Are free agents too expensive or will the $2 billion of 2018 salary cap space explode the scene

[FuzzyLumpkins]

1. when i say to prove it for yourself, i meant to the stupid website and see it for yourself. the rfas are listed in the website with their estimated salaries. i used those websites' totals, so i already incorporated the rfas. no additional proving necessary.
2. i am absolutely analyzing this like an economics problem. you give this to an accountant and the accountant will tell you it cannot be done. in many social sciences, the way a problem will be modeled is by cutting away at different portions of the problem to parametrize each portion of the problem. So long as the effect is large (like ~100%) and the errors are small, it can be effective. it may not be the exact inductance of a circuit and you cannot calculate it like you can with the correct value of the feedback resistance of a circuit, but it is a reasonable estimate when the effect is large - like 100% increase when the errors are small.
3. why is 5M enough? because the number of players that will get decent size contracts (5-6m aav) can be counted on your hands. you are talking bottom of the barrel players that are left, and i am hardly the only person describing them as bottom of the barrel. remember, 5M * 32 teams = 160 m, which is less than 10% of the 2B estimated cap space and also less than 10% of 89% of the remaining cap space.
4. what additional proof is needed? there are less than 10 players that will get decent contracts. that includes those crappy QBs that will likely get backup qb contracts like mcnown's 1 year 6M contract. you subtract vet min from 6M, and you are at $5M. knowledge of history? @bkight13 also told you the bottom half of the FAs get near vet min. furthermore, all teams are far more contracts than 53 already. so working by the rule of 51, 5M only have to account for the difference. this is trivial. you are not stupid.
5. i have no idea what you are saying here. i am using the cash spent from the websites.
6. this is not my imagination. you were arguing trying to argue 10-20% of the small portion of the budget (bottom 50% of FA with oversupply) that accounts for less than 10% of the budget. 10-20% * less than 10% is 1-2%. what is 1%-2% when we are talking about total salary dollars of the 2nd tier and 3rd tier doubling? remember - forest vs. trees.

1. http://overthecap.com/cash-spending/ Not here it is not.
2. I already told you that you could look at FA signed after the first two weeks and adjust for cap inflation. You're unwilling to do it so you just pull it out of your butt.
3. The number of people you can think of maybe. Then there is the actual list of NFL FA with 100s left http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/available/
4. I'm beginning to think you are stupid. While the contracts only become guaranteed on the first week of the season, all of the SB and guarantees of the guys cut are counted towards spent. If those guys move on to sign with other teas that is also spent. You continue to conflate cash spent with cap accounting.
5. So you use your own calculations for the baseline for percent error. You know what a circular argument is? If not then look no further. You pulled the $5m out of your butt and you never ever deny it.

 

[waldoputty]

1. http://overthecap.com/cash-spending/ Not here it is not.
2. I already told you that you could look at FA signed after the first two weeks and adjust for cap inflation. You're unwilling to do it so you just pull it out of your butt.
3. The number of people you can think of maybe. Then there is the actual list of NFL FA with 100s left http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/available/
4. I'm beginning to think you are stupid. While the contracts only become guaranteed on the first week of the season, all of the SB and guarantees of the guys cut are counted towards spent. If those guys move on to sign with other teas that is also spent. You continue to conflate cash spent with cap accounting.
5. So you use your own calculations for the baseline for percent error. You know what a circular argument is? If not then look no further. You pulled the $5m out of your butt and you never ever deny it.

1. ok, you are right about the RFA not being accounted for. i dont know what i was reading off. but there are only 26 RFAs in the table. Taking the middle value (2nd round pick of 2.7M), you add 54million to the total- 5% of 2B
2. why you are suggesting to adjust for cap inflation? i am predicting contract $ explosion in 2019/2020 time frame, not 2017. i may even have done it but i dont even know which post # it is in this same thread.
3. i read through the entire list several time and identified people worth paying $ for - there were only a handful (<10) worth paying a reasonably large contract for.
4. you can call me stupid all you want. you are including little crap bonus that simply do not add up. the free agents like moore may get 100k, but the little stuff is not worth worrying about. you are talking 2B here.
5. the $5M as an upper bound on what the FAs would add. i did make an error on the RFA, so that would add $2 million to the overall. the point here is the effect is 100%, not 10%. i have no problem admitting when assumptions are made. it is parts of a standard economics type analysis.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

1. ok, you are right about the RFA not being accounted for. i dont know what i was reading off. but there are only 26 RFAs in the table. Taking the middle value (2nd round pick of 2.7M), you add 54million to the total- 5% of 2B
2. why you are suggesting to adjust for cap inflation? i am predicting contract $ explosion in 2019/2020 time frame, not 2017. i may even have done it but i dont even know which post # it is in this same thread.
3. i read through the entire list several time and identified people worth paying $ for - there were only a handful (<10) worth paying a reasonably large contract for.
4. you can call me stupid all you want. you are including little crap bonus that simply do not add up. the free agents like moore may get 100k, but the little stuff is not worth worrying about. you are talking 2B here.
5. the $5M as an upper bound on what the FAs would add. i did make an error on the RFA, so that would add $2 million to the overall. the point here is the effect is 100%, not 10%. i have no problem admitting when assumptions are made. it is parts of a standard economics type analysis.

2. Because the empirical basis for previous free agent classes are from a deflated cap.
3. You don't know all 2000 players in the NFL.
4. It's not $2B to the floor. The cap is even less meaningful than the floor. And there are hundreds of players still left to be signed. You keep trying to minimize everything but you do so without basis beyond assuming your hypothesis is correct.
5. There is a difference between approximating based on past events ie assuming historical trends will continue and what you are doing. You made up the $5m number.

 

[waldoputty]

2. Because the empirical basis for previous free agent classes are from a deflated cap.
3. You don't know all 2000 players in the NFL.
4. It's not $2B to the floor. The cap is even less meaningful than the floor. And there are hundreds of players still left to be signed. You keep trying to minimize everything but you do so without basis beyond assuming your hypothesis is correct.
5. There is a difference between approximating based on past events ie assuming historical trends will continue and what you are doing. You made up the $5m number.

2. not sure what you mean by deflated cap. the cap has been rising all along so if you mean whether the salary rose as fast as the cap inflation, i think that was already done and somewhere in this long thread.
3. there are only a few hundred players left as free agents. i have been constantly googling for top free agents remaining articles in the last few days and there is just not much left.
4. yes but it was about 2.1B cap and 1.9B floor. the numbers are really large.
5. the $5M number was an estimate based on the number of reasonable FAs left. i see less than 10. the other FAs are the min vet types that teams sign for the bottom of their roster. that is history and typical. we just signed a couple ourselves. all teams have far more than 53 in their roster. all the little cap hits from bonus are trivial after you get through the real players with a decent chance to make the roster. no team throws around guaranteed cash around carelessly. the bottom line is that at 5M/team, it is only $150M out of a 1.9M salary floor. that is trivial.

these kinds of models work because the effect is so large that it becomes brainless to ignore the little effects. it would be silly to do this type of modeling if the effect is only 20%. that would be stupid.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

2. not sure what you mean by deflated cap. the cap has been rising all along so if you mean whether the salary rose as fast as the cap inflation, i think that was already done and somewhere in this long thread.
3. there are only a few hundred players left as free agents. i have been constantly googling for top free agents remaining articles in the last few days and there is just not much left.
4. yes but it was about 2.1B cap and 1.9B floor. the numbers are really large.
5. the $5M number was an estimate based on the number of reasonable FAs left. i see less than 10. the other FAs are the min vet types that teams sign for the bottom of their roster. that is history and typical. we just signed a couple ourselves. all teams have far more than 53 in their roster. all the little cap hits from bonus are trivial after you get through the real players with a decent chance to make the roster. no team throws around guaranteed cash around carelessly. the bottom line is that at 5M/team, it is only $150M out of a 1.9M salary floor. that is trivial.

these kinds of models work because the effect is so large that it becomes brainless to ignore the little effects. it would be silly to do this type of modeling if the effect is only 20%. that would be stupid.

2. Because the cap was smaller 2013-2016 than it is today. It is deflated relative to what it is now.
3. You could go back and look at the FA signings of 2013-2016 from mid March onward and see what it was teams spent instead of pulling your number from nothing. That you don't when the data is out there indicates you have no interest in empirical data for the crux of your argument. Prima facie there is spike FA signings after the draft and then again in July after OTA's. Guys get hurt and people evaluate their rosters based on the interim. Oh and you also have to add the guys on the IR they all count too.
4. When you consider that all teams are already at least spending 83% of the cap and 22 out of 32 teams are over 90% which meets the floor your big numbers are not so big as you would make them seem. IOW, the most any team has to make up to meet the floor is $11m and there are only 10 teams that are in that situation.

Then you consider that your minimum estimate of $5m is 3% of the cap then only 6 teams would be under the floor and half of those within a couple mil.
5. You have no idea what they will sign for. You didn't even know what the number was until I pointed out to you there were hundreds. You have even admitted that the NFL middle class has gotten more expensive. Yet you assume outside of 10 all the rest will only get the minimum. That just does not bear out to history. It doesn't matter what players are on the team now as far as the 53 is concerned. That only matters in September.

 

[LocimusPrime]

 

[waldoputty]

2. Because the cap was smaller 2013-2016 than it is today. It is deflated relative to what it is now.
3. You could go back and look at the FA signings of 2013-2016 from mid March onward and see what it was teams spent instead of pulling your number from nothing. That you don't when the data is out there indicates you have no interest in empirical data for the crux of your argument. Prima facie there is spike FA signings after the draft and then again in July after OTA's. Guys get hurt and people evaluate their rosters based on the interim. Oh and you also have to add the guys on the IR they all count too.
4. When you consider that all teams are already at least spending 83% of the cap and 22 out of 32 teams are over 90% which meets the floor your big numbers are not so big as you would make them seem. IOW, the most any team has to make up to meet the floor is $11m and there are only 10 teams that are in that situation.

Then you consider that your minimum estimate of $5m is 3% of the cap then only 6 teams would be under the floor and half of those within a couple mil.
5. You have no idea what they will sign for. You didn't even know what the number was until I pointed out to you there were hundreds. You have even admitted that the NFL middle class has gotten more expensive. Yet you assume outside of 10 all the rest will only get the minimum. That just does not bear out to history. It doesn't matter what players are on the team now as far as the 53 is concerned. That only matters in September.

2. well it is there somewhere in this thread.
3. i am unable to search based on signings date.
4. last time i checked, there are many teams 10%-20% below the floor.
5. we are not talking nfl middle class - we are talking the lower class that take the scraps because the # of players way exceed the roster slots. we are 3 weeks into FA and what is left are the scraps with a handful of exceptions.

 

[waldoputty]

these numbers were directly from the tables just exported into excel from my post on thursday.

i just summed up the cash spent for all teams.
you can already see that the 89% floor in 2018 takes up ~93% ~$2 B cap space that was estimated before.
2017 is already behind in its portion of the 89%
if 2018 does not spend the cash for the 89%, it would put even more pressure in 2019 and 2020.
you can claim that a reasonable portion could be signing bonus to be spread through 5 years.
but that means 3/5 of the signing bonus would be accounted for in the 4 year window in the salary cap.
that would reduce the amount of cap space in follow on years to meet the floor.



----------------------2017-----------------2018---------------------2019------------------2020-----------------total
cash spent ---$4,636,460,549-- $3,214,199,680-- $2,267,808,277-- $1,225,337,808-- $11,343,806,314
89% of cap-- $4,917,306,932-- $5,069,440,000-- $5,411,200,000-- $5,696,000,000-- $21,093,946,932
need to spend $280,846,383--- $1,855,240,320-- $3,143,391,723-- $4,470,662,192--$9,750,140,618

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

2. well it is there somewhere in this thread.
3. i am unable to search based on signings date.
4. last time i checked, there are many teams 10%-20% below the floor.
5. we are not talking nfl middle class - we are talking the lower class that take the scraps because the # of players way exceed the roster slots. we are 3 weeks into FA and what is left are the scraps with a handful of exceptions.

3. You don't know how to have google sort by date? Whether or not you are able to is besides the point. It just goes to show the ignorance that is rife in your model.
4. Check again. http://overthecap.com/cash-spending/

It has cash to cap ratio spelled out clearly. There are only 10 teams below the floor, 90%, right now. No team is less than 83%, $11m short of the floor. That also does not include RFA, franchise, ERFA, incoming IR, rookie class, or remaining FA. AT most one or two will not reach the floor and that is doubtful.
5. You want them to all sign for peanuts but they will sign for the full spectrum of contract values.

 

[waldoputty]

Ok, this has been so long that I forgot the analysis that was done.

For 2017, the total amount of dollars signed in 2017 was $592 million. With $5 million free agent expenses per team, that is $160 million extra total. With $8 million ($3M extra for RFA) per team, that is $250 million extra. You are at $750M-$850M total all in for 2017. Thus you are rolling $475 million to $575 million of cap space into 2018. So 2018 has $1.4 billion + ~$525 million of cap space.

If your argument (salaries not going to spike) is correct, the 2018 signing will not exceed $750-$850 million by much, then what is going to happen to the $1.8-1.9 billion of cap space. 89% of that is a very large number - say $1.6-$1.65 billion. Let's be generous for your argument and say $900 million to $1 billion. You are going to have more than $700 million-$800 million of unused floor space remaining, which will roll into 2019.