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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

May I misunderstood what your point was.
So let me get it straight.
You are saying the floor does not matter because the owners would rather not obey the floor and rather pay the penalty and not sign players.
That just does not make any sense to me.
I thought you meant the floor numbers would not work out.

Some one else mentioned owners previously ignored the floor because the amount of penalty was small compared to signing someone they did not want to a multiyear contract.
It appears that the number could be much larger this time around.

Let say this.
If the numbers are relatively insignificant, then the owners are roughly obeying the floor and the floor is the basis for the analysis.
In which case, there would be a huge amount of $ to go after players that are almost exclusively non-elite.
If the numbers are large, I find it hard to believe the owners rather throw the money away than put those exact funds into useful players.
Otherwise, tens of millions per team would be wasted for no reason at all...
For example, they could use front-loaded contracts in 2020 that fill the missing floor expenditures that pay vet minimum salaries after 2020 and use a large 2020 base salary and signing bonus to get the cash expenditures to what they need them to be.

Why doesn't it make sense?

The two main forces driving team action are making money and winning ballgames.

High price free agents don't make teams into winners. There is one example of a team splurging on free agents and winning it all in Denver who paid over $40m AAV one offseason and won it all. Seattle doesn't count because they got Bennett and Avril for peanuts.

For the most part you have teams like the Jaguars, Cleveland, and Tampa Bay who spent like crazy a few years ago to get above the floor. What did they have to show for it? Nothing at all and subsequently they aren't spending like that this time around. They learned their lesson.

Now granted there are a few teams that have drafted poorly the last several years and are using FA to prop themselves up like the Giants but they are the exception and not the rule. You act like every team is going to become desperate and throw huge money around. We're already not seeing it.

As for making money, it is overall revenue neutral for the clubs. They are going to spend the money sure but they get to keep it for 3 years and they have more investment options than the index funds that us plebs get. They are not losing any money by not meeting the floor.

If they spend money on contracts instead then they are driving up the cost of contracts overall. When an agent negotiates they use precedent as a starting point. They don't use the disbursement allotment proration and tack that on. Then you have things like the franchise tag which are based off player contracts.

By splurging on UFA teams are not only not helping themselves win and get to the playoffs but they are also making it harder to keep their own players when they do draft well.

There is a long long history in the NFL of them colluding to keep their own players under their control and also to suppress the cost of player contracts. The status quo is meeting both historical goals nicely.

 

[waldoputty]

Why doesn't it make sense?

The two main forces driving team action are making money and winning ballgames.

High price free agents don't make teams into winners. There is one example of a team splurging on free agents and winning it all in Denver who paid over $40m AAV one offseason and won it all. Seattle doesn't count because they got Bennett and Avril for peanuts.

For the most part you have teams like the Jaguars, Cleveland, and Tampa Bay who spent like crazy a few years ago to get above the floor. What did they have to show for it? Nothing at all and subsequently they aren't spending like that this time around. They learned their lesson.

Now granted there are a few teams that have drafted poorly the last several years and are using FA to prop themselves up like the Giants but they are the exception and not the rule. You act like every team is going to become desperate and throw huge money around. We're already not seeing it.

As for making money, it is overall revenue neutral for the clubs. They are going to spend the money sure but they get to keep it for 3 years and they have more investment options than the index funds that us plebs get. They are not losing any money by not meeting the floor.

If they spend money on contracts instead then they are driving up the cost of contracts overall. When an agent negotiates they use precedent as a starting point. They don't use the disbursement allotment proration and tack that on. Then you have things like the franchise tag which are based off player contracts.

By splurging on UFA teams are not only not helping themselves win and get to the playoffs but they are also making it harder to keep their own players when they do draft well.

There is a long long history in the NFL of them colluding to keep their own players under their control and also to suppress the cost of player contracts. The status quo is meeting both historical goals nicely.

You are saying teams would rather throwing salary into the garbage than use the funds to keep salaries down.

Let say you have 10 teams throwing away $30 million into the garbage (distribution to union/players) instead of signing players, you have just given the NFLPA the perfect ammo for collusion.
A million here or there, fine, no one would say anything.
This time around it would likely be tens of millions of dollars.
That is clear violation of the agreement and would open the NFL to major collusion lawsuit.
Teams are not going to cut off their nose to spite their face...

I will try to establish how large the $ amount is doing some more number crunching.
I suspect those numbers would be insane.

It seems you are moving the goal posts.
First it was "Still waiting for the proof that the cash floor is going to force teams to spend. If it doesn't then it doesn't matter."
Now when the numbers are getting silly, it has become the owners will collude and nevermind the floor.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are saying teams would rather throwing salary into the garbage than use the funds to keep salaries down.

Let say you have 10 teams throwing away $30 million into the garbage (distribution to union/players) instead of signing players, you have just given the NFLPA the perfect ammo for collusion.
A million here or there, fine, no one would say anything.
This time around it would likely be tens of millions of dollars.
That is clear violation of the agreement and would open the NFL to major collusion lawsuit.
Teams are not going to cut off their nose to spite their face...

I will try to establish how large the $ amount is doing some more number crunching.
I suspect those numbers would be insane.

It seems you are moving the goal posts.
First it was "Still waiting for the proof that the cash floor is going to force teams to spend. If it doesn't then it doesn't matter."
Now when the numbers are getting silly, it has become the owners will collude and nevermind the floor.

It still is "waiting for proof that the floor is going to force teams to spend more." I am just providing evidence to the contrary.

What ammo for collusion? Tell us your case, counselor. The NFLPA is still getting paid the floor to distribute to it's constituents. That was the agreement. They did not agree to give up autonomy on who and for how much they make contract offers to.

Fact of the matter is that outside of one example no team has won building through free agency. I have given example after example of teams that did so and were terrible. Again if spending the money in a disbursement years away is throwing it into the garbage then spending money on players that don't help you win and in doing so driving up the price of keeping the players you do successfully develop is throwing it in the garbage and burning your house down.

They make more money by holding onto it. It is what it is.

Fact of the matter is that teams didn't make the floor last time and more teams are acting like they don't care this time. Ignore the writing on the wall if you want but this is their second rodeo not the first.

 

[waldoputty]

It still is "waiting for proof that the floor is going to force teams to spend more." I am just providing evidence to the contrary.

What ammo for collusion? Tell us your case, counselor. The NFLPA is still getting paid the floor to distribute to it's constituents. That was the agreement. They did not agree to give up autonomy on who and for how much they make contract offers to.

Fact of the matter is that outside of one example no team has won building through free agency. I have given example after example of teams that did so and were terrible. Again if spending the money in a disbursement years away is throwing it into the garbage then spending money on players that don't help you win and in doing so driving up the price of keeping the players you do successfully develop is throwing it in the garbage and burning your house down.

They make more money by holding onto it. It is what it is.

Fact of the matter is that teams didn't make the floor last time and more teams are acting like they don't care this time. Ignore the writing on the wall if you want but this is their second rodeo not the first.

If you think there is no consequences to throwing away tens of millions of dollars instead signing players, I dont know what you are thinking. There previous floor involved throwing awaying a little bit of money. This time could be big money.

I already calculated this below.
This shows for each year, the amount to be spent to reach the 89% floor.
Of course, teams could lag behind and depend on 2019 and 2020 to deal with the floor.
More likely, they would be managing and planning based on the requirement.

Remember there is about $2B of cap space in 2018.
$1.855B of cash to be spent is a big big piece of $2B.
Yes, a lot of that cash would be signing bonus that would spread that cash to year 2-5 of the bonus into the salary cap of those years.
The unspent cap would be rolled into 2019.
You have teams that would not be near the floor because of prior commitments.
But there would be lots of teams that would need to catch up.

Now that I figure out an automated way to play with these numbers.
The next thing to be calculated would break down the cap/floor per team with the type of FAs available in 2018.

----------------------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]

If you think there is no consequences to throwing away tens of millions of dollars instead signing players, I dont know what you are thinking. There previous floor involved throwing awaying a little bit of money. This time could be big money.

I already calculated this below.
This shows for each year, the amount to be spent to reach the 89% floor.
Of course, teams could lag behind and depend on 2019 and 2020 to deal with the floor.
More likely, they would be managing and planning based on the requirement.

Remember there is about $2B of cap space in 2018.
$1.855B of cash to be spent is a big big piece of $2B.
Yes, a lot of that cash would be signing bonus that would spread that cash to year 2-5 of the bonus into the salary cap of those years.
The unspent cap would be rolled into 2019.
You have teams that would not be near the floor because of prior commitments.
But there would be lots of teams that would need to catch up.

Now that I figure out an automated way to play with these numbers.
The next thing to be calculated would break down the cap/floor per team with the type of FAs available in 2018.

----------------------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

You are repeating yourself again when I have already conceded that teams are overall nowhere near the cash floor.

I am arguing your link to that meaning more FA expenditures.

You have not disputed that the top two motivations for teams are winning ball games and making money.

You have not disputed that outside of the Broncos the teams that have spent big on free agency have not won with the primary examples of our NFCE opponents, the Jags, Browns, and Bucs.

You have not disputed that the talent in UFA is lesser than the league as a whole.

You have not disputed that spending top dollar on said inferior players increases the costs associated with resigning the better players teams develop themselves and don't enter UFA through contract precedent, franchise amounts, and similar restricted FA.

You have not disputed that teams make more money by holding onto the capital in the interim before the disbursement or 1-4 years.

So if it doesn't help teams win, makes it harder to hold onto better players who do help teams win, and loses them money overall, why would teams do it?

 

[waldoputty]

You are repeating yourself again when I have already conceded that teams are nowhere near the cash floor.

I am arguing your link to that meaning more FA expenditures.

You have not disputed that the top two motivations for teams are winning ball games and making money.

You have not disputed that outside of the Broncos the teams that have spent big on free agency have not won with the primary examples of our NFCE opponents, the Jags, Browns, and Bucs.

You have not disputed that the talent in UFA is lesser than the league as a whole.

You have not disputed that spending top dollar on said inferior players increases the costs associated with resigning the better players teams develop themselves and don't enter UFA through contract precedent, franchise amounts, and similar restricted FA.

You have not disputed that teams make more money by holding onto the capital in the interim before the disbursement or 1-4 years.

So if it doesn't help teams win, makes it harder to hold onto better players who do help teams win, and loses them money overall, why would teams do it?

I did see you conceding that point.
But I will calculate how bad it will be.
There is obviously a big difference between $10 million and $50 million for those teams.

The linkage between money and FA expenditures is pretty simple.
The best available gets the great majority of the $.
I forgot who mentioned the evidence that the 2nd tiers of talent is getting more and more of the pie.
Whereas the top talent is lacking due to the legal but anticompetitive technique for franchise tagging and negotiating while the player received the tag.
You are absolutely increasing the cost of signing top tier players when you boost the salary of the 2nd tier.
But that is what is going on.
2nd tier players are getting a bigger piece of the pie.

I think your analysis requires the owners to act in unison.
That is a coordinate collusion to suppress overall salaries by collective action.
If there is no secret coordination, you have the prisoners' dilemma.
Each owner is better off defecting but they are all better off if they all cooperate.
Classic game theory.

The other teams that spent big on free agency did not have the franchise QB set up.
Broncos had Manning so it was worth their while.
I would be against going nuts in FA if we did not have a franchise QB.

I dont know what this means "You have not disputed that the talent in UFA is lesser than the league as a whole."

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I did see you conceding that point.
But I will calculate how bad it will be.
There is obviously a big difference between $10 million and $50 million for those teams.

The linkage between money and FA expenditures is pretty simple.
The best available gets the great majority of the $.
I forgot who mentioned the evidence that the 2nd tiers of talent is getting more and more of the pie.
Whereas the top talent is lacking due to the legal but anticompetitive technique for franchise tagging and negotiating while the player received the tag.
You are absolutely increasing the cost of signing top tier players when you boost the salary of the 2nd tier.
But that is what is going on.
2nd tier players are getting a bigger piece of the pie.

I think your analysis requires the owners to act in unison.
That is a coordinate collusion to suppress overall salaries by collective action.
If there is no secret coordination, you have the prisoners' dilemma.
Each owner is better off defecting but they are all better off if they all cooperate.
Classic game theory.

The other teams that spent big on free agency did not have the franchise QB set up.
Broncos had Manning so it was worth their while.
I would be against going nuts in FA if we did not have a franchise QB.

I dont know what this means "You have not disputed that the talent in UFA is lesser than the league as a whole."

The Broncos also hit on each and everyone of the 5 FA they brought in. That type of outcome is the outlier.

My analysis requires only that all owners be motivated by money and winning ball games. They can come to the conclusion that UFA does not correlate to wins autonomously. Prima facie it is obvious at this point.

You don't increase the value of the top by creating a more robust middle class. Contract negotiations are started by precedent. You increase the value of top player values by creating a higher precedent of top players. So for example Kevin Zietler is now the top paid guard at $12m AAV a $300k increase over the previous top dog or an increase of less than half a percent. That is the baseline that Martin will be negotiating from. They aren't going to use Leary's $9m. Meanwhile the cap increased by over 6%.

Now I am not arguing that some owners aren't going to spend up to the cap. I just don't believe that the cap floor is the motivating factor. Winning games is and while Zeitler may expand the OG market when it is all said and done most positions did not sniff the ceiling. DL, OT, QB, and CB were the other big FA signings and they did not approach the previous ceilings.

I'm not going to argue that the owners don't collude. But I will argue that you would ever be able to prove it in a court of law. They do talk to each other and share ideas. You cannot stop the owners meetings but outside finding an NFL memo or similar document detailing collusion you are going to get nowhere in federal court.

As for the last bit. The best players like All Pros and pro bowlers don't make UFA proportional to their existence across the league. They are resigned or franchised most of the time. Outside of the Texans corner, none of this years crop was. Overall the level of talent that reaches free agency is much inferior to the overall talent level of the NFL.

 

[cowboy_ron]

The first two days of free agency for the most part are generally bottom tier teams that don't draft well and are willing to pay elite money for mediocre talent. There are exceptions but I'm talking generally speaking. Also included are the teams that are big players EVERY year.

 

[Nightman]

The Broncos also hit on each and everyone of the 5 FA they brought in. That type of outcome is the outlier.

My analysis requires only that all owners be motivated by money and winning ball games. They can come to the conclusion that UFA does not correlate to wins autonomously. Prima facie it is obvious at this point.

You don't increase the value of the top by creating a more robust middle class. Contract negotiations are started by precedent. You increase the value of top player values by creating a higher precedent of top players. So for example Kevin Zietler is now the top paid guard at $12m AAV a $300k increase over the previous top dog or an increase of less than half a percent. That is the baseline that Martin will be negotiating from. They aren't going to use Leary's $9m. Meanwhile the cap increased by over 6%.

Now I am not arguing that some owners aren't going to spend up to the cap. I just don't believe that the cap floor is the motivating factor. Winning games is and while Zeitler may expand the OG market when it is all said and done most positions did not sniff the ceiling. DL, OT, QB, and CB were the other big FA signings and they did not approach the previous ceilings.

I'm not going to argue that the owners don't collude. But I will argue that you would ever be able to prove it in a court of law. They do talk to each other and share ideas. You cannot stop the owners meetings but outside finding an NFL memo or similar document detailing collusion you are going to get nowhere in federal court.

As for the last bit. The best players like All Pros and pro bowlers don't make UFA proportional to their existence across the league. They are resigned or franchised most of the time. Outside of the Texans corner, none of this years crop was. Overall the level of talent that reaches free agency is much inferior to the overall talent level of the NFL.

SEA spent big too

they traded for and extended Marshyn Lynch, Sidney Rice, Percy Harvin, Matt Flynn and signed Zach Miller, Alan Branch, Cliff Avril, Michael Bennett and Chris Clemons

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

SEA spent big too

they traded for and extended Marshyn Lynch, Sidney Rice, Percy Harvin, Matt Flynn and signed Zach Miller, Alan Branch, Cliff Avril, Michael Bennett and Chris Clemons

Over several years. Many of those were trades as well when we are talking about FA.

Bennett and Avril signed for peanuts not top dollar. Clemons was traded for.

And look I have no issue with us signing players particularly in the next two years but acting like it is a surefire path to success is false. The fit and the price needs to be right.

 

[Nightman]

NE

Moss, Welker, Talib, Revis, Ninkovich, Lafell, Branch, Browner and Amendola

 

[Nightman]

Over several years. Many of those were trades as well when we are talking about FA.

Bennett and Avril signed for peanuts not top dollar. Clemons was traded for.

they were trades and extensions at the same time......... it was huge money for Rice, Flynn, Lynch, Harvin, Miller and the DEs

plus trades is a expenditure to begin with .........draft picks have value

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

NE

Moss, Welker, Talib, Revis, Ninkovich, Lafell, Branch, Browner and Amendola

All examples of specific targets over a decade not signing 3 top FA all at once because you can.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

they were trades and extensions at the same time......... it was huge money for Rice, Flynn, Lynch, Harvin, Miller and the DEs

plus trades is a expenditure to begin with .........draft picks have value

Is it UFA or not?

And you should review what Bennett and Avril signed for initially. Then of course Rice got hurt and Harvin was a headcase.

 

[Nightman]

DAL

Carr, Thornton, Melton, Hardy.......??? Mayowa, Selvie, Butler

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

DAL

Carr, Thornton, Melton, Hardy.......??? Mayowa, Selvie, Butler

Seriously. All teams sign FA. The only one of those that was a large signing was Carr and he was wasted money.

 

[haleyrules]

The first two days of free agency for the most part are generally bottom tier teams that don't draft well and are willing to pay elite money for mediocre talent. There are exceptions but I'm talking generally speaking. Also included are the teams that are big players EVERY year.

Amen. Waste of resourses AND Emotion.

 

[waldoputty]

The Broncos also hit on each and everyone of the 5 FA they brought in. That type of outcome is the outlier.

My analysis requires only that all owners be motivated by money and winning ball games. They can come to the conclusion that UFA does not correlate to wins autonomously. Prima facie it is obvious at this point.

You don't increase the value of the top by creating a more robust middle class. Contract negotiations are started by precedent. You increase the value of top player values by creating a higher precedent of top players. So for example Kevin Zietler is now the top paid guard at $12m AAV a $300k increase over the previous top dog or an increase of less than half a percent. That is the baseline that Martin will be negotiating from. They aren't going to use Leary's $9m. Meanwhile the cap increased by over 6%.

Now I am not arguing that some owners aren't going to spend up to the cap. I just don't believe that the cap floor is the motivating factor. Winning games is and while Zeitler may expand the OG market when it is all said and done most positions did not sniff the ceiling. DL, OT, QB, and CB were the other big FA signings and they did not approach the previous ceilings.

I'm not going to argue that the owners don't collude. But I will argue that you would ever be able to prove it in a court of law. They do talk to each other and share ideas. You cannot stop the owners meetings but outside finding an NFL memo or similar document detailing collusion you are going to get nowhere in federal court.

As for the last bit. The best players like All Pros and pro bowlers don't make UFA proportional to their existence across the league. They are resigned or franchised most of the time. Outside of the Texans corner, none of this years crop was. Overall the level of talent that reaches free agency is much inferior to the overall talent level of the NFL.

.
if it has plenty of cap space, a team does not risk not being able sign its own FAs.
one team's action does not typically change the market by itself
by signing FAs to increase its wins, it is not hurting itself as long as the other teams are not doing the same thing.
if there is no collusion, every team is better off (unless no cap) by signing the FA.
otherwise you have collusion with the cooperative outcome.
this is standard game theory 101 - not my creation.

fact of the matter is that the data supports salaries are going up.

if a team sees it is going to pay $50 million in penalties or spend it, i think they would spend.
same game theory argument.

 

[Nightman]

Seriously. All teams sign FA. The only one of those that was a large signing was Carr and he was wasted money.

Exactly and it is a big reason we have 1 playoff win this decade........the FO is too rigid in its beliefs and maneuvers like the Titanic

DEN, SEA and NE all combined some stellar draft picks with timely trades and big time FA signings.... we only use the Draft

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Exactly and it is a big reason we have 1 playoff win this decade........the FO is too rigid in its beliefs and maneuvers like the Titanic

If you say so. I cannot argue belief based on nothing better than gratuitous characterization.

We stopped signing big name free agents to large contracts every year we could in 2013 following Carr. Acting like the organization has not changed dramatically in the past few years is convenient if delusional. Shall we discuss the draft approach and front office structure as well?

They used to do things your way and were mediocre for the better part of two decades. Now that they have changed to their current approach in 2013 they have built one of the best teams in the NFL. I have little doubt that they will occasionally pick their FA battles but they are clearly intending to build their defense through the draft and it's a good one to do so with.