Jump to content

2023: Continued dead cap hell (Currently $54 Million)


paco
 Share

Recommended Posts

  

5 hours ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

I am a little confused on the purpose of continuing this thread. We are creating contracts now that ultimately eat cap space later; effectively trading limited cap space for when we expect it to balloon. Like a credit card with no interest rate.

I'm continuing the discussion for a few reasons.

First of all, the 2023 dead cap hit is a direct result of the numerous contracts from 2019-2021 that pushed the hit to 2022.  In order to sign rookies, free agents, etc as well as get under the cap, Howie was forced to double down and we are now looking at an even higher dead cap for next year.

Secondly, this type of structure, historically, has ended with a lot of teams that hovered around 500 and were forced to either continue jumping through hoops just to get under the cap and sign their talent or take their medicine and do a full reset.  I'm not saying the Eagles can't win it all at any point with the way things are structured, its just going to be a lot more difficult.

Finally, I enjoy sifting through the numbers.  Obsessing over contracts and looking at this in detail is what led me to find the 40+ million dead hit this year back in 2020.  No one was discussing it then so it was worth mentioning.  Now that we are here and we were forced to now push over 50 million in dead money next year as a symptom, I think its VERY relevant to talk about.  

  

5 hours ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

Are you trying to imply this is a bad strategy?

I'm trying very hard to present the numbers and let people come to their own conclusions without influencing too much.  If you look at the data and decide its not a big deal because of X, that's fine by me.  Admittedly early in this thread I was frustrated because I was getting flamed everywhere else with the "CAP GENIUS" and "IN HOWIE WE TRUST" any time I tried to point out exactly how he was managing to sign all these guys, so it boiled over a bit.  If nothing else, people are more aware now of how they are being structured, so I'll take that as a win. 

 

Being that said, I have stated on many occasions that done in moderation, borrowing from the future is fine.  (Last year I even made the remark how its similar to taking a large mortgage at a low interest rate getting "cheap money, so my opinion isn't influenced by Howie's recent soundbite that some folks are now hanging their hats on) However, there is something to be said about having a flexible cap and being so aggressive with the void years has historically come back to bite teams one way or another.  

 

 

Since I answered your question, I have one in kind.  Why do you take issue with the conversation continuing?  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

The UDFA probably shouldnt be counted on. You dont want to go in to a season relying on a rookie, and a rookie UDFA for this vital position. The eagles decided to fix it. They spent the 1st round pick, but they ensured they had the proven veteran presence there. 

Also, Cox came around on the scheme. And we know if he still hated it he could have chosen to go elsewhere. 

Or, they placated him and told him they wouldn't be using him at the 0, but only the 4i.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hawkeye said:

Dude that's how the game is played.  The Eagles - and pretty much every other team - will kick THAT money down the road as well.  And the year after that, and the year after that and so on.

That's how the cap is designed. 

I'm not sure that's the case.  If you look at the teams before and after the eagles in terms of 2022 dead cap (number added with the Cox estimate and Brooks hit) they are either among the worst managed teams or in a transition period (With moving from one player takes up about half of the dead cap).  A good bulk of the teams predicted to compete next year are in the bottom half of this list:

Falcons $63,159,458 Matt Ryan - $40 mil, Julio Jones $15 mil
Eagles $53,154,805  
Bears $52,875,263 Khalil Mack, $24 Million
Texans $52,234,624 Desean Watson $16 Million….. And we can be better managed than this dumpster
Seahawks $44,618,057 Russell Wilson $26 Million, full rebuild mode
Giants $32,442,737 James Bradberry, $11.7, Logan Ryan 11.45 Another poorly managed team
Saints $29,386,318 Were 11ty billion over, forced to structure like us
Steelers $25,937,424 Rapey McRape face $10.3 million
Packers $24,630,944 Za'Darius Smith 11.4
Raiders $23,858,795  
Panthers $23,518,693  
Jaguars $23,093,664  
Vikings $22,089,562  
Lions $20,284,830  
Buccaneers $19,433,241  
Cowboys $17,724,104  
Bills $16,504,620  
Browns $15,023,055  
Broncos $14,938,134  
Rams $13,521,999  
Ravens $10,264,379  
Bengals $9,609,245  
Titans $9,501,605  
Patriots $9,158,018  
Dolphins $8,506,400  
Chiefs $7,982,236  
Cardinals $7,032,077  
Colts $6,813,072  
49ers $5,270,226  
Chargers $3,661,390  
Commanders $2,515,496  
Jets $2,082,739  

*June 1st cuts\trades\etc for other teams are not reflected.  

 

Furthermore, the league has taken steps since the cap has been created to curb teams from kicking the can down the road indefinitely.  Remember when Deon Sanders was on the Redskins payroll 7 years AFTER he retired?  The CBA was changed in the early 2000's to prevent that from happening again.  

  

6 hours ago, HazletonEagle said:

Additionally, considering the cap increases, Howie has explained that the dollar as a percentage of the salary cap will continue to decrease. A dollar today borrowed from next years cap is like 80 cents. And a dollar today borrowed from the cap 2 years from now is more like 60 cents. 

Anyone using just this years cap space is limiting themselves. Whereas if Howie has like 20 million available, he is able to use it as if its like 30 million. 

Of course none of those are exact calculations, and may not even be close. Its just using simple numbers as an example of the strategy he is using. 

I explained this last year ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, paco said:

  

I'm continuing the discussion for a few reasons.

First of all, the 2023 dead cap hit is a direct result of the numerous contracts from 2019-2021 that pushed the hit to 2022.  In order to sign rookies, free agents, etc as well as get under the cap, Howie was forced to double down and we are now looking at an even higher dead cap for next year.

Secondly, this type of structure, historically, has ended with a lot of teams that hovered around 500 and were forced to either continue jumping through hoops just to get under the cap and sign their talent or take their medicine and do a full reset.  I'm not saying the Eagles can't win it all at any point with the way things are structured, its just going to be a lot more difficult.

Finally, I enjoy sifting through the numbers.  Obsessing over contracts and looking at this in detail is what led me to find the 40+ million dead hit this year back in 2020.  No one was discussing it then so it was worth mentioning.  Now that we are here and we were forced to now push over 50 million in dead money next year as a symptom, I think its VERY relevant to talk about.  

  

I'm trying very hard to present the numbers and let people come to their own conclusions without influencing too much.  If you look at the data and decide its not a big deal because of X, that's fine by me.  Admittedly early in this thread I was frustrated because I was getting flamed everywhere else with the "CAP GENIUS" and "IN HOWIE WE TRUST" any time I tried to point out exactly how he was managing to sign all these guys, so it boiled over a bit.  If nothing else, people are more aware now of how they are being structured, so I'll take that as a win. 

 

Being that said, I have stated on many occasions that done in moderation, borrowing from the future is fine.  (Last year I even made the remark how its similar to taking a large mortgage at a low interest rate getting "cheap money, so my opinion isn't influenced by Howie's recent soundbite that some folks are now hanging their hats on) However, there is something to be said about having a flexible cap and being so aggressive with the void years has historically come back to bite teams one way or another.  

 

 

Since I answered your question, I have one in kind.  Why do you take issue with the conversation continuing?  


Why do you think I take issue with it? I never insinuated anything as such. Just a simple question. That’d be on par with asking you why you take issue with people asking questions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:


Why do you think I take issue with it? I never insinuated anything as such. Just a simple question. That’d be on par with asking you why you take issue with people asking questions.

 

Probably because of this post:

  

7 hours ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

I am a little confused on the purpose of continuing this thread. We are creating contracts now that ultimately eat cap space later; effectively trading limited cap space for when we expect it to balloon. Like a credit card with no interest rate.

Are you trying to imply this is a bad strategy?

 

 

@probably

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, paco said:

Probably because of this post:

  

 

 

@probably

You have issues with the question? How do I ask that question without you having issues? It was a question of genuine interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mistake then.  I figured when you asked why I would continue on a topic it was because you thought it should end for some reason.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, paco said:

My mistake then.  I figured when you asked why I would continue on a topic it was because you thought it should end for some reason.

End it!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/28/2022 at 2:27 PM, paco said:

  

I'm continuing the discussion for a few reasons.

First of all, the 2023 dead cap hit is a direct result of the numerous contracts from 2019-2021 that pushed the hit to 2022.  In order to sign rookies, free agents, etc as well as get under the cap, Howie was forced to double down and we are now looking at an even higher dead cap for next year.

Secondly, this type of structure, historically, has ended with a lot of teams that hovered around 500 and were forced to either continue jumping through hoops just to get under the cap and sign their talent or take their medicine and do a full reset.  I'm not saying the Eagles can't win it all at any point with the way things are structured, its just going to be a lot more difficult.

Finally, I enjoy sifting through the numbers.  Obsessing over contracts and looking at this in detail is what led me to find the 40+ million dead hit this year back in 2020.  No one was discussing it then so it was worth mentioning.  Now that we are here and we were forced to now push over 50 million in dead money next year as a symptom, I think its VERY relevant to talk about.  

  

I'm trying very hard to present the numbers and let people come to their own conclusions without influencing too much.  If you look at the data and decide its not a big deal because of X, that's fine by me.  Admittedly early in this thread I was frustrated because I was getting flamed everywhere else with the "CAP GENIUS" and "IN HOWIE WE TRUST" any time I tried to point out exactly how he was managing to sign all these guys, so it boiled over a bit.  If nothing else, people are more aware now of how they are being structured, so I'll take that as a win. 

 

Being that said, I have stated on many occasions that done in moderation, borrowing from the future is fine.  (Last year I even made the remark how its similar to taking a large mortgage at a low interest rate getting "cheap money, so my opinion isn't influenced by Howie's recent soundbite that some folks are now hanging their hats on) However, there is something to be said about having a flexible cap and being so aggressive with the void years has historically come back to bite teams one way or another.  

 

 

Since I answered your question, I have one in kind.  Why do you take issue with the conversation continuing?  

This is a great thread.  I never understood people who want to shut these kinds of threads down.  That's why we have the EMB to begin with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2022 at 10:40 PM, Procus said:

This is a great thread.  I never understood people who want to shut these kinds of threads down.  That's why we have the EMB to begin with. 

I agree and also enjoy these threads.  Yes, talking about quarterback play and defensive schemes and calling out Dallas is great, but the business of professional sports is fascinating and the hard cap in the NFL makes roster building much more interesting. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hawkeye said:

I agree and also enjoy these threads.  Yes, talking about quarterback play and defensive schemes and calling out Dallas is great, but the business of professional sports is fascinating and the hard cap in the NFL makes roster building much more interesting. 

I enjoy it a well even though I disagree with the sky is falling premise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, pallidrone said:

I enjoy it a well even though I disagree with the sky is falling premise.

Who has said that the sky is falling?  I'm pretty sure the issue is that people are raising criticism of Howie's methods and moves and saying that his pendulum has swung too far to the kick the can to the future.   This thread and others like it are the flip side to those folks who try to push the narrative that Howie is some sort of cap genius.  He does some good things with the cap, but he's going to the same well too frequently and limiting flexibility with all of these void years and overvaluing of his own players after their best years are behind them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Who has said that the sky is falling?  I'm pretty sure the issue is that people are raising criticism of Howie's methods and moves and saying that his pendulum has swung too far to the kick the can to the future.   This thread and others like it are the flip side to those folks who try to push the narrative that Howie is some sort of cap genius.  He does some good things with the cap, but he's going to the same well too frequently and limiting flexibility with all of these void years and overvaluing of his own players after their best years are behind them.

The thread was designed to outline how bad the cap was and in turn how bad the Eagles are being run because there is no cap space to sign players. Yet they were able to sign players from FA. Yet they were able to bring in a WR and pay him $100 million when his former team would not. Moves were made, positive moves, even though it was outlined in this thread that the Eagles were one of the teams in the worst cap shape of 2022.

This is the epitome of 'The Sky is Falling.' We are now talking about cap space in 2023 without 2022 even being played yet.

We all get it - you hate Howie. This has nothing to do with praising or hating Howie. It is about how the cap space and how voodoo accounting works in the NFL. I believe in kicking the can down the road because this is NOT like joe averages personal finance. The NFL does not work like that, yet so many people want to believe that paying off their credit card and mortgage is exactly like running a multi-billion dollar business.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, pallidrone said:

The thread was designed to outline how bad the cap was and in turn how bad the Eagles are being run because there is no cap space to sign players. Yet they were able to sign players from FA. Yet they were able to bring in a WR and pay him $100 million when his former team would not. Moves were made, positive moves, even though it was outlined in this thread that the Eagles were one of the teams in the worst cap shape of 2022.

This is the epitome of 'The Sky is Falling.' We are now talking about cap space in 2023 without 2022 even being played yet.

We all get it - you hate Howie. This has nothing to do with praising or hating Howie. It is about how the cap space and how voodoo accounting works in the NFL. I believe in kicking the can down the road because this is NOT like joe averages personal finance. The NFL does not work like that, yet so many people want to believe that paying off their credit card and mortgage is exactly like running a multi-billion dollar business.

.... by creating an even bigger dead cap hit in 2023 (I haven't looked at 2024 yet).

 

Being able to sign players and having an unhealthy cap situation isn't mutually exclusive.  The current projected dead cap hit for next year is a direct symptom of the 2022 dead cap hit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AJ Browns extension has been brought up a few times over the past week and it occurred to me, I haven't looked at how its structured yet. 

 

7ZX6wRg.jpg

 

You know what.... 

1) Howie has pulled back here.  Only 2 void years with under 10 million after the life of the contract.   I was expecting a lot more.  

2) The final two years the base salary jumps up a lot.  If we get close to 2025 and he has been what we hope he can be, that would be a good candidate year for a restructure if we need to get under. 

3) We keep hearing 4 year - 100 million, but I'm willing to bet it ends up being a 3 year - 70 million.  2026 we will never see that 30 million base salary.  Depending where he is at it will likely be a restructure and extension or a cut (assuming that the contract hasn't been mucked with too much prior)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, paco said:

.... by creating an even bigger dead cap hit in 2023 (I haven't looked at 2024 yet).

 

Being able to sign players and having an unhealthy cap situation isn't mutually exclusive.  The current projected dead cap hit for next year is a direct symptom of the 2022 dead cap hit

My point, which has not wavered, is that it doesn't matter. Is it interesting in how they are manipulating the cap by shifting money around? Absolutely. I don't buy into that it is wrong or that it even has any real damaging long-term effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pallidrone said:

My point, which has not wavered, is that it doesn't matter. Is it interesting in how they are manipulating the cap by shifting money around? Absolutely. I don't buy into that it is wrong or that it even has any real damaging long-term effects.

Before I respond, can you define this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2022 at 10:19 AM, Bwestbrook36 said:

Better update this to cap hell 2023... This year's hell didn't work out

Interesting thread, but don’t agree with the name change.  We need things to bump/ridicule after Hurts Minshew leads us to a Super Bowl this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, paco said:

Before I respond, can you define this?

No problem. The biggest concern has been the 'kicking down the road' of cap space would cause an issue where the Eagles will not be able to sign any free agents or the ability to resign their own players.

The future cap space that has been allocated has been done judicially with the mind on what the future cap space is going to look like and allocating some of that space for today.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pallidrone said:

No problem. The biggest concern has been the 'kicking down the road' of cap space would cause an issue where the Eagles will not be able to sign any free agents or the ability to resign their own players.

The future cap space that has been allocated has been done judicially with the mind on what the future cap space is going to look like and allocating some of that space for today.

Gotcha.  So the absolute "Armageddon" situation.

 

Given the cash cow the NFL is and its tv deals offering (relatively) stable income, its very unlikely that would be the case.  Even when COVID hit and it took a small dip, you can usually manage it.  It was tight but we were able to get it done by further pushing money.  The real danger is if a CBA doesn't get done*

 

Being that said, when you manage the cap this way you have little flexibility.  If a player blows up and suddenly becomes a hot commodity going into FA, you may have to make some tough choices roster wise since you have little additional room to restructure but probably don't want to cut anyone either.  Do you keep him and release someone else (and\or restructure another contract to the hilt) or let him walk and collect sweet, sweet, comp pick. Or what if you think your team is ready for a run?  Howie did a very nice job in FA, but a criticism is there were other holes that were not addressed.  Perhaps if we didn't have that huge dead chunk and little flexibility with the existing contracts, we could have improved the team even more.  

 

Besides there being additional difficulty with roster building, what if a player is on a sharp decline, but his contract has been restructured several times to the point where you "can't" cut him even if you want to.  "Yeah, he sucks, but its 10 million this year to keep him and 18 million to cut him".  Think Alshon

 

 

*Finally, here is a real world example as to what it looks like when a team structures contracts similar to what we are doing and a CBA doesn't get done.  The formatting sucks, I'll try to find the original article:

Spoiler

The R-Words are currently sitting at a 2006 salary cap figure of $115.5m - $20.5m over the estimated $95m NFL cap and these leaves the Skins at real risk being in breach of the cap come March 3. Cutting of high cost players will net only minimal savings. So that brings us to the first option the Skins have to get under the cap--to cut as many non-necessity players that save money as possible, redo some contracts.
First, the players that could be released. Here’s a list of 11 players with their 2006 cap savings if released in brackets:
Walt Harris ($2m) 
Matt Bowen ($2m) 
Brandon Noble ($1.7m) 
Patrick Ramsey ($1.7m) 
Cory Raymer ($1.0m) 
John Hall ($1.0m) 
James Thrash ([body].9m) 
Tom Tupa ([body].6m) 
Antonio Brown ([body].5m) 
Jimmy Farris ($.5m) 
Karon Riley ([body].5m) 
That’s $9.3m saved against the cap (when also figuring in the 12 players who would replace these guys under the Rule of 51)
Note: The Skins could re-sign a couple of the cut players at vet minimum contracts that would be at a similar level of compensation to the player as their 2006 money under the now terminated contract, but at a much lower cap value to the team.
Secondly, contract tinkering to fit the 30 percent rules. Here’s a list of players who’s contracts we could massage to make some savings with some basic restructuring:
Chris Samuels – 
Scrap the 3.5m LTBE incentive in 2006 and the 3.0m roster bonus due in 2007, 
Give him an option bonus of $6m, adding another year to his contract (2012),
Make his base salaries $1.5m (2006), $2.4m (2007), $3.3m (2008), $4m (2009), $6.4m (2010), $7.3m (2011) and $8.2m (2012). 
Base salaries from 2006-2009 would be guaranteed. 
This would save $1.500m in 2006.
Jon Jansen: 
Give him an option bonus of $5m, adding another year to his contract (2009), 
Make his base salaries $1.420m (2006), $2.2m (2007), $3.0m (2008) and $3.8m (2009).
All base salaries would be guaranteed. 
This would save $1.350m in 2006.
Randy Thomas – 
Give him an option bonus of $5m, adding another year to his contract (2010),
Make his base salaries $1.2m (2006), $1.9m (2007), $2.6m (2008), $3.3m (2009) and $5.2m (2010).
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed. 
This would save $1.050m in 2006.
Marcus Washington – 
Scrap the $2.5m roster bonus in 2006
Give him an option bonus of $4m, adding another year to his contract (2010),
Make his base salaries $1.5m (2006), $2.250m (2007), $3.0m (2008), $3.750m (2009) and $5.5m (2010).
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed. 
This would save $1.500m in 2006.
David Patten – 
Scrap the [body].6m LTBE incentive in 2006, and his roster bonuses in 2007/8/9
Increase his already existing option bonus in 2006 to $4m, triggering the 2009 year
Make his base salaries [body].670m (2006), $1.170m (2007), $1.8m (2008), and $2.0m (2009)
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed. 
This would save [body].327m in 2006.
Cornelius Griffin –Scrap the $2.5m roster bonus in 2006,
Give him an option bonus of $4m, adding another year to his contract (2011),
Make his base salaries $1.5m (2006), $2.250m (2007), $3.0m (2008), $3.750m (2009), $5.5m (2010) and $6.250m (2011).
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed. 
This would save $1.000m in 2006.
Shawn Springs – 
Scrap his $3.1m roster bonus in 2006
Give him an option bonus of $6m, adding another year to his contract (2010),
Make his base salaries $1.5m (2006), $2.4m (2007), $3.3m (2008), $4.2m (2009) and $6.6m (2010).
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed. 
This would save [body].850m in 2006.
Clinton Portis – 
Scrap his $3.0m roster bonus in 2006, $1.0m roster bonus in 2008 and [body].515m incentive in 2009
Give him an option bonus of $6m, adding another year to his contract (2012),
Make his base salaries $1.5m (2006), $2.4m (2007), $3.3m (2008), $4.2m (2009), $6.6m (2010), $7.5m (2011) and $8.0m (2012).
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed. 
This would save [body].545m in 2006.
Casey Rabach – 
Scrap the $1.6m LTBE incentive in 2006
increase his already existing option bonus in 2006 to $5m, triggering the 2010 year
make his base salaries [body].545m (2006), $1.050m (2007), $1.555m (2008), $2.060m (2009) and $3.8m (2010)
base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed. 
This would save [body].850m in 2006.
Mark Brunell – 
Scrap UTBE incentive from 2006
Give him an option bonus of $4m, adding another year to his contract (2011),
Make his base salaries $2m (2006), $2.9m (2007), $3.8m (2008), $4.7m (2009), $6.6 (2010) and $7m (2011).
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed. 
This would save $1.000m in 2006.
LaVar Arrington – 
Reduce his roster bonuses in 2006, 08 and 09 down to $2.785m, $3.0m and $3.0m
Scrap all roster bonuses from 2010 onwards
Give him a restructure bonus of $6m,
Make his base salaries [body].545m (2006), $2.275m (2007), $2.350m (2008), $3.377m (2009), $7.4m (2010) and $8.4m (2011).
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed. 
This would save $2.215m in 2006.
That’s a further $12.1m in savings against the cap.
There’s $21.4m of savings, which would result in the Skins being nearly $1m under a $95m
 

 

So as you can see, the team was, in theory, able to get under the cap.  But there was a lot of pain involved and would take years to get back to stability.  Luckily (for them) the CBA got done a week later and the cuts\restructures they made were reversed.  And LaVar Arrington literally wrote a check for 4 million so they could cut him anyway :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pallidrone said:

No problem. The biggest concern has been the 'kicking down the road' of cap space would cause an issue where the Eagles will not be able to sign any free agents or the ability to resign their own players.

The future cap space that has been allocated has been done judicially with the mind on what the future cap space is going to look like and allocating some of that space for today.

Who did the Eagles sign before the 2021 season?  Bargain basement priced free agents.  Because they had no flexibility due to their structures.  

They got a little flexibility for 2022, and signed Reddick, and bargain basement options.  

In 2023, we'll see if they can actually be players in the free agent market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, paco said:

Gotcha.  So the absolute "Armageddon" situation.

 

Given the cash cow the NFL is and its tv deals offering (relatively) stable income, its very unlikely that would be the case.  Even when COVID hit and it took a small dip, you can usually manage it.  It was tight but we were able to get it done by further pushing money.  The real danger is if a CBA doesn't get done*

 

Being that said, when you manage the cap this way you have little flexibility.  If a player blows up and suddenly becomes a hot commodity going into FA, you may have to make some tough choices roster wise since you have little additional room to restructure but probably don't want to cut anyone either.  Do you keep him and release someone else (and\or restructure another contract to the hilt) or let him walk and collect sweet, sweet, comp pick. Or what if you think your team is ready for a run?  Howie did a very nice job in FA, but a criticism is there were other holes that were not addressed.  Perhaps if we didn't have that huge dead chunk and little flexibility with the existing contracts, we could have improved the team even more.  

 

Besides there being additional difficulty with roster building, what if a player is on a sharp decline, but his contract has been restructured several times to the point where you "can't" cut him even if you want to.  "Yeah, he sucks, but its 10 million this year to keep him and 18 million to cut him".  Think Alshon

 

 

*Finally, here is a real world example as to what it looks like when a team structures contracts similar to what we are doing and a CBA doesn't get done.  The formatting sucks, I'll try to find the original article:

  Reveal hidden contents

The R-Words are currently sitting at a 2006 salary cap figure of $115.5m - $20.5m over the estimated $95m NFL cap and these leaves the 
Skins at real risk being in breach of the cap come March 3. Cutting of high cost players will net only minimal savings. So that brings us to 
the first option the Skins have to get under the cap--to cut as many non-necessity players that save money as possible, redo some 
contracts.
First, the players that could be released. Here’s a list of 11 players with their 2006 cap savings if released in brackets:
Walt Harris ($2m) 
Matt Bowen ($2m) 
Brandon Noble ($1.7m) 
Patrick Ramsey ($1.7m) 
Cory Raymer ($1.0m) 
John Hall ($1.0m) 
James Thrash ([body].9m) 
Tom Tupa ([body].6m) 
Antonio Brown ([body].5m) 
Jimmy Farris ($.5m) 
Karon Riley ([body].5m) 
That’s $9.3m saved against the cap (when also figuring in the 12 players who would replace these guys under the Rule of 51)
Note: The Skins could re-sign a couple of the cut players at vet minimum contracts that would be at a similar level of compensation to the 
player as their 2006 money under the now terminated contract, but at a much lower cap value to the team.
Secondly, contract tinkering to fit the 30 percent rules. Here’s a list of players who’s contracts we could massage to make some savings with 
some basic restructuring:
Chris Samuels – 
Scrap the 3.5m LTBE incentive in 2006 and the 3.0m roster bonus due in 2007, 
Give him an option bonus of $6m, adding another year to his contract (2012),
Make his base salaries $1.5m (2006), $2.4m (2007), $3.3m (2008), $4m (2009), $6.4m (2010), $7.3m (2011) and $8.2m (2012). 
Base salaries from 2006-2009 would be guaranteed. 
This would save $1.500m in 2006.
Jon Jansen: 
Give him an option bonus of $5m, adding another year to his contract (2009), 
Make his base salaries $1.420m (2006), $2.2m (2007), $3.0m (2008) and $3.8m (2009).
All base salaries would be guaranteed. 
This would save $1.350m in 2006.
Randy Thomas – 
Give him an option bonus of $5m, adding another year to his contract (2010),
Make his base salaries $1.2m (2006), $1.9m (2007), $2.6m (2008), $3.3m (2009) and $5.2m (2010).
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed. 
This would save $1.050m in 2006.
Marcus Washington – 
Scrap the $2.5m roster bonus in 2006
Give him an option bonus of $4m, adding another year to his contract (2010),
Make his base salaries $1.5m (2006), $2.250m (2007), $3.0m (2008), $3.750m (2009) and $5.5m (2010).
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed. 
This would save $1.500m in 2006.
David Patten – 
Scrap the [body].6m LTBE incentive in 2006, and his roster bonuses in 2007/8/9
Increase his already existing option bonus in 2006 to $4m, triggering the 2009 year
Make his base salaries [body].670m (2006), $1.170m (2007), $1.8m (2008), and $2.0m (2009)
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed. 
This would save [body].327m in 2006.
Cornelius Griffin –Scrap the $2.5m roster bonus in 2006,
Give him an option bonus of $4m, adding another year to his contract (2011),
Make his base salaries $1.5m (2006), $2.250m (2007), $3.0m (2008), $3.750m (2009), $5.5m (2010) and $6.250m (2011).
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed. 
This would save $1.000m in 2006.
Shawn Springs – 
Scrap his $3.1m roster bonus in 2006
Give him an option bonus of $6m, adding another year to his contract (2010),
Make his base salaries $1.5m (2006), $2.4m (2007), $3.3m (2008), $4.2m (2009) and $6.6m (2010).
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed. 
This would save [body].850m in 2006.
Clinton Portis – 
Scrap his $3.0m roster bonus in 2006, $1.0m roster bonus in 2008 and [body].515m incentive in 2009
Give him an option bonus of $6m, adding another year to his contract (2012),
Make his base salaries $1.5m (2006), $2.4m (2007), $3.3m (2008), $4.2m (2009), $6.6m (2010), $7.5m (2011) and $8.0m (2012).
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed. 
This would save [body].545m in 2006.
Casey Rabach – 
Scrap the $1.6m LTBE incentive in 2006
increase his already existing option bonus in 2006 to $5m, triggering the 2010 year
make his base salaries [body].545m (2006), $1.050m (2007), $1.555m (2008), $2.060m (2009) and $3.8m (2010)
base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed. 
This would save [body].850m in 2006.
Mark Brunell – 
Scrap UTBE incentive from 2006
Give him an option bonus of $4m, adding another year to his contract (2011),
Make his base salaries $2m (2006), $2.9m (2007), $3.8m (2008), $4.7m (2009), $6.6 (2010) and $7m (2011).
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed. 
This would save $1.000m in 2006.
LaVar Arrington – 
Reduce his roster bonuses in 2006, 08 and 09 down to $2.785m, $3.0m and $3.0m
Scrap all roster bonuses from 2010 onwards
Give him a restructure bonus of $6m,
Make his base salaries [body].545m (2006), $2.275m (2007), $2.350m (2008), $3.377m (2009), $7.4m (2010) and $8.4m (2011).
Base salaries from 2006-09 would be guaranteed. 
This would save $2.215m in 2006.
That’s a further $12.1m in savings against the cap.
There’s $21.4m of savings, which would result in the Skins being nearly $1m under a $95m
 

 

So as you can see, the team was, in theory, able to get under the cap.  But there was a lot of pain involved and would take years to get back to stability.  Luckily (for them) the CBA got done a week later and the cuts\restructures they made were reversed.  And LaVar Arrington literally wrote a check for 4 million so they could cut him anyway :lol: 

I do understand what you are saying here and I can get the concern.

I am a believer in the philosophy that if you are not spending a bulk of your cap space in one way, shape, or form, you are doing a disservice to the team. Holding on to current cap space for future spending does not make sense to me. Spending future cap space today does. You know what you have in front of you today in terms of players, you do not know what tomorrow actually holds. So if that means borrowing from future cap space to service the players of today, then you do it.

I mean look at the structure of that AJ Brown contract. Somehow they gave him a 4-year $100 million dollar extension, yet the cap hit is $5 million, $8 million, and $12 million for the first three years. That is an incredible value, especially since by year 4 when it jumps to $26 million, you can make a decision to extend, restructure, or keep him for that year at the number and cut him the following year.

When you look at the Davante Adams contract, it is $8 million this year, $30 million next year, $21 million the following, and then jumps to $40 million. They have no voidable years in that contract. Was that the best way to structure it to maximize your cap space?

I also completely agree with you on the CBA and if this was 2029 and there was a ton of space allocated in 2030 and 2031 I might panic a little bit, but for now, they are safe for years to come. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Who did the Eagles sign before the 2021 season?  Bargain basement priced free agents.  Because they had no flexibility due to their structures.  

They got a little flexibility for 2022, and signed Reddick, and bargain basement options.  

In 2023, we'll see if they can actually be players in the free agent market.

If they wanted to bring someone in, they absolutely could have. Who do you think was available that they could not have signed because of their cap?

I think you have an issue with their roster building philosophy and are blaming it on cap management. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares. All that matters is can Hurts be good enough to win playoff games 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Who did the Eagles sign before the 2021 season?  Bargain basement priced free agents.  Because they had no flexibility due to their structures.  

They got a little flexibility for 2022, and signed Reddick, and bargain basement options.  

In 2023, we'll see if they can actually be players in the free agent market.

Very misleading. They traded for a guy and gave him a 100M contract when people in this board thought we had about 7M in cap room. 

Then they signed a guy who was last years top FA CB for 10M, forming what is expected to be a top 5 CB tandem in the league.

3 big splashes.

The CB and WR, by the way were available due to other teams cap casualties. So not only were we NOT in cap hell, we are actually a team in position to strike with big money deals and capitalize on other teams cap mistakes.

In addition,  we have paid and retained our own young talent.

There is a very misguided perception in here. It begins with fans here not having nearly the grasp on the cap that Howie does. Gaps in knowledge are filled in with assumptions formed from an anti-Howie bias that has grown since the post-super bowl era.  It's not allowing some people to see the forrest through the trees.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...