The Bears, I guess hahahaha - do you seriously expect that to make a helluva lot of difference?
Printable View
The Bears, I guess hahahaha - do you seriously expect that to make a helluva lot of difference?
I don't consider salary cap or free agent spending to be the main indicator of a team's success.
I also don't pretend that signing and salary decisions have no effect because teams can somehow magically spend whatever they want without any adverse effects because they can "cook" the books in some undefined way that doesn't make any difference to future spend.
It's not "some undefined way that doesn't make any difference to future spend" or "cooking the books" in some crooked way. It's skating along the edge of the cap rules, analyzing the consequences, and having the balls to do what needs to be done - if a team chooses to play it that way. The winners generally do; The perennial losers generally don't. And the proverbial can CAN be kicked on down the road just about indefinitely.
If it counts against the cap, there's a consequence. It doesn't show up as not being able to field a team or strict relationship between wins and losses. In fact, pushing cap into future years can result in more wins. It absolutely still has an effect on future years and it's a trade-off.
What's annoying about your view is you regurgitate the same oversimplified argument to dismiss an discussion that doesn't align with your view of Aaron Rodgers and his contract. It's not like people are arguing the Packers can't field a team because of Rodgers contract, they just realize that having $30M in dead cap necessarily impacts the depth and quality of players on the team. It's not a death sentence, but it's ridiculous to pretend it has zero affect.
Sometimes I envision Tex as a real life George Castanza.
Try reading a little bit. Did I ever say "zero effect"? Hell no. I did say nothing that can't be overcome - fairly easily. I also pointed out - over and over - that the teams (based on that chart) that seemingly are in cap trouble are generally the consistent winners, and the teams on the end that some of ya'all would like, supposedly great shape on the cap, they tend to be perennial losers.
bobblehead, who the fuck is George Castanza? Never mind, I'll Google him. Oh. God damned Seinfeld, a show I'm proud to say I literally never watched.
It's not zero effect, but the effect doesn't really matter at all because it can be easily overcome? Talk about splitting hairs for no apparent substantive reason.
Uh ....... yeah. Have I not been totally consistent in saying the cap can be manipulated/handled/defeated?
You're absolutely correct that cap room is a factor in getting FAs signed or not. No argument there. However, I say again, IT'S FAR FROM THE ONLY FACTOR, and based on that chart, THE TEAMS WITH THE BEST CAP SITUATION - BEARS AT THE TOP OF THE LIST - STINK THE WORST, WHILE TEAMS WITH THE WORST CAP PROBLEMS - PACKERS BEING NOT MUCH BELOW THE MIDDLE OF THE PACK - ARE GENERALLY THE MOST CONSISTENT WINNERS. Do you disagree with that? No? Then why make such a big deal about the cap?
The packers literally pushed 30M into this year. So after they clear 30M by pushing it into next year they’ll just be at break even. It’s not an advantage anymore.
But the way the cap inflates, there is a slight advantage paying later.
But the way the void contracts work (no comp picks) that kind of bites you in the ass.
Rodgers contract gets significantly worse if we keep him beyond this year. More than likely they’d have to rework it and add void years. They have a lot of motivation to trade though. The contract is set up for a trade this year. Too bad he’s such a weirdo and had a down year. Might not get much for a 40 year old mulling retirement and not playing so great.
You can't judge cap management by looking at the cap situation at one point in time. Teams that are way under the cap now will use it up. For example, they may restructure a good young player to front load their contract so later years are cap friendly. If they aren't doing that, they're wasting cap room.
What????? That's what I've been saying all along hahahahahaha. It seems like you were the one trying to make such a big deal out of the cap - not that you were the only one with that damn dumb idea. Now finally you're saying it's "not as simple as the cap"? Welcome into the light, and nice example of cap manipulation. Tell Bears fans how good that lower cap is hahahahaha.
Well, if this latest post is your position, we don't have any disagreement hahahahaha. I say again, welcome in from the dark side.
This is the way.
https://twitter.com/PeteHaileyNBCS/s...73870270652428
Sadly this is really hard to do because the players will play out the early years then hold out. A few teams tried it and it blew up on them. I think Antonio Brown was one example. The early money is banked along with most of the signing bonus. Now the all pro has a base $5 million contract and decides to hold out.