2011 RULES: Salary Cap Structure and Flexibility

[Ben C.]

It's hypocritical imo and we should go exactly as the NFL goes.

The thing is that either of these numbers are exactly as the NFL goes. The NFL has given a cap number of $120 but then also has provided teams with ways of pushing that to $126.9. The debate here is not whether to follow the NFL but whether we want to go through all the hassle of having Troy program a way to account for the little rules that push it to $126.9. It seems to me and a significant majority of the other GMs that we should just go ahead with $126.9 because it is easier and still mirroring the NFL.

[Nathan S.]

It's hypocritical imo and we should go exactly as the NFL goes.

The thing is that either of these numbers are exactly as the NFL goes. The NFL has given a cap number of $120 but then also has provided teams with ways of pushing that to $126.9. The debate here is not whether to follow the NFL but whether we want to go through all the hassle of having Troy program a way to account for the little rules that push it to $126.9. It seems to me and a significant majority of the other GMs that we should just go ahead with $126.9 because it is easier and still mirroring the NFL.

Isn't it $120 plus 3 million you can borrow from a future year and then the following year 3 more $1.5 million add ons - minus the initial 3 million?

[Ulrich82]

Yeah. That is the point. Everyone says they want to mirror reality, but if we really want to be real, we should have a 120 mil cap with the option to borrow the money from future years. At least one of the two options to push the cap number up involve borrowing money from future seasons.

I am fine with people being to bump their cap up if they need it, but then I think they should have to pay the cap back, as real NFL teams will, and not all teams are going to want an extra 3 million this year.

[Ben C.]

The problem is the task of keeping track of who has "borrowed" from future years, which year to take it from, etc. It makes more sense to just use the number taking into account all of the things. If you don't want to use the cap space, you don't have to.

[Ulrich82]

But if I don't want the cap space, why should my competitors get the advantage of extra cap space for free. The real cap is $120 with a few tools to manipulate it this and next year, not $126. Some of those tools have consequences in future years if used. If people demand reality, which is the one comment I see most often on the board when talking rules, then $120 (or even $123 since I believe one of the two $3 million extensions is not borrowed from the future) is real. That extra $3 million should come with a price for those who need it, as it does in the NFL.

[Goodell]

I need to sink my teeth into it some more (hopefully this weekend) but the whole borrowing against a future cap thing might not be too hard to implement. Kind of like a negative cap hit against a future season (and I believe some flexibility in how teams can choose to borrow against that).

Might actually be helpful in some cases where teams go over over the cap a little due to the estimate not being exact or something, or a player worth adding but just puts them a little over the cap and they are willing to take a little off next year's cap to fit him in this year. It would give me that option also to correct situations for teams over their cap and just automatically borrow against next year to the limited amount allowed to put everyone back under their caps.

We'll start doing some things soon, like setting things up for teams to designate RFA tenders and designated tagged players, but still some things to think about and understand fully about the new system and things that might be possible or not (and desired or not) to do here.

I didn't want the salary cap number to be overwhelmingly complicated as maybe it might be in reality with all the fine print details that are hard to grasp sometimes (and maybe not all totally known to fans completely), but the ability to borrow a limited amount against a future season may not be too complicated. By the poll results, I think most probably don't want things overwhelmingly so complicated that we all have to hire lawyers or capologists to understand our cap management moves here, but we'll always try to be realistic with the general setup even if not always completely 100% overwhelmingly exact.

[vikingfan]

Like I said all during the lockout, I dont care what happens. Just get it done!!!! We all have the same rules.

I need to sink my teeth into it some more (hopefully this weekend) but the whole borrowing against a future cap thing might not be too hard to implement. Kind of like a negative cap hit against a future season (and I believe some flexibility in how teams can choose to borrow against that).

Might actually be helpful in some cases where teams go over over the cap a little due to the estimate not being exact or something, or a player worth adding but just puts them a little over the cap and they are willing to take a little off next year's cap to fit him in this year. It would give me that option also to correct situations for teams over their cap and just automatically borrow against next year to the limited amount allowed to put everyone back under their caps.

We'll start doing some things soon, like setting things up for teams to designate RFA tenders and designated tagged players, but still some things to think about and understand fully about the new system and things that might be possible or not (and desired or not) to do here.

I didn't want the salary cap number to be overwhelmingly complicated as maybe it might be in reality with all the fine print details that are hard to grasp sometimes (and maybe not all totally known to fans completely), but the ability to borrow a limited amount against a future season may not be too complicated. By the poll results, I think most probably don't want things overwhelmingly so complicated that we all have to hire lawyers or capologists to understand our cap management moves here, but we'll always try to be realistic with the general setup even if not always completely 100% overwhelmingly exact.

[Strategist]

In my opinion it has been voted on and that is how people want to do it.

[Jared A]

If my team was 3mil over for half the year and 3mil under for half the year... did I borrow any money? Even though I was over the cap until I realized my team wasn't going to make it? Opens another useless can of worms... just like the floor.

[Goodell]

If my team was 3mil over for half the year and 3mil under for half the year... did I borrow any money? Even though I was over the cap until I realized my team wasn't going to make it? Opens another useless can of worms... just like the floor.

Nobody can be over the cap for any amount of time. Actions would have to be taken when someone is over the cap like reversing transactions, or potentially borrowing against the next year. Once that borrow was made and cap hit applied to the next year, it would stay there.

People sometimes complain about not enough cap enforcement because I get busy sometimes to have to go in there and try to deal with situations that can get complex to fairly move a team back under some way. Sometimes it already involves effecting next year's cap because the easiest solution for me sometimes is taking a recent cap hit that they made all in one year split up into two years as they could have chosen then, putting a charge against next year and bringing them down this year. I can only do that in cases where such a transaction existed to swap into a different cap hit choice. With borrowing against next year, should be able to more quickly enforce teams stay under the cap with an easy step to transfer that limited amount allowed for NFL teams to borrow against the future.