Hobson - only $15 million of cap to work with?

[J24]

So it's 14 mill right since the cap came in a million less than expected.

[Joelist]

(03-01-2017, 05:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I went to the link and did not see these numbers you are calling "total cap" and "adjusted cap"

If you want to make a point you should do the math and show what you mean.  What is the difference between "total cap" and "adjusted cap".

I am not trying to argue just to argue.  I just want to see the math.  If the Bengals cap goes up due to rollover then that rollover continues each year.  Otherwise there would be zero roll over as soon as the Bengals did not use all of their previous cap space.  That is what Whatever originally said, and that just is not true.

Prorating bonus money has nothing to do with skimming because the Bengals have already paid that money.  What money are you claiming they are "not paying the players"?

The numbers are in a summary at the bottom of the page. What they show when viewed year over year is interesting.

Basically, between 2014-2016 the Bengals have had to carry some dead cap each year - it's averaged in the 4 mil range. Even accounting for that money which they cannot spend, they wound up around 10 million under the cap in 2014 and about 7 million under in each of the next two years. Now if you look at it without the rollover money, it is closer. In that case 2014 is about 2 million under, 2015 is about 800K over and 2016 is about 400K over.

So, if you don't regard rollover as "real" money the cap spending statements make sense. If you do regard them as real money then the Bengals are not spending up to their cap.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-01-2017, 07:18 PM)Joelist Wrote: The numbers are in a summary at the bottom of the page. What they show when viewed year over year is interesting.

Basically, between 2014-2016 the Bengals have had to carry some dead cap each year - it's averaged in the 4 mil range. Even accounting for that money which they cannot spend, they wound up around 10 million under the cap in 2014 and about 7 million under in each of the next two years. Now if you look at it without the rollover money, it is closer. In that case 2014 is about 2 million under, 2015 is about 800K over and 2016 is about 400K over.

So, if you don't regard rollover as "real" money the cap spending statements make sense. If you do regard them as real money then the Bengals are not spending up to their cap.

I'm going to ask you to do the same as I asked Fred. Total the league salary cap from 2012-2016, total the Bengals adjusted cap from 2012-2016, and total the Bengals total cap from 2012-2016. 

Tell me what you notice about those three figures and tell me why you think there is a discrepancy. 

[Ricky Spanish]

Basically admitting they won't do a damn thing to keep our own or build through free agency

[BengalFanInNJ]

I think cutting Maualuga and Jones will enable the Bengals to give Zeitler, Kirk, Whit and Burkhead what they want to stay. They may have to get a tad creative, but they can do it and still rollover money for 2018.

[Joelist]

(03-01-2017, 07:28 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm going to ask you to do the same as I asked Fred. Total the league salary cap from 2012-2016, total the Bengals adjusted cap from 2012-2016, and total the Bengals total cap from 2012-2016. 

Tell me what you notice about those three figures and tell me why you think there is a discrepancy. 

Why would I want to do this? I just provided some raw data.

Over the last three years the Bengals have been carrying between 4-5 million in dead cap. Then again they have also been consistently rolling over around 8 million each year. Make of it what you will.

[Bengalholic]

(03-01-2017, 02:34 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The Bengals are rolling over $6.6 million, but they have squandered roughly $37 million of their adjusted salary. Because the salary cap allows them to prorate the money over future years. By not paying that money to the players, where do you think it ends up? In their pockets. They're skimming. It's salary cap three card Monty. 

Every team pays signing bonuses up front, and then prorates the amount (as a cap hit) over the course of the contract, up to a max of 5 years. The more creative teams also use things such as the 'miscellaneous bonus' - which can also be paid up front and then prorated, in addition to the signing bonus. 

[*ochocincos*]

(03-01-2017, 07:28 PM)Ricky Spanish Wrote: Basically admitting they won't do a damn thing to keep our own or build through free agency

Don't worry, Peerman will be back! And TJ Johnson!

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-01-2017, 08:01 PM)Joelist Wrote: Why would I want to do this? I just provided some raw data.

Over the last three years the Bengals have been carrying between 4-5 million in dead cap. Then again they have also been consistently rolling over around 8 million each year. Make of it what you will.

Because the salary cap roll over era began after the new CBA and looking at two seasons which fit Fred's narrative instead of the total picture is myopic and misleading. If you or Fred do what I ask you'll notice a roughly $37 million discrepancy between what the Bengals spent and what they could have spent. Not the $6-8 million the Bengals won't use annually because there is a cumulative affect. 

So why is there a $37 million discrepancy?  If the players aren't getting that money and the Bengals aren't pocketing it, then where is the money going?

[Joelist]

Please note I am not taking a side, also that I pulled in three years not two.

The reason I pulled what I did was not to take a side, just to provide some context. For example, dead cap money CANNOT be spent by the team. On the other hand, rollover can be so spent. Additionally, once spent a rollover dollar is gone - it doesn't come back.

So....


Each year the Bengals rollover money they obviously did not spend to their adjusted (Base plus rollover) cap. Now because dead money counts towards the cap it also cuts the rollover to a future year. So let's set up an example:

The base cap is 150 million

The rollover from the prior season is 10 million

However, they are also carrying 5 million in dead money that counts against the cap.

In this scenario, the total cap is 160 million, out of which they can actually spend up to 155 million. If they actually do spend up to 155 million, then they could rollover the unspent 5 million to the next year (weird yes but because of the way cap is calculated it is how it works). If they spent less than 155 million, say 150 million - then even though they are 5 million "under the cap" they can rollover up to the 10 million difference between what they spent and their total cap.

What does this all mean?

Basically that if you want to see if a team is "pocketing" money, you need to compare the rollover to the dead money. If the rollover is higher then they are "pocketing" (a better term is not spending up to the cap) money. If it is not higher than they are spending up to the cap.

[McC]

(03-02-2017, 10:59 AM)ochocincos Wrote: Don't worry, Peerman will be back! And TJ Johnson!

Peerman is usually the first one signed.  I must say, though, his absence this year proved his worth.

[THE PISTONS]

This was a great blurb:

"Denver could be another team to watch out for as they need help up and down their offensive line. Joseph obviously knows what Zeitler brings to the table after both were in Cincinnati from 2014-15, which is also the case with Burke in Miami.

It helps that both teams are also projected to have $40-plus million in cap space this offseason. That makes them very dangerous teams who could be poised to lure Zeitler away from Cincinnati."

http://www.cincyjungle.com/2017/3/1/14779468/kevin-zeitler-cream-crop-free-agent-guards-reportedly-10-million-annually

Note: In the list of cap space...the Bengals are sandwiched between the Dolphins and Broncos. Yet those teams both are being portrayed as having the money to sign Zeitler and the Bengals...are not.

[fredtoast]

(03-01-2017, 07:28 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm going to ask you to do the same as I asked Fred. Total the league salary cap from 2012-2016, total the Bengals adjusted cap from 2012-2016, and total the Bengals total cap from 2012-2016. 

Tell me what you notice about those three figures and tell me why you think there is a discrepancy. 

Just curious, but are you unable to do math for yourself?

If you have a point why don't you tell us?

[fredtoast]

(03-01-2017, 07:02 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If I do the math for you, you're only going to dispute the numbers so there is no point. 

I dispute a lot of opinions, but it is impossible for me to dispute the total that numbers add up to.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-02-2017, 06:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just curious, but are you unable to do math for yourself?

If you have a point why don't you tell us?

I ask you to do one ***** thing to avoid your inevitable argument and you're arguing about doing that one ***** thing. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-02-2017, 06:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I dispute a lot of opinions, but it is impossible for me to dispute the total that numbers add up to.

They spent approximately $37 million less than their adjusted cap since 2012. So where did the money go?

[fredtoast]

(03-02-2017, 07:30 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: They spent approximately $37 million less than their adjusted cap since 2012. So where did the money go?

They had some dead money each year and rolled over about 7 million of it to this season.  So you are just talking about 3 million or so a year which works out to about 2 percent of the cap.

I doubt you can find a single team that has used 100% of its cap space every year.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-03-2017, 11:28 AM)fredtoast Wrote: They had some dead money each year and rolled over about 7 million of it to this season.  So you are just talking about 3 million or so a year which works out to about 2 percent of the cap.

I doubt you can find a single team that has used 100% of its cap space every year.

The dead money is accounted for. If you had figured it out for yourself like I asked you would know that and wouldn't argue the point. If the $37 million of adjusted cap space wasn't used (and that figure doesn't include the rollover to 2017) where did the unused money go?

How could they under spend by $37 million if they roll over the unused cap every season? Especially when you claimed they are using it because the rollover amount decreased. 

Also, the amount of unused adjusted salary cap increases every year. Next year, it will probably be approximately $42 million. 

[fredtoast]

(03-03-2017, 11:46 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The dead money is accounted for. If you had figured it out for yourself like I asked you would know that and wouldn't argue the point. If the $37 million of adjusted cap space wasn't used (and that figure doesn't include the rollover to 2017) where did the unused money go?

How could they under spend by $37 million if they roll over the unused cap every season? Especially when you claimed they are using it because the rollover amount decreased. 

I don't understand these numbers at all.  for example it shows that for 2012 the Bengals spent ($115.6 million) only about 5 million less than their adjusted cap ($120.6 million) but the nest year it shows them rolling over $8 million plus another $2 million "adjustment" to the cap in addition to the rollover money.

How does that work?  How can they roll over 8 million when they only spent 5 million under tha cap?  and where does the other $2 million "adjustment" come from.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-03-2017, 12:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't understand these numbers at all.  for example it shows that for 2012 the Bengals spent ($115.6 million) only about 5 million less than their adjusted cap ($120.6 million) but the nest year it shows them rolling over $8 million plus another $2 million "adjustment" to the cap in addition to the rollover money.

How does that work?  How can they roll over 8 million when they only spent 5 million under tha cap?  and where does the other $2 million "adjustment" come from.

You know what?  That doesn't make any sense.  The Bengals could roll over less than what they had left at the end of 2012, but more?  How the hell could they roll over more than what they had left over?  When I tried to figure it out I uncovered other mathematical errors on their part.  I can't explain it.  Their figures are wrong or there is a piece of information that I'm missing to explain the difference.

If anything, I think this exercise proves spotrac's numbers aren't worth a damn and don't trust their math. 

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddgggggggggggggeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just disregard everything I wrote because it was based upon spotrac's numbers which I can no longer trust. I sure as hell ain't writing them for an explanation.