Browns - The salary cap thread | Barking Hard

Browns The salary cap thread

OconRecon

OconRecon

If you're juiceless, you're useless
I've always wondered, and figured there was a (unknown to me) good reason, why the Browns are always well under the cap. I get the Bengals - they're cheap. The Ravens and Steelers always have issues, but at least they have success to show for it.

Stumbled across this today. Not sure I understood it before. Maybe I'm the last to know, but what the heck, it's "few new threads" season.

---

Hey Tony: Can you explain how it's seems the Browns are always way under the cap? I thought there were minimums you had to spend?

-- David, Erie, PA

Hey David: The “salary floor” aspect of the CBA is commonly misunderstood. Teams must spend a minimum of 89 percent of the salary cap, per the CBA. But that spending minimum is over a four-year period. The new four-year period begins with the 2016 season. So teams can underspend, if they desire, in ’16, ’17 and ’18 and then make up the difference by overspending in 2019. What are the penalties for not spending at the 89 percent salary cap minimum? Undefined. Overall, it’s not a really big issue. Why are the Browns seemingly always under the salary cap? Teams with no franchise quarterback – a $20 million-a-year expenditure – generally have no problem staying under the salary cap.

---
 
That is an incomplete answer at best. This article on DBN is far better:

http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2015/3...salary-cap-understanding-the-89-cash-spending

There are two things to consider...the 4 year period...and the CASH SPENDING issue.

The 89% is calculated on the CASH SPENT...meaning when the Browns give a signing bonus, the entire amount counts in the calculation THAT YEAR. I don't have the current cash spent numbers for 2014-2015...nor the anticipated for 2016...but suffice to say that they are well within the 89% average in all likelihood...especially with bonuses paid to rookies this year.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Financial impact of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Browns?src=hash">#Browns</a> youth movement:<br>Own most cap space: $53.25M (49ers 2nd @ $48.43M)<br>Team saved over $38.9M cash with cuts & trades</p>— Daryl Ruiter (@RuiterWrongFAN) <a href="https://twitter.com/RuiterWrongFAN/status/771016363058073600">August 31, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
OconRecon said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Financial impact of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Browns?src=hash">#Browns</a> youth movement:<br>Own most cap space: $53.25M (49ers 2nd @ $48.43M)<br>Team saved over $38.9M cash with cuts & trades</p>— Daryl Ruiter (@RuiterWrongFAN) <a href="https://twitter.com/RuiterWrongFAN/status/771016363058073600">August 31, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

That is going to be HUGE in year 2 and 3 of this regime as they go about retaining all this young talent, and finally spend some bucks on FA's to fill in the gaps for a playoff run.
 
Its my understanding that the way the new cap rules work, is that you can "roll over" cap money to future years.

Soif we are saving 30-50 million a year..

what stopping us, from.. after year 3, signing all the top FAs to long contracts and front loading the helll out of their contracts the first year since we have the rollover?

Has anyone thought of that?

That way you can field a Dream team, without going over cap, because after the front load, the numbers would be low
 
PlaygroundLegend said:
Its my understanding that the way the new cap rules work, is that you can "roll over" cap money to future years.

Soif we are saving 30-50 million a year..

what stopping us, from.. after year 3, signing all the top FAs to long contracts and front loading the helll out of their contracts the first year since we have the rollover?

Has anyone thought of that?

That way you can field a Dream team, without going over cap, because after the front load, the numbers would be low
Click to expand...

I actually thought of how the Browns could front load 2nd contracts of any good players they hit on from the draft. This would allow them to retain player but also make them trade assets as they get older since they will be on good contract numbers. Investing on guys coming off rookie contracts makes the best sense because they enter their prime and less likely to drop off before the contract ends.

The front office must have done some analytics on how teams that have ascended, cycling both financially and with players age. Clearing house and positioning the team to roughly enter their prime together as a whole rather than in stages seems to what the front office is trying to do.
 
Last edited:
PGL...you actually hit on one of the many cap strategies used by building teams. Nice thing is, again, it is not the CAP number that is averaged, but MONEY SPENT. So, spending big on bonuses and such count, even though the payment is spread over several years and keeps the cap low.
 
Good discussion but what was never discussed is the Browns Dead Money. So if a player that is cut received bonus money this is moved forward to the current year instead of spread out. If you cut a player with a guarantee salary it is still spread out in dead money over the contract. The Browns are not even close to the floor because they are #2 in the league for dead money at almost $28 million. All of this $28 million counts toward the Browns cap this year.

We still have Kruger and Gilbert on the books for 2017 year because of guarantee money in the contract. Manziel does not show up because we filed a grievance with the league to recoup his money owed.

So when the Saints go to the bank of Drew Brees and ask to convert part of his salary to bonus money they are using a credit card. That money to sign the new player they want will have to be paid in the future.

Here is a good site for Browns Money owed:http://overthecap.com/salary-cap/cleveland-browns/

Here is a explanation on dead money:http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1566775-nfl-free-agency-a-basic-expliantion-of-the-complex-concept-of-dead-money



 
Last edited:
ChowMeinChad said:
Good discussion but what was never discussed is the Browns Dead Money. So if a player that is cut received bonus money this is moved forward to the current year instead of spread out. If you cut a player with a guarantee salary it is still spread out in dead money over the contract. The Browns are not even close to the floor because they are #2 in the league for dead money at almost $28 million. All of this $28 million counts toward the Browns cap this year.

We still have Kruger and Gilbert on the books for 2017 year because of guarantee money in the contract. Manziel does not show up because we filed a grievance with the league to recoup his money owed.

So when the Saints go to the bank of Drew Brees and ask to convert part of his salary to bonus money they are using a credit card. That money to sign the new player they want will have to be paid in the future.

Here is a good site for Browns Money owed:http://overthecap.com/salary-cap/cleveland-browns/

Here is a explanation on dead money:http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1566775-nfl-free-agency-a-basic-expliantion-of-the-complex-concept-of-dead-money
Click to expand...

Okay, I am confused. I have understood that if a player is cut, the remaining salary, delayed bonuses and so forth that are not offset and still owed to the player amount to dead money.

However, I have assumed that if a player is traded, that his salary and other compensation is assumed by the team that traded for the player. Therefore, while I fully understand the dead money associated with Kruger, Bowe, Dansby, Whitner and others, I am confused why we still have dead money associated with Mingo and Gilbert. Those players were not cut; they were traded.

Did not the Patriots and the Steelers pick up the remaining salary obligations associated with those two players when they traded for them?
 
Last edited:
The dead money associated in traded players is the remaining deferred bonuses. For instance, a 4 year contract with a $5M bonus prorates as $1.25M a year. If traded after year 3, the dead money the team is still reponsible foe is $1.25M for the deferred bonus on year 4.

The new team is not responsible for deferred bonus.
 
PlaygroundLegend said:
Its my understanding that the way the new cap rules work, is that you can "roll over" cap money to future years.

So if we are saving 30-50 million a year..

what stopping us, from.. after year 3, signing all the top FAs to long contracts and front loading the helll out of their contracts the first year since we have the rollover?

Has anyone thought of that?

That way you can field a Dream team, without going over cap, because after the front load, the numbers would be low
Click to expand...

Philly tried doing that one year and we all saw how well that experiment worked out. I think it's more prudent to use that money to retain homegrown talent rather than overpriced free agents. That being said, this front office seems to have a pretty clear idea of what they want in a FA acquisition/return value for that.

Of course that doesn't mean don't target free agents but we need to make smart choices. How many times have we been burned bringing a 'name' in to the mix. The latest being Kruger...
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Browns?src=hash">#Browns</a> started a Week 6 lineup worth just $48.5M in 2016 cap, including a combined $2.8M for their QB1/RB1/WR1, both NFL lows by far. <a href="https://t.co/cZ5XWRsB6M">pic.twitter.com/cZ5XWRsB6M</a></p>— Spotrac (@spotrac) <a href="https://twitter.com/spotrac/status/788021638059134976">October 17, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Cu-de_WXgAE3MwJ.jpg
 
So we have needs.

If by the end of this year we can kind of project who's going to pan out, I'd love to see us fill holes with the draft AND free agency.
 
Just more info. I for one didn't realize the lip-service level of the salary floor.

---

Hey Tony: How are the Browns allowed to be so far under the cap? I thought they had to be at a certain percentage?

-- Jeremy, Amherst, OH

Hey Jeremy: Let’s clarify this oft-confused “salary floor” provision in the collective bargaining agreement. Teams are required to spend at 89 percent of the salary cap – but only over a four-year period, not year to year. So teams can spend below the 89 percent floor for three years running, and then make up the difference in the fourth year. Oakland and Jacksonville did just that in the most recent four-year period, which ended in 2016. The new four-year period begins in 2017. And get this: There is no major penalty for falling below the “floor.” So it is a rather irrelevant CBA provision that was more lip service to the players union than anything else.

---

So I guess, with sites such as OverTheCap and SpoTrac, the main reason to not remain below, or around, the floor all the time is if you're team sucks and it starts effecting ticket and advertising sales. Business stuff.

---

For 2017:

1 Cleveland Browns 46 26 $48,457,094 $46,523,257 $5,261,546 $48,028,683 $100,931,897 $102,366,786
2 San Francisco 49ers 36 26.33 $56,726,507 $56,917,626 $1,222,207 $44,860,414 $116,679,890 $83,450,524
3 New England Patriots 38 26.95 $60,556,320 $33,176,396 $1,296,026 $11,774,047 $102,113,742 $64,930,305
4 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 34 26.47 $43,915,877 $51,512,877 $757,626 $5,787,175 $97,107,418 $63,949,757
5 Tennessee Titans 40 26.85 $48,414,051 $59,830,814 $3,337,476 $26,149,625 $118,867,009 $62,552,616
6 Jacksonville Jaguars 45 26.53 $60,777,209 $74,963,788 $241,600 $40,092,991 $139,272,597 $56,090,394
7 Washington Redskins 42 26.63 $55,001,735 $55,129,638 $5,261,488 $16,025,334 $117,582,861 $53,712,473
8 Carolina Panthers 38 27.42 $69,652,449 $45,805,247 $310,425 $19,396,226 $124,091,121 $50,575,105
9 Chicago Bears 44 26.62 $55,914,354 $56,318,024 $738,046 $8,789,793 $113,686,751 $50,373,042
10 Indianapolis Colts 41 27 $67,317,365 $41,155,366 $726,806 $6,785,954 $115,799,537 $46,256,417
11 Denver Broncos 35 26.31 $55,822,478 $70,431,680 $70,448 $8,807,177 $126,884,608 $37,192,569
12 Atlanta Falcons 36 26.8 $71,360,089 $43,329,148 $2,977,670 $6,442,688 $124,620,241 $37,092,447
13 Cincinnati Bengals 43 26.47 $56,784,352 $64,135,516 $321,528 $6,476,352 $125,411,396 $36,334,956
14 Los Angeles Rams 46 25.53 $59,273,023 $61,735,805 $2,007,335 $5,495,498 $126,264,936 $34,500,562
15 Pittsburgh Steelers 35 26.59 $79,802,033 $44,453,399 $2,375,887 $6,415,434 $127,246,319 $34,439,115
16 Oakland Raiders 43 26.88 $59,353,820 $53,379,159 $55,175 $4,170,506 $125,690,836 $33,749,670
17 New York Giants 37 26.41 $65,310,915 $69,472,105 $436,941 $13,061,090 $135,219,961 $33,111,129
18 Miami Dolphins 34 26.88 $55,765,741 $80,172,090 $631,160 $14,333,214 $137,799,325 $31,803,889
19 Arizona Cardinals 36 27 $74,793,451 $52,001,353 $440,461 $450,418 $128,010,265 $27,710,153
20 Seattle Seahawks 38 26.21 $54,519,223 $76,992,591 $827,917 $5,897,874 $133,939,731 $27,228,143
21 Detroit Lions 40 26.15 $62,642,283 $62,879,132 $1,298,677 $5,442,206 $134,960,181 $25,752,025
22 New Orleans Saints 43 27.12 $73,954,371 $51,634,195 $9,086,452 $9,393,043 $139,375,018 $25,288,025
23 Green Bay Packers 37 26.22 $73,334,950 $62,053,839 $56,246 $8,758,621 $139,045,035 $24,983,586
24 Buffalo Bills 35 26.8 $76,716,951 $58,139,990 $1,457,611 $5,628,645 $140,339,552 $20,559,093
25 Houston Texans 51 26.33 $77,952,538 $67,514,163 $59,710 $4,863,149 $146,941,411 $13,191,738
26 Minnesota Vikings 42 26.98 $66,831,450 $71,268,049 $2,712,476 $348,701 $142,496,975 $13,121,726
27 San Diego Chargers 45 26.66 $87,585,206 $54,739,344 $187,669 $1,127,273 $143,707,343 $12,689,930
28 Philadelphia Eagles 47 27.54 $80,340,179 $72,573,031 $1,555,933 $10,396,005 $155,369,143 $10,296,862
29 Baltimore Ravens 44 27.45 $72,986,081 $64,918,456 $5,399,264 $4,497,404 $151,743,801 $8,023,603
30 Kansas City Chiefs 48 26.68 $87,817,126 $75,946,685 $1,132,210 $6,144,574 $169,796,021 $-8,381,447
31 New York Jets 45 27.14 $72,719,465 $85,322,017 $1,314,310 $-320,804 $163,508,074 $-8,558,878
32 Dallas Cowboys 45 26.93 $116,411,457 $52,151,151 $259,589 $6,144,493 $175,792,197 $-14,377,704

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/2017/
 
Last edited:
Greythan said:
Frickin' New England has the third most cap space? Just an embarrassment of riches. Wow.
Click to expand...

Only because they have like 10 starting players off contract in 2017. The cap space looks pretty there, but that's before making any resignings. With the likes of Hightower, Blount, Bennett, Butler, Vollmer, Cannon, Sheard and Ryan off contract, that cap space will not go very far at all. They're going to lose quite a few players as is, and that's already accounting for having traded away Collins.

Browns, on the other hand, have all that cap space and only two key players to re-sign, although Taylor and Pasztor should come pretty cheap so might well be considered key.
 
Enigmatic Evil said:
Philly tried doing that one year and we all saw how well that experiment worked out. I think it's more prudent to use that money to retain homegrown talent rather than overpriced free agents. That being said, this front office seems to have a pretty clear idea of what they want in a FA acquisition/return value for that.

Of course that doesn't mean don't target free agents but we need to make smart choices. How many times have we been burned bringing a 'name' in to the mix. The latest being Kruger...
Click to expand...

Regarding home grown talent, the Browns seem to ignore these guys and let them walk when their rookie contracts are up, or trade them. I don't get that. Yes I'm still PO'd that they let TJ Ward get away. He's just 1 example.
 
Back
Top Bottom