Remaining cap space and FAs

[waldoputty]

I just took a look at the remaining cap space of all the teams, it is a lot of $.
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/
Assuming the list is up-to-date, there are teams that must spent $.

For example, if the Browns carried forward all their rollover from 2017, they are $68 million under the cap.
Does anyone understand the NFL minimum cash spending requirements?
I am guessing some of these teams HAVE to spend their money.

 

[ksg811]

The Cash spending minimums are exactly that - it's cash not cap. Teams can pay out a bunch of big bonuses to meet the cash spend requirement and still keep a ton of cap space.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

I just took a look at the remaining cap space of all the teams, it is a lot of $.
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/
Assuming the list is up-to-date, there are teams that must spent $.

For example, if the Browns carried forward all their rollover from 2017, they are $68 million under the cap.
Does anyone understand the NFL minimum cash spending requirements?
I am guessing some of these teams HAVE to spend their money.

There's a minimum? We should be getting hammered by the league then.

 

[Aviano90]

I just took a look at the remaining cap space of all the teams, it is a lot of $.
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/
Assuming the list is up-to-date, there are teams that must spent $.

For example, if the Browns carried forward all their rollover from 2017, they are $68 million under the cap.
Does anyone understand the NFL minimum cash spending requirements?
I am guessing some of these teams HAVE to spend their money.

Yes, there is a time period in which teams must spend a minimum % of the salary cap. The time periods are from 2013-2016 and 2017-2020 and all teams have to spend at least 89% of the salary cap during those 4 year periods of time. So teams don't have to spend 89% every year, but they had to get to that average after 2016 and will need to do it again by 2020.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

There's a minimum? We should be getting hammered by the league then.

This is the post of a man who ignores the money we pay our own free agents.

Look at him in all his glory.

 

[northerncowboynation]

I remember as a kid I used to be able to buy penny candy. It cost a penny, hence the name. Now pennies don't even exist. I could buy me lot's of penny candy with $5 million shmackers. The Browns could feast for a life time

 

[BobSacamano]

There's a minimum? We should be getting hammered by the league then.

Their min. Our max.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

This is the post of a man who ignores the money we pay our own free agents.

Look at him in all his glory.

Their min. Our max.

LOL

 

[Bohuntr97]

Yes, there is a time period in which teams must spend a minimum % of the salary cap. The time periods are from 2013-2016 and 2017-2020 and all teams have to spend at least 89% of the salary cap during those 4 year periods of time. So teams don't have to spend 89% every year, but they had to get to that average after 2016 and will need to do it again by 2020.

Excellent answer. It also means teams can spend over the cap as well. If you look at San Fran, their current active spending is $178 million which is over the $177 cap and they will also need to sign their draft picks. It only means they will have to spend under the cap somewhere by 2020 to bring their average down.

 

[Nightman]

This is the post of a man who ignores the money we pay our own free agents.

Look at him in all his glory.

We are still one of the lowest spending teams in the League..... which is a joke with our Revenues and Cash Flow

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

A poster above was talking about our own FA, what we have 10 or more, with some already gone. No way in h--- you bring them all back, you are just setting yourself up for repeat failure. So that money should go to try something different and bring in better personnel. If you know the outcome before it happens why repeat it.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

We are still one of the lowest spending teams in the League..... which is a joke with our Revenues and Cash Flow

Think you my friend!

 

[Aviano90]

Excellent answer. It also means teams can spend over the cap as well. If you look at San Fran, their current active spending is $178 million which is over the $177 cap and they will also need to sign their draft picks. It only means they will have to spend under the cap somewhere by 2020 to bring their average down.

I'm not sure they can spend over the cap, unless they rolled available cap space over from a previous year. Meaning, if you used all your cap in 2017, you can't exceed the Cap in 2018 and then under spend in 2019 to bring it back down. The under spending in a year allows you to roll available cap space into the next year, which then allows you to appear to exceed the salary cap, but you're really only playing catch up.

 

[ksg811]

Excellent answer. It also means teams can spend over the cap as well. If you look at San Fran, their current active spending is $178 million which is over the $177 cap and they will also need to sign their draft picks. It only means they will have to spend under the cap somewhere by 2020 to bring their average down.

This is incorrect. You can not spend over the cap, ever. What you can do, is spend more than the cap in cash. That is the discrepancy. The minimum requirements are based off actual cash spending, not cap spending. Cash =/= Cap.

 

[Bohuntr97]

You might be right, San Fran was well below last year which means they spend above this year.

 

[windward]

This is incorrect. You can not spend over the cap, ever. What you can do, is spend more than the cap in cash. That is the discrepancy. The minimum requirements are based off actual cash spending, not cap spending. Cash =/= Cap.

You can’t spend more than your adjusted cap. The base cap, sure.

 

[Bohuntr97]

This is incorrect. You can not spend over the cap, ever. What you can do, is spend more than the cap in cash. That is the discrepancy. The minimum requirements are based off actual cash spending, not cap spending. Cash =/= Cap.

Exactly, San Fran. has 178 mill in active spending (cash spending) which is more than the $177 hard cap. They can do so because their cash spending in 2017 was $100 mill.

 

[ksg811]

Exactly, San Fran. has 178 mill in active spending (cash spending) which is more than the $177 hard cap. They can do so because their cash spending in 2017 was $100 mill.

It doesn't really have anything to do with how much they have or haven't spent in previous years. A team could theoretically overspend the cap on cash every year and stay under the salary cap year after year. Cash accounting and cap accounting are separate. They have little to do with each other.

 

[glimmerman]

I just took a look at the remaining cap space of all the teams, it is a lot of $.
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/
Assuming the list is up-to-date, there are teams that must spent $.

For example, if the Browns carried forward all their rollover from 2017, they are $68 million under the cap.
Does anyone understand the NFL minimum cash spending requirements?
I am guessing some of these teams HAVE to spend their money.

They always get like the first pick of the draft and bring in some descent players and still have 68 mil. Crazy.

 

[Nightman]

A poster above was talking about our own FA, what we have 10 or more, with some already gone. No way in h--- you bring them all back, you are just setting yourself up for repeat failure. So that money should go to try something different and bring in better personnel. If you know the outcome before it happens why repeat it.

The idea is to spend more cash than cap to get more bang for the buck
Instead we spend more cap than cash and get less

Our top guys are all being accounted for OVER their base salary or at all of it
TSmith.....12m APY..............17m cap hit................141%
DLaw........17 APY.................17m cap hit................100%
Dez......... 14m APY.............16.5m cap hit.............118%
ZMartin......9.3m APY.............9.3m cap hit.............100%
DIrving....... 2.9m APY...........2.9m cap hit...............100%
SLee...............7m APY.............11m cap hit................157%
TCrawford......9m APY..............9m cap hit................100%

That is 83m in cap hits that could be 48m but we want to pay more when the cap is lower so we get less purchasing power......35m wasted

Only one below is TFRed at 9m APY and 6m cap hit ...........67%

And the peanut gallery around here all complain about Dead Money
We are intentionally over paying 35m on just these guys ......that is just taking Dead Money 5 years earlier and doing it on purpose