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

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the numbers dont lie.
you darn well know all the signing are essentially done and now you sign cheap contracts like Bell.
instead of arguing the numbers, you are calling me a sophist
at least i guess u think i am clever
rather be clever than be fuzzy (inexact)

look at my post quoting the cleveland browns fan website.
it is arguing exactly my point.
people are leaving the cap floor issue later.

I'm discussing your method. You are not being scientific in your approach but are trying to shoehorn your hypothesis into everything you see. That speaks to the credibility of your accounting and rationalization of team behavior. You admitted to your crusade. I called you a sophist because that is what a sophist does.

No, I don't know that teams are done signing. Most of the franchise/transition tags and RFAs have not signed. There are also going to be many more FA to sign like Bell did today. It's March not July when the draft and OTAs are complete when teams have more or less finalized their rosters.

That is not remotely comprehensive yet you act like that plus what you guess the rookie allotment will be is a worthy baseline to project future years.

 

[waldoputty]

I'm discussing your method. You are not being scientific in your approach but are trying to shoehorn your hypothesis into everything you see. That speaks to the credibility of your accounting and rationalization of team behavior. You admitted to your crusade. I called you a sophist because that is what a sophist does.

No, I don't know that teams are done signing. Most of the franchise/transition tags and RFAs have not signed. There are also going to be many more FA to sign like Bell did today. It's March not July when the draft and OTAs are complete when teams have more or less finalized their rosters.

That is not remotely comprehensive yet you act like that plus what you guess the rookie allotment will be is a worthy baseline to project future years.

The big picture that you cannot argue is:
1. $2B of salary cap next year - a total sign of a hockey stick
2. many teams spending 10-20% below the salary floor
3. articles talking about floor not an issue, worry about it later - but if teams continue to do this, they could well need to spend 30%-60% more in the last year in cash.

most of your issues have been addressed:
1. franchise tag numbers are already incorporated.
2. i already said incorporate 5 million in for additional expenses.
3. draftee pool are already incorporated.
4. for someone who wants to build by the draft, how is using the draftee pool as a basis not sound? counting 5 draftees to make it each year is a pretty reasonable number?
5. FAs like Bell and Moore are how much higher than the vet min? certainly 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 makes a lot of sense? that is 1%-2% when we are talking about total salary dollars of the 2nd tier and 3rd tier doubling?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The big picture that you cannot argue is:
1. $2B of salary cap next year - a total sign of a hockey stick
2. many teams spending 10-20% below the salary floor
3. articles talking about floor not an issue, worry about it later - but if teams continue to do this, they could well need to spend 30%-60% more in the last year in cash.

most of your issues have been addressed:
1. franchise tag numbers are already incorporated.
2. i already said incorporate 5 million in for additional expenses.
3. draftee pool are already incorporated.
4. for someone who wants to build by the draft, how is using the draftee pool as a basis not sound? counting 5 draftees to make it each year is a pretty reasonable number?
5. FAs like Bell and Moore are how much higher than the vet min? certainly 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 makes a lot of sense? that is 1%-2% when we are talking about total salary dollars of the 2nd tier and 3rd tier doubling?

Many teams spending below the floor in March. September is when it matters.

So RFA/ERFA are not included, there are ~80 of them btw. Nor are the remaining available FA.

Here you go: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/available/

get to work. And no not all of them are going to take 10% over the minimum. It does slow down between now and the draft but once the draft is over and teams still have holes it picks up again and people see what they have/don't have in OTA's. That is when a lot of the 30 and older players start getting paid.

And why on earth are you adding $5m? Just cause? Is it the "I know I am missing stuff so I will just make up a number" adjustment?

I already said you included the draft pool but we are also talking about expenditures. All of the signing bonuses and guarantees of even the guys that don't make the squad have to be accounted for.

I have no idea what a "reasonable estimate" of how many players will make it. Most of the top picks will make it as very rarely are players from the first two days cut which is a disproportionate amount of salary but once again I see you are pulling figures out of your butt based on nothing actually empirical.

 

[waldoputty]

Many teams spending below the floor in March. September is when it matters.

So RFA/ERFA are not included, there are ~80 of them btw. Nor are the remaining available FA.

Here you go: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/available/

get to work. And no not all of them are going to take 10% over the minimum. It does slow down between now and the draft but once the draft is over and teams still have holes it picks up again and people see what they have/don't have in OTA's. That is when a lot of the 30 and older players start getting paid.

And why on earth are you adding $5m? Just cause? Is it the "I know I am missing stuff so I will just make up a number" adjustment?

I already said you included the draft pool but we are also talking about expenditures. All of the signing bonuses and guarantees of even the guys that don't make the squad have to be accounted for.

I have no idea what a "reasonable estimate" of how many players will make it. Most of the top picks will make it as very rarely are players from the first two days cut which is a disproportionate amount of salary but once again I see you are pulling figures out of your butt based on nothing actually empirical.

I did a little checking with your issues.
1. RFAs are already accounted for in the websites' salary caps - so a non-issue
2. 5m average adder per team should be more than enough to account for the remaining FAs.
3. you may have a couple QBs that may be signed like Daniel, Kapernick, Cutler and RG3. RG3 and Kapernick are serious damaged goods. And let's say if Denver signs Daniel and Texans sign Cutler, then you can subtract Romo's salary off the NFL ledger since he will probably retire.
4. Of the non-QB FAs, I just dont see many FAs worth more than 5M-6M AAV. The best ones seem to be Pasztor (probably less than $6M), Shields (concussion issues), Walden (projected to be $7M or less based on comps), Hankins
5. And remember if you need to deduct the vet min from the teams' salaries if sign any of these as all the teams are WAY over 53 players.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I did a little checking with your issues.
1. RFAs are already accounted for in the websites' salary caps - so a non-issue
2. 5m average adder per team should be more than enough to account for the remaining FAs.
3. you may have a couple QBs that may be signed like Daniel, Kapernick, Cutler and RG3. RG3 and Kapernick are serious damaged goods. And let's say if Denver signs Daniel and Texans sign Cutler, then you can subtract Romo's salary off the NFL ledger since he will probably retire.
4. Of the non-QB FAs, I just dont see many FAs worth more than 5M-6M AAV. The best ones seem to be Pasztor (probably less than $6M), Shields (concussion issues), Walden (projected to be $7M or less based on comps), Hankins
5. And remember if you need to deduct the vet min from the teams' salaries if sign any of these as all the teams are WAY over 53 players.

1. Until the contract is signed no they are not. A cap hold != expenditure. Those RFA are still open to signing offer sheets for other teams like we did with Mayowa this past season. They can also sign an extension and get a lucrative SB.
2. Based on what? We both know you have not reviewed how much teams have spent beyond week 2 in FA in the past. IOW, you are pulling the number out of your butt.
3. You have no idea if Romo will retire. More wishcasting. For all you know he is going to be released and get a SB for more he is being paid this year. It's stuff like this that makes me call you a sophist.
4. There are a ton of FA left. You mentioned plenty that by themselves would account for what you have apportioned for a team. It's obvious why you are wishcasting Romo will retire. The QBs make your figure look extremely silly.
5. Again we are talking about expenditures and not the cap. They don't count that amount against the cap but they do count it as money spent.
6. Still have seen no compelling evidence that teams are going to be compelled to spend over the cap floor.
7. you ignored the issue with guaranteed money and the apportionment of the rookie class.

 

[waldoputty]

1. Until the contract is signed no they are not. A cap hold != expenditure. Those RFA are still open to signing offer sheets for other teams like we did with Mayowa this past season. They can also sign an extension and get a lucrative SB.
2. Based on what? We both know you have not reviewed how much teams have spent beyond week 2 in FA in the past. IOW, you are pulling the number out of your butt.
3. You have no idea if Romo will retire. More wishcasting. For all you know he is going to be released and get a SB for more he is being paid this year. It's stuff like this that makes me call you a sophist.
4. There are a ton of FA left. You mentioned plenty that by themselves would account for what you have apportioned for a team. It's obvious why you are wishcasting Romo will retire. The QBs make your figure look extremely silly.
5. Again we are talking about expenditures and not the cap. They don't count that amount against the cap but they do count it as money spent.
6. Still have seen no compelling evidence that teams are going to be compelled to spend over the cap floor.
7. you ignored the issue with guaranteed money and the apportionment of the rookie class.

1. RFAs have their holds. If they sign extensions at the current lower valuation, they are actually reducing the number of free agents next year. signing bonus increases cash spent now but reduce cash spent in the future.
2. for 5M estimate, one can look at the free agents and estimate their value. furthermore, if you look at the signed FAs, you will see the large #s of cheap FAs are well underway. i listed the few FAs that could get a reasonable amount, and those can be counted with my fingers. in the case of walden, i even googled around to find his projected value.
3. the point was not Romo retiring. what I said was if Daniel was signed by Denver AND Cutler was signed by Texans, then Romo will retire. you would notice i was half-joking if you were not so desperately trying to make your point.
4. how do the remaining QBs make anything look silly. you have at most 4 teams that could sign a starting QB. Jets, Browns, Broncos and Texans. There may be 4 QBs left that are relevant in terms of bigger salaries - Cutler, Kaepernick, Daniel and Fitzpatrick. Are any of these 4 substantially better than Osweiller who Cleveland is now talking about keeping (since his salary is guaranteed?). Furthermore, I could barely see Broncos/Texans consider Daniel and Cutler. Jets may consider Cutler, Daniel and Kaepernick as a short term, but you know that they may have already signed their caretaker QB in McCown for $6M, right (pissing off their fans)? So where will these 4 QBs go??? Do you seriously think any of these will get $15M/yr or even $10M/yr?
5. when did i say anything about teams going over the floor. that is not even necessary for what i am discussing.
6. what about guaranteed money and apportionment of what? what does that have to do with cash spending?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

1. RFAs have their holds. If they sign extensions at the current lower valuation, they are actually reducing the number of free agents next year. signing bonus increases cash spent now but reduce cash spent in the future.
2. for 5M estimate, one can look at the free agents and estimate their value. furthermore, if you look at the signed FAs, you will see the large #s of cheap FAs are well underway. i listed the few FAs that could get a reasonable amount, and those can be counted with my fingers. in the case of walden, i even googled around to find his projected value.
3. the point was not Romo retiring. what I said was if Daniel was signed by Denver AND Cutler was signed by Texans, then Romo will retire. you would notice i was half-joking if you were not so desperately trying to make your point.
4. how do the remaining QBs make anything look silly. you have at most 4 teams that could sign a starting QB. Jets, Browns, Broncos and Texans. There may be 4 QBs left that are relevant in terms of bigger salaries - Cutler, Kaepernick, Daniel and Fitzpatrick. Are any of these 4 substantially better than Osweiller who Cleveland is now talking about keeping (since his salary is guaranteed?). Furthermore, I could barely see Broncos/Texans consider Daniel and Cutler. Jets may consider Cutler, Daniel and Kaepernick as a short term, but you know that they may have already signed their caretaker QB in McCown for $6M, right (pissing off their fans)? So where will these 4 QBs go??? Do you seriously think any of these will get $15M/yr or even $10M/yr?
5. when did i say anything about teams going over the floor. that is not even necessary for what i am discussing.
6. what about guaranteed money and apportionment of what? what does that have to do with cash spending?

1. Again cash is not spent until they sign.
2. Still waiting for some sort of basis beyond a guess that conforms to your bias. I showed the list of FA and I have seen no reasonable demonstration from you that figure is the case.
3. So now you're joking? Try to be funny next time then. There are other teams that Romo may end up playing for. You don't know what happens when he becomes a FA. He would be a massive upgrade to many teams.
4. You can add Buffalo, KC, SF, and Was to your list. They could also sign as backups and make ~6m.
5. We are talking about cash spent because it is relevant to the floor. You have been claiming that teams won't "throw money away" in paying the disbursement. If you want to change your position to the cap floor is irrelevant that works for me. The cap is even less of a compelling argument.
6. If they only keep 5 rookies you still have to account for any guarantees the players they cut received. Your estimate here also has no basis or reasonable proportion.

 

[waldoputty]

1. Again cash is not spent until they sign.
2. Still waiting for some sort of basis beyond a guess that conforms to your bias. I showed the list of FA and I have seen no reasonable demonstration from you that figure is the case.
3. So now you're joking? Try to be funny next time then. There are other teams that Romo may end up playing for. You don't know what happens when he becomes a FA. He would be a massive upgrade to many teams.
4. You can add Buffalo, KC, SF, and Was to your list. They could also sign as backups and make ~6m.
5. We are talking about cash spent because it is relevant to the floor. You have been claiming that teams won't "throw money away" in paying the disbursement. If you want to change your position to the cap floor is irrelevant that works for me. The cap is even less of a compelling argument.
6. If they only keep 5 rookies you still have to account for any guarantees the players they cut received.

1. they are already accounted for in cash in the tables
2. you can call it bias, but any model requires judgment to be made. i listed the 4-5 players that may cost $5-6 million. you have not named anyone else. unless you look at the list and actually come up with something useful, you are just saying a model cannot be built unless there is no longer a need for a model.
3. if someone say denver must sign one player AND texan must sign another player, any idiot would realize that such a scenario is not likely.
4. Buffalo already spent big money of their QB. KC has alex smith. Washington has not traded their QB. If they do, then someone else would not need a QB. how in the world would cutler or daniel be an improvement over what these teams already?
5. we have been talking about cap floor and cash. what is your point?
6. are you talking 2017 or 2018? 2017 salaries are already in the table including guaranteed. rookie salaries are based on the pool. if salaries are taken off, you are only assuming deducting a vet minimum.

 

[waldoputty]

this article states nicely the current FA situation:
"With free agency having slowed to a trickle in the NFL these days, attention has shifted to the last remaining way for teams to improve their roster in a big way before September. That would be through the NFL Draft, which will be conducted April 27-29 in Philadelphia."
http://buffalonews.com/2017/03/24/jay-skurskis-mock-draft-ii-bills-fill-big-need-no-10/

fact of the matter is that there are only a few FAs left that would get a decent size contract and i listed the 4-5 of them that i found not count the 3-4 QBs who may not get a starting QB gig. if they dont, we are talking much lower dollars and even the Jets signed McCown as possibly the caretaker before drafting a rookie QB.

i have allocated $5M per team to take care of the remaining stuff. most teams are basically done adding and the remaining pieces are mostly vet min types.

 

[waldoputty]

here is a nice story of these QBs being all dressed up and have no place to go:

"Although the Jets were viewed as Cutler's most likely destination due to his relationship with new position coach Jeremy Bates, Gang Green opted instead for Josh McCown as a bridge to the unknown quarterback of the future.
New York's coaching staff preferred McCown, according to NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport, because he's viewed as a better fit in the quarterback room, mentoring young signal-callers Christian Hackenberg and Bryce Petty. So where does that leave Cutler?
Might Houston coach Bill O'Brien be tempted to follow Adam Gase's footsteps as the latest quarterback guru to steer Cutler's career back on track? When Rapoport asked team sources for an interest level in Cutler, the answer was essentially "zero."
Cutler, meanwhile, is left to twist in the wind, waiting for an injury to uncork the log jam at quarterback. If no clear-cut path to a starting opportunity arises by the end of training camps, don't be surprised if Cutler favors retirement over holding a clipboard."

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

1. they are already accounted for in cash in the tables
2. you can call it bias, but any model requires judgment to be made. i listed the 4-5 players that may cost $5-6 million. you have not named anyone else. unless you look at the list and actually come up with something useful, you are just saying a model cannot be built unless there is no longer a need for a model.
3. if someone say denver must sign one player AND texan must sign another player, any idiot would realize that such a scenario is not likely.
4. Buffalo already spent big money of their QB. KC has alex smith. Washington has not traded their QB. If they do, then someone else would not need a QB. how in the world would cutler or daniel be an improvement over what these teams already?
5. we have been talking about cap floor and cash. what is your point?
6. are you talking 2017 or 2018? 2017 salaries are already in the table including guaranteed. rookie salaries are based on the pool. if salaries are taken off, you are only assuming deducting a vet minimum.

1. Prove it. This speaks to an even more troubling issue with your approach. You have no idea how the cash spending figures are calculated. There is no formula or breakdown chart like the cap pages. We know for a fact that the tender amount is not guaranteed until signed. It can be pulled and other teams can bid on the FA. In short: the cash has not been spend.
2. Sorry but not all models are like that. When I model a circuit I don't "judge" what resistances and voltages are required; I calculate within an acceptable degree of error. You aren't making a judgment anyway. Further this is not some macro model where you are trying to approximate macro ideas. This is all micro, slotted and with exact empirical precedent. You are guessing based on nothing real instead. Like I said you could go back and look at FA signed after the first two weeks and the amounts they signed for and adjust for the cap rise but that is not what you do. You don't look at anything and guess. That is not valid at all.
3. So Romo is likely to play and make money next year as well as those other QBs and my initial point stands. Revis, McDonald, Peterson, and others will also get significant deals as well. Then you have just a lot of guys still out there beyond the high prices guys.
4.KC is waffling on Smith and looking for an alternative. That is kind of the point. Romo would upgrade half the teams in the league and as you like to point out there is a lot of cap space out there. Washington could make a move or just dump him. Have you look at the QB talent in the league. It's awful. The backups are worse. They will sign and it won't be for $1m.
5. You were talking about teams only being counted for the rookie min and not the vet min on the cap. I was pointing out that the full vet min is accounted for the floor as it is the actual money spent. Cap figures and floor figures are not commutable. This also speaks to your assumptions about what is counted in the cash spent totals.
6. You are estimating that 5 rookies, again guessing not considering specifics, and will make it with some random distribution of the rookie pool which you are also guessing at. More than 5 will be getting guaranteed money. If they are cut the guaranteed money still spends and of course they can be picked up by other squads and get even more money.

 

[waldoputty]

1. Prove it. This speaks to an even more troubling issue with your approach. You have no idea how the cash spending figures are calculated. There is no formula or breakdown chart like the cap pages. We know for a fact that the tender amount is not guaranteed until signed. It can be pulled and other teams can bid on the FA. In short: the cash has not been spend.
2. Sorry but not all models are like that. When I model a circuit I don't "judge" what resistances and voltages are required; I calculate within an acceptable degree of error. You aren't making a judgment anyway. Further this is not some macro model where you are trying to approximate macro ideas. This is all micro, slotted and with exact empirical precedent. You are guessing based on nothing real instead. Like I said you could go back and look at FA signed after the first two weeks and the amounts they signed for and adjust for the cap rise but that is not what you do. You don't look at anything and guess. That is not valid at all.
3. So Romo is likely to play and make money next year as well as those other QBs and my initial point stands. Revis, McDonald, Peterson, and others will also get significant deals as well. Then you have just a lot of guys still out there beyond the high prices guys.
4.KC is waffling on Smith and looking for an alternative. That is kind of the point. Romo would upgrade half the teams in the league and as you like to point out there is a lot of cap space out there. Washington could make a move or just dump him. Have you look at the QB talent in the league. It's awful. The backups are worse. They will sign and it won't be for $1m.
5. You were talking about teams only being counted for the rookie min and not the vet min on the cap. I was pointing out that the full vet min is accounted for the floor as it is the actual money spent. Cap figures and floor figures are not commutable. This also speaks to your assumptions about what is counted in the cash spent totals.
6. You are estimating that 5 rookies, again guessing not considering specifics, and will make it with some random distribution of the rookie pool which you are also guessing at. More than 5 will be getting guaranteed money. If they are cut the guaranteed money still spends and of course they can be picked up by other squads and get even more money.

1. you can go prove it for yourself, OTC and Spotrac should show RFAs and their holds in their calculations. i used their totals so it has already been incorporated.
2. you should know better the difference between hard engineering/physics models and social sciences models. I suspect you have at least had some economics training, so you should already how those models work. It is not as satisfying, so some times you get what you can get. Just like you are able to tolerate that for Jaylon's nerve regeneration - analyzing under more uncertainty, I am sure you can learn to deal with this. I saw AP and Revis - note that it is the 3rd week and no one wants them. As the website I quoted indicated, FA has slowed to a crawl. You got the little min vet deals like Moore and probably Bell who may get a little guaranteed money. I already counted about 5 players that could get $5-6m/yr aav that are in their primes and not washed up stars. I still dont see why an average of $5M aav per team is not more than enough. Especially the teams are way over 53 in their rosters and you are simply adding the difference when you swap players.
3. First of all, I did not remove Romo. Second, it has been reported in numerous places that Romo only want Denver or Texans. Hopefully he is more flexible and increases the market/return for him. He is actually irrelevant to the discussion. I did not remove him from the model and was just making a silly observation (that he may well retire if Denver AND Texans go different direction).
4. Kansas City may like Romo, but you seriously think they would dump Smith for the remaining garbage in the market? If Washington trades their QB, where does he go? You only have slots in Cleveland, Texans and Denver. The main point is that the remaining QBs are not $15M/yr or may even $10M/yr types. Kaepernick killed his market with the protest thing. Cutler - please. You are talking backups.
5. I was using the vet min for the vets and the rookie pool for the rookies.
6. Furthermore, i OVERESTIMATED on purpose the rookie pool because I am only assuming 5 rookies, not the full set of draft picks. It was overestimated because sometimes it is the best you can do. I could have shaved 10-20% over the top but I did not bothered to. Why, because the effect is so small it is not worth putting in the model. When you are chopping 10% of 10% of the budget, it is only 1%. We are talking macro effects here of close to 100%. If you are used doing modeling under uncertainty, you learn to throw away type of little stuff and focus on the big stuff. Why bother trying to focus on 1%-5% stuff when your error bar is probably 20%.

 

[NextGenBoys]

Something incredibly dramatic is going on in the NFL. Mainly due to the current TV contract, the annual salary cap is spiraling out of control. As a result, the conventional notion of cap space is essentially out the window.

Here is based on cap space for all teams combined from 2014 to 2018. (http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/2016/)
2014 end of season cap space for all teams combined: $188 million
2015 end of season cap space for all teams combined: $263 million
2016 end of season cap space for all teams combined: $355 million
2017 current cap space for all teams combined: $728 million
2018 current cap space for all teams combined: $1.4 billion + 2017 rollover -> ~$2 billion

It should be obvious to all that the old concept of cap space has drastically changed. The cap space for all teams combined has literally taken off from $188 million to $263 million to $355 million to $728 million currently (most of the free agency expenditures are probably done). Note that this is only for cap impact for this year, not the entire amount of the contracts signed. The NFLs will likely have a combined cap space of ~$2 billion in 2018, since the 2017 remaining cap space rolls over to 2018.

To put this into perspective, $1 billion of cap space is equal to an annual basis of FIFTY (50) 5-year contracts with $20 million AAV, zero backloading and $50 million signing bonus. Or alternatively, $1 billion of cap space is equal to an annual basis of two hundred (200) 5-year contracts with $5 million AAV, zero backloading and zero signing bonus (to keep calculations simple).

Are there that many expensive free agents? 95% of the top QBs are signed as well as most of the war daddies and top defenders...

This perspective is important when discussing free agents, value, overpriced or not etc. In essence, the market is likely to enter a period of insane changes. IMO, the earlier you spend, the more salaries you lock then, the better off the Cowboys are. Instead of worrying about value of the 2017 free agents, think about their cost inflation in 2018. It could be mind boggling.

Much has been said about the value of free agent contracts and how they are overpriced. Others have stated that prices are only going up and get on the bandwagon before it is too late. So is there a correct opinion?

The argument of contracts being overpriced is relatively straight forward. Contracts for good players are rapidly escalating. Thus good players are being paid as stars, and such extravagant expenditures would run counter to prudent financial planning. Furthermore, funding such contracts through typical contract restructuring techniques push cap expenditures to the future and jeopardizes the future.

The argument for spending now is less straight-forward. There are primarily five arguments. The first is the expanding cap accommodates high prices. The second is prices are only going up due to enormous cap spaces available. The third is prices are going even further up with the 89% salary cap cash floor. The fourth is the diminishing supply of good players. The fifth is the potential to time cap expenditures based on the cap floor and the likely and dramatic rise in salaries.

The rising cap argument is the simplest. In particular, the supply of cap dollars are rapidly expanding in the current escalating cap environment to the tune of $10-$15 million per year. Thus, the rising caps cover for restructuring exercises as the contract dollars become cheaper over the life of the contract. Just like social security, the next generation supports the current generation etc. However, unlike social security, the cap is always going up so you dont have to worry about a small working class supporting the ever-rising number of elderly.

The large cap space argument is based on the enormous supply of cap monies available. With more cap space, the prices for top available free agents will only go up and up. There are numerous teams in the NFL that really need to spend money in 2018. An incredible amount of money will be spent and needs to be spent: the 49ers have about $70 million in cap space in 2018 and the Detriot Lions may have $100 million of cap space. With 37 players under contract, lets assume Detroit plans to sign 20 real players. To use up $90 million, the Lions have to average $4.5 million cap impact per player for 20 players, or perhaps 3 players at $15 million AAV and 16 players at ~$3 million AAV, all with zero back-loading.

Furthermore, the 89% floor is particularly looming. There are many teams currently far behind in their floor spending. For example, look at the 2017 cash spending chart below, it is clear the bottom 10 teams are putting themselves into a bind in terms of meeting the 89% floor. With a salary cap for 167 million, the bottom 10 teams' cash spending in 2017 range from $119 million to $135 million, that is a whopping 20% to 30% below the cap or 10% to 20% below the 89% floor. One would ask how can they get away with that? The answer is that the 89% floor is applied in a 4 year window. The current window runs from 2017 to 2020. So you have the bottom 10 teams starting way behind the 8 ball. Furthermore, of those 10 bottom teams, 3 of them (Packers, Seahawks, Ravens) are ironically also in the top 10 teams in 2018 cap commitments with already $135-$137 million committed. What does that mean? It means the amount of cash they can expend in 2018 is going to be limited by their cap, further compounding their salary floor situation. Obviously, they can use the signing bonus trick to mitigate that, but only to a certain degree. Come 2019 and 2020, the floor issue is going to come to roost. The end result will probably massive expenditures to meet the floor requirement by a good number of teams. They NEED to spend the money or just lose it. The end result would be even more inflation and even worse value for signing good players. Finally, one may ask the question - "the cash floor existed before, why will this 4 years be worse?" The reason is because all teams are now out of cap hell, and with the escalating cap, they have trouble catching up in spending. So the issue may well snowball. This has never happened before.
The fourth reason to spend now is the continued drop in the number of high quality free agents and probably the extinction of elite free agents. With the rapid expansion of dollars available, all teams are out of cap hell. Furthermore, the top 3 teams in 2017 cap space all currently STILL have more than $50 million in space, ranging from the 49ers at $71 million to with Jacksonville at $53 million. As we know, the unused cap space rolls into next year... This amount of cap space is unprecedented. Even the 10th ranking team in cap space has $28 million. No team will lose their top players due to cap space any more. Thus, the quality of top free agents will keep dropping. The time to strike is now while many GMs are still suffering from sticker shock and also suffer the difficulty of explaining to the current players why the new guys cost so much.

The fifth argument is about timing expenditures to avoid the pains of the cash floor situation. With the imminent climb of salaries, a new equilibrium will result particularly IF TV revenues flattens in the next TV contract. If a team is strategic in its planning, it could lock up its players and key free agents in anticipation of this possible 2019/2020 salary floor debacle. This would buy 3-4 good years of serious contention in sync with the primes of Dez and Zeke, our two fastest and most important depreciating assets. In the Cowboys' case, it could also mean signing its 2016 class at least 1 year before they are due before the 2019 season by taking advantage of its huge 2019 cap space available.

Here is where the concept of value and of the new cap reality could converge. To maximize our near-term and mid-term chances, sign a couple top FAs while they are still available and before prices go even higher. But don't cap out so that you can sign the 2016 class before the 2019 season or perhaps even during the 2018 season. This way you can get mutually beneficial deals for the good players from the class whomever they end up being. The team would get very good value, while the players will be set for life, get really rich much sooner than they expected and mitigate their injury risk.

Team Active Cash Spending Total Cash Spending Cash to Cap Ratio
Browns $164,733,609
Panthers $163,361,841
Commanders $157,146,728
Jaguars $156,745,340
Chiefs $156,284,939
Dolphins $156,222,698
Lions $156,087,855
Cardinals $153,172,725
Vikings $152,771,051
Giants $152,512,830
Cowboys $149,266,011
Eagles $148,360,883
Broncos $147,393,156
Bears $146,599,451
Patriots $144,765,987
Falcons $143,838,883
49ers $142,027,297
Rams $141,914,145
Bengals $138,943,661
Chargers $137,982,965
Saints $137,463,545
Steelers $135,867,345
Buccaneers $135,392,660
Titans $134,964,024
Packers $133,973,784
Seahawks $133,429,304
Raiders $132,127,335
Bills $130,220,408
Ravens $127,860,561
Colts $125,610,882
Jets $123,172,323
Texans $119,203,323
Table is from: http://overthecap.com/cash-spending/

Great read, thanks for taking the time to put this together.

 

[waldoputty]

Great read, thanks for taking the time to put this together.

You are welcome.
I am sure you have read the posts of those that find fault with this.
Yes, this type of modeling has its limits, but only looking for big effects.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

1. you can go prove it for yourself, OTC and Spotrac should show RFAs and their holds in their calculations. i used their totals so it has already been incorporated.
2. you should know better the difference between hard engineering/physics models and social sciences models. I suspect you have at least had some economics training, so you should already how those models work. It is not as satisfying, so some times you get what you can get. Just like you are able to tolerate that for Jaylon's nerve regeneration - analyzing under more uncertainty, I am sure you can learn to deal with this. I saw AP and Revis - note that it is the 3rd week and no one wants them. As the website I quoted indicated, FA has slowed to a crawl. You got the little min vet deals like Moore and probably Bell who may get a little guaranteed money. I already counted about 5 players that could get $5-6m/yr aav that are in their primes and not washed up stars. I still dont see why an average of $5M aav per team is not more than enough. Especially the teams are way over 53 in their rosters and you are simply adding the difference when you swap players.
3. First of all, I did not remove Romo. Second, it has been reported in numerous places that Romo only want Denver or Texans. Hopefully he is more flexible and increases the market/return for him. He is actually irrelevant to the discussion. I did not remove him from the model and was just making a silly observation (that he may well retire if Denver AND Texans go different direction).
4. Kansas City may like Romo, but you seriously think they would dump Smith for the remaining garbage in the market? If Washington trades their QB, where does he go? You only have slots in Cleveland, Texans and Denver. The main point is that the remaining QBs are not $15M/yr or may even $10M/yr types. Kaepernick killed his market with the protest thing. Cutler - please. You are talking backups.
5. I was using the vet min for the vets and the rookie pool for the rookies.
6. Furthermore, i OVERESTIMATED on purpose the rookie pool because I am only assuming 5 rookies, not the full set of draft picks. It was overestimated because sometimes it is the best you can do. I could have shaved 10-20% over the top but I did not bothered to. Why, because the effect is so small it is not worth putting in the model. When you are chopping 10% of 10% of the budget, it is only 1%. We are talking macro effects here of close to 100%. If you are used doing modeling under uncertainty, you learn to throw away type of little stuff and focus on the big stuff. Why bother trying to focus on 1%-5% stuff when your error bar is probably 20%.

1. In what world do I prove the truth of your claims? They do no such thing for their cap spending calculations. You're hoping.
2. I discussed both. There is a reason why they call economics the dismal science. Both calculate degrees of error but your method's baseline is your imagination. Who cares if it has slowed to a crawl. We have a month until the draft where it picks up again and 4 months until the season where it picks up once again. This is not about what you see. It is about what you can prove. You having visions of $5m per team is not valid.
3. It was a dumb assertion. The QB's are going to sign for quite a bit. Time to move on.
4. I have no idea but that is the point: neither do you. That is the whole point significant claims require significant proof. The league is going to have their cap situations "blow up" such that the free agent market is radically altered is a significant claim.
5. Then why are you bringing up teams only being allocated the rookie min when they sign vets. It's not my fault you are all over the place trying to mitigate every expenditure.
6. So you spitballed it without any real basis once again. Fail.

 

[waldoputty]

1. In what world do I prove the truth of your claims? They do no such thing for their cap spending calculations. You're hoping.
2. I discussed both. There is a reason why they call economics the dismal science. Both calculate degrees of error but your method's baseline is your imagination. Who cares if it has slowed to a crawl. We have a month until the draft where it picks up again and 4 months until the season where it picks up once again. This is not about what you see. It is about what you can prove. You having visions of $5m per team is not valid.
3. It was a dumb assertion. The QB's are going to sign for quite a bit. Time to move on.
4. I have no idea but that is the point: neither do you. That is the whole point significant claims require significant proof. The league is going to have their cap situations "blow up" such that the free agent market is radically altered is a significant claim.
5. Then why are you bringing up teams only being allocated the rookie min when they sign vets. It's not my fault you are all over the place trying to mitigate every expenditure.
6. So you spitballed it without any real basis once again. Fail.

1. the websites already incorporated RFAs in their salary cap numbers. those totals are the numbers i used to build the model. i dont even know what you are trying to deny.
2. many social sciences model situations without exact answers. you can call it dismal but you require exact answers like a circuit simulation, then no one can help you. it matters if signings slowed to a crawl because it is a matter of magnitude. you seriously think people who make business decisions can wait for things to be proven? they model it as well as they can and go with it. small effects are ignored in favor of the big picture.
3. if there are no slots for starting QBs for cutler, you are not getting paid like a start QB. mcnown was signed by the Jets to be a sort-of starting QB, at 6M if i remember correctly.
4. you are talking about a couple QBs that are probably only going to get backup QB contracts. you are going to use that to deny the overall effects of hundreds of millions of dollars? you couldn't see the forest for the trees. there is a reason $5m was thrown in to capture remaining contracts. that is because signings have slowed down to a crawl and there is only about 5 players i checked that would get a decent size contract like hankins.
5. I have no idea what you are talking about. vets get vet mins for the bottom 50%. I probably even gave them more than they were due.
6. Again, you cannot seem to see the forest for the trees. A few 1% or even 5% uncertainties do not separate an overall picture of close to 100%. What you get is 1% if you are talking effects on the order of 10% of 10%. This particular effect actually move things the other way and cancel a minute error in the other direction. In some of these cases, small errors (ignored) even cancel each other out.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

1. the websites already incorporated RFAs in their salary cap numbers. those totals are the numbers i used to build the model. i dont even know what you are trying to deny.
2. many social sciences model situations without exact answers. you can call it dismal but you require exact answers like a circuit simulation, then no one can help you. it matters if signings slowed to a crawl because it is a matter of magnitude. you seriously think people who make business decisions can wait for things to be proven? they model it as well as they can and go with it. small effects are ignored in favor of the big picture.
3. if there are no slots for starting QBs for cutler, you are not getting paid like a start QB. mcnown was signed by the Jets to be a sort-of starting QB, at 6M if i remember correctly.
4. you are talking about a couple QBs that are probably only going to get backup QB contracts. you are going to use that to deny the overall effects of hundreds of millions of dollars? you couldn't see the forest for the trees. there is a reason $5m was thrown in to capture remaining contracts. that is because signings have slowed down to a crawl and there is only about 5 players i checked that would get a decent size contract like hankins.
5. I have no idea what you are talking about. vets get vet mins for the bottom 50%. I probably even gave them more than they were due.
6. Again, you cannot seem to see the forest for the trees. A few 1% or even 5% uncertainties do not separate an overall picture of close to 100%. What you get is 1% if you are talking effects on the order of 10% of 10%. This particular effect actually move things the other way and cancel a minute error in the other direction. In some of these cases, small errors (ignored) even cancel each other out.

1. We aren't talking about their cap numbers. We are talking about cash spent numbers. You have no idea what goes into the cash spent numbers as they have no breakdown or formula on either site. I ask you to porve you model that the RFA are included and you tell me to prove it myself. That is the opposite of scientific.
2. This is not social science. This is accounting. And it is one thing to take a low sample rate or other incomplete information and approximate with a degree of error and then there is what you do in looking at no empirical numbers and making up numbers.
3. You don't get tos speak for other teams. They could very well sign lucrative deals. If you cannot figure how that might happen that is just a limit of your imagination and knowledge of history.
4. And what reason was there to use $5m for all the remaining contracts? I keep asking for a demonstration and calling you out for pulling it out fo your butt and you come back with this? I already discussed that despite the slowdown over the past two weeks there are still signings and still over 20 weeks until the season starts.
5. You keep referring to cap numbers when it is cash spent that matters. If they pay a player whether or not they make the 53 or they downgrade the value for cap purposes it is still cash spent.
6. Up to 5% is common acceptable range but there is no degree of error involved here as there is no dataset to derive it from. You pulled $5m out of your butt and for all you know it could be 500% error. I'm sure you would like your error to be small but you got the 1% to 5% from the same place you got the $5m: your butt.

 

[waldoputty]

1. We aren't talking about their cap numbers. We are talking about cash spent numbers. You have no idea what goes into the cash spent numbers as they have no breakdown or formula on either site. I ask you to porve you model that the RFA are included and you tell me to prove it myself. That is the opposite of scientific.
2. This is not social science. This is accounting. And it is one thing to take a low sample rate or other incomplete information and approximate with a degree of error and then there is what you do in looking at no empirical numbers and making up numbers.
3. You don't get tos speak for other teams. They could very well sign lucrative deals. If you cannot figure how that might happen that is just a limit of your imagination and knowledge of history.
4. And what reason was there to use $5m for all the remaining contracts? I keep asking for a demonstration and calling you out for pulling it out fo your butt and you come back with this? I already discussed that despite the slowdown over the past two weeks there are still signings and still over 20 weeks until the season starts.
5. You keep referring to cap numbers when it is cash spent that matters. If they pay a player whether or not they make the 53 or they downgrade the value for cap purposes it is still cash spent.
6. Up to 5% is common acceptable range but there is no degree of error involved here as there is no dataset to derive it from. You pulled $5m out of your butt and for all you know it could be 500% error. I'm sure you would like your error to be small but you got the 1% to 5% from the same place you got the $5m: your butt.

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.

 

[waldoputty]

1. In what world do I prove the truth of your claims? They do no such thing for their cap spending calculations. You're hoping.
2. I discussed both. There is a reason why they call economics the dismal science. Both calculate degrees of error but your method's baseline is your imagination. Who cares if it has slowed to a crawl. We have a month until the draft where it picks up again and 4 months until the season where it picks up once again. This is not about what you see. It is about what you can prove. You having visions of $5m per team is not valid.
3. It was a dumb assertion. The QB's are going to sign for quite a bit. Time to move on.
4. I have no idea but that is the point: neither do you. That is the whole point significant claims require significant proof. The league is going to have their cap situations "blow up" such that the free agent market is radically altered is a significant claim.
5. Then why are you bringing up teams only being allocated the rookie min when they sign vets. It's not my fault you are all over the place trying to mitigate every expenditure.
6. So you spitballed it without any real basis once again. Fail.

BTW, it is quite hypocritical to say the team will have a team of economists to work on the cap and at the same time call economics the dismal science.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

BTW, it is quite hypocritical to say the team will have a team of economists to work on the cap and at the same time call economics the dismal science.

How? It's still hilarious that you think the teams "aren't taking this serious" enough.