Off-season 2023 Banjo

[sharpe1027]

Cap room undoubtedly is one of the factors in who free agents go to, but far from the only factor. It's at least as important which teams are willing to stretch things to the limit and which ones are not. Another factor, of course, is current players and coaches that potential FAs want to play with and for. The bottom line is that even though there is a limit, teams can do pretty much whatever the decide is necessary.

From what I gather from these posts above, it seems like New Orleans had some bad luck - injuries, etc. - that hurt them a lot more than cap or dead money problems.

Teams are all competing for the same limited set of players. Teams can't do whatever they want because that would mean they would mean the same players would sign for multiple teams.

[texaspackerbacker]

They can offer pretty much whatever they want. It's still up to the player - and usually other factors who they go to. Supposedly the Packers offered Davante Adams as much or more than the Raiders but he chose to take the Raider offer.

As for that "same set of players", not every team values players the same, and as I said, there are a ton of other non-cap related reasons why players decide where to go.

[sharpe1027]

They can offer pretty much whatever they want. It's still up to the player - and usually other factors who they go to. Supposedly the Packers offered Davante Adams as much or more than the Raiders but he chose to take the Raider offer.

As for that "same set of players", not every team values players the same, and as I said, there are a ton of other non-cap related reasons why players decide where to go.

You're just deflecting again to avoid admitting the logic in your argument has a gaping hole. If one team is $20M over the cap and another is $10M under the cap, which one can offer the most amount of money to sign players?

[texaspackerbacker]

Deflecting? I'm just saying that cap space is far from the only factor in getting free agents, and for that matter, getting free agents is even farther from the only factor in having a good team. Do you disagree with that?

[sharpe1027]

Deflecting? I'm just saying that cap space is far from the only factor in getting free agents, and for that matter, getting free agents is even farther from the only factor in having a good team. Do you disagree with that?

Thank you captain obvious.

Which team can spend more?

[texaspackerbacker]

The Bears, I guess hahahaha - do you seriously expect that to make a helluva lot of difference?

[sharpe1027]

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.

[texaspackerbacker]

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.

[sharpe1027]

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.

[bobblehead]

Sometimes I envision Tex as a real life George Castanza.

[RashanGary]

Sometimes I envision Tex as a real life George Castanza.

That’s a good comp. They kicked 30 into this year so when they clear 30 they just break even. It’s no advantage.

[Sparkey]

Sometimes I envision Tex as a real life George Castanza.

Tex as George: "I'm Disturbed, I'm Depressed, I'm Inadequate - I've Got It All!"

[texaspackerbacker]

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.

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.

[sharpe1027]

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.

[texaspackerbacker]

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?