DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Front Office, continued...

Since the old thread is now 10+ pages it might be a good idea to continue the discussion by starting a new thread...if that is ok with the moderators.




This idea that the CBA rules concerning the spending limits (the 89% rule) had nothing to do with Haslam's decision to begin spending some of the Browns cap surplus doesn't seem to the case.

As the story below points out, in Jan, some were saying the Browns had to begin spending some of their cap money..read on..

link
Browns Must Spend Insane Amount of Money in Free Agency

Nick Brown
27 JAN 2017

​The Cleveland Browns find themselves in one interesting situation that literally every team in the league wishes they were in.




Thanks to a clever rule in the NFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement, teams are able to carry over unused salary cap space from season to season, as they need to spend a certain percentage of it in a three or four year span.




Well, the Browns had $50 million to carry over from 2016, and thanks to that, have over $100 million to spend this offseason.






Chris Hayre @chrishayreLooking towards offseason: Per @spotrac, #Rams have $44.1M in '17 cap space. #Chargers have $26.6M. The Browns ($107.8M) have most to spend.

4:07 PM - 17 Jan 2017




​​This means the Browns have the ability to make quite a few improvements by signing proven free agents this offseason. Plus they have to, unless they want to face a penalty for not spending between 85-95 percent of the cap over the past three or four years.




Some of the biggest names in the league are hitting the open market. Kirk Cousins, Le'Veon Bell, DeSean Jackson, Trumaine Johnson, Dontari Poe, and many more will all be free agents this offseason, susceptible to offers from other teams as well as franchise tags.




The Browns may not get everyone they need, but they can certainly bring in some much-needed talent.

Another article, written in Jan 2017, predicting that Haslam/Browns would need to begin spending some money on the roster.

link
A forthcoming Cleveland Browns free agent spending spree?

by CRAIG LYNDALL

Cleveland Browns Free Agency Could Be Amazing…
Our good friends over at Dawgs by Nature did the math after finding out the Browns were rolling over more than $50 million in cap space. Sashi Brown confirmed that in the press conference he held after the season. When you do all the complex math and ensure that you gave yourself enough zeroes at the end, the Cleveland Browns will have about $107 million to spend in free agency. That’s a whole lot of franchise-changing import potential.

Obviously, the Browns need to think about starting at home. Terrelle Pryor and Jamie Collins will need the Browns to pay them at least $1 more than whatever they get offered anywhere else in order to justify staying in Cleveland. In the NFL, guys generally don’t give discounts, and the Browns haven’t earned any kinds of discounts from any player. Jamie Collins could easily get about $10 million per year in cap commitments from the Browns. And Terrelle Pryor could see himself approaching that amount as well. According to Jason La Canfora the Browns might have Jamie Collins re-upped very soon.

Jason La Canfora ✔@JasonLaCanforaThe Browns have made significant progress on an extension with pending free-agent Jamie Collins, sources said. Deal to be done by weekend

7:53 PM - 19 Jan 2017

I wouldn’t expect the Browns to max out their cap or anything crazy like that after that, but they can’t just spend it all, because if any of their rookies do hit down the road, they won’t have any space left. And none of this is to mention if the Browns ever find a QB who is worth that elite Flacco cash. If you don’t have that quarterback on the roster, you always need to have enough flexibility to have it or create it should you ever find “the guy.”

The Browns could still make a big impact on their roster with free agency. Depending on who actually hits the open market, there are many opportunities for the team to improve their roster on the offensive line and in the defensive secondary. Knowing what we know about the front office, expect anyone signed to be firmly still in their 20’s for the majority of the life of their new deal. And you never know, maybe the Browns will shock the world and make a run at one of the quarterbacks who is set to hit the market or one who might hit the market like Tyrod Taylor.

Regardless, with the amount of cap space the Browns have, if they sign their two guys and find three to four other legitimate, proven NFL players to supplement the roster, it could make a huge difference year over year. Yes, it makes sense to build the Browns through the draft, but that’s more about finding stars. Supplementing with complimentary starters in free agency is just fine. One thing’s for sure. The Browns will have plenty of bullets.

One more article written at the beginning of the new league year (Mar 7, 2017) pointing out that the Browns were in a position where they needed to begin spending some of their cap.

Cleveland Browns Salary Cap: Understanding the 89% Cash Spending Requirement


DBN presents an detailed and thorough explanation as to what the 89% minimum spending requirement is in the NFL, and where the Cleveland Browns stand when it comes to cap hits vs. cash spends.


by Chris Pokorny@DawgsByNature Mar 7, 2017, 8:46am EST
link





Note: Much of this explanation is a re-post from last year, except that the figures have been updated to reflect the Browns' situation one year later.

It’s time for our annual explanation on how the 89% cash spending rule works, and where the Cleveland Browns fall. First, if you’ve been following this feature for several years, note that the Browns and all 32 teams in the NFL were compliant for the first four-year period of the rule, which was from 2013-2016. Here is an NFLPA graphic from last December, which



The minimum spending requirement from 2013-2016 was $493.5 million, and the Browns were at $516.2 million. The process re-starts for the next four years, which is from 2017-2020.

Requirements: 89% in Cash Spending from 2017-2020
The 89% rule does not apply to a single season, but rather a span of four years. Therefore, it doesn't matter if the Browns spend less than 89% in 2017, or if they spend less than 89% in 2018. By the end of the 2020 season, though, the cumulativespending from 2017-2020 must be at least 89%. Therefore, if the Browns spend very little in 2017 and 2018, in order to meet the requirement in 2020, they would have been basically forced to spend a lot of money in 2019 and 2020.

It's important to understand the difference between a cap hit and a cash spend. The 89% rule applies to cash spends, not cap hits. For a full, in-depth understanding between the two, read this article over at Cincy Jungle from two years ago. I will present a simple example below that should convey the difference well enough, using LB Jamie Collins as an example.



LB Jamie Collins’ Contract, Cap Hits Per Year


Year ..Base Salary ..Signing Bonus ..Roster Bonus ..Workout Bonus ..Total Cap Hit
2017 ..$4,750,000 ....$1,250,000 .......$6,000,000 ......$100,000 ...........$12,100,000..
2018 ..$10,650,000 ..$1,250,000 .......$400,000 .........$100,000 ...........$12,400,000..
2019 ..$10,000,000 ..$1,250,000 .......$400,000 .........$100,000 ...........$11,750,000..
2020 ..$12,000,000 ..$1,250,000 .......$400,000 .........$100,000 ...........$13,750,000..
Total ..$37,400,000 ..$5,000,000 .......$7,200,000 ......$400,000 ...........$50,000,000..




The table above represents Collins' cap hits per year. Collins’ contract included $12.6 million in bonuses, with $5 million allocated to a signing bonus, $7.2 million allocated to roster bonuses, and $400,000 allocated to workout bonuses.

What is the difference between a signing bonus and a roster bonus when talking about cap hits?

Roster bonuses are paid in the full amount for a specific year if a player is on the roster by a certain date.
Signing bonuses are fully guaranteed, but divided by the number of years of the contract to create an equal signing bonus allocation per year against the cap.


Jamie Collins’ Contract, Cash Spends Per Year
Year ..Base Salary ..Signing Bonus ..Roster Bonus ..Workout Bonus ..Total Cash Spend
2017 ..$4,750,000 ....$5,000,000 ........$6,000,000 .....$100,000 ...........$15,850,000..
2018 ..$10,650,000 ..$0 .....................$400,000 ........$100,000 ..........$11,150,000..
2019 ..$10,000,000 ..$0 .....................$400,000 ........$100,000 ..........$10,500,000..
2020 ..$12,000,000 ..$0 .....................$400,000 ........$100,000 ..........$12,500,000..
Total ..$37,400,000 ..$5,000,000 ........$7,200,000 ......$400,000 ..........$50,000,000..




The table above represents the cash spends per year on Collins. While the Browns are able to divide Collins’ signing bonus over four years for salary cap purposes, the fact is that they physically paid Collins that $5 million signing bonus, straight up, in 2017. The total cap hit and cash spend numbers are always going to be the same, but the per year numbers are different.

Why is it important to understand this? Let's say the Browns are currently under the 89% spending requirement by a good amount, but still want to be in decent cap shape for the future. Signing a player with a $12 million signing bonus on a 3-year deal (through 2019, for example) would be pro-rated to $4 million per year for cap hits, but the immediate cash spend in 2017 would be at a much higher clip -- the full $12 million -- which can help a team "catch up quicker" to the spending requirement if they need to.

What is the Projection for the 89% Rule?
The minimum spending requirement says that teams must spend, in cash, at least 89% of the total salary cap from 2017-2020. To determine the 89% minimum cash spending requirement, the sums of the salary caps are multiplied by 89%. The only year we know for certain is in 2017, so we will estimate 2018-2010.




Year...Salary Cap
2017 ...$167.00 million
2018 ...$178.00 million
2019 ...$190.00 million
2020 ...$200.00 million

Total Salary Cap = $735.00 million
89% Floor (Minimum Spending) = $654.15 million


Since the total salary cap from 2017-2020 is $735 million, then every NFL team, including the Browns, must have a cash spend of at least 89% of that by the end of the 2020 league year, which is $654.15 million.

Do the Browns Need to Start Spending More?
The short answer is "Yes."

The table below outlines the Browns' cash spending for the years 2017-2020, with the data coming from Over the Cap. If you are confused by what the table means, I explain it below.



Year..Cash Spend ........% of Cap Spent ..Additional Notes
2017..$102.023 million ..61.09%...............Spend $46.607M to get to 89%
2018..$70.774 million ....39.70% -------
2019..$38.581 million ....20.30% -------
2020..$13.500 million .....6.75% -------

Total Cash Spent = $224.878 million
Amount Below 89% Requirement = $429.272 million


Cap. In 2017, the Browns have only spent 61.09% of the cap, which is below the 89% requirement. That is fine, though, because they still had three more years to go. However, if they’d like to get to 89% this year so that they don’t have to really unload a bunch of cash in one of the following three years, then they’d need to spend $46.607 million in cash this season to stay on pace.

Since we’re only in year one of this process, and we haven’t even really started the offseason, the numbers will quickly add up when you account for things like free agents, the draft, extensions, etc. Also remember that all 32 teams were compliant the last time around, so every NFL team has demonstrated the financial acumen to meet the requirements.

Appendix
The repercussions of not meeting the 89% requirement aren’t even all that severe:

The penalty for not reaching the 89% spend over 2017-2020 is you have to give the money you're short by to your own players (via NFLPA-determined distribution). Which means there's no real penalty to not spending to the floor. Obviously you'd prefer to spend the money where you saw fit instead of being forced to adopt the NFLPA's distribution key, but there's no point to handing out idiotic contracts just to hit the floor.

If you don't reach the amount, is it better to basically distribute slight bonuses to your current players, with the backlash of knowing you could have used that money instead toward a better-fitting player? Teams should be motivated to spend on players they feel can improve their team, rather than spending a certain amount on someone just for the sake of meeting the requirement.

What is the point you want to discuss? I don't see a question or discussion topic.

Can't get enough of the FO slamming!

That quote literally says what I said.

quote=ThatGuy]That quote literally says what I said. [/quote]

that...first you said, there was no penalty for not spending the established % of cap space, per the CBA...you were "wrong".


Then you admit THERE IS A PENALTY, but claim it is paid to the NFLPA...which, according to the information I posted, your answer is "wrong", again. The money is paid to your own players, not the NFLPA.

There is an incentive (penalty) for owners to spend according to the CBA. It would be better to spend cap space on signing one of your own players, rather than letting the money be given as a bonus, divided among all the players.

Not spending enough to retain our own players and/or signing free agents caught up to the Browns, literally forcing them to begin spending some of their outrageous amount of cap space, over 100 million for 2017.

Like I said, I'm glad that Haslam is finally spending to retain some of our own talented players and bringing in some free agent help to fill holes that were created when the Browns failed to retain some of the own, better free agents.

The quote you yourself posted says in the middle that "Which means there's no real penalty to not spending to the floor."

I think this is what people meant. The penalty is very minimal.



Yikes...

Please stop making things up.

Thanks Mac, been off the board for a week or so with work just stopped by to see what was new.... er... nothing... see you all in a week

Not sure where to put this so i figured I'd bump it for mac .... *L* ...

Just posting it ... its not me saying th FO messed up on this one ... IMO this was NO ONES FAULT .... TP wanted way more money for a long term deal than ANYONE was willing to offer or he was worth after last year and decided to gamble on himself ... once that happend coming back here made no sense what so ever for him ... anyhow ... here's what was reported ...

Terrelle Pryor - WR - Redskins

Browns WRs coach Al Saunders would be "shocked if (Terrelle Pryor) isn’t in the Pro Bowl."
Saunders, of course, coached Pryor in Cleveland. A size-speed specimen still learning the receiver position, Pryor worked with both Randy Moss and Antonio Brown this offseason. After surpassing 1,000 yards last season with suspect quarterback play in Cleveland, he is now catching passes from Kirk Cousins, making a potential Pro Bowl leap a legitimate possibility.

Source: ESPN.com Jul 22 - 10:22 AM

I think he and his agent did want to talk to the Browns again after they figured out he wasn't going to get the coveted long-term deal, but the Browns were done negotiating.

I don't blame either side, but I blame both sides........And I know that some will not get that, but I do. LOL

I will be surprised if Pryor is in the Pro Bowl.

He runs one route. He has a long way to go to improve. Perhaps he will make that jump, but if I were forced to make a pro bowl bet, I would go no.

Is that a typo?

Not a typo, but an exaggeration.

But the best exaggerations are those that aren't far off.

I think he has a better shot of making the Pro Bowl than any of our WRs. We are a worse team w/out him. That's my bottom line.

I think it's a wash and I'm okay with agreeing to disagree.

quote above:



This just doesn't sound right to me.

Coaches shouldn't be making comments like this.

Wish TP well, say he's very good, he's a great wide receiver, blah...blah...blah....

Not hyperbole. "I'll be shocked..."

He's got a wayyyy better shot at the play offs ... he has Kirk Cousins throwing him the ball!!

I'd rather have Pryor than Britt - but it's not that simple when constructing a team. Bottom line is that by every single account I have seen, read, heard .... Browns offered the best/largest multi year contract. So if Pryor doesn't want to sign it - Browns did the next best thing and got a guy who is similar in terms of production if not athletic ability. Would I prefer other veterans too? Sure.

Apples tp apples ... id prefer Pryor over Britt in a heartbeat ... hes got way better physical traits than britt ... pryor worked with moss and brown this off season ... he should be a much better route runner and a much much improved wr this year ... not at the $$$$ Pryor wanted according to the reports ...

I'm with Saunders on the pro bowl ... pryor has that type of physical ability and the worth ethic to go with it ... add that to the fact the skins lost there top 2 wr's last off season and he has Reed in the middle and a very good slot guy in Crowder in Grudens O with Cousins slinging the rock ... things are lined up for him to have a HUGE YEAR if he stays healthy ...

Then it wouldn't shock me in the least to see him sign the huge contract he wanted last off season and I'd say we will be right in the thick of things unless the $$$$ he wants is to much ...

Hell, maybe he even ends up here with Kurt ... *LOL* ... that was a shot at Allen ...

Would you take Boldin? How "veteran" can you stand?

You are telling the truth, but you aren't relating the entire story. If you believe articles about the Browns offering the most money initially, why would you ignore the articles about Pryor and his agent being turned away by the Browns when they returned about a one-year deal.

How about .........let's play fair and be honest?

Is that a bad thing?

I don't blame the Browns for what happened and I don't blame Pryor.

However, I do think both deserve a bit of blame for not geting the deal done. I know that sounds weird, but I believe it w/almost absolute conviction.

There will be some, or at least one, that wants to blame the FO for all of it and there will be a many who blame only Pryor. I think you're all whacked and that both sides probably lost in the overall scheme of things.

Again, all I know for certain is this..........we are a worse team w/out Pryor than we would be w/out him.

How can you know an opinion for certain?

I know this subject is a passionate one for you, particularly people's views of who is to blame and if the team is better off or not. For me, it irks me that people are making such a big deal about a 30 year old 1 year converted WR as if he's a Pro Bowler. How on earth can anyone claim to know we are worse off without a 30 year old 1 year converted WR when the guy has literally proved next to nothing at the position in his entire football career? It doesn't make logical sense.

It seems that people are putting this on the same level as Ward. Or Schwartz. Or Mack. All proven guys. All with great arguments that we are worse off without them.

I just don't see how anyone can assume we are worse without Pryor. It just doesn't make logical sense.

You are correct about the agent coming back to the Browns - and giving us another shot to get a deal done. I should have mentioned that ...

I didn't because at that point it's no-one's fault a deal wasn't done imo. It simply that was different choices were made by the parties ... TP was happy to sign a one year prove it deal. FO said we are building for the future and want a longer term commitment, no thanks.

If I am TP it would almost not matter what the Browns offered me on a one year deal .... I want Kirk Cousins throwing the rock to me. Not Kessler, RG3 or a rookie.

If I am the Browns reviewing Pryor at 30 and deciding on whether to offer a 1 year deal - coming of a very good but not great year he wants unrealistic money to stay ... a one year deal for the Browns is a no-win situation. [a] he doesn't play very well or he's average and he's gone. [b] he plays great and wants to be paid even more and he's 31. As the FO and having offered him the most $ for a multiyear deal and knowing it wasn't close to what TP thought he was worth .... don't you have to be aware that if he has a great season his demands are going to only skyrocket.

jmho

Diam, I would agree with you on the "monster" year upcoming. But the loss of Garcon and Jackson make me say not so much.

He has a butt load of talent, but they are going to ask him to be the guy on a playoff team with little help ...imo...except the TE.

He will either rise to the occasion or crumble...to me it's 50/50.

by the WAY how ARE YOU living? lol I just wanted to PLAY with the CAPS lol...I'm bored

I'm living FINE ... i hav ONE less FRIND now ... DON'T ever REPLY TO ME agin .. *L*

U forgot TO misspell SOM words ...

I hope all is well Mr. Pound ...

FO made a MAJOR MISTAKE with Schwartz ... did the ABSOLUTE RIGHT thing with Pryor ...

They both left via FA but other than that there situations were NIGHT and DAY different ... situations weren't even close ... no comparision ...

I know a lot of posters annoy other posters on here. There are a ton of arguments and bickering. But I've come to accept a truth about this board. It's the posters that most others find annoying that keep me coming back. It's the entertainment value of it all. Whether people are portraying who they actually are or whether it's an act, it's totally idiotic posts like yours that keep me entertained. Without guys like you I don't think I'd read this board as often. Keep on keeping on, mac!

I am not going to discuss Schwartz.....old news.

Pryor turned down his best offer to eventually sign a 1 year deal. We moved on and signed another receiver while the window was open.

Good move by the FO.

IMO recivers are either elite, and then you have a boatload of guys all about the same. I don't see a ounce of difference between Britt and Pryor other than one was willing to sign here and the other wasn't

I don't disagree - but I am expecting it to hurt every week when Pryor catches a couple TD's and has 140 yards .... I wish him well but I know it's going to chaff too !

Again ... your implication / agenda seems to be that the FO didn't like him. But of course the FO liked him better than any other team in the NFL and offered him the biggest contract. That's a fact. Pryor didn't want that and has opted for a 1 year show me contract. Move on and don't lace the rhetoric with an agenda that implies the FO didn't want TP or if he goes on to a big year that they stuffed up.

The same coach says a few guys of our look good as well.


The fact is that Pryor didn't want to sign with us. We had the best deal. He just felt he wanted more.

We will see how it works out.