Why are any teams called cheap?

[MHSL82]

One thing I don't understand is how fans call their team or other team's cheap when there's a minimum salary requirement. The money not used is then rolled over and their minimum salary requirement for the next year goes up. That would increase as long as they didn't max out in total salaries one year.

A GM could therefore, when "cheaply" refusing to "pay" an expensive player, spread the cap around to middle of the road to slightly above average players instead. The total bill is the same. If one refuses to buy lobster at a restaurant but orders several appetizers, he isn't cheap. He could be wrong, I suppose, but not cheap.

A GM could be cheap with stadium renovations, cheap to pay cheerleaders, hire cheap non-capped coaches, etc., but players? Again, you can sign the wrong players and overpay average players, but not paying the elite, isn't cheap... or am I missing something here?

 

[Fountain City Blues]

It wasn't always this way, and there are still teams who flirt with the minimum anyways- like the Raiders and Jags. Though quite frankly there's no reason to flush money down a toilet given where they were starting from.

 

[Wolverine830872]

There are plenty of things that a team can spend on that isn't effected by the salary cap: Coaches, practice facilities, team mode of transportation, hotels, stadiums, etc.

I think that is where the Seahawks have somewhat of an "unfair" advantage. Ownership spends a fortune on coaches and the practice facility which has paid dividends when it comes to player productivity.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

One thing I don't understand is how fans call their team or other team's cheap when there's a minimum salary requirement. The money not used is then rolled over and their minimum salary requirement for the next year goes up. That would increase as long as they didn't max out in total salaries one year.

A GM could therefore, when "cheaply" refusing to "pay" an expensive player, spread the cap around to middle of the road to slightly above average players instead. The total bill is the same. If one refuses to buy lobster at a restaurant but orders several appetizers, he isn't cheap. He could be wrong, I suppose, but not cheap.

A GM could be cheap with stadium renovations, cheap to pay cheerleaders, hire cheap non-capped coaches, etc., but players? Again, you can sign the wrong players and overpay average players, but not paying the elite, isn't cheap... or am I missing something here?

I agree that cheap might not be the right word, but would look at cheap more like this.

• Not retaining your key draft picks...allowing them to leave via FA
• Poor practice facilities
• Travel business practices, hotels, etc.
• Not putting enough resources into the scouting dept

Not spending to the floor probably doesn't happen that much, but at the end of the day you have to pay to be successful in the NFL.

David Pollack was a big time player @ UGA, 1st round pick to CIN (a team known to be frugal)...I think the 2nd season he broke his neck and had to retire from the game...he was doing sportstalk radio before he got his ESPN gig...anytime the Bengals came up...he'd always have a story about about how bad their facilities were compared to other teams, etc.

 

[MHSL82]

It wasn't always this way, and there are still teams who flirt with the minimum anyways- like the Raiders and Jags. Though quite frankly there's no reason to flush money down a toilet given where they were starting from.

Taking your Chiefs, I have read almost everywhere someone claiming them to be cheap because they didn't sign Houston right away, but they have always been near the max of the salary cap, have they not? They also renovated Arrowhead Stadium and I haven't seen any cheerleader lawsuits like the Raiders. Now, Reid and Dorsey are pretty well paid. So my question stemmed from how can you be paying up to the max with a good stadium, coaches, and not get much pushback from fans or homers when someone calls Hunt out for being cheap because of Flowers, Houston, or some FA they didn't throw the bank at?

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Taking your Chiefs, I have read almost everywhere someone claiming them to be cheap because they didn't sign Houston right away, but they have always been near the max of the salary cap, have they not? They also renovated Arrowhead Stadium and I haven't seen any cheerleader lawsuits like the Raiders. Now, Reid and Dorsey are pretty well paid. So my question stemmed from how can you be paying up to the max with a good stadium, coaches, and not get much pushback from fans or homers when someone calls Hunt out for being cheap because of Flowers, Houston, or some FA they didn't throw the bank at?

Previous regime under Pioli was very cheap and in general, were a lot shadier than people accuse the Pats of being. Yeah, Hali, Flowers, and Charles all signed under his watch, but they were usually 'cap contenders' with very little to show for it.There were always rumors ranging from tyrannical to even felonious behavior on Pioli's part; even an odd rumor about bugging Todd Haley's phone. Worked out cap wise because quite frankly, guys like Brandon Carr weren't worth CB1 money. The lack of depth, vision, and really anything besides frontline talent on defense was very noticeable under Pioli. And relative inaction in FA by Pioli did not earn him many friends to go along with less than pleasant rumors about him. Did I mention his teams went 4-12, 10-6 (0-1), 7-9, and 2-14? Pats West wasn't very fun.

Overall, I'd say Pioli was a spreadsheet guy instead of a football guy, and that alone was the reason he failed. And his odd homerism of his guys shows up in Atlanta with Asamoah and Tyson Jackson; very bizarre ego as I have seen in a while from a GM.

If anything, Dorsey has been accused of overpaying players, so I am not sure where the cheap perception makes sense as of now. With Pioli, it at least had some merit. 'King Carl' always swung for the fence, but usually missed.

 

[cdumler7]

I would say there is a huge difference between what I would call a "Cheap" organization and that of those who devote lots to the organization. As others have pointed out facilities, coaches, scouting departments are all things that don't count against the cap. The teams who spend big on those usually have an easier time attracting FA's and usually have the better teams. It is why even in the Salary Cap era some of the top teams continue to stay near the top.

There is also the difference between the Salary Cap floor and that of those who are willing to spend every dime to put the best team on the field. Oakland and Jacksonville were both very close I think this year to being fined millions because they refused to spend up to the Floor over the last few years. I think a team has to spend something like 90% of their Cap. Well one that spends to the very bare minimum will have spent in a 3-year period close to $45 million less than that of a top spender. A great example of what that would mean as we just had some guys sign to close to that type of value over a 3-year period in that would be the difference in almost not having a Justin Houston on the team or a Dez or DT.

 

[gowazzu02]

Look at what the Titans are doing with Mariota......definition of cheap. Fighting (taking my info from the other thread from ten fans) over what shakes out to be a few hundred grand with their "QB savior" is just bad business. Get him in, get him learning, not sitting out negotiating....

 

[MHSL82]

I would say there is a huge difference between what I would call a "Cheap" organization and that of those who devote lots to the organization. As others have pointed out facilities, coaches, scouting departments are all things that don't count against the cap. The teams who spend big on those usually have an easier time attracting FA's and usually have the better teams. It is why even in the Salary Cap era some of the top teams continue to stay near the top.

There is also the difference between the Salary Cap floor and that of those who are willing to spend every dime to put the best team on the field. Oakland and Jacksonville were both very close I think this year to being fined millions because they refused to spend up to the Floor over the last few years. I think a team has to spend something like 90% of their Cap. Well one that spends to the very bare minimum will have spent in a 3-year period close to $45 million less than that of a top spender. A great example of what that would mean as we just had some guys sign to close to that type of value over a 3-year period in that would be the difference in almost not having a Justin Houston on the team or a Dez or DT.

True, but people who are complaining about being cheap, I don't think are complaining about the stadium, etc.. Free agents not coming because of the conditions is a concern, but I haven't really heard anyone pin-point that when calling someone cheap. They just talked about not paying a great player enough money as being cheap.

When it comes to the salary floor, if you don't spend it, it rolls over to the next year where you have to spend more. So that 45 million is not 45 million. I would think that the floor increases the next year if you rolled over money.

So, let's say you spent 15 million less than the salary cap, and you have to spend 90% of the salary cap, that would mean that the next year, you would have about 110% of the salary cap. The next year's floor would be 90% of that 110%. that would mean 90% of that 15 million you would have to spend over the floor to satisfy the floor. Right? I don't think owners can pocket the money forever.

 

[Davis_Mike]

Many of the reasons a franchise is perceived as cheap has already been listed.

The minimum salary requirement is a 3 year rolling average. A team can consistently be below the minimum & spend above the cap once every 3 years to maintain the minimum floor. While the total dollars even out, many fans see the team not spending money 2 out of 3 years as being cheap. It looks like you are spending money just to maintain the floor average rather than spending money to put a winning team on the field.

By not spending money to resign your own very good or star players, or signing star free agent players, you are saving a lot of money in guarantees. Much of the guaranteed money must go into escrow. By not having to tie up a lot of money in escrow, a team can make a lot more money off the money that is not tied up in escrow.

Spending money on many average to above average players is not the same as spending money on very good or star players. While the basic dollars between multiple quality players versus one star player adds up to about equal, it's the guaranteed money that makes the difference. This is where teams can look really cheap to me.

There are more than a few teams that consistently let their own good players go rather than tie up money in guarantees.

 

[Golden Spur]

Spending money on many average to above average players is not the same as spending money on very good or star players. While the basic dollars between multiple quality players versus one star player adds up to about equal, it's the guaranteed money that makes the difference. This is where teams can look really cheap to me.

There are more than a few teams that consistently let their own good players go rather than tie up money in guarantees.

Not sure this is fully on-topic, but I do believe the 'Patriot's Way' is the best $-management style in the NFL. They know they're going to have a lot of turnover, and believe their system can survive it, year-over-year. A guy like Brandon Spikes was a decent performer for them, but not enough to warrant a 2nd contract (and there's a lot more examples). Being popular isn't good enough for them, you've got to fill a certain role at a given price. They save their big-ticket contracts for the playmakers, and Belichik and crew are constantly scouring the continent for guys they can plug-in. The reason I favor this approach is because of he big-$ FA signees I've seen bomb out - there's just a lot of risk in building a team that way.

The Panthers are going through something like this right now - fans are frustrated that we're not chasing WR FA's when available. Gettleman just doesn't think that way, he's a moneyballer; going to draft for value, pick up role guys off the market, and save the money to pay guys like Cam, Luke, and Lotulelei (hopefully).

 

[Manster7588]

I read something about Dallas being below the salary floor soon because dead money doesn't count as salary. I want to say in 16 Dallas may have to spend money. When I read it I shook my head wondering how they will pull that rabbit out the hat. I'll try to find that article again

 

[Davis_Mike]

Not sure this is fully on-topic, but I do believe the 'Patriot's Way' is the best $-management style in the NFL. They know they're going to have a lot of turnover, and believe their system can survive it, year-over-year. A guy like Brandon Spikes was a decent performer for them, but not enough to warrant a 2nd contract (and there's a lot more examples). Being popular isn't good enough for them, you've got to fill a certain role at a given price. They save their big-ticket contracts for the playmakers, and Belichik and crew are constantly scouring the continent for guys they can plug-in. The reason I favor this approach is because of he big-$ FA signees I've seen bomb out - there's just a lot of risk in building a team that way.

The Panthers are going through something like this right now - fans are frustrated that we're not chasing WR FA's when available. Gettleman just doesn't think that way, he's a moneyballer; going to draft for value, pick up role guys off the market, and save the money to pay guys like Cam, Luke, and Lotulelei (hopefully).

They can get away with this because they have their main core in place & will spend money. They just won't overpay their own FA to keep them. That is vastly different from teams sitting at or below the salary spending floor.

There are a few teams, I won't name them because we all know who they are, that every year, they seemingly let most their good to great players go in free agency. They are the same teams that are constantly drafting in the top 10 every year & are always the franchises with the most cap space.

 

[Dude]

Totally agree with the comments. Teams are cheap when they don't provide the basic tools for success. It is very competitive, you can't wing it in the NFL.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Previous regime under Pioli was very cheap and in general, were a lot shadier than people accuse the Pats of being. Yeah, Hali, Flowers, and Charles all signed under his watch, but they were usually 'cap contenders' with very little to show for it.There were always rumors ranging from tyrannical to even felonious behavior on Pioli's part; even an odd rumor about bugging Todd Haley's phone. Worked out cap wise because quite frankly, guys like Brandon Carr weren't worth CB1 money. The lack of depth, vision, and really anything besides frontline talent on defense was very noticeable under Pioli. And relative inaction in FA by Pioli did not earn him many friends to go along with less than pleasant rumors about him. Did I mention his teams went 4-12, 10-6 (0-1), 7-9, and 2-14? Pats West wasn't very fun.

Overall, I'd say Pioli was a spreadsheet guy instead of a football guy, and that alone was the reason he failed. And his odd homerism of his guys shows up in Atlanta with Asamoah and Tyson Jackson; very bizarre ego as I have seen in a while from a GM.

If anything, Dorsey has been accused of overpaying players, so I am not sure where the cheap perception makes sense as of now. With Pioli, it at least had some merit. 'King Carl' always swung for the fence, but usually missed.

Interesting that you would say that about the spreadsheet...his 1st year in ATL he was more or less an assistant to Dimitroff...1 of Dimitroffs DL draft picks went bust so they were desperate for DT impact and the OL was terrible...Asamoah was a good pickup...Jackson has been just okay, but they had him playing inside.

Then...after yet another losing season and several big time FA busts signed by Thomas they decided to make Pioli the draft guru and Dimitroff the "GM", he's supposed to be the FA guy and cap manager...even though they have a finance manager.

 

[ducky]

So, let's say you spent 15 million less than the salary cap, and you have to spend 90% of the salary cap, that would mean that the next year, you would have about 110% of the salary cap. The next year's floor would be 90% of that 110%. that would mean 90% of that 15 million you would have to spend over the floor to satisfy the floor. Right? I don't think owners can pocket the money forever.

They can and do pocket the money.

The difference between spending the max and spending to get over the floor is about $15M a year and growing.

Essentially some teams have spent around $50M more on players over the last 3-5 years than other teams have and that gap will continue to grow as the cap jumps. And they never have to make up that difference between the floor and that ceiling.

Although even then some teams being cheap maybe isn't the right word as some of these teams that are spending less might actually be spending a higher percentage of their overall revenue.

 

[MHSL82]

They can and do pocket the money.

The difference between spending the max and spending to get over the floor is about $15M a year and growing.

Essentially some teams have spent around $50M more on players over the last 3-5 years than other teams have and that gap will continue to grow as the cap jumps. And they never have to make up that difference between the floor and that ceiling.

Although even then some teams being cheap maybe isn't the right word as some of these teams that are spending less might actually be spending a higher percentage of their overall revenue.

But that 15 million rolls over to the next year was my impression. Then the floor's higher... But someone else's post shed more light on 3 year averages, so I may be wrong, I just thought, you will always spend 90% (I think 86%?) of what you have, so that number spent will go up. But I suppose you would be constantly rolling over more and more.

 

[ducky]

But that 15 million rolls over to the next year was my impression. Then the floor's higher... But someone else's post shed more light on 3 year averages, so I may be wrong, I just thought, you will always spend 90% (I think 86%?) of what you have, so that number spent will go up. But I suppose you would be constantly rolling over more and more.

They have to spend 89% of the cap. Anything under that floor gets rolled over. But the cap space from 89-100% is lost forever.

Think of it this way.

Cap ceiling is about $145M this year. If a team spends 85% of the cap this year they are spending $125M. They were supposed to spend $130M to get to the floor. So that $5M gets rolled over. What they lose is the difference between the floor ($130M) and the ceiling ($145M). Some owners take advantage of that $15M....some just watch it die on the vine.

 

[ducky]

Cap ceiling is about $145M this year. If a team spends 85% of the cap this year they are spending $125M. They were supposed to spend $130M to get to the floor. So that $5M gets rolled over. What they lose is the difference between the floor ($130M) and the ceiling ($145M). Some owners take advantage of that $15M....some just watch it die on the vine.

Quoting myself: Bad form but I had one more thing to add.

A LOT of teams have been watching a ton of cap space die on the vine lately. It is why the cap is so irrelevant today despite what people think. Most owners aren't providing their GM's with the revenue it would take to actually maximize their cap space. Budgets are way smaller than the cap ceiling at this point.