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

[sharpe1027]

This is too simplistic. One problem is players know that money in future years is not guaranteed, so all things being equal they take money now over the same amount several years out.

So, in order to push money into future years teams give large signing bonuses. In pay as you go, you can cut an underperforming player with little consequences. With a large signing bonus, you have dead cap if you cut them.

[Fritz]

This is too simplistic. One problem is players know that money in future years is not guaranteed, so all things being equal they take money now over the same amount several years out.

So, in order to push money into future years teams give large signing bonuses. In pay as you go, you can cut an underperforming player with little consequences. With a large signing bonus, you have dead cap if you cut them.

Thank you for using the word "simplistic" mostly correctly. It bugs me that people don't understand or seem to understand the difference between "simple" and "simplistic."

Hmm. Maybe I need a hobby, too.

[sharpe1027]

Thank you for using the word "simplistic" mostly correctly. It bugs me that people don't understand or seem to understand the difference between "simple" and "simplistic."

Hmm. Maybe I need a hobby, too.

You're welcome, mostly. Are you using "mostly" mostly correctly, or is there something wrong with my use of the word "simplistic"? I think the analysis was over simplified in a way that can be misleading.

[sharpe1027]

Thank you for using the word "simplistic" mostly correctly. It bugs me that people don't understand or seem to understand the difference between "simple" and "simplistic."

Hmm. Maybe I need a hobby, too.

Was I being redundant?

[Fritz]

Was I being redundant?

Yeah. I'm nitpicking. Since "simplistic" already means so simple that it denotes a lack of understanding of the issue, the use of "too" is, well, too much.

But your overall point - which is the main thing - is a good one.

As for the thread topic, well, this is definitely not my area of expertise. I just know I don't like credit card debt. And the Packers definitely seemed constrained last year and this year, thanks to Guter "running it back" a couple years ago.

[CaptainKickass]

Yeah. I'm nitpicking. Since "simplistic" already means so simple that it denotes a lack of understanding of the issue, the use of "too" is, well, too much.

Next, try to teach what seems like the entire sports universe, the super important vocabulary lesson highlighting the proper use of Dominant vs Dominate which I maintain is a fool's errand - yet find their repeated misuse annoying as fuck.

Example of proper use:
Gute has been dominant in the two previous drafts.
Gute will dominate the upcoming draft.

For the sake of thread integrity here's some broad kicking the cap:






This has mostly been a simplistic public service message.

[RashanGary]

Thank you for using the word "simplistic" mostly correctly. It bugs me that people don't understand or seem to understand the difference between "simple" and "simplistic."

Hmm. Maybe I need a hobby, too.

Now I gotta due some diggin