Surprise: 2024 salary cap $255.4 million

[UK_EaglesFan89]

On 2/24/2024 at 2:04 PM, time2rock said:

The counter to that is you can structure contracts in such a way that the cap hit is minimal in the earlier years and when the years of the larger cap hits arrive the salary cap will be that much higher so it becomes easier to handle those.  

And we all know that’s what Howie is so good at. The cap is not a concern for us whilst Howie is GM because he’s so good at managing it.

[Cochis_Calhoun]

I could make a convincing case for using at least some of this money to move some money forward in contracts. Darius Slay carries a $24million dead cap hit if he retires at the end of next season, that's absurd for a corner who's 33 now. Lane has ~$30.5million in dead cap if he retires end of '24, he's 34 or approaching the Peter's endstage years where he degraded to just a very good offensive tackle who had to take snaps off.

So yeah by all means sign some free agents, but maybe consider absorbing some of those void years to smooth out the inevitable.

True cap management isn't just signing guys on backloaded never never and hoping you can make space if they retire.

[NYEagle]

8 minutes ago, Cochis_Calhoun said:

I could make a convincing case for using at least some of this money to move some money forward in contracts. Darius Slay carries a $24million dead cap hit if he retires at the end of next season, that's absurd for a corner who's 33 now. Lane has ~$30.5million in dead cap if he retires end of '24, he's 34 or approaching the Peter's endstage years where he degraded to just a very good offensive tackle who had to take snaps off.

So yeah by all means sign some free agents, but maybe consider absorbing some of those void years to smooth out the inevitable.

True cap management isn't just signing guys on backloaded never never and hoping you can make space if they retire.

I was thinking the same thing....obviously you're MENSA also! lol

[Traveler Vic]

On 2/23/2024 at 4:05 PM, D-Shiznit said:

Go buy the 2 best CBs money can buy.

I would settle for one top safety, and a damn good LB at this point.

[time2rock]

On 2/23/2024 at 7:05 PM, D-Shiznit said:

Go buy the 2 best CBs money can buy.

Shoot we just did that last year.  What I think we need to do is move on from one of them (Bradberry) and add another to the mix via a fairly high pick (day 1-2) in the draft.  Then let the young players that saw snaps this year (Ricks, Ringo, Jobe) duke it out with Rodgers (who may have sat out last year serving a suspension but has proven himself at this level already) and all of them be pushed by the guy we draft.  Hopefully one of them steps in and can solidify CB2 this year and another will get there with more development time to take over for Slay in another year or 2.   

[EricAllenPick6]

On 2/23/2024 at 7:05 PM, D-Shiznit said:

Go buy the 2 best CBs money can buy.

Snead is going to get P-A-I-D because everyone has money.   Actually, given all this extra $$ I wouldn't be surprised if the Chiefs kept both Jones and Snead.

I'd love Howie to use all of this extra money to take care of business closer to home.  Extend Devonte.  Cut dead weight (ain't no lie, bye, bye, Byard).  

 

[judunno]

28 minutes ago, time2rock said:

Shoot we just did that last year.  What I think we need to do is move on from one of them (Bradberry) and add another to the mix via a fairly high pick (day 1-2) in the draft.  Then let the young players that saw snaps this year (Ricks, Ringo, Jobe) duke it out with Rodgers (who may have sat out last year serving a suspension but has proven himself at this level already) and all of them be pushed by the guy we draft.  Hopefully one of them steps in and can solidify CB2 this year and another will get there with more development time to take over for Slay in another year or 2.   

Stuck on that philosophy of drafting trenches. I get it but on defense in this league with the rules and how they evolved you need good secondary and LB play now too. In the past maybe you could get away with having avg back 7 play by having a dominating pass rush. Now teams get the ball out so quick pass rushes pretty much get nullified vs the high level QBs and offenses. Plus for whatever reason OL get to hold their asses off now.

[paco]

On 2/25/2024 at 9:50 AM, eagle45 said:

And in reality, financing is fine if you use it right and dangerous if you don’t.

What intrigues me…and what no one really mentions…the worst teams in the NFL usually have the most cap space in the NFL, considering they have no talent to pay.

Agreed with your line of thinking.  If you get it wrong, it stings.  And if you do it too aggressively, where you need to constantly restructure just to stay under, those mistakes compound because you are stuck with your mistake because you can't cut them loose.  Then you have a very expensive, underperforming player where assets can be used elsewhere.

 

To your second point, those teams aren't paying top tier QB money.  

 

On 2/25/2024 at 3:41 PM, brkmsn said:

As long as the cap continually rises, the dead cap is more like a low interest loan. The more it rises, the lower the interest. As the cap rises, player salaries inflate. Those dead cap hits are based on pre-inflation market values.

In the end, the only thing that really matters is if the player performed to the amount of those void years. If he did, nobody should be upset. In the case of Wentz, he did not for us. If Bradberry's play doesn't rebound, his contract will be in the same boat. If it wasn't for the void years, you'd just see us overpaying players the same amount, but in a shorter time span. 

Yup.  I compared it to a mortgage when interest rates are low.  It's cheap money.  It's not a problem when done in moderation and all teams utilize it. 

 

But when you use it too aggressively and have no flexibility, that's where it kills you.   Look at the Saint's.  They are still scrambling because of Bree's retirement.  He had an INSANE dead cap hit and now they had to restructure\extend Carr, who sucks, just to get under.  If you look historically at teams that are utlra aggressive, they all end up eventually become perpetually middle of the road or bad (with a blip of success here or there).  Before us and the saints it was the Titans in the early 2010.  And before that was Vinny Cerrato's R-words.

What they all had in common is very top heavy teams and no depth.  You lose one or two of those players, or they massively underperform, and all of a sudden the team has a huge hole to exploit. 

 

On 2/25/2024 at 3:47 PM, eagle45 said:

Does anyone know if there is flexibility in the void years?  Say we are heading into 2027 with a new 1st round QB, know we’ll suck, have few talented players to extend, and have some cap room.  Are void years stuck on the books for the original pre-determined years or can they be rolled forward?

If I understand your question, you are saying player X has 4 void years and you want to keep the player.  If you extend the player, then the bonuses allocated for those void years stay within those years.  But if you just want to take the hit now the only options I can think of is:

1) Quick cut and resign a player who isn't subjected to waivers.  That will roll up the money.  Teams won't like that because they are risking losing the player in case they change their mind in between contracts.

2) Bloat the extension so the current year has a larger hit up front.  I don't know how feasible this is for several reasons.  Increasing the base salary isn't likely to fly with the player, because it's not guaranteed for injury.  Signing bonus doesn't help because that prorates.  You could add a roster bonus for that year, but the fact it's not guaranteed until they hit a date will also make the player uneasy. 

[brkmsn]

1 hour ago, paco said:

Yup.  I compared it to a mortgage when interest rates are low.  It's cheap money.  It's not a problem when done in moderation and all teams utilize it. 

 

But when you use it too aggressively and have no flexibility, that's where it kills you.   Look at the Saint's.  They are still scrambling because of Bree's retirement.  He had an INSANE dead cap hit and now they had to restructure\extend Carr, who sucks, just to get under.  If you look historically at teams that are utlra aggressive, they all end up eventually become perpetually middle of the road or bad (with a blip of success here or there).  Before us and the saints it was the Titans in the early 2010.  And before that was Vinny Cerrato's R-words.

What they all had in common is very top heavy teams and no depth.  You lose one or two of those players, or they massively underperform, and all of a sudden the team has a huge hole to exploit. 

The Saints didn't have to bring in Carr when they did. Going from dead hits on your previous franchise QB to another franchise QB size salary on top of that while also paying top dollar to your backup QBs is what led to their state. 

As for Washington, they didn't really do things like we do today. They went strictly after the "big name" FAs, overpaid them with back-loaded contracts that were obviously going to combine to put them over the cap in a season or two. There was less guaranteed money back then so they weren't really using void years like teams do these days. 

 

Obviously, there has to always be an eye on the future if it's a continual practice. 

[paco]

38 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

The Saints didn't have to bring in Carr when they did. Going from dead hits on your previous franchise QB to another franchise QB size salary on top of that while also paying top dollar to your backup QBs is what led to their state. 

As for Washington, they didn't really do things like we do today. They went strictly after the "big name" FAs, overpaid them with back-loaded contracts that were obviously going to combine to put them over the cap in a season or two. There was less guaranteed money back then so they weren't really using void years like teams do these days. 

 

Obviously, there has to always be an eye on the future if it's a continual practice. 

I'm focusing on the backloading of contracts and guaranteed money, and they absolutely leveraged guaranteed money (bonuses) back then.  When Deon signed with the R-words his 7 year contract had a base salary of $500,000 the first year with a $8 million signing bonus.  I'm trying to look it up, and am failing here, but I feel like he was on the books for several years after "retiring", potentially still on the books when he then joined the Ravens.  The CBA has since changed to force the roll up.

 

Also think back to 2006 when the CBA expired and they were forced to temporarily cut half the team.  LaVar Arrington wanted out but they couldn't cut him because it would have cost more to release him due to his guaranteed money.  He ended up cutting a check to return $4.4 million of his signing bonus so they could release him.

 

There are more examples but those two stick with me the most.

[Cochis_Calhoun]

33 minutes ago, brkmsn said:

The Saints didn't have to bring in Carr when they did. Going from dead hits on your previous franchise QB to another franchise QB size salary on top of that while also paying top dollar to your backup QBs is what led to their state. 

As for Washington, they didn't really do things like we do today. They went strictly after the "big name" FAs, overpaid them with back-loaded contracts that were obviously going to combine to put them over the cap in a season or two. There was less guaranteed money back then so they weren't really using void years like teams do these days. 

 

Obviously, there has to always be an eye on the future if it's a continual practice. 

The thing with the Saints is 2 or 3 years ago they were doing pretty good, they were turning the roster over with decent drafts, knew when to get rid of players before they got stale, but it's gone way off the rails lately, it's ridiculous they're still paying Michael Thomas to hang around the treatment room and pretending Taysom Hill is worth an average of $10million a year to play TE, QB and RB at a below average level. Their QB room is insanity, Jameis, Hill, Carr AND they drafted Jake Haener last year. it's like they've completely lost the run of themselves.

[paco]

18 minutes ago, Cochis_Calhoun said:

The thing with the Saints is 2 or 3 years ago they were doing pretty good, they were turning the roster over with decent drafts, knew when to get rid of players before they got stale, but it's gone way off the rails lately, it's ridiculous they're still paying Michael Thomas to hang around the treatment room and pretending Taysom Hill is worth an average of $10million a year to play TE, QB and RB at a below average level. Their QB room is insanity, Jameis, Hill, Carr AND they drafted Jake Haener last year. it's like they've completely lost the run of themselves.

I finally looked at their dead cap hit for the first time in a while (I have a toddler, so no free time looking at spreadsheets  ) and it looks like they have got it down significantly.  After 3/13, it will be just under $16.5 million if they let Peat's contract expire.  If they extend him, it will only be $2.8 million.

[Rob331]

With the new number the Eagles have $27.4 million.

By cutting Byard they can save $13 million

By cutting Maddox post June 1 they save another $7.1 million

A couple of surprises based on overthecap.com 

A Reddick trade saves only $1.2 million and triggers $20.6 million in dead money

Curring Bradberry would cost $15 million in dead money AND a $10 million cap hit this year - even Post June 1 it's NO cap savings this year and $4 million in dead money

Taking that all into account the Eagles have $48.7 million

• Cox $10 million
• Kelce $10 million
• BG $5 million
• Mann $3 million
• Lovato $1 million

That leaves $19 million to sign other free agents. 

that leaves 

 

 

 

[Rob331]

All of this is based on overthecap.com.

With the new number the Eagles have $27.4 million.

By cutting Byard they can save $13 million

By cutting Maddox post June 1 they save another $7.1 million

A couple of surprises -

A Reddick trade saves only $1.2 million and triggers $20.6 million in dead money

Curring Bradberry would cost $15 million in dead money AND a $10 million cap hit this year - even Post June 1 it's NO cap savings this year and $4 million in dead money

Taking that all into account the Eagles have $48.7 million

• Cox $10 million
• Kelce $10 million
• BG $5 million
• Mann $3 million
• Lovato $1 million

That leaves $19 million to sign other free agents and we need linebacker, safety, OL, WR3&4, QB3. 

 

[ManchesterEagle]

On 2/29/2024 at 8:58 PM, Rob331 said:

All of this is based on overthecap.com.

With the new number the Eagles have $27.4 million.

By cutting Byard they can save $13 million

By cutting Maddox post June 1 they save another $7.1 million

A couple of surprises -

A Reddick trade saves only $1.2 million and triggers $20.6 million in dead money

Curring Bradberry would cost $15 million in dead money AND a $10 million cap hit this year - even Post June 1 it's NO cap savings this year and $4 million in dead money

Taking that all into account the Eagles have $48.7 million

• Cox $10 million
• Kelce $10 million
• BG $5 million
• Mann $3 million
• Lovato $1 million

That leaves $19 million to sign other free agents and we need linebacker, safety, OL, WR3&4, QB3. 

 

I genuinely think Kelce will retire. If Cox wants to come back - I’m thinking closer to 8 million. If BG wants to come back not paying him more than 3 million given his age and how few snaps he plays now.

I’m seeing if we can get Smith and Reddick extended. I’m seeing if we can get Swift for 2 years 12 million (7 guaranteed). If not sign a cheaper FA RB.

I’m making a run at AJ Epenesa. Very good rotational DE with upside. Exactly what we need.

I’m making a run at Luvu, but if we get priced out Brooks or Jewel.

i’m signing a good safety. So many available. Thinking McKinney or Curl.

 I’m bringing back Driscoll and Cunningham for depth. 

[brkmsn]

59 minutes ago, ManchesterEagle said:

I genuinely think Kelce will retire. If Cox wants to come back - I’m thinking closer to 8 million. If BG wants to come back not paying him more than 3 million given his age and how few snaps he plays now.

I’m seeing if we can get Smith and Reddick extended. I’m seeing if we can get Swift for 2 years 12 million (7 guaranteed). If not sign a cheaper FA RB.

I’m making a run at AJ Epenesa. Very good rotational DE with upside. Exactly what we need.

I’m making a run at Luvu, but if we get priced out Brooks or Jewel.

i’m signing a good safety. So many available. Thinking McKinney or Curl.

 I’m bringing back Driscoll and Cunningham for depth. 

I think we drafted Steen last year with the expectation he would replace Driscoll. We also signed Fred Johnson last season to a 2-year deal for OT depth. I expect Driscoll will receive a higher offer from a needy team than his play is worth as a reserve. 

I wouldn't mind having Cunningham stick around, but he did miss too many tackles last season. The rest of his game was solid. 

[ToastJenkins]

On 2/23/2024 at 7:05 PM, D-Shiznit said:

Go buy the 2 best CBs money can buy.

Nah

get a safety and an LB maybe

not sure how fangio wants to build it yet

[time2rock]

For anyone wondering what impact Kelce's retirement has on the salary cap:

[paco]

1 hour ago, time2rock said:

For anyone wondering what impact Kelce's retirement has on the salary cap:

What's strange is that OTC says there is a 3/13 roster bonus due.  But nowhere on that site or spotrac do I see the bonus listed.

 

Also, the contract is structured to hold him on the roster until June 1st with little pain and allow post june 1st designations go to two other players.  If he played he would be $10,178,000 towards this years cap this year, and the post June 1st cut would be a $8,678,000 cap charge.  So from a strictly 2024 POV, his retirement opens up just $1.5 million.