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

[paco]

19 hours ago, HazletonEagle said:

We probably have more now with all that dead cap, than we could have if we just stuck to the current years salary cap and had no dead cap.

It allows you do do MORE. Not less.

"Probably”  

 

If you make a statement like that, show your work.  Not "I think it’s probably this because that’s how I feels”

[Connecticut Eagle]

Yes, objectively the dead cap sucks and is impacting the team.

I would argue that the majority of it falls on Wentz.  $34M in dead money in 2021.  

2021 also had a ridiculously low cap number, $182.5M, or about $20M less than expectations before COVID. 

So that is $54M just from Wentz and COVID.

One could imagine many of the subsequent questionable moves not even being necessary under different circumstances.

[Iggles_Phan]

4 hours ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

Yes, objectively the dead cap sucks and is impacting the team.

I would argue that the majority of it falls on Wentz.  $34M in dead money in 2021.  

2021 also had a ridiculously low cap number, $182.5M, or about $20M less than expectations before COVID. 

So that is $54M just from Wentz and COVID.

One could imagine many of the subsequent questionable moves not even being necessary under different circumstances.

Malik Jackson contract, Desean Jackson contract, Alshon Jeffery contract, Brandon Brooks contract and yes, even the Lane Johnson and Fletcher Cox deals were all done well before the Covid castastrophe and Wentz blowing up in their face.  None of those were impacted by either of those factors and they were all BAD contracts at the time, and were identified by people as such at the time.

[HazletonEagle]

On 6/11/2022 at 3:39 PM, paco said:

"Probably”  

 

If you make a statement like that, show your work.  Not "I think it’s probably this because that’s how I feels”

the work has been shown countless times in this thread. Every time you guys erroneously complain about dead cap and show that work. 

[paco]

13 hours ago, HazletonEagle said:

the work has been shown countless times in this thread. Every time you guys erroneously complain about dead cap and show that work. 

Should be really easy to quote then.

[HazletonEagle]

1 hour ago, paco said:

Should be really easy to quote then.

Or, you could go start subtracting all the void years out there,  and apply that money from each of those years to the current years cap and see how quickly we run out of money. 

 

It's common sense.  If you have 1 bank account,  you can afford less than if you are drawing from that one, and another one. And another one.  And another one.  Depending how many void years there are. 

[paco]

I don't think you know what point you are trying to make anymore.

[judunno]

On 6/10/2022 at 2:58 PM, pallidrone said:

Of course, a dead cap number impacts the team. It just does not impact the team as negatively as people make it out to be. 

In fact, I could argue that having a ton of cap space is a bad thing. It means you are not investing in the players on your team and have probably been bad at drafting and evaluating talent.

Facts. It's like when a fortune 500 company has too much cash on hand just sitting. Not using it could be detrimental if not used for a purpose to grow the business or reward investors (especially with inflation :) )

[judunno]

TLDR summary of this whole topic.

 

OMGZ we need more space to make moves. 

OMGZ how did we get those guys Howie you are God.

OMGZ we made moves we need more space.

OMGZ we can't get that guy I want Howie you suck.

 

[HazletonEagle]

50 minutes ago, paco said:

I don't think you even know anymore what point you are trying to make.

That we have been able to do MORE with tons of dead money than we would have been able to do with less.

[paco]

1 hour ago, HazletonEagle said:

That we have been able to do MORE with tons of dead money than we would have been able to do with less.

Again, show your work to support your position.  "Its already been discussed" makes you sound like a flat earther refusing to back up their claim.  And say "we probably" shows you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Since I know you won't and can't support your position, let me try to end this stupid narrative once and for all

On 2/24/2022 at 4:02 PM, OCEaglefan said:

Oh

 

As you can see, the Eagles are NOT able to do more.  In fact, they were roughly middle of the road WITH a highly inflexible cap.   If everyone "did more" like Howie, the Eagles would in fact be the third worst team in terms of cap to be spent.

[HazletonEagle]

16 minutes ago, paco said:

Again, show your work to support your position.  "Its already been discussed" makes you sound like a flat earther refusing to back up their claim.  And say "we probably" shows you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Since I know you won't and can't support your position, let me try to end this stupid narrative once and for all

As you can see, the Eagles are NOT able to do more.  In fact, they were roughly middle of the road WITH a highly inflexible cap.   If everyone "did more" like Howie, the Eagles would in fact be the third worst team in terms of cap to be spent.

What is "effective" cap? Probably not accounting for how much dead cap we choose to create on any given year. 

Your propaganda is likely looking at cap suave abs what bonuses exist that can be converted to free up more cap immediately. 

No one can guess how much Howie will dip in to future years for a discount on money. 

It's clear now that you don't understand...

[paco]

18 hours ago, HazletonEagle said:

What is "effective" cap? Probably not accounting for how much dead cap we choose to create on any given year. 

 

18 hours ago, paco said:

Again, show your work to support your position.  "Its already been discussed" makes you sound like a flat earther refusing to back up their claim.  And say "we probably" shows you don't know what you are talking about.

Effective cap space is a clearly defined term and there is no gray area like you tried to suggest. The fact you don't know what it is shows your ignorance on this subject. And that graph LITERALLY shows you how much cap can be borrowed from future years. 

So I'll say it again with easy to understand words: If all of the teams maxed out what they can borrow, the eagles would end up with the 3rd least amount of cap space.  With all the borrowing the eagles have done, they rank only in the middle of the pack of effective cap space.  They are caught in a cycle now where they need to aggressively borrow just to compete.

 

It's clear that it's pointless to continue with you.  You have yet to bring anything to the table except for "probably" and feels

[HazletonEagle]

Ok.  You buy the propaganda. I'll enjoy the excellent roster Howie constructed when no one thought we could have done nearly as much this offseason. 

[EagleVA]

4 hours ago, paco said:

Again, show your work to support your position.  "Its already been discussed" makes you sound like a flat earther refusing to back up their claim.  And say "we probably" shows you don't know what you are talking about.

You must be in la-la land.

You know why no one is in the FE thread anymore?  Because I backed up everything posted thereby shutting up all of you ballers!!

And the question still exists, where's the curve??

[paco]

False.  Do your research 

[Iggles_Phan]

1 hour ago, EagleVA said:

You must be in la-la land.

You know why no one is in the FE thread anymore?  Because I backed up everything posted thereby shutting up all of you ballers!!

And the question still exists, where's the curve??

Dude... it is there... all the time, you just are too small to see it.  And please... don't reply.  I get paid to teach people this stuff.  I'm not going to do it for you gratis.

[EagleVA]

15 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Dude... it is there... all the time, you just are too small to see it.  And please... don't reply.  

Hmmm, sounds like you don't like being shown to be the fool you are.

[HazletonEagle]

Uh oh.

[Iggles_Phan]

2 hours ago, EagleVA said:

Hmmm, sounds like you don't like being shown to be the fool you are.

Nope.  I don't see a need to educate you on something so fundamentally OBVIOUS.  You choose to close your eyes to it.  That's fine. Your choice, but I'm not going to waste my time on your ignorance.  But, believe what you will.    Just out of curiosity though... try to define the basis for gravitation in your flat world.  Why do things fall 'down'?  And why doesn't the earth itself fall down?  What's holding it 'up'?  

[pallidrone]

On 6/14/2022 at 1:48 PM, Iggles_Phan said:

Nope.  I don't see a need to educate you on something so fundamentally OBVIOUS.  You choose to close your eyes to it.  That's fine. Your choice, but I'm not going to waste my time on your ignorance.  But, believe what you will.    Just out of curiosity though... try to define the basis for gravitation in your flat world.  Why do things fall 'down'?  And why doesn't the earth itself fall down?  What's holding it 'up'?  

You are so ignorant. Everyone knows that the earth is securely fastened to the back of a flying sea turtle.

[EagleVA]

On 6/14/2022 at 1:48 PM, Iggles_Phan said:

Just out of curiosity though... try to define the basis for gravitation in your flat world.  Why do things fall 'down'?  And why doesn't the earth itself fall down?  What's holding it 'up'?  

If you want to define "what's goes up must come down" then gravity exists.  Unfortunately for you that's not how gravity is defined, it's defines as a magical force.

In reality, when you speak of gravity, density and buoyancy is what you're observing.  If an object is denser that the medium it's in it will fall, I'm more dense than air, if I fall off a roof I fall through the air, if I'm carrying a helium balloon and let it go, it rises because helium is less dense than oxygen.

The same goes for objects in the medium of water, that's why  pebble will fall to the bottom of a lake but an aircraft carrier won't, the pebble is more dense than the carrier.

As far as the Earth falling down, the problem our having is you're thinking of a dumb flat earth, you know, the pancake floating in space with water flowing off of it.

One thing I've always noticed, dumb people think dumb.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, EagleVA said:

The same goes for objects in the medium of water, that's why  pebble will fall to the bottom of a lake but an aircraft carrier won't, the pebble is more dense than the carrier.

But neither is as dense as EagleVA

[Iggles_Phan]

4 hours ago, EagleVA said:

If you want to define "what's goes up must come down" then gravity exists.  Unfortunately for you that's not how gravity is defined, it's defines as a magical force.

In reality, when you speak of gravity, density and buoyancy is what you're observing.  If an object is denser that the medium it's in it will fall, I'm more dense than air, if I fall off a roof I fall through the air, if I'm carrying a helium balloon and let it go, it rises because helium is less dense than oxygen.

The same goes for objects in the medium of water, that's why  pebble will fall to the bottom of a lake but an aircraft carrier won't, the pebble is more dense than the carrier.

As far as the Earth falling down, the problem our having is you're thinking of a dumb flat earth, you know, the pancake floating in space with water flowing off of it.

One thing I've always noticed, dumb people think dumb.

If you are interested in actually learning about the things you are talking about here, PM me.  This post makes me sad.

[HazletonEagle]

4 hours ago, EagleVA said:

If you want to define "what's goes up must come down" then gravity exists.  Unfortunately for you that's not how gravity is defined, it's defines as a magical force.

In reality, when you speak of gravity, density and buoyancy is what you're observing.  If an object is denser that the medium it's in it will fall, I'm more dense than air, if I fall off a roof I fall through the air, if I'm carrying a helium balloon and let it go, it rises because helium is less dense than oxygen.

The same goes for objects in the medium of water, that's why  pebble will fall to the bottom of a lake but an aircraft carrier won't, the pebble is more dense than the carrier.

As far as the Earth falling down, the problem our having is you're thinking of a dumb flat earth, you know, the pancake floating in space with water flowing off of it.

One thing I've always noticed, dumb people think dumb.

If density was the determining factor for something falling through a medium, then wouldnt the degree of density play a role in determining the rate of the fall?

Why would something as dense as a bowling ball fall at the same rate as something like a sponge?

Things that are dense enough to fall are still controlled by gravity. That is why there is a consistent rate of acceleration.

Why would there always be a consistent rate of acceleration if density was the determining factor, and density varies between objects?