Seahawks & the NFL (Not For Long)

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
Re: Seahawks & the NFL (Not For Long)
Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:04 pm
  • I could very well be mistaken but it was my understanding that the signing bonus does not count against the cap, and we have the richest owner in the league if they want to keep Sherm or anyone else they will.
    User avatar
    General Manager
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2260
    Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:04 pm


Re: Seahawks & the NFL (Not For Long)
Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:08 pm
  • I think the signing bonus is spread out throughout the life of the contract if I'm not mistaken.
    Zebulon Dak wrote:If any Twitter employees get assassinated I'll vote Republican from here on out.
    User avatar
    OkieHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2479
    Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:48 pm
    Location: Oklahoma City


Re: Seahawks & the NFL (Not For Long)
Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:31 pm
  • The signing bonus doesn't count against the cap for a given year i read then gets spread out, i think i'll leave the salary cap to people who get paid to know how it works because i really have no idea. What i do know is teams find ways around it.
    User avatar
    General Manager
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2260
    Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:04 pm


Re: Seahawks & the NFL (Not For Long)
Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:36 pm
  • The salary cap can only fit so many players, we can't keep Chris Clemons, Red Bryant, Max Unger, Kam Chancellor, Brandon Mebane, Red Bryant, and everyone else who has gotten paid, and still pay, or reup Russell Wilson, Earl Thomas, Russell Okung, etc etc. John Schneider said there are going to be some tough decisions to make and Richard Sherman will probably value out right at 11-12 million per year when his new contract comes up. As much as I'd love to keep him, he's just not going to fit under the salary cap unless we cut some of those people who are getting paid now.
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Nobody *
     
    Posts: 8706
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


Re: Seahawks & the NFL (Not For Long)
Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:15 am
  • HawkWow wrote:It is clear the league is changing and the Seattle Seahawks is changing with it. You can see it across the board in this 2013 draft.

    I believe the rookie cap will be the ultimate un-doing of fan favorites & beloved vets. I predict in another 10 years (or less), only QBs will be making the obscene money many vets (Revis) enjoy today. Vets will be forced to settle for 'realistic' money, or they will be replaced with 2nd or 3rd year men (and so on). If all owners play this the same way (and they will) the public won't even detect a drop off.

    Strikes, threats of strikes and hold outs, have seen the owners feet held to the fire for many years. Now, the writing is on the wall and the owners will surely get the last laugh (the rich always get richer).

    Sooner than later, we will see this up close and personal with our beloved Seattle Seahawks. Most are not going to appreciate it when this reality hits home (Sherman). This is what I'm seeing, but I'd actually like to be wrong, so your (intelligent) counters will be welcomed & appreciated.

    Salary cap, rookie cap, free agency were all designed to destroy good teams and reward bad teams. It's the way the whole thing is designed. It's a spread the wealth, and give everybody a chance kind of plan. It does make the game exciting and irritating at the same time. Bottom feeder teams like the Rams and Arizona can go from zero to hero in a season or two, instead of half a decade like the old times when Landry, Shula, and Chuck Knox coached. I think it's a good thing, keeps every fan engaged because you hit that Russell wilson draft pick and your year just went from 8-8 to 11-5, that quick. Makes coaching and being a front office guy that much more difficult. But if you have a good staff on the coaching and the front office, all you need is a slight edge and you pretty much have the conference to yourself.
    Giedi
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 334
    Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 5:03 am


Re: Seahawks & the NFL (Not For Long)
Mon Apr 29, 2013 9:20 am
  • "The players will form their own league before this would ever happen. It is only a matter of time before they figure out that they don't need owners. These are grown men. They are the product. We will watch them. They don't need to be "owned" by anybody. With as popular as football is, and as much money as we pay to watch and collect garb, the last thing the players need is some rich guy to take half off the top"

    Wow. Really?

    So, these players are going to pool their money (many of whom end up bankrupt after their playing days and making millions) and build new stadiums, spend the money to set up a new league, et al ? Where are fans going to watch these "player only" games, the street ? The sandlot ? Some random high school or college rented out ? People will really pay for that ? Do you have any idea how much new state of the art stadiums cost, with today's labor rates ? A minimum of 800 million and closer to a billion. It's like 10% of the salary cap for a third the teams in the league, for ONE stadium. Do the math.

    Like others said, rich people get richer because of financial savvy. Not just from already having money, but knowing what to do with it. This league had to start out with a bunch of rich guys, because no one could've funded what they had to put out.
    Hawks46
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3733
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm


Re: Seahawks & the NFL (Not For Long)
Mon Apr 29, 2013 11:00 am
  • While there will be a correction, which we're witnessing now, I don't think it's really going to be that different from the past. Bad teams will still overpay to get better, good teams will let good players walk to keep their core together. For the Seahawks, whether it's possible to keep Sherman as part of that core remains to be seen. However, on the OP's point about how it seems only the elite QBs are getting the obscene money, and the owners are playing along, I think that's caused by multiple temporary factors, which will even out and then be back to normal, possibly as soon as next year.

    1. The salary cap has been flat. Many teams would have budgeted for the roughly $5-7 million per year increase that had been happening during the 2000s. The fact that the salary cap effectively went down in 2010, and has only crawled up 3 million in two years since leaves a lot of teams in a tight spot with existing contracts that didn't get the cap relief they would have expected when deals were initially signed. That means more teams are having to cut existing veterans, restructure, or sign free agents at deals that may be less than perceived market value. Having super cheap rookies is certainly a good short term fix for them as well. I believe 2014 is when the new TV contract will hit, so who knows what that will do to the cap. Regardless, I think you're seeing teams take a more conservative approach on future expenditures given we're stuck in a period of little growth, which will change when teams have a better idea of what the cap will look like 5 years down the road.

    2. The salary cap floor starts this year, sort of. My understanding of the current CBA's floor is that it's a rolling floor of 89% spread over 4 years. So technically teams can be short this, or next, or the year after, but at some point over the next 4 years they're going to have to spend that money somewhere so that they average 89% over that period. Since rookies are now limited, vets will have to get that money, though you might still see shorter term contracts rather than the long term ridiculous deals of the past that had no chance of being fully paid.

    3. While I'm not sure Smith is to blame for a bad CBA (as I'm not really sure it's a bad deal in the existing economy), the fact the NFLPA agreed to the sanctions against the Redskins and Cowboys was certainly against their best interest. If there are two owners who are going to ignore conventional spending wisdom and artificially inflate the value of veterans, it's Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones. The fact that those organizations had their knees cut out from under them for the past two seasons went a long to way in my opinion to reducing crazy veteran contracts. And with the death of Al Davis, I think that took the third overspending owner out of the picture. Without a few outliers that agents can play off of, I think that leads to the smaller deals the vets are seeing now. You still had some teams giving big contracts to mediocre players (see Indy), but for the most part the competitive teams were able to sit back and let the market come to them. Next year, when the Redskins and Cowboys can really wheel and deal again, I think that will change.

    I may be wrong, but I think we'll see a return to normalcy (or depending on perspective, insanity) on the contracts starting next year when the teams can better gauge the future. Rookies are still just that, teams win with a core of veterans, and free agency will still allow for those veterans to choose the highest bidder.
    Hawkeye Rob
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 2
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:04 am


Re: Seahawks & the NFL (Not For Long)
Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:05 pm
  • General Manager wrote:The signing bonus doesn't count against the cap for a given year i read then gets spread out, i think i'll leave the salary cap to people who get paid to know how it works because i really have no idea. What i do know is teams find ways around it.


    Signing bonuses are spread out as long as the player is on the team per terms of his contract. The share of that money he makes each year DOES count against the cap. So if he gets a 10 million dollar singing bonus on a 5 year contract, that's 2 million dollars towards the cap each year, plus whatever his base salary is proportioned over those years. If you cut a player before the end of his contract, remaining bonus money counts immediately towards the cap. So if you take my above example and cut a player after 3 years, you take an immediate 4 million dollar cap hit. Every dollar made by a player counts towards the cap at some point by whatever team owns your contract.

    I may not have that exactly right, but i think it's close.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3341
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: Seahawks & the NFL (Not For Long)
Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:46 pm
  • There are two major issues here:

    1) Total dollars spent on player salaries.
    2) How those dollars are allocated over each teams' roster.

    As has been mentioned there's a minimum and a maximum amount that can be spent each year. The system has built in flexibility on both ends with the ability to spend over or under in any given year, but ultimately net out over time. We are all familiar with teams that end up in salary cap hell via 'dead money', etc. The new wrinkle will be a few teams struggling to meet the minimum expenditure on salaries or face stiff fines. As with any business, the well run franchises will use the rules to their advantage, the poorly run franchises will struggle and negatively impact the entire league. It won't just be the 'over spenders' producing distorted contracts, the 'under spenders' will do the same to avoid falling below the minimum and incurring fines.

    You can tweak the rules to encourage franchises to make good decisions, but Front Offices are just as subject to a bell curve of talent as the players on the field. The key argument boils down to what percentage of revenue is allocated to players. As with any business this percentage will change over time, but will be checked by market forces. Just as players won't work for wages they don't feel are commensurate to their skills, neither will the Front Office or Owners.

    The argument that players will found their own league shows a lack of critical thinking. Their talent is playing the game not running a business. That's not to say that a rival league (with new owners) isn't a legitimate threat, but the barrier to entry is very high. The real threat is losing talent to other sports e.g. I'll take 10 million a year as a pitcher if I can only make 5 million being a quarterback. As a result the quality of product declines and owners see declining revenues.

    As for how the salaries are allocated by position, it's all about perceived value. Quarterbacks get big money, because they have the largest impact on a team. It's hard to watch NFLN or ESPN and not hear the mantra of 'this is a passing league', any wonder the passers are raking it in? As rules and strategies change over time so will the impact/reward equation.
    User avatar
    Osprey
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 210
    Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:06 pm
    Location: Portland Oregon


Re: Seahawks & the NFL (Not For Long)
Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:26 pm
  • I really think that more QBs will go the way of Tom Brady, and sign for tens of millions, but not a contract that will limit the organization from building a better team. That's one of the reasons the patriots have such a great offensive line, and such a high win % over the last decade.

    We can hope, right?

    I believe that teams with winning models will set the tone for the future, and if you're spending over a fourth of the salary cap on one player, you're not going to win for long.
    xtm059
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 15
    Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 8:45 am


Re: Seahawks & the NFL (Not For Long)
Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:27 pm
  • General Manager wrote:The signing bonus doesn't count against the cap for a given year i read then gets spread out, i think i'll leave the salary cap to people who get paid to know how it works because i really have no idea. What i do know is teams find ways around it.

    Might I suggest a userid change then?

    No sense masquerading as something that you're not.
    your Superbowl XLVIII Champion Seattle Seahawks.. how sweet is that!!
    User avatar
    onanygivensunday
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3104
    Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:59 am


Re: Seahawks & the NFL (Not For Long)
Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:34 pm
  • Basis4day wrote:
    General Manager wrote:The signing bonus doesn't count against the cap for a given year i read then gets spread out, i think i'll leave the salary cap to people who get paid to know how it works because i really have no idea. What i do know is teams find ways around it.


    Signing bonuses are spread out as long as the player is on the team per terms of his contract. The share of that money he makes each year DOES count against the cap. So if he gets a 10 million dollar singing bonus on a 5 year contract, that's 2 million dollars towards the cap each year, plus whatever his base salary is proportioned over those years. If you cut a player before the end of his contract, remaining bonus money counts immediately towards the cap. So if you take my above example and cut a player after 3 years, you take an immediate 4 million dollar cap hit. Every dollar made by a player counts towards the cap at some point by whatever team owns your contract.

    I may not have that exactly right, but i think it's close.


    No the signing bonus can be applied to a different year than the year it's signed that's one of the ways they circumvent the Salary cap . It still counts but not on that years cap .
    User avatar
    General Manager
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2260
    Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:04 pm


Re: Seahawks & the NFL (Not For Long)
Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:16 pm
  • ivotuk wrote:The salary cap can only fit so many players, we can't keep Chris Clemons, Red Bryant, Max Unger, Kam Chancellor, Brandon Mebane, Red Bryant, and everyone else who has gotten paid, and still pay, or reup Russell Wilson, Earl Thomas, Russell Okung, etc etc. John Schneider said there are going to be some tough decisions to make and Richard Sherman will probably value out right at 11-12 million per year when his new contract comes up. As much as I'd love to keep him, he's just not going to fit under the salary cap unless we cut some of those people who are getting paid now.


    I would say goodbye to every one of those guys if it meant retaining Sherman along with Wilson, Okung and Thomas. I don't think it's going to be as dramatic as that though. Clem, and Mebane's contracts should run off in time to re-up Wilson and Sherman, and Red's contract is set up in such a way that it'll cost nothing to release him to free up cap space (so you know he'll restructure).

    Our guys are CRAZY smart that way. They've set it up so the current "stars" contracts are all running off as the next crop of "stars" big boy deals are coming up. Look at their contract deets on Rotoworld, all the really big contracts on the books now (less Kam and Percy's new deals) run out in either 2015 or 2016; the time the next crop is due to hit their paydays (Sherm and ET in 2015, RW and Okung in 2016). Guys like Red, Rice, Zach and Marshawn will all be faced with a decision to re-up with the Hawks for much less money or hit the bricks. THOSE are the kind of familiar faces leaving town that they were talking about, not the young core. The rookie wage scale really helps us in that regard as guys like Sherman and Wilson are prohibited from holding out and demanding their pay day early, so it makes it much easier to schedule.

    Our FO is awesome and are setting this thing up for the long haul. I'm in absolute awe of these guys every day...
    Radish, check your PMs. Man upstairs has an invite for a tail gate up in heaven with your name on it.
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11430
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


Re: Seahawks & the NFL (Not For Long)
Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:48 pm
  • kearly wrote:Until there are 32 teams with coach/GMs that are on par with Carroll/Schneider, I don't really see teams having that much success and confidence in the draft to be so expenditure adverse.

    That plus, even Seattle spends their money. Every team has a lot of money to spend. Even after Baltimore bled out to sign Flacco, they still have 85% of their salary going to other players.


    Pretty much this, teams will continue to throw big dollar figures if they have the funds and even really good FO's, like ours, throw big money deals from time to time. Big money won't be gone if ever.
    Image
    User avatar
    Blitzer88
    * NET Eeyore *
     
    Posts: 11186
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:47 am
    Location: Pasco, WA


Re: Seahawks & the NFL (Not For Long)
Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:57 pm
  • General Manager wrote:
    Basis4day wrote:
    General Manager wrote:The signing bonus doesn't count against the cap for a given year i read then gets spread out, i think i'll leave the salary cap to people who get paid to know how it works because i really have no idea. What i do know is teams find ways around it.


    Signing bonuses are spread out as long as the player is on the team per terms of his contract. The share of that money he makes each year DOES count against the cap. So if he gets a 10 million dollar singing bonus on a 5 year contract, that's 2 million dollars towards the cap each year, plus whatever his base salary is proportioned over those years. If you cut a player before the end of his contract, remaining bonus money counts immediately towards the cap. So if you take my above example and cut a player after 3 years, you take an immediate 4 million dollar cap hit. Every dollar made by a player counts towards the cap at some point by whatever team owns your contract.

    I may not have that exactly right, but i think it's close.


    No the signing bonus can be applied to a different year than the year it's signed that's one of the ways they circumvent the Salary cap . It still counts but not on that years cap .


    I was speaking more in a general sense (10 mil evenly over a 5 year period), but any money spent in a signing bonus does need to be applied to the cap eventually. You can't for instance pay all your top players in signing bonuses and keep everyone if your pockets are deep enough. Eventually the money actually paid to a player must hit the cap. How it's spread out over a number of years is up to the team.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3341
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: Seahawks & the NFL (Not For Long)
Mon Apr 29, 2013 6:07 pm
  • Wow. I asked for intelligent counters (to my OP) and must say, some were too intelligent for me. Thanks for the great replies.

    One poster said he thought we'd see more vets going the way of Tom Brady's recent act of unselfishness. That was kinda where I was going with this thread and could have been a bit more elequent in conveying that. I say this because another poster asked "where do you think the vets will go"? Surely I didn't think the vets, after having their enormous demands declined, would be flipping burgers at Wendy's. But I do think more than a few will reduce their expectations to stay with a given team. If not, there is always another...until there's not.

    That echos the comment another poster made about (some) players wanting a championship as bad as money. We have benefitted from such a player (Bennett) this off-season and I think more will start falling in line with that mentality. I mean, once you have like 20 mil in the bank, you're a long way from the backwoods of Brazoria, Tx. Be grateful.

    It won't be as simple as the players revolting and "starting a new league". Vince McMahon attempted something like this..who's next...Don King? That would be the fast ticket to the Wendy's job, as another poster reminded us that "we support the team, not the player". Most of us, anyway.
    User avatar
    HawkWow
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5655
    Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:20 pm
    Location: The 5-0




It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 5:47 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information