4 hours ago, mattwill said:

That is one way to look at it … an Income Statement approach rather than a Balance Sheet approach.

Businesses and individuals and families use both approaches. Both have strengths and weaknesses.

The Income Statement approach you have used looks at things narrowly … in time increments that are simple to understand. However, simplicity has its drawbacks. It doesn’t account for "pre-spent” obligations. For a person or family or business who rents their accommodations, the lease almost always includes periods of time that are not in the simple income Statement period. If the accommodations are owned rather than rented there typically is a mortgage, and the mortgage payments/obligations extend well past the simple Income Statement period. Car Loan and Car Lease payments are other examples.

The key with all these is that they are contractual obligations that in a Balance Sheet appear under Liabilities. They are no longer Cash. And the Asset that they acquired the rights to is "encumbered.”

The first two years of the Jurgens contract, which appear as low dollars in the respective annual Income Statements are not from the current contract. They have existed in the Balance Sheet as encumbered assets and contractual liabilities for several years.

The new Jurgens contract does not commence for two years. Magazine or Internet Application subscriptions work the same way. The decision whether or not to extend the subscription is (1) made independently of the existing subscription, with (2) the knowledge that the money you are making the decision about pre-spending ($68 million in the case of Jurgens) will not be due and payable for the next two years. But no matter how you cut it, you are still on the hook for the $68 million.

In life for most problems there is no single "right” answer. Rather, there are many right answers depending on how you "frame” the problem, and the framing that we choose is more often than not the one that is either most convenient or easiest to understand. Worrying about all those mortgage payments when you are deciding whether to buy a new car can be "inconvenient” for you, but crucially important to the bank. Your "right” answer is to buy the car. The bank’s "right” answer is that the car purchase will mean there is increased risk you won’t be able to pay the mortgage. You say yes because of your framing. The bank says no because of their framing.

Your explanation above is both simple and convenient, but it isn’t thorough.

Matt, I apologize I don't have time to read your long post at the moment. I'll get to it later. But it's not that complicated.

The next 4 years are known... we can compare them ( Milton and Cam) after that it's unknown for both...you can't compare yet. Don't make it more complicated than that just to try to sound intelligent. You know Williams would cost more if he plays. You also know Cam isn't going to have the same contract ...one way the other in 2029. So we can't compare anything beyond 2028 yet.

Unless you know the future or are a time traveler?

35 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Matt, I apologize I don't have time to read your long post at the moment. I'll get to it later. But it's not that complicated.

The next 4 years are known... we can compare them ( Milton and Cam) after that it's unknown for both...you can't compare yet. Don't make it more complicated than that just to try to sound intelligent. You know Williams would cost more if he plays. You also know Cam isn't going to have the same contract ...one way the other in 2029. So we can't compare anything beyond 2028 yet.

Unless you know the future or are a time traveler?

It is indeed unknown for Milton, but it is not unknown for Cam.

Further you can argue that years 3 and 4 of Milton’s contract are unknown as well.

That is all framing.

36 minutes ago, mattwill said:

It is indeed unknown for Milton, but it is not unknown for Cam.

Further you can argue that years 3 and 4 of Milton’s contract are unknown as well.

That is all framing.

It is unknown for Cam. Because if you paid attention over the last couple of decades ...you know the Eagles set up the back loaded contracts... they cut the player they don't feel lives up to the shell fake #... or they extend the guy who they want to keep, coverting the salary to bonus. They will do the same with Cam...and Cam will agree Because that money isn't guaranteed. Either way in 2029, the cap hit will be lower than what the shell fake # shows in 2029

I can’t believe we are still on about Cam contract the contract is actually really well laid out yes the numbers look huge but again his cap hits are like 3,5, and 8 mil over the next 3 years.

6 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

I can’t believe we are still on about Cam contract the contract is actually really well laid out yes the numbers look huge but again his cap hits are like 3,5, and 8 mil over the next 3 years.

Less than 30% of the cap hits for Milton Williams the next 4 years....absolutely a steal.

Even crazier is Cam was a pro bowl C it’s tough for OL to get recognized they usually have to have a number of strong seasons before they get a pro bowl… so not like the guy wasn’t deserving and he wasn’t a bad RG last year either

16 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

It is unknown for Cam. Because if you paid attention over the last couple of decades ...you know the Eagles set up the back loaded contracts... they cut the player they don't feel lives up to the shell fake #... or they extend the guy who they want to keep, coverting the salary to bonus. They will do the same with Cam...and Cam will agree Because that money isn't guaranteed. Either way in 2029, the cap hit will be lower than what the shell fake # shows in 2029

Milton can be cut after Year Two as well.

You are dancing on the head of a pin.

6 hours ago, mattwill said:

That is one way to look at it … an Income Statement approach rather than a Balance Sheet approach.

Businesses and individuals and families use both approaches. Both have strengths and weaknesses.

The Income Statement approach you have used looks at things narrowly … in time increments that are simple to understand. However, simplicity has its drawbacks. It doesn’t account for "pre-spent” obligations. For a person or family or business who rents their accommodations, the lease almost always includes periods of time that are not in the simple income Statement period. If the accommodations are owned rather than rented there typically is a mortgage, and the mortgage payments/obligations extend well past the simple Income Statement period. Car Loan and Car Lease payments are other examples.

The key with all these is that they are contractual obligations that in a Balance Sheet appear under Liabilities. They are no longer Cash. And the Asset that they acquired the rights to is "encumbered.”

The first two years of the Jurgens contract, which appear as low dollars in the respective annual Income Statements are not from the current contract. They have existed in the Balance Sheet as encumbered assets and contractual liabilities for several years.

The new Jurgens contract does not commence for two years. Magazine or Internet Application subscriptions work the same way. The decision whether or not to extend the subscription is (1) made independently of the existing subscription, with (2) the knowledge that the money you are making the decision about pre-spending ($68 million in the case of Jurgens) will not be due and payable for the next two years. But no matter how you cut it, you are still on the hook for the $68 million.

In life for most problems there is no single "right” answer. Rather, there are many right answers depending on how you "frame” the problem, and the framing that we choose is more often than not the one that is either most convenient or easiest to understand. Worrying about all those mortgage payments when you are deciding whether to buy a new car can be "inconvenient” for you, but crucially important to the bank. Your "right” answer is to buy the car. The bank’s "right” answer is that the car purchase will mean there is increased risk you won’t be able to pay the mortgage. You say yes because of your framing. The bank says no because of their framing.

Your explanation above is both simple and convenient, but it isn’t thorough.

Wow... another version of Ham trying to make the simple complicated via left field.

First mistake...Cam's originalcontract was a 4 year deal. Expiring after this season.

So the new contract actually starts next year. The 2026 low cap # is new. Wasn’t leftover.

The 2025 Cap # was lowered with the extension.

So right off the bat... the Eagles saved about $2 mil now...2025. They added a $5.4 mil cap hit in 2026. So for immediate purposes ( which absolutely matter the most as their cap space is the least now and grows each year) it basically cost the Eagles a little over $3 mil in cap space ovef the next 2 years to lock in Cam

( the window Ham speaks of when looking at Lane and Barkley)

So if you want to look at the next 3 years of his contract... less than $36 mil combined for years 3-5.

Now if $28 mil of cap hit for 2030 concerns you...

18 minutes ago, mattwill said:

Milton can be cut after Year Two as well.

You are dancing on the head of a pin.

Great...let's look at that scenario.

2 years of Cam at $ 9 mil... what would it cost NE to cut Milton?

Let's spin it however you want... I love it

Milton has $43 mil of cap hits the next 2 years....$12 mil cap hit if cut.

$55 mil to play 2 years.....vs 9 mil for Cam

You want to keep going I'm good...but I have to take my son to baseball so I can't answer too quickly.

2 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Wow... another version of Ham trying to make the simple complicated via left field.

First mistake...Cam's originalcontract was a 4 year deal. Expiring after this season.

So the new contract actually starts next year. The 2026 low cap # is new. Wasn’t leftover.

The 2025 Cap # was lowered with the extension.

So right off the bat... the Eagles saved about $2 mil now...2025. They added a $5.4 mil cap hit in 2026. So for immediate purposes ( which absolutely matter the most as their cap space is the least now and grows each year) it basically cost the Eagles a little over $3 mil in cap space ovef the next 2 years to lock in Cam

( the window Ham speaks of when looking at Lane and Barkley)

So if you want to look at the next 3 years of his contract... less than $36 mil combined for years 3-5.

Now if $28 mil of cap hit for 2030 concerns you...

Great...let's look at that scenario.

2 years of Cam at $ 9 mil... what would it cost NE to cut Milton?

Let's spin it however you want... I love it

Milton has $43 mil of cap hits the next 2 years....$12 mil cap hit if cut.

$55 mil to play 2 years.....vs 9 mil for Cam

You want to keep going I'm good...but I have to take my son to baseball so I can't answer too quickly.

You clearly aren’t an accountant. The money moving from one period to another is an Income Statement artifact. The Assets and Liabilities on the Balance Sheet are not affected by movements of money from one period to another. When you buy a product for $1,000 under a "no payments for six months” the outstanding liability on your books is still $1,000. It is still $1,000 if you get no payments for a year.

In addition, you aren’t respecting the integrity of individual accounting/business transactions. Milton’s transaction is a new contract that stands alone. Cam’s transaction is the addition of four years in the future. It too stands alone. The fact that Cam has an existing contract that hasn’t expired is irrelevant.

Further, you don’t understand Void years very well. When/If the player’s contract ends, the money in the void years accelerates into the Cap of the year the player’s contract ends. It is still owed, just the timing of when it is owed is affected. Further, if the player’s contract end date is officially after June 1st the money owed is spread over two years BUT the aggregate amount owed is unchanged.

As I said before, your framing is from the narrow Income Statement perspective rather than from the comprehensive Balance Sheet perspective. Both perspectives are legitimate, but if you want to understand assets and liabilities, you don’t go to an Income Statement. Wharton and other business schools have a saying, "Net income is bullsheet, Cash is king!”

14 hours ago, joemas6 said:

You can't overpay players that much. You can't upset the scale. Just because you have money to spend, spending it unwisely isn't going to win anything. You have to pay players according to their worth. You overpay one, then the guy who is better needs to be paid more.

Look at any team in the salary cap era... you can't win paying elite money to only solid players. You can buy your way temporarily put of being bad...but you can't overspend as a basis to win a title. It's not a method that builds a solid foundation. You spend to put the finishing touches. But even then it's not $26 mil for Milton Williams .

So all other things being equal which player decides to go to the crap team instead of contend?

43 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Even crazier is Cam was a pro bowl C it’s tough for OL to get recognized they usually have to have a number of strong seasons before they get a pro bowl… so not like the guy wasn’t deserving and he wasn’t a bad RG last year either

"Wasn’t bad” is what I’m saying about him. Above average and good even.

14 hours ago, joemas6 said:

You can't overpay players that much. You can't upset the scale. Just because you have money to spend, spending it unwisely isn't going to win anything. You have to pay players according to their worth. You overpay one, then the guy who is better needs to be paid more.

Look at any team in the salary cap era... you can't win paying elite money to only solid players. You can buy your way temporarily put of being bad...but you can't overspend as a basis to win a title. It's not a method that builds a solid foundation. You spend to put the finishing touches. But even then it's not $26 mil for Milton Williams .

Pats aren’t looking to win a title. What are you talking about? Just trying to change their culture.

14 hours ago, joemas6 said:

Yeah....the $15 mil in 2029 isn't really getting me nervous... I mean look at where $15 mil Cap hit is compared to the centers in these next few seasons.

Besides....I thought the idea is to win now ..right?

You just seem to contradict yourself all the time. I show you the numbers on Cam...peanuts ... a decent cap hit ( still lower than multiple centers will have in 2025 and 2026... won't occur until 2029...which can still be lowered with an extension to a player who would turn 30 in August of 2029.

Now you say all the centers have been paid? Like there won't be any good young centers bumping up the market these next few seasons??? Lol. Come on now. The game evolves, players will always be getting paid.

Nope the unicorn C just set the market at its peak year right now. No C getting paid more than Creed these next couple of years.

5 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

So all other things being equal which player decides to go to the crap team instead of contend?

The one who is thinking about his personal (and his family’s) net worth.

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Nope the unicorn C just set the market at its peak year right now. No C getting paid more than Creed these next couple of years.

There is always some player that is setting the market. Why do you find that so strange?

4 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

"Wasn’t bad” is what I’m saying about him. Above average and good even.

Wasn’t bad as a RG last year if you going to quote me quote it all dude was an PRO CENTER his natural position and again 3, 5, 8 m cap hits the next 3 years

2 hours ago, joemas6 said:

Matt, I apologize I don't have time to read your long post at the moment. I'll get to it later. But it's not that complicated.

The next 4 years are known... we can compare them ( Milton and Cam) after that it's unknown for both...you can't compare yet. Don't make it more complicated than that just to try to sound intelligent. You know Williams would cost more if he plays. You also know Cam isn't going to have the same contract ...one way the other in 2029. So we can't compare anything beyond 2028 yet.

Unless you know the future or are a time traveler?

Don’t try and attack him because he knows what he’s talking about. Not about trying to sound intelligent….he’s giving you a perfect example in framework of normal life for us all to understand.

Again just looking at the media headline contract numbers is pointless the only thing that matters for us is the cap hits and Cams cap hits are super low for the next 3 years then we can easily get out of his contract after

55 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Less than 30% of the cap hits for Milton Williams the next 4 years....absolutely a steal.

There isn’t any comparison between the two. In several ways.

30 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Wow... another version of Ham trying to make the simple complicated via left field.

First mistake...Cam's originalcontract was a 4 year deal. Expiring after this season.

So the new contract actually starts next year. The 2026 low cap # is new. Wasn’t leftover.

The 2025 Cap # was lowered with the extension.

So right off the bat... the Eagles saved about $2 mil now...2025. They added a $5.4 mil cap hit in 2026. So for immediate purposes ( which absolutely matter the most as their cap space is the least now and grows each year) it basically cost the Eagles a little over $3 mil in cap space ovef the next 2 years to lock in Cam

( the window Ham speaks of when looking at Lane and Barkley)

So if you want to look at the next 3 years of his contract... less than $36 mil combined for years 3-5.

Now if $28 mil of cap hit for 2030 concerns you...

Great...let's look at that scenario.

2 years of Cam at $ 9 mil... what would it cost NE to cut Milton?

Let's spin it however you want... I love it

Milton has $43 mil of cap hits the next 2 years....$12 mil cap hit if cut.

$55 mil to play 2 years.....vs 9 mil for Cam

You want to keep going I'm good...but I have to take my son to baseball so I can't answer too quickly.

The Pats terrible culture with nothing but cap to spend shouldn’t have anything to do with the amount we pay to keep our good C.

7 minutes ago, mattwill said:

The one who is thinking about his personal (and his family’s) net worth.

Clearly bad teams have to outbid contending teams.

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

The Pats terrible culture with nothing but cap to spend shouldn’t have anything to do with the amount we pay to keep our good C.

And we should look at the actual cap we are paying our C again dude cap hits are 3,5, and 8 m over the next three years and the cap increases every year

7 minutes ago, mattwill said:

There is always some player that is setting the market. Why do you find that so strange?

I found it very expected. Creed is clearly at a different level from any other C. He just set the market. So the C market is at a high. No C will be paid more than him the next couple of years. Sort of unique situation. Almost always you can bank on inflation and the market rising….but actually not going to happen at C.

9 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Wasn’t bad as a RG last year if you going to quote me quote it all dude was an PRO CENTER his natural position and again 3, 5, 8 m cap hits the next 3 years

I’m not blown away by fan voted Pro Bowl stuff. I doubt many fans can name more than two C.

Mind you after Cam Jurgen get up to 11m cap hits mark in 2028 we can release him with only 3m dead cap space easy out if it comes to that which is highly unlikely.

I’m just trying to figure out why we are acting like we broke the bank for Cam Jurgens when it’s the complete opposite when you look at the cap hits