacement signings for the IRed players as well. Follow the Giants much?,
Note also that the only penalty for not meeting this threshold is that the club then has to cut a check to the NFLPA. Doesn't affect cap space or team performance-- just the Mara/Tisch checking account.
They did have a couple of tight years when they were dismantling the SB roster but that's the price you pay for putting a highly paid championship roster together. BTW, they're in pretty good cap shape again this year. $20+m.
BillT. I was not talking about spring of 2014. I was talking about
the end of the season when we were trying to replace the 20+ guys on IR. At THAT point we did not have any cap room to spend on replacement players.
I assumed (incorrectly) that the 89% calculations are base on cap room and spending as of the End of the year, not the beginning of the year.
But thank you for trying to help me understand. Let's see if I do.
The NFL salary system is bifurcated. Part I is the salary cap which is not related to Part II, the 89 percent rule.
The 89 percent rule requires that clubs make cash salary payments averaging at least 89 percent of some predetermined figure over the course of the four(?) most current years.
If they fail to do this they must pay the underpaid amount to the NFLPA as a penalty.
Sorry, I was far too short with a you who as a poster has given us here so much great stuff. I think you're on target. It's more then we need to know, in some sense, as basic salary cap room is all us fans really care about or matters for FA, etc. You're right about spring 2014 (2013 really) as 2012 and 13 were the tight years off the SB roster.
20+ IR players will do that to any team. It's about 1/2 mil per replacement prorated based on time on the roster. Probably killed 5m of the surplus at least.
\\ 
From a Jets article ...
The league's collective bargaining agreement requires that all teams spend 89 percent of the combined salary cap totals from 2013 to 2016. (The salary cap is in place to restrict what players can earn and owners have to spend; the 89-percent cap floor exists to keep cheapskate owners from purposely not spending at all
Link - ( New Window )
Those teams must make up that difference at a time when the salary cap is expected to rise from $133 million in 2014 to the $143 million range in 2015, based on projected league revenues.
Reaching 89 percent shouldn't be an issue for the Panthers. When they extend the contract of quarterback Cam Newton and/or give linebacker Luke Kuechly a new deal they should exceed the number.
Both should happen in the next two years, with Newton likely to get a new deal in the six-year, $100 million range sometime this year.
Still, it's interesting that Carolina's spending is so low when the salary-cap situation has been so dire. That's probably because Gettleman has had to spend less to get the cap in order so he has room to sign players such as Newton and Kuechly.
But the Panthers aren't the worst-spending team. According to a story in USA Today, the Oakland Raiders have spent the least (80.2 percent) since 2013.
Following Carolina at 80.8 percent are: New York Jets (81.16), Jacksonville (82.2), Dallas (82.6), New Orleans (86.2), Washington (87), New York Giants (87.9) and Pittsburgh (88.3).
The top spenders the past two years are: Green Bay (116), Atlanta (109.1), Seattle (107.4), Chicago (106) and Denver (105.4).
scroll about 1/2 way down - ( New Window )
How big will contracts be this year and what if you are forced to cut a player? It's an easy manage this year yet going forward? Will we see larger short term deals?
IIs this number in the article/post based on their expenditure last year vs. this year's increase? That might make sense.
A lot of the Giants cap space over the past couple years has gone to absorbing the amortized bonuses that they had given to their starting quarterback in the previous few seasons. (As well as other players, like Baas, Canty, Webster, and Kiwanuka.)
The big upfront check that will come with Eli's extension will put this back into balance.
In years when large bonuses are paid (such as the first year of a contract extension, or a year like 2012 when Eli restructured $9MM of salary into bonus), the opposite is true, and the player's actual cash earnings are higher than their cap cost to the team.
Link - ( New Window )
This was a creation of the new CBA. The first time that a "violation" will be possible is after the 2016 season.
The Giants are currently roughly 15-16 million under the cap.. and thats without an Eli or Prince extension and the eventual reduction in pay of several player or their outright release..
Far from Cap Hell..
the SAINTS are in cap hell 23 million OVER
Quote:
based on things like when specific players contracts are signed, where they may be in a rebuilding stage etc. I am guessing that this usually even outs for the most part. How often do you ever hear of teams actually ending up in violation for this?
This was a creation of the new CBA. The first time that a "violation" will be possible is after the 2016 season.
Oh I missed that part. There has long been a minimum threshold that teams had to spend hasn't there? Is it the percentage that has changed?
A lot of the Giants cap space over the past couple years has gone to absorbing the amortized bonuses that they had given to their starting quarterback in the previous few seasons. (As well as other players, like Baas, Canty, Webster, and Kiwanuka.)
The big upfront check that will come with Eli's extension will put this back into balance.
If the floor threshold only counts actual cash spent and not the dead money applied to the cap, how can teams stay under the cap and above the threshold? I guess that's why they average over 4 years??
What if the Giants resigned Eli and his knee goes like Carson Palmer? This system would never work as I see it.
Quote:
is about actual cash spending, not cap space used.
A lot of the Giants cap space over the past couple years has gone to absorbing the amortized bonuses that they had given to their starting quarterback in the previous few seasons. (As well as other players, like Baas, Canty, Webster, and Kiwanuka.)
The big upfront check that will come with Eli's extension will put this back into balance.
If the floor threshold only counts actual cash spent and not the dead money applied to the cap, how can teams stay under the cap and above the threshold? I guess that's why they average over 4 years??
Let's say the Giants sign a player to a 4-year deal: $10MM salary year 1, $12MM year 2, and $15MM in each of yrs 3 & 4. They also pay him a signing bonus of $8MM.
Year 1: Cap hit is $12MM (10+8/4) while the cash expense is $18MM (10+8)
Year 2: Cap hit is $14MM, cash expense is $12MM
Year 3: Cap hit is $17MM, cash expense is $15MM
Year 4: Cap hit is $17MM, cash expense is $15MM
Because for cap compliance reasons a signing bonus is amortized over the life of the contract, the actual cash expense from year to year may be more or less than the cap hit.
In this example if the player negotiates a new contract extension for lets say 2 more years at $8MM each plus a $4MM bonus, the cash expense then again becomes greater than the cap hit in year 5 ($12MM cash vs. $10MM cap). By renegotiating Eli, Rolle and/or JPP the Giants will accomplish the same thing.
You are mistaken. The Giants last year has about $25m in cap space and signed something like a dozen FA including big deals to DRC, Jennings, Schwartz and Beason plus guys like Ayers, McLain and McBride. and they had enough left over to cover all the replacement signings for the IRed players as well. Follow the Giants much?,
Note also that the only penalty for not meeting this threshold is that the club then has to cut a check to the NFLPA. Doesn't affect cap space or team performance-- just the Mara/Tisch checking account.
I assumed (incorrectly) that the 89% calculations are base on cap room and spending as of the End of the year, not the beginning of the year.
But thank you for trying to help me understand. Let's see if I do.
The NFL salary system is bifurcated. Part I is the salary cap which is not related to Part II, the 89 percent rule.
The 89 percent rule requires that clubs make cash salary payments averaging at least 89 percent of some predetermined figure over the course of the four(?) most current years.
If they fail to do this they must pay the underpaid amount to the NFLPA as a penalty.
Anyone. Am I close to getting it?