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

[RashanGary]

This is what 4 year contracts do to the salary cap when you pay as you go vs pushing into the future.

Let’s say in both cases the player earns 20M per season for 4 seasons. (4 years 80M)

The first team pushes the larger hits later and takes 10M dead the year after the player leaves.

Cap hit 10M
Cap hit 15M
Cap hit 20M
Cap hit 25M
Cap hit 10M dead

The second team pays as they go
Cap hit 20
Cap hit 20
Cap hit 20
Cap hit 20
No dead money

But every year we add a new contract with the same structure. The first team keeps adding contracts to push out and the second team keeps paying as they go.

Salary caps are the same for both teams as the years go by. We’ll stop the pattern when it starts repeating and shows the full effect of each strategy.

100
100
120
120
145
145
170
170
200
200
240
240
290
290

1st team (team Gute)

Year 1 (Salary Cap 100M)
Player A counts 10M (10% of cap)
10% of cap used in total

Year 2 (Salary Cap 100M)
Player A counts 15M (15% of cap)
Player B counts 10M (10% of cap)
25% of cap used in total

Year 3 (Salary Cap 120M)
Player A counts 20M (17% of cap)
Player B counts 15M (12.5 of cap)
Player C counts 10M (8% of cap)
37.5% of cap used total

Year 4 (Salary Cap 120M)
Player A counts 25M (20% of cap)
Player B counts 20M (17% of cap)
Player C counts 15M (12.5% of cap)
Player D counts 10M (8% of cap)
58% of cap used total

Year 5 (Salary Cap 140M)
Player A counts 10M dead (7% of cap)
Player B counts 25M (18% of cap)
Player C counts 20M (14% of cap)
Player D counts 15M (11% of cap)
Player E counts 10M (7% of cap)
57% of cap used total

Year 6 (Salary Cap 140M)
Player A off books
Player B 10M dead (7% of cap)
Player C 25M (18% of cap)
Player D 20M (14% of cap)
Player E 15M (11% of cap)
Player F 10M (7% of cap)
57% of cap used total

Year 7 (Salary Cap 160M)
Player A off books
Player B off books
Player C 10M dead (6% of cap)
Player D 25M (16% of cap)
Player E 20M (13% of cap)
Player F 15M (9% of cap)
Player G 10M (6% of cap)
50% of cap used total


Team Polar Bear

Year 1 (Salary Cap 100M)
Player A 20M (20% of cap)
20% of cap used total

Year 2 (Salary Cap 100M)
Player A 20M (20% of cap)
Player B 20M (20% of cap)
40% of cap used total

Year 3 (Salary Cap 120M)
Player A 20M (16.5% of cap)
Player B 20M (16.5% of cap)
Player C 20M (16.5% of cap)
50% of cap used total

Year 4 (salary cap 120M)
Player A 20M (16.5% of cap)
Player B 20M (16.5% of cap)
Player C 20M (16.5% of cap)
Player D 20M (16.6% of cap)
67% of cap used total

Year 5 (salary cap 140M)
Player A off books
Player B 20M (14% of cap)
Player C 20M (14% of cap)
Player D 20M (14% of cap)
Player E 20M (14% of cap)
57% of cap used total

Year 6 (salary cap 140M)
Player A off books
Player B off books
Player C 20M (14% of cap)
Player D 20M (14% of cap)
Player E 20M (14% of cap)
Player F 20M (14% of cap)
57% of cap used total

Year 7 (salary cap 160M)
Player A off books
Player B off books
Player C off books
Player D 20M (12.5% of cap)
Player E 20M (12.5% of cap)
Player F 20M (12.5% of cap)
Player G 20M (12.5% of cap)
50% of cap used



This is the comparisons, same players paid the exact same dollar amounts and how it affects the cap

Year 1
Gute 10% cap used
Polar Bear 20% cap used

Year 2
Gute 25% of cap used
Polar Bear 40% cap used

Year 3
Gute 37.5% cap used
Polar Bear 50% of cap used

Year 4
Gute 58% of cap used
Polar Bear 67% of cap used



And here is where the dead space should start eating us alive


Year 5
Gute 57% of cap used
Polar Bear 57% of cap used

Year 6
Gute 57% of cap used
Polar Bear 57% of cap used

Year 7
Gute 50% of cap used
Polar Bear 50% of cap used

[Joemailman]

You need a hobby.

[RashanGary]

So pushing money into the future, you end up with the same players using the same amount of cap space as you would paying as you go.


If you stick with Tex’s plan of always pushing out, it’s true, you do no worse, but this clearly shows that you do no better after a few years of doing it, it catches up. The big downside of always being max pushed is that you can run into situations where you can’t take advantage of a really good opportunity because you’re always stretched thin.


The better strategy would be to stay in a spot where you have flexibility. As you can see above, the person pushing out gets no more talent than the person who’s responsible. So if you stay in the flexible area as your normal operating position, you have the option to make a push when you love your window or to just take advantage of good opportunities as they arise. Pushing ahead as a regular strategy has absolutely zero benefit.

[RashanGary]

You need a hobby.

I couldn’t picture how it would all work out. Since I was putting in the work, might as well share the results. But typing it on my phone is a lot more work than a sheet of paper, haha

[RashanGary]

But I think you can clearly see, if you always front load, or always back load, you’re really getting the same amount of talent. The only time you would see an advantage or disadvantage would be when you shift strategies and that would only be for a couple years one way or the other.

[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.

[Frozen Tundra]

I couldn’t picture how it would all work out. Since I was putting in the work, might as well share the results. But typing it on my phone is a lot more work than a sheet of paper, haha

Whoa.... wait a minute.... you're saying you did that all on your phone??

Holy cats. I, for one, am deeply impressed. I'm totally useless on those damned things. Takes me 6 minutes just to dial a number... and that's using speed dial. :worship:

[run pMc]

The other thing to consider is that if you're talking about extensions or FA, other teams are also bidding for this player, and they may have a completely different philosophy on spending.
You can't just assume you can sign a player to a pay as you go contract... very few players will take that because they know they can be cut and see none of that money. For them it's all about how much guaranteed money they can get. In many cases they will take less if a larger portion is guaranteed because they know they are getting that no matter what happens.

[RashanGary]

Right, this was very simplistic in structure. It was intentionally simple to show that really small cap hits early pay for dead cap once you’re in the habit of pushing ahead more than what is common.

Roster bonuses that trigger the day of the signing are guarantees. The first years base is pretty much a guarantee. There are ways to take a bigger cap hit early or late and still give the same up front.

If you’re in the habit of really pushing it out, and taking the tiniest hits possible early, you end up with dead space. What’s shown here is that you can function without a disadvantage as long as you’re continually pushing out to the same degree.

So Tex was right that you just keep pushing out to fix it.
He was wrong that it’s an advantage because after a few years, the dead cap nullifies any advantage you might have had when you went to the new way.

The common view was wrong that it cap straps you because like Tex always said, you just keep doing the same thing.



I was glad to see it in practice. Pushing out more is no advantage if it’s your regular practice. It’s better to be in a flexible spot as your main operation and then use the pushing out when there is a window or a special opportunity.

[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]

Right, this was very simplistic in structure. It was intentionally simple to show that really small cap hits early pay for dead cap once you’re in the habit of pushing ahead more than what is common.

Roster bonuses that trigger the day of the signing are guarantees. The first years base is pretty much a guarantee. There are ways to take a bigger cap hit early or late and still give the same up front.

If you’re in the habit of really pushing it out, and taking the tiniest hits possible early, you end up with dead space. What’s shown here is that you can function without a disadvantage as long as you’re continually pushing out to the same degree.

So Tex was right that you just keep pushing out to fix it.
He was wrong that it’s an advantage because after a few years, the dead cap nullifies any advantage you might have had when you went to the new way.

The common view was wrong that it cap straps you because like Tex always said, you just keep doing the same thing.



I was glad to see it in practice. Pushing out more is no advantage if it’s your regular practice. It’s better to be in a flexible spot as your main operation and then use the pushing out when there is a window or a special opportunity.

You're missing the point. if you push out cap into future years with signing bonuses, you'll have less money in those future years than if you don't. This gets worse when you factor in that when you don't push out cap you can get rid of underperforming players and bring in better players with the money you have extra due to less dead space. Add to that injuries and trades as being more problematic because they can accelerate cap and you start to see why large signing bonuses to push out cap are riskier.

[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.

[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.

:lol: Now I gotta due some diggin

[RashanGary]

You're missing the point. if you push out cap into future years with signing bonuses, you'll have less money in those future years than if you don't. This gets worse when you factor in that when you don't push out cap you can get rid of underperforming players and bring in better players with the money you have extra due to less dead space. Add to that injuries and trades as being more problematic because they can accelerate cap and you start to see why large signing bonuses to push out cap are riskier.

That is true if you’re willing to push out at some point. If you’re in “keep cap health” mode and you intend to always stay there, you absolutely do not have more to spend. The very nature of that is to take hits earlier than late. That offsets the dead money of always pushing forward.

Whether you always keep a healthy cap or always max it out, I have no doubt you are wrong that you end up having less to pay for talent.

However, the moment you switch strategies, for a couple years you will have more or less.

[RashanGary]

I believe the best strategy is a flexible strategy that is driven by “opportunity”

You can’t choose when a specific position drops to you in the draft
You can’t choose when an ideal free agent class drops to you
You can’t choose which guys lose their health
You can’t choose when you land a particularly good couple drafts, nor can you choose when you have a tough stretch



If you’re always pushing forward to max, you can’t choose when to make an extra splash that takes advantage of an opportunity, nor can you choose to do that if you’re rigid in staying in a certain cap health situation.

However, your cap health is 100% something, as a GM, you have complete control over. So I believe using that flexibility to surf the wave of opportunity is the way to go.

[bobblehead]

Here's the bottom line. A team needs to stretch the cap a bit WHEN THEY HAVE TALENT ON ROSTER. Its fine to make sure you lock up players who are successful in your system and extend windows. My gripe is thinking you can pay every FA on the market and buy championships. It doesn't work for a variety of reasons. And when you get carried away with it you end up with a cap situation that forces you to jettison valuable talent. 5-6 years from now, aprh and assuming progression rather than regression we will have a lot of talent up for contracts. I have no problem stretching the cap to keep them. An occasional FA signing to fill a hole even makes sense. However the Smith contracts went 50%. Turner ended up costing us for an average player. I forget who the 4th signing was that year which leads me to believe it cost us. Maybe not, I don't recall.

We tried to buy a title and came up short. Then we way overpayed our QB because he was upset. We won't be clear of that issue until after next year, but we really could use a FA safety this year. You can kick the cap, but there are limitations.

[RashanGary]

Here's the bottom line. A team needs to stretch the cap a bit WHEN THEY HAVE TALENT ON ROSTER. Its fine to make sure you lock up players who are successful in your system and extend windows. My gripe is thinking you can pay every FA on the market and buy championships. It doesn't work for a variety of reasons. And when you get carried away with it you end up with a cap situation that forces you to jettison valuable talent. 5-6 years from now, aprh and assuming progression rather than regression we will have a lot of talent up for contracts. I have no problem stretching the cap to keep them. An occasional FA signing to fill a hole even makes sense. However the Smith contracts went 50%. Turner ended up costing us for an average player. I forget who the 4th signing was that year which leads me to believe it cost us. Maybe not, I don't recall.

We tried to buy a title and came up short. Then we way overpayed our QB because he was upset. We won't be clear of that issue until after next year, but we really could use a FA safety this year. You can kick the cap, but there are limitations.

Yes. With the attention spans of people (me included) it’s hard to get people to invest time reading the amount of words it would take to explain a bunch of the factors. Unless they’re a proven professional, you just don’t want to spend the energy reading some fans opinion.

But, right.

Adrian Amos was the 4th and nobody wants to keep him for some reason, so he can’t be that good. Maybe it’s personality because his play seemed fine.


When you draft a guy, you have his whole medical history from 4 years in the NFL. You know what kind of guy he is. You know what his assignments were so you have a better gauge on his play. It always looks scary when someone puts their hand in a lions mouth, but when you raised the little guy, you have enough information to make an informed decision on whether it’s safe to put your hand in his mouth.

Huge contracts that go bad for a GM are about as bad for your career as getting your arm chewed off by a Lion is for your physical health. You better be sure Simba has your best interest before you start letting him playfully chew your forearm.


So, was Ted a coward who wouldn’t spend in UFA or was he the guy holding the camera while his buddies got their arms chewed off petting the lions through the cage at the zoo? The world may never know.

But whether the world knows or not, I agree. UFA is dangerous. Not the kind of dangerous where you call your buddy a pussy for chickening out, but the kind of dangerous where maybe you get your arm chewed off. I’d rather be holding the camera.

[sharpe1027]

I'm not saying one approach is inherently better than the other. I am saying they aren't equivalent.

[RashanGary]

I'm not saying one approach is inherently better than the other. I am saying they aren't equivalent.

Agree. Depends on the situation.

Signing your own sends a message of loyalty
Signing your own is less risky because you have medicals and a clearer picture of what their assignments are
Signing your own, you know how trust worthy the person is

For a number of reasons, you don’t want to be signing UFA and letting your guys go.



There are as many unique situations as there are stars in the sky. Sometimes your guys you drafted are ass holes. No one in the lockerroom blinks when you let an ass hole leave. So ALWAYS signing your own doesn’t make sense.

Nor does NEVER dipping in UFA. Everyone knows when Oren Burks is holding the team back. No one’s gonna be offended if you brought in Fred Warner.

I think the method that would give you the best chance is to draft well. But no one can do that consistently. It’s just never happened. Same way a hitter in baseball doesn’t go 2 for 2 or better every game. It’s just never happened and I’d bet everything I have it will never happen.

So you draft well first. And then you sign your best players (good people, high performance, all the things that go into “best”.) If you have a bad draft or two, I think you’re better to front load a little than to bring in a bunch of UFAs. Maybe you aren’t quite as good one year, but youll be able to sign all your good ones that come up a year or two later.

So kind of bounce between front loading or backloading depending on the opportunities available. And by opportunities, I mean opportunities to sign your own as priority number 1.

If you don’t draft well, ever, and you just suck, sure, sign a bunch of UFAs to try to save your job. But you getting fired either way. My game plan only works if you can perform in the draft more often than the average.

[RashanGary]

It’s really adaptability and flexibility with tendencies to lean toward the processes that give the highest probability for success. Any contract is rolling dice. But if it’s a guy you’ve seen for 4 years it’s more like rolling 3 dice instead of only having 2. If you only get to throw dice a limited number of times, you want to be rolling 3 dice as often as you can. And you might even wait a year to roll again because you’d rather when you do roll, you get the best chance.

But even that’s not absolute. If you feel like you’re soooooo close, maybe you’re like fuck it, I’m rolling 2 dice. I like my chances of a title right now with 2 dice more than my chances next year with 3. There are scenarios when taking the lower probability roll pay off too. Or you’re just feeling nervous and you jump the gun and get lucky.

It’s never ending scenarios, but there are some things that are proven to give you a better chance. Drafting well and signing your own should be the centerpiece of your operation.

[texaspackerbacker]

Dontcha just love theoretical shit? hahahaha

Yes, RG, you probably do need a hobby. It is admirable that you "did the math" as they say. It's also admirable that you concluded that I'm right - although you coulda just taken my word for it. Honestly, though, it's not merely "my" idea. It's what most successful teams/GMs do most of the time. Teams not doing it are not maximizing things. Sometimes, you can get by with that not maximizing - Ol' Ted for many years with GOAT QBs or KC as somebody pointed out, also with a GOATish QB. Probably other examples could be dug up too, but in general, maximizing is better than not maximizing.

It's also true that this whole topic is simplistic if you don't include context - like whether you have enough good players worth keeping that the cap even becomes a factor or if you're blessed with a lot of first contract talent that the cap isn't a factor (maybe the current Packers) or whether some free agent pops up that will make a difference, and you don't have cap space without doing something creative (maybe also the current Packers).

[sharpe1027]

I don't think you'll find many people that think you should never backload a contract. When people say things like the cap doesn't mean anything because you can just keep kicking the can down the road, well yeah, they start disagreeing. It's just not entirely true.

[RashanGary]

I don't think you'll find many people that think you should never backload a contract. When people say things like the cap doesn't mean anything because you can just keep kicking the can down the road, well yeah, they start disagreeing. It's just not entirely true.

Agree. Not true at all. This exercise shows that after a few years of kicking the can down the road as far as you can kick it, you have no advantage at all because the dead cap offsets whatever kicking you try to do.

But Tex is absolutely right that you’re never in “cap hell” and have to start over. You can always continually kick and be no worse off than a team that refuses to kick.

But a team that wasn’t kicking and then decides to kick at an opportune time, they do have an advantage over either of the above teams.

[RashanGary]

What’s more important than “when you pay” is “who you’re paying.” Whether you pay 80M in 4 years or 80M in 5 years for 4 years of service, you still paid 80M for four years of service.

If you’re always willing to pay later you pay no more so have no less.

But if you sign bad contracts (Bakh after injury,) that’s a different story.

[RashanGary]

If there’s anything we should really put our energy into analyzing, we should be analyzing if the player is worth the paycheck, not when the money gets doled out.

[RashanGary]

A core difference in this aspect of “paying later” that I think makes it hard to understand is that unlike the credit we’re used to getting in real life, this credit has no interest. It’s not the same as credit cards or loans.

Each year is a new cap so you’ll always have somewhere to push it if that’s the route you want to take, you’ll never be in “cap hell”, you’ll never have to “start over” and you’ll never pay a penny of interest. In fact, if two teams pay 80M for 4 years for the same player, but one team pays later…. Neither team paid a penny more and neither team is worse off for it.

[sharpe1027]

Player contract #1
Signing bonus $5M
SALARY
Y1 $10M
Y2 $15M
Y3 $20M
Y4 $20M
Total= $70M

Contract #2
$40M signing bonus
Y1 $1m
Y2 $4M
Y3 $10M
Y4 $15M

$70M total compensation.

Player can't stay on the field due to constant hamstring problems and sleeps with the star QBs wife.

Contract #1 you cut him year 2 and he's only counting $4M against your cap. Contract #2 he counts $30M. It doesn't happen every time thst you want to cut or trade a plaher before the contract runs out. But it does happen and you'll pay more on average with the second approach.

[texaspackerbacker]

Agree. Not true at all. This exercise shows that after a few years of kicking the can down the road as far as you can kick it, you have no advantage at all because the dead cap offsets whatever kicking you try to do.

But Tex is absolutely right that you’re never in “cap hell” and have to start over. You can always continually kick and be no worse off than a team that refuses to kick.

But a team that wasn’t kicking and then decides to kick at an opportune time, they do have an advantage over either of the above teams.

Exactly. I would absolutely HATE it if a team I'm a fan of tore down to rebuild, as a few occasionally have done in the NFL as well as in MLB and other sports.

Sharpe's example is valid too, but it would be rare enough to be irrelevant.

[sharpe1027]

Exactly. I would absolutely HATE it if a team I'm a fan of tore down to rebuild, as a few occasionally have done in the NFL as well as in MLB and other sports.

Sharpe's example is valid too, but it would be rare enough to be irrelevant.
Bahktiari could have been cut last year if not for his accelerated cap hit being enormous. Instead we were forced to carry $21M in wasted cap that could have been used elsewhere. We can cut him this year but it's $20M dead cap wasted.

Rodgers cost over $20M last year that we wouldn't have had to deal with if not for a huge signing bonuses.

It happens plenty.

[ThunderDan]

Player contract #1
Signing bonus $5M
SALARY
Y1 $10M
Y2 $15M
Y3 $20M
Y4 $20M
Total= $70M

Contract #2
$40M signing bonus
Y1 $1m
Y2 $4M
Y3 $10M
Y4 $15M

$70M total compensation.

Player can't stay on the field due to constant hamstring problems and sleeps with the star QBs wife.

Contract #1 you cut him year 2 and he's only counting $4M against your cap. Contract #2 he counts $30M. It doesn't happen every time thst you want to cut or trade a plaher before the contract runs out. But it does happen and you'll pay more on average with the second approach.

This is exactly what the cook the cap group doesn't understand. As soon as you have to cut a player who you kicked a contract down the road you are screwed.

Just look at the 2024 Packers. If we hadn't dealt ARod to NY and took the cap hit last year, we would be $40,000,000 over the cap. You could cut Bacht, Jones, Smith, Clark and Campbell to get cap relief of $34 M. We would still be $6,000,000 over the cap.

Love walks because we have no cap room to sign him to a contract.

You can't extend players on their first contracts until the final year, so there are no games to be played there with our promising up-and-comers.

[ThunderDan]

And just so APB doesn't have to get his panties in a bunch, the Packers have plenty of cash to pay all of their players.

[RashanGary]

Player contract #1
Signing bonus $5M
SALARY
Y1 $10M
Y2 $15M
Y3 $20M
Y4 $20M
Total= $70M

Contract #2
$40M signing bonus
Y1 $1m
Y2 $4M
Y3 $10M
Y4 $15M

$70M total compensation.

Player can't stay on the field due to constant hamstring problems and sleeps with the star QBs wife.

Contract #1 you cut him year 2 and he's only counting $4M against your cap. Contract #2 he counts $30M. It doesn't happen every time thst you want to cut or trade a plaher before the contract runs out. But it does happen and you'll pay more on average with the second approach.

There isn’t an example in the last 20 years of the contract you listed first. Nothing even in the ballpark. So that’s not really something we should be considering in this discussion. The second contract had 41M guaranteed and the first had 15 million guaranteed. Those aren’t the same thing.

If you wanted to compare equal contracts that way, you’d have to knock team 2s signing bonus down to 14M

[RashanGary]

Im chilling with my son so don’t have time to draw up comparable 70M deals with comparable guaranteed money. But we really do have to set what you just typed up aside and move into something that actually applies to the NFL and also something with similar guarantees.

[sharpe1027]

There isn’t an example in the last 20 years of the contract you listed first. Nothing even in the ballpark. So that’s not really something we should be considering in this discussion. The second contract had 41M guaranteed and the first had 15 million guaranteed. Those aren’t the same thing.

If you wanted to compare equal contracts that way, you’d have to knock team 2s signing bonus down to 14M

Seriously? Your example is not real either. The purpose of my example just to show the difference between pushing money into later years using the signing bonus.

[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:

https://www.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/bottle-cap-kicking-challenge-fb15-png__700.jpg




This has mostly been a simplistic public service message.

[RashanGary]

Seriously? Your example is not real either. The purpose of my example just to show the difference between pushing money into later years using the signing bonus.

There is a huge difference between what I did and what you did.

Taking cap hits earlier as one method happens. Likewise, structuring so the hits are taken later with void years to pay even later is another method. Teams really do use both methods.

Using simple contracts help illustrate a point. That’s not the issue I have. You used your example to surmise that paying later means you can’t get out of a contract as easy. I think we can both easily agree that what you actually showed was that guaranteeing less money makes it easier to get out of a contract sooner. So the actual difference is when you get a player to sign a horrible contract for himself, the team wins. And yes, I do agree to that. But it really has nothing to do with what we’re talking about here. This is about the cap hits, not about suckering players into horrible deals. We need a new thread for that.

[RashanGary]

Come back with similar guarantees and show the same money distributed the two different ways and then we can see if it’s easier to get out of in the second year. Hint, hint, it’s not. So you don’t need to waste your time.

[RashanGary]

And yes, I’m being a dick like bobble. I, too, am an asshole. But I’m a little insulted by the argument. It’s not genuine and I know you know the difference so I’m firing back.

[sharpe1027]

Come back with similar guarantees and show the same money distributed the two different ways and then we can see if it’s easier to get out of in the second year. Hint, hint, it’s not. So you don’t need to waste your time.

That's factually wrong. If the guaranteed money hits the cap earlier in the contract, you can cut them more easily than if you backload the same guaranteed money, e.g., through a signing bonus

Don't be a dick.

[RashanGary]

That's factually wrong. If the guaranteed money hits the cap earlier in the contract, you can cut them more easily than if you backload the same guaranteed money, e.g., through a signing bonus

Don't be a dick.

If you guarantee the same amount of money, you still pay the same amount of money, so what are you saving again?

[RashanGary]

If you pay 50 million in the first year and cut them, but you already took the full 50M hit… yes, you’re not paying for it anymore. But if you already paid the 50million for one year and took the hit, are you really gaining anything? No. It’s a ridiculous argument.

[sharpe1027]

I think Bahk's contract was restructured to convert a large roster bonus to a signing bonus. If they hadn't done that, we'd pay him basically the same amount through this year, but we could cut him with much less dead cap. We chose a contract with the same guaranteed money hitting later years. Now we're stuck with a worse cap situation in exchange for more room when we restructured.

We can't get out as easily now.

[RashanGary]

Here’s a very realistic way of describing in a metaphor.


If you have the cap hits later, you’ll have to cut your arm off later.

But instead of paying later, you just cut your arm off now. And what you’re saying is since you already cut your arm off, you’re winning because you don’t have to cut it off later.

You paid 40 mil. I paid 40 mil. No ones getting out of that guarantee with both arms. Sorry man.

[sharpe1027]

If you pay 50 million in the first year and cut them, but you already took the full 50M hit… yes, you’re not paying for it anymore. But if you already paid the 50million for one year and took the hit, are you really gaining anything? No. It’s a ridiculous argument.

It's facts not an argument.

[sharpe1027]

Here’s a very realistic way of describing in a metaphor.


If you have the cap hits later, you’ll have to cut your arm off later.

But instead of paying later, you just cut your arm off now. And what you’re saying is since you already cut your arm off, you’re winning because you don’t have to cut it off later.

You paid 40 mil. I paid 40 mil. No ones getting out of that guarantee with both arms. Sorry man.

Bahk would have been cut or traded already if not for the cap situation. That means we keep a broken player in the roster for one to two years of paying the nonguarantee portion of his contract because cutting him makes no sense from a cap perspective. We end up paying more overall and more cap hit overall.

[RashanGary]

You don’t want a hit in your cap.

When you make a guaranteed portion of a contract, you’re guaranteed to do something you don’t want to do.

Whether you do it now or later it’s still the exact same thing. You took a hit on your cap. And it was guaranteed.


If you substitute taking a cap hit (something you don’t want) with cutting your arm off (also something you don’t want)

I think we can clearly see that if we cut our arm off now or later, it’s still the same result.

[RashanGary]

Bahk would have been cut or traded already if not for the cap situation. That means we keep a broken player in the roster for one to two years of paying the nonguarantee portion of his contract because cutting him makes no sense from a cap perspective. We end up paying more overall and more cap hit overall.

The Packers signed David Baktiari to a 4 year 91 million dollar deal with 62M fully guaranteed. Whether you used signing bonuses or guaranteed roster bonuses, it’s still fully guaranteed.

Here’s how a front loaded deal with 62M guaranteed would look. And we HAVE TO INCLUDE THE GUARANTEED. That’s why he signed. There’s no way out of that.

20M signing bonus
42M total guaranteed roster bonuses
62M guarantees between the two types of bonuses
29M in non guaranteed base salaries
91M total

Year 1 - 1M base - 16M roster bonus paid at day 1 league year but fully guaranteed at signing (22M cap hit)
Year 2 - 1M base - 16M roster bonus paid on day 1 league year but fully guaranteed on signing (22M cap hit)
Year 3 - 11M base - 10M roster bound paid on day 1 league year but fully guaranteed on signing (26M cap hit)
Year 4 - 16M base - (21M cap hit)


No matter how you structure 62M of guarantees you still can’t cut him or all the guarantees accelerate. Once you decided you wanted David Bakhtiari, you decided you would pay a lot of guarantees and no matter how you structured it, you’re screwed if he has a career ender.

The real problem was the guarantees, not the later cap hits. There’s no way to guarantee 62M without paying 62M when you cut the guy. Draw me up a simple example where that money doesn’t accelerate when you cut him. Make it fully guaranteed and then don’t pay him. I want to see how you guarantee 62 and then don’t pay it because you cut him. I’ve never seen that .

[RashanGary]

Your misunderstanding is that you think we guaranteed a signing bonus so we could take the hits later. The only reason we guaranteed money at all is because players refuse to sign without it. We were fucked regardless of how we structured guarantees once he had a career ender.

[RashanGary]

If we’re just drawing up contracts without guaranteeing anything I would do this

1M base year 1
1M base year 2
1M base year 3
And
88M base year 4

That way if he gets injured I only pay him 1M. And that way I can just cut him after year 3. It’s much better to guarantee nothing and backload like that. And since it’s not a negotiation, we just do whatever we want, this is much safer. If he doesn’t get injured i’d restructure and pay him 1M per year for another 4 years.

[RashanGary]

I’ll entertain guaranteeing less if you made the contract bigger and made the first couple years bigger.


Like instead of 62M guaranteed, maybe you could get away with 52M guaranteed, but have those first two years jump it up to 82M real fast. That way he’s taking less guaranteed, but very very likely to earn an extra 20M that’s a near guarantee. I would consider that if I was negotiating.

I don’t even know if that would help much though. You’d still be in a real bad spot if he had a career ender.

[sharpe1027]

Where are you getting your information? What I have found is the roster bonus was not guaranteed. They cut him and it was gone. Once they converted it to a signing bonus that changed.

A roster bonus is paid if the player is on the roster. By definition it is conditional and not guaranteed. What am I missing?

[sharpe1027]

Your misunderstanding is that you think we guaranteed a signing bonus so we could take the hits later. The only reason we guaranteed money at all is because players refuse to sign without it. We were fucked regardless of how we structured guarantees once he had a career ender.

You need to do some research about restructuring contracts and come back when you understand the basics

Now I'm being a dick.

[ThunderDan]

Your misunderstanding is that you think we guaranteed a signing bonus so we could take the hits later. The only reason we guaranteed money at all is because players refuse to sign without it. We were fucked regardless of how we structured guarantees once he had a career ender.

No you aren’t.

You can guarantee $20M of a contract and have no signing bonus.

So here are the contracts.

4 year, $20M guarantee
Cap hits 8, 9, 11, 12. If cut after year 2 cap hit is 3M, after year 3 cap hit is 0

4 year, $20M signing bonus guarantee.
Cap hits 3+5, 4+5, 6+5, 7+12 or 8, 9, 11, 12 same as above.
If cut after 2 years cap hit is $10M, after year 4 cap hit is $5M

[ThunderDan]

Look at Patrick Mahommes contract.

His guaranteed money ends after 2025. His contact runs through 2033 but the last 2 years are void years.

[Frozen Tundra]

Yeah; the Mahomes deal is probably the most team-friendly contract in the league, and Burrow's is decent as well. Brady, though - one thing I have to give to him is that he consistently took less money to help the team, even to the point of giving back some of his salary to sign Moss. A few years ago, I saw someone calculate that he probably left at least $60 millon on the table over his career, and possibly as juch as 100. He figured he'd rather be the guy with most championships than the guy with the most money.

[Joemailman]

Yeah; the Mahomes deal is probably the most team-friendly contract in the league, and Burrow's is decent as well. Brady, though - one thing I have to give to him is that he consistently took less money to help the team, even to the point of giving back some of his salary to sign Moss. A few years ago, I saw someone calculate that he probably left at least $60 millon on the table over his career, and possibly as juch as 100. He figured he'd rather be the guy with most championships than the guy with the most money.

Of course, Brady also had the advantage of being married to someone who made as much money as he did.

[Frozen Tundra]

Of course, Brady also had the advantage of being married to someone who made as much money as he did.

Yeah, absolutely. She had a nice little side gig that brought in extra cash for when the electric bill and the gas bill were both high the same month, and also they didn't have kids in the family. So there was no day care or whatever.

Those things add up.

[texaspackerbacker]

Yeah, Joe and Frozen, you beat me to it saying that about Brady and the Mrs. When she dumped him, he had to go back to work for Tampa hahahaha.

[bobblehead]

Of course, Brady also had the advantage of being married to someone who made as much money as he did.

That explains why Jonathan Owens signs league minimum deals....I mean, part of the reason.

[Sparkey]

NFL Cap set at 255.4 million for 2024. 13 million more than most expected.

[Fritz]

Some of these numbnuts owners are going to go crazy. I'm wondering if the Jest owner will try to sign a couple big names for the offensive line.

Guter needs to call Joe Douglass and remind him he can have a former pro-bowl left tackle who happens to be Aaron Rodgers's best friend for a fourth-round pick.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Some of these numbnuts owners are going to go crazy. I'm wondering if the Jest owner will try to sign a couple big names for the offensive line.

Guter needs to call Joe Douglass and remind him he can have a former pro-bowl left tackle who happens to be Aaron Rodgers's best friend for a fourth-round pick.

Bak, Cletidus and the Jesters’ 2nd from the Butte trade for Sauce. Make it happen!

[texaspackerbacker]

Not bad from the Packers point of view, but very doubtful the Jets would do it.

[Fritz]

Bak, Cletidus and the Jesters’ 2nd from the Butte trade for Sauce. Make it happen!

It's a good thing none of us are the Packers' GM, except maybe Harv. But it's an ESPECIALLY good thing that you're not.

[bobblehead]

The Packers signed David Baktiari to a 4 year 91 million dollar deal with 62M fully guaranteed. Whether you used signing bonuses or guaranteed roster bonuses, it’s still fully guaranteed.

Here’s how a front loaded deal with 62M guaranteed would look. And we HAVE TO INCLUDE THE GUARANTEED. That’s why he signed. There’s no way out of that.

20M signing bonus
42M total guaranteed roster bonuses
62M guarantees between the two types of bonuses
29M in non guaranteed base salaries
91M total

Year 1 - 1M base - 16M roster bonus paid at day 1 league year but fully guaranteed at signing (22M cap hit)
Year 2 - 1M base - 16M roster bonus paid on day 1 league year but fully guaranteed on signing (22M cap hit)
Year 3 - 11M base - 10M roster bound paid on day 1 league year but fully guaranteed on signing (26M cap hit)
Year 4 - 16M base - (21M cap hit)


No matter how you structure 62M of guarantees you still can’t cut him or all the guarantees accelerate. Once you decided you wanted David Bakhtiari, you decided you would pay a lot of guarantees and no matter how you structured it, you’re screwed if he has a career ender.

The real problem was the guarantees, not the later cap hits. There’s no way to guarantee 62M without paying 62M when you cut the guy. Draw me up a simple example where that money doesn’t accelerate when you cut him. Make it fully guaranteed and then don’t pay him. I want to see how you guarantee 62 and then don’t pay it because you cut him. I’ve never seen that .

All that WASN'T locked in when he signed. What happened is that each year Gutes guaranteed most of his base which converted it to bonus and stretched it over the remaining years. He did this because we were in cap hell and he needed to kick it down the road more. Now, in the final year of the deal the only way to kick it would be adding void years, which if I understand it, the player needs to agree to, and Bak wouldn't. Thus, all the coin we paid him wasn't "paid for" against the cap yet. Now is the time of reckoning.

[run pMc]

All that WASN'T locked in when he signed. What happened is that each year Gutes guaranteed most of his base which converted it to bonus and stretched it over the remaining years. He did this because we were in cap hell and he needed to kick it down the road more. Now, in the final year of the deal the only way to kick it would be adding void years, which if I understand it, the player needs to agree to, and Bak wouldn't. Thus, all the coin we paid him wasn't "paid for" against the cap yet. Now is the time of reckoning.

Agree. Converting salary to bonus is borrowing against future cap space.

As for this:
20M signing bonus
42M total guaranteed roster bonuses
62M guarantees between the two types of bonuses

those roster bonuses are NOT guaranteed if you aren't on the roster. Usually it's paid on the first day of the new season in March (or third or some other early day in the new season) and all it does is make sure that player gets that money if they get cut. It's effectively guaranteed salary.

[Bretsky]

All that WASN'T locked in when he signed. What happened is that each year Gutes guaranteed most of his base which converted it to bonus and stretched it over the remaining years. He did this because we were in cap hell and he needed to kick it down the road more. Now, in the final year of the deal the only way to kick it would be adding void years, which if I understand it, the player needs to agree to, and Bak wouldn't. Thus, all the coin we paid him wasn't "paid for" against the cap yet. Now is the time of reckoning.



Gute went to Back and tried to restructure

Back was looking out for his best interests (I kinda understand that, but on the other hand we kinda got screwed on this deal so it would have been nice if he would have considered that)


GOOD BYE DB.

[Frozen Tundra]

Gute went to Back and tried to restructure

Back was looking out for his best interests (I kinda understand that, but on the other hand we kinda got screwed on this deal so it would have been nice if he would have considered that)


Bak's a pretty smart guy, and so is his agent. I'm not sure exactly who reps him, but I do know he's signed with Athletes First, which is the top agency in the NFL. And between DB and his agent, they've consistently drafted a very player-friendly contract at every negotiation, always designed to look out for his best interests and specifically protect him being left high and dry at the end of his career like so many OL end up. Just like what we see happening now.

I don't know if I'd call it "getting screwed", but we sure got the short end of the stick at this stage. Gutekunst knew what he was agreeing to, and decided it was in the team's best interests. Bakhtiari's agent had a job to do, and drove some very hard bargains because he was in a position of strength. Unfortunately, that just happens sometimes.

But at the same time, I would like to hope that David might be willing to work something out with Green Bay to help them ease the pain a bit. Even if it just means just doing something that might make it easier to trade him.

[Bretsky]

Bak's a pretty smart guy, and so is his agent. I'm not sure exactly who reps him, but I do know he's signed with Athletes First, which is the top agency in the NFL. And between DB and his agent, they've consistently drafted a very player-friendly contract at every negotiation, always designed to look out for his best interests and specifically protect him being left high and dry at the end of his career like so many OL end up. Just like what we see happening now.

I don't know if I'd call it "getting screwed", but we sure got the short end of the stick at this stage. Gutekunst knew what he was agreeing to, and decided it was in the team's best interests. Bakhtiari's agent had a job to do, and drove some very hard bargains because he was in a position of strength. Unfortunately, that just happens sometimes.

But at the same time, I would like to hope that David might be willing to work something out with Green Bay to help them ease the pain a bit. Even if it just means just doing something that might make it easier to trade him.



He's done nothing to make me believe he would ever do GB a favor.

As is they release, him, and he gets to pick and choose where he goes

[Joemailman]

He's done nothing to make me believe he would ever do GB a favor.

As is they release, him, and he gets to pick and choose where he goes

Agreed. Don't think his good buddy Arod will encourage him to take less money to help out Gute.

[call_me_ishmael]

All that WASN'T locked in when he signed. What happened is that each year Gutes guaranteed most of his base which converted it to bonus and stretched it over the remaining years. He did this because we were in cap hell and he needed to kick it down the road more. Now, in the final year of the deal the only way to kick it would be adding void years, which if I understand it, the player needs to agree to, and Bak wouldn't. Thus, all the coin we paid him wasn't "paid for" against the cap yet. Now is the time of reckoning.

Yep, and roster bonuses are rarely guaranteed. Josh Allen is the only player I can recall seeing it where they accelerate if he's cut. Bak's deal was good at the time but Packers had to alter it to account for loading up to make a run. Nobody would care about this contract if we won it all. It's just time to move on. He's gonna get cut and that will be fine for him. Players should try to get as much as possible just as all workers should. Lifts all boats.

[run pMc]

https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2024/2/26/24084268/green-bay-packers-news-2024-cap-space-update-rashan-gary-contract


From a cash perspective, Gary’s situation has not changed in 2024. He will still be due the original $9 million this year that he was slated to be owed when he signed his extension in 2023. The only difference is that the 2025-2027 Packers will also be paying a share of Gary’s 2024 effort.

[bobblehead]

Agree. Converting salary to bonus is borrowing against future cap space.

As for this:
20M signing bonus
42M total guaranteed roster bonuses
62M guarantees between the two types of bonuses

those roster bonuses are NOT guaranteed if you aren't on the roster. Usually it's paid on the first day of the new season in March (or third or some other early day in the new season) and all it does is make sure that player gets that money if they get cut. It's effectively guaranteed salary.

Right, but my point was that the contract wasn't written that way. The salary was converted after we decided we were keeping him for another year. Since vets are guaranteed on day one of the season it only changed the accounting, not the reality.

[bobblehead]

Bak's a pretty smart guy, and so is his agent. I'm not sure exactly who reps him, but I do know he's signed with Athletes First, which is the top agency in the NFL. And between DB and his agent, they've consistently drafted a very player-friendly contract at every negotiation, always designed to look out for his best interests and specifically protect him being left high and dry at the end of his career like so many OL end up. Just like what we see happening now.

I don't know if I'd call it "getting screwed", but we sure got the short end of the stick at this stage. Gutekunst knew what he was agreeing to, and decided it was in the team's best interests. Bakhtiari's agent had a job to do, and drove some very hard bargains because he was in a position of strength. Unfortunately, that just happens sometimes.

But at the same time, I would like to hope that David might be willing to work something out with Green Bay to help them ease the pain a bit. Even if it just means just doing something that might make it easier to trade him.

I think the deal was fair to both team and player. The problem came when Bak couldn't get healthy and they kept deciding "one more year" of waiting was the answer. Also, they were in cap hell and moving on would have been a problem because of the overall cap situation (which Tex and APB insist wasn't real). Because we were in cap hell, it would have been near impossible to cut him. That wasn't bak's fault, nor was it a bad contract. The overall situation of getting into cap hell was the problem, and the belief that he would be fine if we just give it more time.

[Patler]

Actually, it could, and likely does mean more money for Gary. He got $6.2 million 19 days earlier than he otherwise would have. Deposits into my "cash holding" account of my investment account earn 4.95% interest (if held a minimum of 5 days). Assuming Gary has something similar. just holding that $6.2 million for 19 days would yield around $15,000.

[ThunderDan]

Actually, it could, and likely does mean more money for Gary. He got $6.2 million 19 days earlier than he otherwise would have. Deposits into my "cash holding" account of my investment account earn 4.95% interest (if held a minimum of 5 days). Assuming Gary has something similar. just holding that $6.2 million for 19 days would yield around $15,000.

Or he could go to FL 19 days early and buy has year's worth of pot and get caught with it in the back of his pickup like Letroy Guion.:jig:

[sharpe1027]

Right, but my point was that the contract wasn't written that way. The salary was converted after we decided we were keeping him for another year. Since vets are guaranteed on day one of the season it only changed the accounting, not the reality.

The difference comes into play is subsequent years where if they didn't push the cap forward they might be able to trade or cut a player and not to take a huge cap hit. That can end up keeping a player a year or two longer and costing more overall.

[texaspackerbacker]

Yep, and roster bonuses are rarely guaranteed. Josh Allen is the only player I can recall seeing it where they accelerate if he's cut. Bak's deal was good at the time but Packers had to alter it to account for loading up to make a run. Nobody would care about this contract if we won it all. It's just time to move on. He's gonna get cut and that will be fine for him. Players should try to get as much as possible just as all workers should. Lifts all boats.

CMI, how is bonus money ever NOT guaranteed? It's paid. It's not gonna be given back short of some kind of very off-the-wall lawsuit. Did you mean salaries are rarely guaranteed - beyond the current year anyway?

bobblehead, Packer roster strength plus recent events, primarily the huge cap increase, strongly support what APB and I have always said. How are you still hanging on to the bogus crap that the cap is such a bogeyman?

[sharpe1027]

CMI, how is bonus money ever NOT guaranteed? It's paid. It's not gonna be given back short of some kind of very off-the-wall lawsuit. Did you mean salaries are rarely guaranteed - beyond the current year anyway?

bobblehead, Packer roster strength plus recent events, primarily the huge cap increase, strongly support what APB and I have always said. How are you still hanging on to the bogus crap that the cap is such a bogeyman?

You can cut the player before the roster bonus is due and not pay it.

[bobblehead]

CMI, how is bonus money ever NOT guaranteed? It's paid. It's not gonna be given back short of some kind of very off-the-wall lawsuit. Did you mean salaries are rarely guaranteed - beyond the current year anyway?

bobblehead, Packer roster strength plus recent events, primarily the huge cap increase, strongly support what APB and I have always said. How are you still hanging on to the bogus crap that the cap is such a bogeyman?

Because 1) David Bacteria is still a packer and b) He hasn't played any significant snaps in years. Ergo, the cap fucked us into a bad situation and we probably lost the chance to sign either our own, or other FAs because of it.

[run pMc]

Tex - not all bonuses are the same. A roster bonus is different from signing bonus. it's all in the timing.

signing bonus is at signing the contract, hence immediately payable. The roster bonus is dependent on being on the roster on date X.

[Joemailman]

Tex - not all bonuses are the same. A roster bonus is different from signing bonus. it's all in the timing.

signing bonus is at signing the contract, hence immediately payable. The roster bonus is dependent on being on the roster on date X.

So...you're saying the signing bonus is paid out when you sign the contract and the roster bonus is paid out if you're on the roster at a stipulated date?

[run pMc]

So...you're saying the signing bonus is paid out when you sign the contract and the roster bonus is paid out if you're on the roster at a stipulated date?

LOL Captain Obvious McMansplainer hacked my account.

Sometimes that's what it takes for it to be understood, appraently.

[texaspackerbacker]

Yes but (on the bonus thing), in both cases, once they're paid, there's no getting them back or undoing them - short of something like fraud or something else really weird.

[run pMc]

Yes but (on the bonus thing), in both cases, once they're paid, there's no getting them back or undoing them - short of something like fraud or something else really weird.

correct

[sharpe1027]

Yes but (on the bonus thing), in both cases, once they're paid, there's no getting them back or undoing them - short of something like fraud or something else really weird.

Yes. The difference is the roster bonus hits all in the year it's paid, so you can cut or trade the player with no acceleration of cap into that year. When you push cap into future years using signing bonuses, you end up in situations where cutting or trading a player accelerates so much cap it's not possible to cut or trade the player. You then might have to carry a worthless player on your roster for one or more years paying significantly more than if you had not pushed so much cap into future years.

[Fritz]

Yes. The difference is the roster bonus hits all in the year it's paid, so you can cut or trade the player with no acceleration of cap into that year. When you push cap into future years using signing bonuses, you end up in situations where cutting or trading a player accelerates so much cap it's not possible to cut or trade the player. You then might have to carry a worthless player on your roster for one or more years paying significantly more than if you had not pushed so much cap into future years.

So for a simplistic financial conservative like me, roster bonus = good because you're not living on credit, and signing bonuses pushed ahead = bad because then in 2026 you're paying for something that you bought in 2022 that you may not even have any more.

Simplistic, I know. But you helped me understand the concepts, so thank you.

[sharpe1027]

So for a simplistic financial conservative like me, roster bonus = good because you're not living on credit, and signing bonuses pushed ahead = bad because then in 2026 you're paying for something that you bought in 2022 that you may not even have any more.

Simplistic, I know. But you helped me understand the concepts, so thank you.

Neither is good or bad. You just have different consequences. Contrary to some arguments, it's not possible to cook the cap and never have consequences.

[Ratatouille]

The original post assumes the players all remain healthy and a playing at an appropriate level. I stole a bit from Darrell Royal** but three things can happen when signing a player to a multiyear contract and two of them are bad; the player can meet/exceed expectations, fail to play to the level of the contract, or suffer an injury (injuries) that make the contract a cap burden. The third of these is especially detrimental as a team then needs to spend additional money for a replacement player. Most teams try to structure contracts to have an out after year two and the option to kick money into future years by using roster bonuses that can be converted to a signing bonus and divided out over the remaining years of a contract.

** Darrell Royal (60s Texas Longhorns coach) " I’ve always felt that three things can happen to you whenever you throw the football, and two of them are bad. You can catch the ball, you can throw it incomplete, or have it intercepted."

[texaspackerbacker]

The difference between the NFL and MLB of course, is that in the NFL it's not guaranteed beyond the first year in virtually every case. You can cut them if they fail or get hurt without future harm except for cap issues from bonuses paid.

Wasn't that quote from Woody Hayes, not Darrell Royal?

[Fritz]

The difference between the NFL and MLB of course, is that in the NFL it's not guaranteed beyond the first year in virtually every case. You can cut them if they fail or get hurt without future harm except for cap issues from bonuses paid.

Wasn't that quote from Woody Hayes, not Darrell Royal?

I thought it was Woody Hayes, but time has shown that those fears don't warrant the way they called offenses - not even back then. Bo Schembecler would storm through the Big Ten every year just because he and Woody Hayes got all the best athletes (Hmm, could it be they cheated???), but whenever he got to the Rose Bowl, his teams got stomped because he was runnng the ball forty-five times a game and passing maybe three times. His style of ball was out-of-date by the mid-70's.

So, as we used to say so eloquently in college, fuck that shit.

As for the cap, I do tend to be more conservative. Pay as you go. Though I realize that may not be the best way to get a Super Bowl. Gotta be flexible, to some degree, at least.

[texaspackerbacker]

So for a simplistic financial conservative like me, roster bonus = good because you're not living on credit, and signing bonuses pushed ahead = bad because then in 2026 you're paying for something that you bought in 2022 that you may not even have any more.

Simplistic, I know. But you helped me understand the concepts, so thank you.

True, but in the short term, there is benefit - just like buying a house or car to use your credit analogy. Is it a good thing to have to walk or ride a bicycle until you can pay cash for a car?

And consequences? Yes, but ...... You can count on the cap going up, which enables if not cooking it per se, pushing things on down the road over and over and over, and benefiting every step of the way. The consequence might be not being able to afford quite as much as some other team for a free agent, but going overboard like that might be overpaying and not wise anyway. The successful teams generally push the cap to near the limit and are generally glad they did.

[sharpe1027]

You need to utilize all the tools, IMHO. I do think the natural tendency is to be overly aggressive in the short term to the detriment of the long term. That's only natural given the incentives to keep your job as a GM often require results every year.

[Fritz]

True, but in the short term, there is benefit - just like buying a house or car to use your credit analogy. Is it a good thing to have to walk or ride a bicycle until you can pay cash for a car?

And consequences? Yes, but ...... You can count on the cap going up, which enables if not cooking it per se, pushing things on down the road over and over and over, and benefiting every step of the way. The consequence might be not being able to afford quite as much as some other team for a free agent, but going overboard like that might be overpaying and not wise anyway. The successful teams generally push the cap to near the limit and are generally glad they did.

Tex, were you one of those guys who was juggling four or five women at a time??

[bobblehead]

Yes. The difference is the roster bonus hits all in the year it's paid, so you can cut or trade the player with no acceleration of cap into that year. When you push cap into future years using signing bonuses, you end up in situations where cutting or trading a player accelerates so much cap it's not possible to cut or trade the player. You then might have to carry a worthless player on your roster for one or more years paying significantly more than if you had not pushed so much cap into future years.

Thank god we never did that!!!

[sharpe1027]

Tex, were you one of those guys who was juggling four or five women at a time??
Sounds expensive.

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex, were you one of those guys who was juggling four or five women at a time??

hahahaha just manipulating the cap.

[bobblehead]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/ghost-of-contracts-past-haunts-packers-salary-cap/ar-BB1jQALD?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=LCTS&cvid=1d0102d4fc5e4d4c977493a4527e2ab2&ei=146

I know I should let this topic die, but this was a good article. Packers have over $50 million dead money this year. Not sure how much we have kicked forward, but I think its probably less, which means that we are currently operating at a cap liability for the years we went all in. The good news is that most teams did a similar thing after COVID so the net negative isn't as bad, but the few teams who didn't leverage the future have a pretty sizeable advantage to sign their own right now.

[texaspackerbacker]

Yet we have one of the best teams in the NFL present and future, and we're moderately active in free agency getting help where it's needed.

[sharpe1027]

We made a tough decision to cut Jones so we could make some important free agent moves. If not for all that dead cap, we could have kept Jones at his old salary and still signed even more free agents, or used the cap space to lock up Love early.

I'm not saying pushing cap out is always bad, but it has real consequences.

[texaspackerbacker]

What you can do isn't necessarily what it's smart to do. Paying Jones $12 million for whatever percentage of the season he will likely be available probably would not have been smart.

[Sparkey]

I think that Gutey has shown the best way of limit the negative after effects of "going all in" is to draft exceptionally well so that you have a deep well of exciting talent on 1st and 2nd year contracts.

[Frozen Tundra]

I think that Gutey has shown the best way of limit the negative after effects of "going all in" is to draft exceptionally well so that you have a deep well of exciting talent on 1st and 2nd year contracts.

That's the picture that is starting to paint itself, and I'm getting really excited to see where this line of thinking takes us. If I'm the rest of teh entire NFL, I'm paying very close attention to what Gute has done almost from the very beginning (but certainly since 2020) and studying this strategy and where it is leading. I'm stsrting to think that he's creating a model for team-building that may become the new gold standard for the entire league - the GM equivalent of Bill Walsh's West Coast Offense.

The more I see this guy work, the more I like him. I'm really excited about where this is going.

[sharpe1027]

I think that Gutey has shown the best way of limit the negative after effects of "going all in" is to draft exceptionally well so that you have a deep well of exciting talent on 1st and 2nd year contracts.

I don't know it's so much about any special strategy. It's just good results. After all, isn't ever team trying to draft exceptionally well?

[Fritz]

I don't know it's so much about any special strategy. It's just good results. After all, isn't ever team trying to draft exceptionally well?

Exactly. How is "doing a reallty great job" a strategy?

Guter has drafted very well the last couple of years. Before that, he was spotty. And sometimes crummy. The real question is, what is different that he's drafted much better recently? Has he changed something in his approach, have they hired different people, or is it maybe just luck?

[sharpe1027]

Exactly. How is "doing a reallty great job" a strategy?

Guter has drafted very well the last couple of years. Before that, he was spotty. And sometimes crummy. The real question is, what is different that he's drafted much better recently? Has he changed something in his approach, have they hired different people, or is it maybe just luck?

Luck

[bobblehead]

We made a tough decision to cut Jones so we could make some important free agent moves. If not for all that dead cap, we could have kept Jones at his old salary and still signed even more free agents, or used the cap space to lock up Love early.

I'm not saying pushing cap out is always bad, but it has real consequences.

STOP MAKING SENSE!!! Culo rat indeed.

[bobblehead]

That's the picture that is starting to paint itself, and I'm getting really excited to see where this line of thinking takes us. If I'm the rest of teh entire NFL, I'm paying very close attention to what Gute has done almost from the very beginning (but certainly since 2020) and studying this strategy and where it is leading. I'm stsrting to think that he's creating a model for team-building that may become the new gold standard for the entire league - the GM equivalent of Bill Walsh's West Coast Offense.

The more I see this guy work, the more I like him. I'm really excited about where this is going.

but GMs are just people. They get stuck in their opinions and don't change much. Same as owners groups which is why some teams stagnate for decades. I won a fantasy baseball auction last year by basically buying the best 4 OFs (one at DH). Every other team was hamstrung at the position because its so thin. We just had our auction. The same 11 guys I beat used similar strategies to last year as did I. They didn't adapt their strategy at all. I'm not convinced NFL GMs are watching Gutes....they are more likely explaining to their bosses that he got lucky landing Love.

[Sparkey]

Gutekunst seems to like to add FA's that have 4 years or less of experience. Then also hit that same position in the draft. It is a smart philosophy because that 4 year vet Fa will probably get you 3 good years at best. That aligns with the draft/develop strategy of TT in the past where guys might take a year or 2 before they are ready to help the team. Based on his FA signings, I expect a Safety and RB in the early rounds this draft. Also based on Gutes previous drafts I estimate that he will draft at least two offensive linemen within the first 5 rounds.

First round seems to always be the best athlete with long term upside at an impact position. Rounds 2 & 3 focus on the double down strategy mentioned above and 4 thru 6 to adding competition/depth where needed.

Obviously, if you suck at drafting then the whole philosophy means nothing and injuries will screw up even the best laid plans. In relation to the cap, it also provides a team with the ability to avoid that 3rd year contract that most of the time does not work out for the team.

Last years draft looks like a homerun. If he can somehow pull off another draft like 23, The team will be setup for a big stretch of great football.

[Patler]

I couldn't let this fade away without commenting on it! :-D

Trying to prove either side of this argument with just a couple theoretical contract scenarios never really works; the opposite side can always say, "But,... blah, blah, blah." So, instead of examples, I will simply state my conclusions from following what has actually happened over the past thirty years that the cap has existed. As some of you may remember, I followed the cap very closely long before "OverTheCap" "Sportrac" and others existed. I kept notes about Packer players contract details when they were published, because finding the information 6 mos later was next to impossible. I found, printed, and actually read the bargaining agreements going way back, and could answer salary cap questions back in the days of the Journal-Sentinel fan site long before Packerrats and its immediate predecessor existed.

- Contrary to what some have implied, for the most part GB has been conservative in it's cap management approach. Gute wandered from that starting a few years ago, but I think he is finding his way back. (The subject of another thread I will start in the next day or so.)

- GB has been innovative in finding ways to use the cap conservatively. Others followed, and in some instances salary cap rules were changed because of it.

- Can the cap be "cooked"? Sure, but that doesn't mean it should be routinely.

- Salary cap carelessness tends to be cumulative. Like tolerance stacking in machine structures, any one individual deviation can be tolerable, but the combined impact of numerous deviations can cause difficulties. The solution is never "more of the same". You must compensate or correct.

- GB was in such a correction last year and is again this year. They have made a lot of decisions necessitated by the salary cap situations. By and large these were decisions to rely on many more inexperienced players than a team competing for playoffs will do intentionally. Normally, as a result, this team would have been crap last year. With just average drafts it would have been bad. Fortunately for them they put together back-to-back rookie groups the likes of which I do not think I have ever seen. They essentially replaced 2/3 of their front-line players in just two drafts. They found capable players, more than just stop gaps. They didn't hit back-to-back homeruns, they hit consecutive grand slams in the drafts of 2022 and 2023; or so it seems.

- But for the vast number of first contract players performing much, much better than anyone could reasonably expect, salary cap hell would have been a real experience for a couple years in GB.

[Patler]

As with most things in life, there is no single, hard-fast best way to go. It requires a mixture. However:

- "Pay as you go" retains flexibility. You can adjust contracts, cut or release players or extend players based on merit. You have maximum flexibility to "cook the cap" in the future if you so desire.

- Routinely pushing out massive amounts for players contracts inhibits flexibility. Players are kept for an extra year, sometimes two, because taking the cap hit is simply unmanageable even if it is affordable. This ties up a roster spot. GB has been in the situation where dead cap hits combined with insufficient adjustable contracts for other players required them to allow good players to walk away in free agency. "Cooking the cap" generally requires contracts to cook if you want to bring in more players. Contracts already cooked can not be recooked until next year.

- Unforseen circumstances happen all the time with players, injuries and attitude are just two. If you continually use tomorrows cap to account for today's players, too often you have to double up, accounting for both yeaterdays player and a required portion of today's player. It becomes a management nightmare.

[sharpe1027]

If you push guaranteed money into the future so you can spend more now, you have less to spend later. Worse, you might have to carry the non guaranteed portion of a player longer (can't trade or cut) than you want because you cannot accelerate their large future cap hit to this year. The summary is pushing large amounts of cap hits into the future means less flexibility and you will sometimes end up paying more, never less.

I think most everyone would agree that the Packers have generally been on the conservative side when it comes to aggressive cap maneuvers.

[Frozen Tundra]

- GB has been innovative in finding ways to use the cap conservatively. Others followed, and in some instances salary cap rules were changed because of it.


Is this one of the elements you're going to go into in greater detail a little later?

[texaspackerbacker]

If you push guaranteed money into the future so you can spend more now, you have less to spend later. Worse, you might have to carry the non guaranteed portion of a player longer (can't trade or cut) than you want because you cannot accelerate their large future cap hit to this year. The summary is pushing large amounts of cap hits into the future means less flexibility and you will sometimes end up paying more, never less.

I think most everyone would agree that the Packers have generally been on the conservative side when it comes to aggressive cap maneuvers.

Seriously? a big hell no to that! Maybe it was that way with Ted Thompson, but with Gutekunst, the Packers have done about as good a job of pushing the cap to the limit as anybody, hence the success we've seen.

[Patler]

- GB has been innovative in finding ways to use the cap conservatively. Others followed, and in some instances salary cap rules were changed because of it.

Is this one of the elements you're going to go into in greater detail a little later?

Probably not, so I'll discuss here.

- In the early years of the salary cap, unused salary cap was "lost". It did not roll over from year to year.

- In calculating salary cap allocations, performance bonuses paid at the conclusion of the season were categorized as either "likely to be earned" or "not likely to be earned". Statistical categories included as "likely to be earned" were defined for the various position groups.

- A "likely to be earned" bonus counted against the salary cap of the year in which it could be earned. A "not likely to be earned" bonus did not have to be accounted for until the salary cap of the following year.

- If a "likely to be earned" bonus was not, in fact, earned, since it had been counted against the salary cap of the year in which it could have been but wasn't earned, the team received a credit for the bonus amount in the salary cap of the following year.

With that in mind, GB and I believe the Eagles were the first to revise contracts for one or two players each year to include bonuses within the category of "likely to be earned", but for players who would not earn them. These revised contracts were signed in the last couple weeks of the seasons. For example, with two weeks left in the season, the backup QB, who had not yet played, would be given a revised contract including a bonus for games played or pass attempts which could not be earned in the games remaining. The bonus amount would be most of their remaining salary cap that year. The player usually received a small signing bonus for cooperating.

In this way, the salary cap was "used" that year, but since the player wouldn't actually earn the bonus, GB received a credit against the cap the following year. In effect, they rolled unused cap from one year to the next.

Surprisingly, other teams were slow to follow this practice. A few did, but not a lot of them for quite a few years. Gradually they did, and eventually the league gave in, and allowed rollover of unused cap without the sham bonuses. It went through some goofy variations to get where it is today.

[Patler]

Seriously? a big hell no to that! Maybe it was that way with Ted Thompson, but with Gutekunst, the Packers have done about as good a job of pushing the cap to the limit as anybody, hence the success we've seen.

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

[sharpe1027]

Under Thompson, I think they also banked cap space by signing front loaded contracts with lower cap hits in later years.

I'm not a big fan of this happening year after year. It suggests your under utilizing free agency and leaving potential improvements to the team on the table.

[sharpe1027]

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

Good luck!

[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.

[Frozen Tundra]

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.

Which teams "make a big deal out of the cap", and what does that look like?

[texaspackerbacker]

I should just say check it out for yourself, but I'll tick off a few for you. Panthers, Saints, Dolphins, Chargers, Rams, Giants, Redskins (or whatever they are now), Raiders, Colts, probably others too.

[Joemailman]

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.



Wilson actually had a pretty good year last year. Much better than 2022. He and Sean Payton just didn't get along.

[Frozen Tundra]

I should just say check it out for yourself, but I'll tick off a few for you. Panthers, Saints, Dolphins, Chargers, Rams, Giants, Redskins (or whatever they are now), Raiders, Colts, probably others too.

But I don't understand what you mean by these teams "making a big deal out of the cap". That's a lot of different teams with a lot of very different cap situations; I don't see the common denominator.

[texaspackerbacker]

Frozen, read the news. There are players cut or not signed or traded cheap, etc. past and present. The most recent one I can think of is Keenan Allen. Beyond that, you're on your own. And you want a common thread? How about not having very good teams?

[run pMc]

The Chargers were so far out of cap space they had to redo Bosa and Mack's contracts, didn't bring Ekeler back, and asked Allen to take a pay cut. If they made noise about the cap being a big deal, it's because for them it was.
The Saints are constantly in some level of cap pain or hell going back to Brees. The Micheal Thomas contract. Their defense. Their OL. It's big contracts and they keep kicking them forward. They will continue to with Derek Carr's contract. That's just how Benson goes - he'd rather be in cap hell at 9-8 then have one or two years of purging to get everything clear.

The Dolphins gave Tyreek a yacht full of money, now they have players up for contracts and can't keep them. They weren't going to be able to keep Wilkins, not if they are keeping Tua.

List goes on. Almost every team has cap decisions to make except a few that have a lot of expiring contracts or just have many players they don't want to keep. The Bears have been an example of this in recent years. The teams that have a lot of cap space to spend and aren't in some form of cap pain are often the exception. And yes, they often suck because they don't have big money allocated to good players or an at least average-level starting QB.

When you don't have talent, you don't pay it.

[bobblehead]

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?

See...all I read is that in several years you are handicapped 5% against the cap vs. a team that didn't kick it down the road. Sure, its a good move if you plan on being GM for only a couple years (Rodgers), but not so great for your successor (Love).

[bobblehead]

I should just say check it out for yourself, but I'll tick off a few for you. Panthers, Saints, Dolphins, Chargers, Rams, Giants, Redskins (or whatever they are now), Raiders, Colts, probably others too.

The Raiders have fucked up their cap, it just hasn't hit yet.

The rest of the teams haven't had the talent to push the cap. Its chicken and egg.

edit: actually the dolphins are going to be in cap hell soon enough too. Your list is a list of bad teams with no real bearing on your argument. I assume you grabbed a list of bad teams and did no research as to their cap situation whatsoever meaning you didn't make an argument at all.

[texaspackerbacker]

The Chargers were so far out of cap space they had to redo Bosa and Mack's contracts, didn't bring Ekeler back, and asked Allen to take a pay cut. If they made noise about the cap being a big deal, it's because for them it was.
The Saints are constantly in some level of cap pain or hell going back to Brees. The Micheal Thomas contract. Their defense. Their OL. It's big contracts and they keep kicking them forward. They will continue to with Derek Carr's contract. That's just how Benson goes - he'd rather be in cap hell at 9-8 then have one or two years of purging to get everything clear.

The Dolphins gave Tyreek a yacht full of money, now they have players up for contracts and can't keep them. They weren't going to be able to keep Wilkins, not if they are keeping Tua.

List goes on. Almost every team has cap decisions to make except a few that have a lot of expiring contracts or just have many players they don't want to keep. The Bears have been an example of this in recent years. The teams that have a lot of cap space to spend and aren't in some form of cap pain are often the exception. And yes, they often suck because they don't have big money allocated to good players or an at least average-level starting QB.

When you don't have talent, you don't pay it.

You're demonstrating my point. The Chargers decided they needed to do those things rather than kick the can down the road (unless you assume Ekeler and Allen weren't worth keeping.

Possibly the Saints are doing things my way rather than yours hahaha. It that "purging" thing that I'm referring to as the stupid way to go.

Dolphins: can't keep them by restructuring? or deciding not to?

The Bears are another form of a bad example - not pushing the cap and thus being losers, although arguably they would be losers anyway because they just naturally still suck hahahaha.

True about not paying not good talent, but the converse is the point: if you're smart, you DO pay good talent - you find a way, cap be damned.

[Frozen Tundra]

Frozen, read the news. There are players cut or not signed or traded cheap, etc. past and present. The most recent one I can think of is Keenan Allen. Beyond that, you're on your own. And you want a common thread? How about not having very good teams?

So, basically... you don't know. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing, because you like to find things to disagree with people about so you can shout at them.

Got it. Thanks.

[run pMc]

You're demonstrating my point. The Chargers decided they needed to do those things rather than kick the can down the road (unless you assume Ekeler and Allen weren't worth keeping.


LOL. The Chargers DID kick the can down the road and continue to do so, AND they had to let talent go because of it. They were in cap hell.


So, basically... you don't know. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing, because you like to find things to disagree with people about so you can shout at them.


Yeah pretty much seems that way.

[sharpe1027]

Frozen, read the news. There are players cut or not signed or traded cheap, etc. past and present. The most recent one I can think of is Keenan Allen. Beyond that, you're on your own. And you want a common thread? How about not having very good teams?

Oh sure. NOW you want others to read the media pukes.

[Jaire]

It will be interesting to see how the Packers play the cap now. They had been paying up front before Covid. The Covid year messed up that strategy

[ThunderDan]

Buffalo only has 20 of the 53 players that suited up for their Jan playoff game still on the roster.

Just think about that for minute.

[Fritz]

Oh sure. NOW you want others to read the media pukes.

That's a good and funny response.

[bobblehead]

Buffalo only has 20 of the 53 players that suited up for their Jan playoff game still on the roster.

Just think about that for minute.

Doesn't matter. They were clearing roster spots so they could kick that cap down the road and sign every stud FA available because the cap isn't real, and the money multiplier theory means every team can sign every FA, its just that Gutes is a prick and doesn't want to win.

[run pMc]

Buffalo only has 20 of the 53 players that suited up for their Jan playoff game still on the roster.

Just think about that for minute.

Stefon Diggs eating up $31M, meanwhile all of GB's receivers costing $11M.

[Ratatouille]

Stefon Diggs eating up $31M, meanwhile all of GB's receivers costing $11M.

Buffalo is near the top with $55M is dead money with an ugly Von Miller contract still on the books but are not the only one. In 2024 it is a combined $801M for all 32 teams with the average being around $25M. The Vikings lead the way with $57M in dead money with the Rams at the other end with only $4M. Getting players on rookie contracts that can contribute early is the key to success.

[texaspackerbacker]

Yeah, Buffalo until recently was a good example - cap be damned, keeping their talented players. I knew about Diggs, but I wasn't aware of the "just 20 of 53" thing. They now have apparently joined the ranks of the stupid - reacting to the perceived cap problems and getting rid of good players. We'll see how long they stay near the top.

I'm extremely thankful for the Packers situation - all our excellent young receivers for a fraction of Diggs' cost, but the fact is (or seems) that Diggs is still damn good, and they probably could have restructured him to get his cap number way down. Oh well, my third favorite team benefits from the Bills turn toward stupidity. I heard Josh Allen is now asking for a trade hahahaha.

Fritz and Sharpe, I read the shit from media pukes all the time. I just don't believe it like most of ya'all. Like blind squirrels, every now and then they get something right, and even when they don't, it's kinda fun to read their stupidity. Honestly, most of the posters in here, even the ones I disagree with, have a better percentage of being on the right side of things than those media assholes.

[bobblehead]

Stefon Diggs eating up $31M, meanwhile all of GB's receivers costing $11M.

I think you can throw the entire TE room in for a few million as well.

[smuggler]

Wilson actually had a pretty good year last year. Much better than 2022. He and Sean Payton just didn't get along.

He was okay, but not worth near what he was being paid, let alone his ego and quackery.

[Fritz]

Seems like both Russell Wilson and Aaron Rodgers want to wear wizard robes and chant spells in incense-filled rooms.

Coupla crazy fuckers.

[smuggler]

Difference is, Rodgers happened to be right in some cases, even if he just lucked into it. Russ drinks special brain water to help him heal from brain injury, but somehow he still talks like someone just clubbed him with a hammer when he speaks after games.