Bears Find A Way Around Rookie Salary Cap Crunch
I'm not going to pretend to really have a strong understanding of the salary cap. I know the basics and generally that is enough to do what I need to do. The league seems to have hamstrung teams on the salary cap as it pertains to rookies.
When the league last raised the minimum salaries it did not adjust the rookie pool accordingly, making it difficult (impossible in some cases) to squeeze in all the picks while giving the annual bump in pay.
So the Bears used a process that is typically used for second round picks, which is Not Likely To Be Earned incentives.
The Bears' rookie pool, essentially a salary cap within the salary cap, was $3,497,111. After signing seven of their nine draft picks there simply wasn't enough rookie pool left for Gilbert and Iglesias to both get proper signing bonuses. So instead of putting the squeeze on one player, the Bears found a way to make it as fair as possible. The NLTBE, in this instance, is earned by playing time and the higher the draft pick, the better chance he has of being on the field to trigger the one-time payment. In theory, any way.
Here is how it broke down:
Jarron Gilbert, $740,000 signing bonus, $146,500 NLTBE, total bonus money $886,500
Juaquin Iglesias, $500,000 signing bonus, $119,900 NLTBE, total bonus money $619,900
Both players have escalators in the final year of the deal and with the base salaries Gilbert's contract is worth $2,636,500 and Iglesias' totals $2,369,900.
Read the article for more detail.
My questions are these and if any of you can answer them I'd much appreciate it.
1) Maybe the salary cap changes, but last year we had 4-5 more picks to sign, but were able to. Even if they didn't bump that money, shouldn't the extra still be there?
2) Almost every other team has at least a 1st and a 2nd, some have two firsts. We start with a third round pick and go down. Why haven't we heard about more teams having problems signing their guys?
Is it a case of the Bears not dedicating enough to the salary cap?
0 recs |
5 comments
|
Comments
hmmm... good analysis.
maybe that’s why the bears don’t dick around when it comes to signing draft picks.
Camp ifuwanna, we hold you in our heart...
by ifuwannacrownem on Jun 18, 2009 11:42 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
interesting
I wonder if the money in the pool depends on how many and what picks you have?
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Jun 18, 2009 11:49 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Its probably not an issue of not leaving enough
cap space. The rookie salary space is different. If we got shafted b/c of how low all our picks were that would explain it.
I wouldn’t worry about it.
There is no infinity button for failing in sports. At some point, things turn. They always do. - Bill Simmons
by Allie on Jun 18, 2009 12:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It boils down to
how early those picks are. If you have all high picks in each round, your rookie allocation is higher. If you have low picks, you have less to spend.
Unfortunately, the relationship of team value to draft value isn’t accounted for. So while a team would be thrilled to land a guy late in the 5th, the NFL only allocates a certain amount, regardless of value to team.
Another thing that screws things up, I think, are supplemental picks.
Those picks are still picked in whatever round, so they expect a contract along the lines of whatever round they’re picked.
So in turn, if you have 3 5th round picks, with 2 being supplemental, you’re getting shafted. You value that player, and sign him to his value, based on round, but the rookie salary values supplemental picks less, because they are later in that round.
Overall, I don’t understand it all either, but lower picks per round equal lower rookie allocation. And remember, not all teams sign all of their picks. Some prefer undrafted FAs to later picks. FA money is still FA money.
by kingj41 on Jun 18, 2009 1:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
apparently nobody in the NFL really knows how it works, but...
a specific and unspecified amount is assigned to draft picks… higher the pick, more money allowed, more picks, more money, and so on… at least that’s my understanding… if you want to get more confused/try to decipher, here is a good article to do both with:
Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgement that something else is more important than fear.
by windycity72 on Jun 18, 2009 7:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 



























