Playing With Numbers
October 23rd, 2009
The Bucs are wretched. Not even Rachel Watson would dispute that.
A lot of the blame for the brutal Bucs is that, in short, management gets what it paid for (little). Bucs officials will point to the fact they have met the requirements of the salary cap, specifically the salary floor.
Not so fast my friend. No less an authority than the Wall Street Journal details just a few of the many tricks a savvy capologist can play to use all sorts of loopholes in the salary cap, brought to you by Reed Albergotti.
A person familiar with the finances of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers says that last season, the team signed two free-agents, running back Noah Herron and defensive end Patrick Chukwurah, for contracts that totalled $25 million. Under the rules of the salary cap, the Buccaneers were charged that full amount for the players. But to actually earn that money, each player had to, among other things, block six punts apiece—an exceedingly difficult prospect. In the end, neither player ended up taking a single snap. Mr. Herron was paid $157,000 and Mr. Chukwurah $71,000, although the team’s salary-cap number reflected the full value of their contracts. Tampa Bay, which ranked among the lowest teams in spending last season, has lost all six of its games. Tampa Bay and NFL officials declined to comment.
Hhhmmm? A “person familiar with the finances” of the Bucs? That wouldn’t happen to be Bruce Almighty by chance, would it?
October 23rd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Just more proof that the Glazers are starting to look alot like Culverhouse. Didn’t Old Hugh spend some decent money for the time and get the Bucs to respectability from 1979 to (maybe) 1982. Then just hoarded all of the money given by Revenue sharing and only spending the minimum in cap until he died. At least he was a known cheap-skate. The Glazers are all locked up with Man U soaked in Red ink and now they neglect there cash cow. Pathetic!!
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:06 pm
I asked this elsewhere, but I’ll ask it here too…
I’m confused by this. I thought that incentive-based contracts only counted against the cap if they were likely to be earned. All incentives that were unlikely to be earned (e.g., blocking six punts) would not be applied to the cap unless they were actually achieved.
Therefore, a team like the Bucs would be unable to use tactics like these to reach the cap floor, right?
Anyone have more insight on this?
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
its official now, the Glazers suck.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:37 pm
I’m not sure but I think Joe is trying to say Bruce and Gruden are the ones that have put the Bucs in this terrible position that they are in. Keep throwing the shit Joe it will stick sooner or later. How much do those clowns give you to try and keep the ship upright?
October 24th, 2009 at 1:11 am
JK:
You have equal parts a vivid imagination and a terrible agenda you just won’t let go of.
Exactly where in that story does it even remotely suggest Chucky or Bruce Almighty determined how much to spend on payroll? You don’t think Bruce Almighty was given a budget not to exceed?
Additionally, are you capable of writing a comment where you don’t somehow invoke Chucky’s name?
Joe really respects how you are a long-time and frequent commenter JK, but Joe thought he was obsessed with Rachel Watson? Geez.
October 24th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Joe, I don’t bring up Allen or Gruden unless you write about them first. Your as obsessed with him as I am. Yours for a different reason than me.
October 24th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Nice dodge JK.
Once again, please point out — copy and paste the exact words or phrase — where Allen or Gruden were mentioned in that Wall Street Journal article, specifically Gruden.
Yeah, Joe mentioned Allen as a source. Joe wasn’t negative about Allen at all.
Are you Gruden’s wife? You can hardly write anything without invoking his name.
Nice attempt in trying turn the tables. You lost.
Not once is Chucky’s name to be found in that article, yet Joe’s the one who is obsessed??? LOL!