Cap affect of paying as you go vs pushing out and having dead space

[run pMc]

Good posts patler.

So we can discuss intelligently, what do you mean by "pushing the cap to the limit"?

This is actually a good question. You have to allow a certain amount of cap space to
- sign your draft class,
- call players up from the practice squad to the 53 (they get a pay bump)
- allow for those player performance bonuses (when a late round rookie plays more snaps than you'd expect, a la Royce Newman's rookie year),
- give yourself room to sign in-season extensions,
- potentially trade for a player with a higher salary,
- make in season signings when someone goes down with an injury and ends up on IR

All of these things tend to fall into a few more generalized buckets, but the point is you would never exit a draft with just enough to sign your draft class. Teams always allow extra cap space on top of that. Each team is going to have varying amounts set aside for these and so there will be variances in ideal cap space. I'm pretty sure Gute and Ball have been at the 'limit', and that's after cooking cap and kicking money down the road at the expense of future cap space and flexibility.

I can recall BOTH Ted and Gute only keeping 51 or 52 players on the active roster for a week or two to save a little cap space. You wouldn't do that if you weren't close to your limit.

I'm not against reworking a players contract to push money out. I am against doing it repeatedly for multiple players and ending up with a giant mess like they've had recently. Patler's point about the team (the offense, really) exceeding expectations is a good one: if the offense stunk we'd all be screaming about how the cap hell forced them to field a garage sale level payroll on offense that played poorly. They drafted well and have a promising future in spite of the ongoing cap issues. Getting the cap corrected for 2025 has always been part of their goal.

[texaspackerbacker]

So we can discuss intelligently, what do you mean by "pushing the cap to the limit"?

It seems like we've been doing that. Your post above, assuming it's accurate, describes an early way. The more likely way, of course, is backloading contracts and paying large prorated bonuses - virtually always smart things to do and stupid things not to do if a player is worth signing to a big contract at all. And when you reach those big money late years of the contract, you do it again/restructure if the guy is still good, and cut him if he isn't.

Like Sharpe said, Ted Thompson mostly didn't do that, which hurt the team during his years. Under Gutekunst, most of the contracts for the teams better players are like that, though, which is why I say the Packers are doing an excellent job of pushing the cap to the limit - and causing panic among ya'all that fail to comprehend and expect consequences. About the only way you have bad consequences is if somebody has a catastrophic injury in the early years of the contract.

[run pMc]

The more likely way, of course, is backloading contracts and paying large prorated bonuses - virtually always smart things to do and stupid things not to do if a player is worth signing to a big contract at all.

The assumption being the agent and player agree to do this as well. They backloaded and kicked a ton of money downstream for Aaron Jones, and he got released because he declined a paycut on that backloaded salary. Neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you, just pointing that out.

[bobblehead]

It seems like we've been doing that. Your post above, assuming it's accurate, describes an early way. The more likely way, of course, is backloading contracts and paying large prorated bonuses - virtually always smart things to do and stupid things not to do if a player is worth signing to a big contract at all. And when you reach those big money late years of the contract, you do it again/restructure if the guy is still good, and cut him if he isn't.

Like Sharpe said, Ted Thompson mostly didn't do that, which hurt the team during his years. Under Gutekunst, most of the contracts for the teams better players are like that, though, which is why I say the Packers are doing an excellent job of pushing the cap to the limit - and causing panic among ya'all that fail to comprehend and expect consequences. About the only way you have bad consequences is if somebody has a catastrophic injury in the early years of the contract.

Is carrying a dead cap hit of $50 million a good example of "pushing it to the limit"?

[texaspackerbacker]

hahahaha Probably yes - that and having one of the most talented teams in the league anyway.

[red]

if the cap goes up every single year the way it has been going, then it makes sense to kick the can down the road

lets take year 1, you have a guy with a 20 million dollar cap hit, and the cap is 200 million. that guy is taking up 10% of the cap

but you can somehow kick that 20 down the road a couple years to where the cap is gonna be 300 million. now that guys 20 million dollar cap number is only taking up 5% of the cap

so in the long run you win. (i used easy to use numbers, and not real life numbers that suck)

does that make any sense?

[texaspackerbacker]

Good Post, red. Careful, the dumbasses will start comparing you to me and APB hahahaha.

[sharpe1027]

if the cap goes up every single year the way it has been going, then it makes sense to kick the can down the road

lets take year 1, you have a guy with a 20 million dollar cap hit, and the cap is 200 million. that guy is taking up 10% of the cap

but you can somehow kick that 20 down the road a couple years to where the cap is gonna be 300 million. now that guys 20 million dollar cap number is only taking up 5% of the cap

so in the long run you win. (i used easy to use numbers, and not real life numbers that suck)

does that make any sense?

A couple points.

Every team gets the same bump and if they don't kick the can they can sign that covered free agent instead of you.

You lose the future cap whether you cut or trade the player, so your future team could miss out on a new signing (see first point above) and not even have the original player that's costing you on the roster.

You can get in situations where it makes more sense to keep a player on the roster that you would otherwise cut or trade. Then you carry both the cap hit pushed forward and their yearly salary costing even more total for a player you don't want

[sharpe1027]

Good Post, red. Careful, the dumbasses will start comparing you to me and APB hahahaha.

No comparison. Red hasn't claimed the cap is basically non-existent because you can always play games and don't have to worry about it.

[ThunderDan]

if the cap goes up every single year the way it has been going, then it makes sense to kick the can down the road

lets take year 1, you have a guy with a 20 million dollar cap hit, and the cap is 200 million. that guy is taking up 10% of the cap

but you can somehow kick that 20 down the road a couple years to where the cap is gonna be 300 million. now that guys 20 million dollar cap number is only taking up 5% of the cap

so in the long run you win. (i used easy to use numbers, and not real life numbers that suck)

does that make any sense?

20/300 = 6.67% not 5%

[ThunderDan]

if the cap goes up every single year the way it has been going, then it makes sense to kick the can down the road

lets take year 1, you have a guy with a 20 million dollar cap hit, and the cap is 200 million. that guy is taking up 10% of the cap

but you can somehow kick that 20 down the road a couple years to where the cap is gonna be 300 million. now that guys 20 million dollar cap number is only taking up 5% of the cap

so in the long run you win. (i used easy to use numbers, and not real life numbers that suck)

does that make any sense?

The problem with that thinking is that the owners have to pay a certain percentage of the cap each year. So contracts tend to increase the same amount as the salary cap.

That leads to, paying less for player A but more for player B who signed his contract this year and not 2 years ago.

[red]

20/300 = 6.67% not 5%

damnit

so much for easy to use numbers

thanks for the correction

[run pMc]

You're also assuming that (a) the cap will go up every year - a reasonable assumption, barring another pandemic and (b) the amount you are kicking down the road stays generally proportional to the cap increase. That's a lot harder to predict and manage, especially since teams don't know the cap increase until just before the new season starts. If the cap goes up 15M but you have to eat 40M because of Bakhtiari and Jones and Rasul, you've kicked too much.

Was going to make an analogy with the national debt and growing economy/GDP, but that wades into FYI so I'll skip it. Point is, red is somewhat correct but managing that ratio of can-kicking to cap increase is almost impossible.

[red]

And just for the record, I’m not saying that the thing I mentioned was right or wrong. It’s just something that popped into my head late last night, so I figured I would jot it down

I could see a real bean counter type thinking that way

[texaspackerbacker]

No comparison. Red hasn't claimed the cap is basically non-existent because you can always play games and don't have to worry about it.

hahahaha And now you've degenerated from dumbass to total imbecile.

The cap is "basically non-existent"? Nobody ever said that. "Play games"? Your ignorant words, not mine.

The cap indeed CAN virtually always be defeated, and it is stupid to worry about it - like a lot of panicky fools in here do. I've explained how, but better than the explanation, all ya'all dumbasses need to do is look at how the Packers and most successful teams have handled it and continue to handle it. Sheeeeeesh, stop being so pathetic.

[texaspackerbacker]

You're also assuming that (a) the cap will go up every year - a reasonable assumption, barring another pandemic and (b) the amount you are kicking down the road stays generally proportional to the cap increase. That's a lot harder to predict and manage, especially since teams don't know the cap increase until just before the new season starts. If the cap goes up 15M but you have to eat 40M because of Bakhtiari and Jones and Rasul, you've kicked too much.

Was going to make an analogy with the national debt and growing economy/GDP, but that wades into FYI so I'll skip it. Point is, red is somewhat correct but managing that ratio of can-kicking to cap increase is almost impossible.

More nicely and patiently worded than I did, but pretty well said, run pMc. And that analogy you didn't make hahahaha is good too. You should show up over there sometime.

It takes a catastrophic injury on the heels of a huge contract like the Bakhtiari situation to even make a minor worrisome situation with the cap. Jones and Rasul very likely were gone for mostly non-cap related reasons. The more massive increase in the cap this year was sort of predictable, at least a safe bet.

The bottom line for anybody with a brain in there head is that the cap or the dead money or whatever else those fools are panicking over has NOT prevented the Packers from having an outstandingly talented team.

[ThunderDan]

What about ARod and Russell Wilson's massive cap hits to their former teams? Neither was a catastrophic injury.

[sharpe1027]

What about ARod and Russell Wilson's massive cap hits to their former teams? Neither was a catastrophic injury.

Catastrophic injury to a team is a very low bar. No catastrophic injury doesn't mean no consequences.

[sharpe1027]

hahahaha And now you've degenerated from dumbass to total imbecile.

The cap is "basically non-existent"? Nobody ever said that. "Play games"? Your ignorant words, not mine.

The cap indeed CAN virtually always be defeated, and it is stupid to worry about it - like a lot of panicky fools in here do. I've explained how, but better than the explanation, all ya'all dumbasses need to do is look at how the Packers and most successful teams have handled it and continue to handle it. Sheeeeeesh, stop being so pathetic.

You an ignorant ashole that constantly calls people names to make yourself feel better.

You literally proved my point in the same post you claim otherwise.

[texaspackerbacker]

What about ARod and Russell Wilson's massive cap hits to their former teams? Neither was a catastrophic injury.

Wilson's quality dropped inexplicably - why I don't know. Did Denver let him go because of the cap? Or just because he his play wasn't worth the money he was being paid? I suspect the latter.

As for Rodgers, if there was a Venn Diagram of ignorant and ungrateful Rodgers haters and ignorant cap panickers, you'd see a large overlap hahahahaha. One factor of the Rodgers situation (with the Packers I mean) was, of course, injury - catastrophic? that depends on your point of view. Regardless, the Packers were under pressure to trade him. If he had continued on for a few more years as the starter with restructuring, there undoubtedly would have been eventual dead money, but it likely would have been less sudden than now. As for Rodgers now with the Jets, I really don't know what his contract is like, but if they do end up with cap problems, his catastrophic injury certainly would have a lot to do with it.

The bottom line, though, I say again, is that the Packers are doing fine, one of the most talented teams in the NFL. Most of the teams that push the limit of the cap also are glad they did. The teams making a big deal of the cap are generally perennial losers.