Salary Cap / Trade Question

[Vinnie2u]

Why would we let Murray go because of economics... Then pick up Forte.. To me it don't make sense..

 

[darthseinfeld]

Why would we let Murray go because of economics... Then pick up Forte.. To me it don't make sense..

Guarenteed long term money

 

[jrumann59]

Why would we let Murray go because of economics... Then pick up Forte.. To me it don't make sense..

Forte is a 1 year rental as opposed to 4-5 year hamstring that murray would have been.

 

[Nightman]

Forte is a 1 year rental as opposed to 4-5 year hamstring that murray would have been.

Murray's deal is 3 years at worst

He will be Forte in 4 years

 

[tyke1doe]

I'd prefer to make due with what we have or get a back off the scrap pile (cuts, free agency) then draft Ezekiel Elliott or Derek Henry next year.

 

[Temo]

If teams wanted to do that, they would just give him a signing bonus equal to the amount that the original team was going to pay.

In your scenario, the Bears would be paying 3M (the signing bonus). They Bears would also have 1M in dead-money from his current contract.

I'm surprised this does not happen more (or ever) because it would allow bad teams with large amounts of cap space to get back better draft picks then they would get by just a straight trade.

If the Bears could get a 4th for Forte in a straight up trade, then they could probably bump that to a 3rd if they were going to pick up a significant amount of the cost.

I don't see the Cowboy really wanting to trade a higher draft pick for cap relief at this point. Their cap is in good shape and the higher pick in theory will eventually result in cap savings because the player drafted with that pick (assuming 4th round pick or higher) should eventually replace a more expensive veteran.

I mean, the benefit of draft picks is that they're cheap talent. So trading cap space for draft picks seems like a net neutral outcome.

 

[Sandyf]

As the cap goes, Dallas would be responsible for his $7 mil salary unless they signed him to an extension and then the money would probably change. The question is why would they? Forte is 29 and will turn 30 in December of 2015. If we did trade for him, I think it unlikely, then I would doubt we would redo the contract as we have enough cap room to absorb him at the $7 mil price. Frankly, I see Randle and McFadden as the guys this year although if injuries happen then it is possible a trade could go down but I would think it would be for a younger guy like K. Robinson out of New Orleans. I see us drafting a RB early in 2016 but then again I thought this was the year we would draft Romo's eventual replacement and that didn't happen.

 

[xwalker]

I mean, the benefit of draft picks is that they're cheap talent. So trading cap space for draft picks seems like a net neutral outcome.

Not a one time 3M number. There is a good chance the 3rd round pick saves way more than that over the span of his rookie deal relative to a quality veteran.

Hitchens a 4th rounder made Carter expendable. That saves over 3.5M per year for the next 3 years for over 10M of savings.

If Green replaces Free next year that would save over 4M per year.

 

[Temo]

Not a one time 3M number. There is a good chance the 3rd round pick saves way more than that over the span of his rookie deal relative to a quality veteran.

Hitchens a 4th rounder made Carter expendable. That saves over 3.5M per year for the next 3 years for over 10M of savings.

If Green replaces Free next year that would save over 4M per year.

hmmm, so I guess you could say the value in that kind of trade is this:

Team A is up against the cap and wants to win today. They trade a draft pick for a player whose salary is put into bonus.

Team B has tons of cap room and wants to build for the future. They give a veteran a solid signing bonus, then trade him for a draft pick.

Lets say the player gets $3M in signing bonus eaten by Team B and the draft pick is worth, on average, $6M in value over the life of a rookie contract.

 

[Stash]

I don't mind a deal for Forte, only if it does not cost too high of a pick. You're question is a good one, a deal could be done, and appease all involved. It depends on how much of a cap hit the Bears would take compared what they may get in return.
But for Dallas, I would not base any trades because we get compensatory picks, as those are yet to be determined. It's like gambling, we can do this because we may get a 3rd, but it could also be a 6th.

If they trade a 3rd, thinking they will have a 3rd in a comp pick, and can still get a RB for the future. That pick may not be there. But I would hope they would use a 2nd for a sure pick to play now. But then why pay Forte a big contract if it came to that. Seems a high price to pay for a RB for a year or 2, which is why they did not pay Murray. But if averages 4 mil or so, not bad.

However the window is also now, and a sure RB now helps get to the goal this year and next. So could be very well worth a deal.

That was precisely my thinking. Trading for Forte now gives you a proven veteran for a run this year and an option for next year. You would of course still draft one in 2016 - I like Elliott - and have the option to keep a proven commodity as well at a reasonable rate.

From the Bears perspective, the would essentially be buying a better draft pick in return for Forte as, let's face it, their 2015 season is over before its started. They'll be spending the next two to three years paying for the sins of the past regime and can use all of the draft picks they can get.

 

[Stash]

Not a one time 3M number. There is a good chance the 3rd round pick saves way more than that over the span of his rookie deal relative to a quality veteran.

Hitchens a 4th rounder made Carter expendable. That saves over 3.5M per year for the next 3 years for over 10M of savings.

If Green replaces Free next year that would save over 4M per year.

Right, but then you factor in the potential upside in having a proven commodity and top 10 running back for what you feel can be a championship run.

 

[ConstantReboot]

Although Forte would be nice to have as a RB here in Dallas I just don't think its going to happen.

In my opinion, Dallas doesn't want to spend big money on a runningback. Its not that our group of RBs are talented which I really don't think thats they think that way as well. Its because they want to more frugal with the cap and don't want to overspend on a position that can easily be filled.

Thats why a veteran runningback hasn't been signed yet. Dallas are going after the bargain basement runningbacks. If a good deal is not there, they will stick with what they have now.

 

[jazzcat22]

That was precisely my thinking. Trading for Forte now gives you a proven veteran for a run this year and an option for next year. You would of course still draft one in 2016 - I like Elliott - and have the option to keep a proven commodity as well at a reasonable rate.

From the Bears perspective, the would essentially be buying a better draft pick in return for Forte as, let's face it, their 2015 season is over before its started. They'll be spending the next two to three years paying for the sins of the past regime and can use all of the draft picks they can get.

I would love it if they could get Elliott.

 

[xwalker]

Right, but then you factor in the potential upside in having a proven commodity and top 10 running back for what you feel can be a championship run.

That's why you give up the 4th straight up for Forte instead of giving up the 3rd to get them to pay 3M. I forget the exact numbers, but IIRC the historic probability of getting a starter in the 3rd is over 10x the probability of getting one in the 4th.

 

[xwalker]

hmmm, so I guess you could say the value in that kind of trade is this:

Team A is up against the cap and wants to win today. They trade a draft pick for a player whose salary is put into bonus.

Team B has tons of cap room and wants to build for the future. They give a veteran a solid signing bonus, then trade him for a draft pick.

Lets say the player gets $3M in signing bonus eaten by Team B and the draft pick is worth, on average, $6M in value over the life of a rookie contract.

Yes, if I were managing one of those bad teams that had a ton of cap space, I would try to find a way to "buy" draft picks for cap space. A team like Jacksonville could even sign a free agent and then trade him to a team that didn't have enough cap space to sign the free agent and Jax would get a draft pick relative to how much bonus money they absorbed.

If cap space didn't roll over, I think we would see this happen on a regular basis. If Jax had cap space that could just go to waste otherwise, they might be motivated to pay significant money in a deal that would result in getting draft picks back. In reality, the fact the cap space does roll over means that bad teams probably see themselves eventually using the cap space. The other issue is that is requires not only cap space but also real money and a team like Jax probably doesn't have much extra real money to spare.

 

[Temo]

Yes, if I were managing one of those bad teams that had a ton of cap space, I would try to find a way to "buy" draft picks for cap space. A team like Jacksonville could even sign a free agent and then trade him to a team that didn't have enough cap space to sign the free agent and Jax would get a draft pick relative to how much bonus money they absorbed.

If cap space didn't roll over, I think we would see this happen on a regular basis. If Jax had cap space that could just go to waste otherwise, they might be motivated to pay significant money in a deal that would result in getting draft picks back. In reality, the fact the cap space does roll over means that bad teams probably see themselves eventually using the cap space. The other issue is that is requires not only cap space but also real money and a team like Jax probably doesn't have much extra real money to spare.

One possible barrier that I see to this by the way is that teams that trade draft picks to let other teams burn cap space might have trouble meeting minimum spending requirements.

For example the Cowboys before this past preseason were on the list of teams who had to spend big money this year and next to get above the minimum spending cap. This despite the fact that they're routinely spending up to the salary cap. Why? Because pro-rated amounts from before the 2011 season ate away at cap space but did not count as "new money" spent by the team. I could see teams that let other teams dole out the big singing bonuses have trouble meeting this minimum cap spend.

Here's the list of the teams (before this past preseason) who have to spend to reach the minimum floor:

New Money to be spend in next 2 years 2015 Projected Cap Space

Raiders $157,925,758 $59.9M

Panthers $149,564,081 $57.9M

Jaguars $132,624,833 $69M

Jets $123,995,341 $50.6M

Chargers $117,819,578 $26.2M

Cowboys $115,744,199 $7.1M

Colts $111,571,762 $41.9M

Giants $109,191,935 $13.3M

Titans $97,613,136 $47.1M

Steelers $96,508,622 $8M

Texans $89,685,111 $19.2M

Commanders $89,941,915 $26.4M

Patriots $85,152,744 -$11.7M

Bills $82,496,413 $17.5M

Bengals $79,789,965 $40M

Browns $71,183,294 $53.6M

Ravens $69,310,340 $4.7M

Lions $64,880,927 $18.9M

Buccaneers $57,882,078 $34M

Cardinals $51,610,417 $14M

Chiefs $48,115,622 -$5.2M

Seahawks $44,003,156 $25M

Rams $38,199,740 $7.5M

Bears $37,729,395 $29.1M

Eagles $33,753,148 $32.8M

Broncos $32,150,245 $20.6M

Vikings $29,350,918 $26M

Falcons $29,177,921 $31.3M

Saints $24,137,176 -$21.8M

Packers $23,317,252 $32.6M

Dolphins $10,167,523 $10.1M


49ers $7,283,654 $5.2M

 

[xwalker]

One possible barrier that I see to this by the way is that teams that trade draft picks to let other teams burn cap space might have trouble meeting minimum spending requirements.

For example the Cowboys before this past preseason were on the list of teams who had to spend big money this year and next to get above the minimum spending cap. This despite the fact that they're routinely spending up to the salary cap. Why? Because pro-rated amounts from before the 2011 season ate away at cap space but did not count as "new money" spent by the team. I could see teams that let other teams dole out the big singing bonuses have trouble meeting this minimum cap spend.

Here's the list of the teams (before this past preseason) who have to spend to reach the minimum floor:

New Money to be spend in next 2 years 2015 Projected Cap Space

Raiders $157,925,758 $59.9M

Panthers $149,564,081 $57.9M

Jaguars $132,624,833 $69M

Jets $123,995,341 $50.6M

Chargers $117,819,578 $26.2M

Cowboys $115,744,199 $7.1M

Colts $111,571,762 $41.9M

Giants $109,191,935 $13.3M

Titans $97,613,136 $47.1M

Steelers $96,508,622 $8M

Texans $89,685,111 $19.2M

Commanders $89,941,915 $26.4M

Patriots $85,152,744 -$11.7M

Bills $82,496,413 $17.5M

Bengals $79,789,965 $40M

Browns $71,183,294 $53.6M

Ravens $69,310,340 $4.7M

Lions $64,880,927 $18.9M

Buccaneers $57,882,078 $34M

Cardinals $51,610,417 $14M

Chiefs $48,115,622 -$5.2M

Seahawks $44,003,156 $25M

Rams $38,199,740 $7.5M

Bears $37,729,395 $29.1M

Eagles $33,753,148 $32.8M

Broncos $32,150,245 $20.6M

Vikings $29,350,918 $26M

Falcons $29,177,921 $31.3M

Saints $24,137,176 -$21.8M

Packers $23,317,252 $32.6M

Dolphins $10,167,523 $10.1M


49ers $7,283,654 $5.2M

The bonus money would hit the cap that year and would count against the minimum spend that year so it should actually help the team meet minimum spend. It would not prorate so it shouldn't cause a problem in the future.

I have not spent much time thinking about minimum spend but that's my take on it.

I think those reports of the Cowboys having issues with the minimum spend where false alarms, IIRC.