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

[paco]

3 hours ago, pallidrone said:

Top 51 Veteran Valuation:

This is the total valuation of all players on each club’s top 51, excluding 2022 draft picks. This is a snapshot of their current value under 2022 market conditions, not a forecast of what they would theoretically cost on the open market after the season.

To ensure that clubs carry 90-man rosters during the offseason, only the 51 largest cap hits count against the salary cap. Thus, we have taken each team’s current top 51 cap-hit players, removed rookies and calculated the total value.

So, does that only take into account the current years cap hit and not the overall contract?

[Guest]

4 hours ago, pallidrone said:

The Eagles rank 6th overall for 'Top 51 Veteran Valuation' which is what matters the most and they even state that some of the better teams find themselves at the bottom of the list.

Are they really the 6th best team in the NFL ??

[pallidrone]

3 hours ago, paco said:

So, does that only take into account the current years cap hit and not the overall contract?

I would assume so since it is the value of the player under 2022 conditions.

[pallidrone]

20 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Let's take it point by point...

 

I really just want to go over a couple of points.

1) When Malik Jackson was signed, he was 29 years old and signed a 3-year, $30 million deal. Right around the same time Sheldon Richardson, also 29 years old at the time, signed a 3-year, $36 million dollar deal with the Cleveland Browns. What they paid to Malik was the going rate in free agency at the time. That is ALWAYS the issue with free agency. A team is always going to overpay for talent. That is why having a ton a space for free agency is stupid. When that happens a team ends up paying $21 million per year for Christian Kirk.

2) The NFL has changed from the time Banner was in charge to now. Players have a much longer life expectancy in the NFL due to fewer OTAs, less training camp, and fewer two a days. Investing into older players is investing into known entities versus unknown ones, especially in FA. However, that also depends on the team and the philosophy. The problem with Doug Pederson was that he was able to work with Vets and get the most out of them, but was terrible with young players. That is why a player like LJ Fort did squat here but was a playmaker for the Ravens. His coaching staff was just bad with young players that were not QBs.

3) The WR problem has been an organizational issue for as long as most can remember. The Eagles as a whole have been dreadful when it comes to drafting WRs. Just take a look at some of the WRs that have been drafted by the Eagles through the years. They have drafted 64 WRs in the history of the NFL, and only 5 of them have done anything worthwhile. Even when they luck out and draft a potential HOF WR (Cris Carter), they end up cutting him. Some teams are just cursed when it comes to certain positions and WR has been the bane of the Eagle's existence.

4) The facts are that the Eagles were left with only a few draft picks when they moved up for Wentz. They used some of those to go after known entities (Jay Ajayi, Golden Tate) instead of trying to hit in the draft. Some of those moves worked and helped get the Eagles their first Super Bowl. Then they thought they could keep the band together and do it again. It was not in the cards.

 

After reading all your comments, I am now even more convinced than before that your issue is not with the salary cap, but with the players that they used that salary cap for. 

I don't agree with all the personnel moves either. I agree with you that bringing back Cox was silly and they should have just ripped off the bandaid. I agree that bringing in a DeSean Jackson and paying him was a huge mistake. That was one of those known devil situations that should not have happened. Just like I think it was silly for them to bring back Boston Scott for $1.7 million when I think Huntley could do the same job for less.

What I don't agree with is that their impact on the salary cap somehow prevents them from moving forward or that it will eventually cripple the team. These contracts were carefully spread out to maximize the money today and into the future.

[Iggles_Phan]

55 minutes ago, pallidrone said:

I really just want to go over a couple of points.

1) When Malik Jackson was signed, he was 29 years old and signed a 3-year, $30 million deal. Right around the same time Sheldon Richardson, also 29 years old at the time, signed a 3-year, $36 million dollar deal with the Cleveland Browns. What they paid to Malik was the going rate in free agency at the time. That is ALWAYS the issue with free agency. A team is always going to overpay for talent. That is why having a ton a space for free agency is stupid. When that happens a team ends up paying $21 million per year for Christian Kirk.

2) The NFL has changed from the time Banner was in charge to now. Players have a much longer life expectancy in the NFL due to fewer OTAs, less training camp, and fewer two a days. Investing into older players is investing into known entities versus unknown ones, especially in FA. However, that also depends on the team and the philosophy. The problem with Doug Pederson was that he was able to work with Vets and get the most out of them, but was terrible with young players. That is why a player like LJ Fort did squat here but was a playmaker for the Ravens. His coaching staff was just bad with young players that were not QBs.

3) The WR problem has been an organizational issue for as long as most can remember. The Eagles as a whole have been dreadful when it comes to drafting WRs. Just take a look at some of the WRs that have been drafted by the Eagles through the years. They have drafted 64 WRs in the history of the NFL, and only 5 of them have done anything worthwhile. Even when they luck out and draft a potential HOF WR (Cris Carter), they end up cutting him. Some teams are just cursed when it comes to certain positions and WR has been the bane of the Eagle's existence.

4) The facts are that the Eagles were left with only a few draft picks when they moved up for Wentz. They used some of those to go after known entities (Jay Ajayi, Golden Tate) instead of trying to hit in the draft. Some of those moves worked and helped get the Eagles their first Super Bowl. Then they thought they could keep the band together and do it again. It was not in the cards.

 

After reading all your comments, I am now even more convinced than before that your issue is not with the salary cap, but with the players that they used that salary cap for. 

I don't agree with all the personnel moves either. I agree with you that bringing back Cox was silly and they should have just ripped off the bandaid. I agree that bringing in a DeSean Jackson and paying him was a huge mistake. That was one of those known devil situations that should not have happened. Just like I think it was silly for them to bring back Boston Scott for $1.7 million when I think Huntley could do the same job for less.

What I don't agree with is that their impact on the salary cap somehow prevents them from moving forward or that it will eventually cripple the team. These contracts were carefully spread out to maximize the money today and into the future.

1 - Was Richardson also just cut from his former team for being on the decline?  Context matters.  Not all 29 year old DTs get 3 years and $30M.  On the contrary, Richardson was coming off a one year prove-it deal with the Vikings.  Richardson had rebounded from a down year with the Seahawks... Jackson was on the decline.  Apples/oranges.  Not just 

 

2 - I'd love to see the numbers on that assertion.  It sure doesn't seem that way at all.  There are a few unicorns that stand out, but there always have been.  Please support this assertion with Pro Bowlers/All-Pros, not just guys that hang on.  Cox, Brooks, Johnson were all paid at the HIGHEST levels of their positions, did their play/availability match that level of investment?  Sure doesn't seem like it.

 

3 - Yup, the Eagles have been bad at identifying WRs.  But, I don't believe in teams being 'cursed'.  I believe teams that struggle historically at certain positions have fundamental flaws that they can't correct for any reason, not some curse.

 

4 - Only two of those moves worked to bring the Eagles a Super Bowl... Ajayi and Darby.  Both were also cheap and on their rookie deals, whereas most of the others were older players, declining players and expensive.  Again, that's cap management as well as roster management.  

 

You can't decouple cap management from roster management.  They go hand in hand.   Their handling of the cap has already limited the moves the team has been able to make.  Last year's free agent class was bargain bin shopping exclusively, because they had no flexibility to do more.  This year's class is almost exclusively the same, because they had limited flexibility (the least flexibility in the league according to sources that have been shared multiple times).  Yes, they landed one big money player (AND gave up big time draft resources at the same time, which means that have less risk in that move, but also have less cap flexibility moving forward by having a player on a relatively cheap rookie deal, compared to the 'market' rate for veterans...).  They did land one.  And they did it by borrowing from tomorrow.  And they will continue to do that, and will continue to be limited in what they can do, until they bite the bullet for a year and stop pushing money off to the future.  Over $50M dead this year, and will have $30M next year.   When you are at the top of the list year after year in dead cap space, that's an issue.

[paco]

19 hours ago, pallidrone said:

I would assume so since it is the value of the player under 2022 conditions.

Gotcha.  In that case, that stat really doesn't tell me much.  We know the Eagles push cap out to future years so of course they will have a very low hit and high value by that metric.

 

I'll say this again.  For young, core players that will be around a while and likely extended, I don't have a big problem with it.  However, the with how aggressively Howie does it AND how frequently, you really get yourself into a never ending cycle of being forced to constantly restructure and push more and more money out.  And historically, teams that do this end up ranging from bad to mediocre.  

[Iggles_Phan]

23 minutes ago, paco said:

Gotcha.  In that case, that stat really doesn't tell me much.  We know the Eagles push cap out to future years so of course they will have a very low hit and high value by that metric.

 

I'll say this again.  For young, core players that will be around a while and likely extended, I don't have a big problem with it.  However, the with how aggressively Howie does it AND how frequently, you really get yourself into a never ending cycle of being forced to constantly restructure and push more and more money out.  And historically, teams that do this end up ranging from bad to mediocre.  

[paco]

PFF's NFL Salary Cap: Three-year analysis for all 32 NFL teams

Quote

PHILADELPHIA EAGLES — RANK: 31ST

No one wheels and deals quite like Eagles general manager Howie Roseman, and his negotiating prowess was on full display all offseason long. Philadelphia turned three first-round picks into freakishly athletic nose tackle Jordan Davis, phenom wide receiver A.J. Brown, a 2023 first-round pick and a 2024 second-round pick. 

Two moves from last offseason — tight end Dallas Goedert and left tackle Jordan Mailata‘s early extensions — aged masterfully. It’s proactive decisions like those that enable teams like Philadelphia to spend so much cash and prorate a staggering amount of money without completely folding. 

We mentioned earlier that the Dolphins smartly held on to their extra first-round pick in 2023 in case they feel the need to make a change at quarterback. While all the reviews out of camp on quarterback Jalen Hurts are glowing so far, Philadelphia also smartly left this door open. While the Eagles have kicked the can down the road even more than the Saints — no easy feat — extra draft capital is arguably the best way to combat its negative effects.

 

[jsb235]

1 hour ago, paco said:

PFF's NFL Salary Cap: Three-year analysis for all 32 NFL teams

 

So a few criticisms of that analysis.

For one, it glosses over a huge part of the equation, namely the contributions by players on rookie contracts. The author just used point values for those players without taking into consideration positional value and actual production. The Bengals and Chargers, for example, are getting way more value from their draft classes due to the fact that they have starting qbs who are way above average on rookie contracts.

The Giants rank first in rookie contributions in this analysis, but obviously they are struggling because their rookie classes have been bad.

Secondly, it doesn't factor in losses a team suffers from cutting players due to salary cap reasons.

Again, the Giants cut Bradberry for salary cap reasons, and we signed him. So in this chart, that means the Giants are healthier from a salary cap standpoint. But they are going to have to replace him with a rookie. That is pretty misleading to me. In some way the chart should account for decisions like that. Instead, those moves show up in the form of wins and losses.    

[BayAreaLennie]

On 7/5/2022 at 10:01 AM, jsb235 said:

So a few criticisms of that analysis.

For one, it glosses over a huge part of the equation, namely the contributions by players on rookie contracts. The author just used point values for those players without taking into consideration positional value and actual production. The Bengals and Chargers, for example, are getting way more value from their draft classes due to the fact that they have starting qbs who are way above average on rookie contracts.

The Giants rank first in rookie contributions in this analysis, but obviously they are struggling because their rookie classes have been bad.

Secondly, it doesn't factor in losses a team suffers from cutting players due to salary cap reasons.

Again, the Giants cut Bradberry for salary cap reasons, and we signed him. So in this chart, that means the Giants are healthier from a salary cap standpoint. But they are going to have to replace him with a rookie. That is pretty misleading to me. In some way the chart should account for decisions like that. Instead, those moves show up in the form of wins and losses.    

I am not sure I understand or agree with your criticisms.

With respect to rookie contributions, their leftmost column captures rookie value for only the incoming rookie class, in just about the only sensible way to do it (based on chart value of incoming rookies).  All remaining players on rookie contracts are reflected in the other columns.  Once you’ve taken into account their collective cap hit ramifications (2nd and 3rd columns), playing value to the team (4th column) and potential pending cost to sign for an extension (5th column), I don’t believe there is any independent ramification to being on their rookie contract to take into account.

Cutting Bradberry would reduce the collective player value in the 4th column.  They explained in the comments that the player evaluation column is more heavily weighted than the other columns.  So his loss to the Giants seems to me to be fully reflected in the chart.

Certainly a lot of what they are doing in that chart is not precise because it is difficult to accurately reflect some of what they are trying to quantify, but the specific criticisms you made seem to me like they have at least made a decent attempt at including.

[jsb235]

12 minutes ago, BayAreaLennie said:

I am not sure I understand or agree with your criticisms.

With respect to rookie contributions, their leftmost column captures rookie value for only the incoming rookie class, in just about the only sensible way to do it (based on chart value of incoming rookies).  All remaining players on rookie contracts are reflected in the other columns.  Once you’ve taken into account their collective cap hit ramifications (2nd and 3rd columns), playing value to the team (4th column) and potential pending cost to sign for an extension (5th column), I don’t believe there is any independent ramification to being on their rookie contract to take into account.

Cutting Bradberry would reduce the collective player value in the 4th column.  They explained in the comments that the player evaluation column is more heavily weighted than the other columns.  So his loss to the Giants seems to me to be fully reflected in the chart.

Certainly a lot of what they are doing in that chart is not precise because it is difficult to accurately reflect some of what they are trying to quantify, but the specific criticisms you made seem to me like they have at least made a decent attempt at including.

Here is how they put together the first column.

"We converted every rookie-contract player currently on each team’s roster into their Fitzgerald-Spielberger value in the same manner Timo Riske analyzed each team’s 2021 Draft capital to weight the value of each player."

Why you would think that applied to only the current draft class, when they explicitly say that they put a value on "every rookie-contract player." Plus, do some simple math. Jacksonville has a score of 24,000. The number one overall pick is worth 3,000. Do you really think that their draft from this year is worth 8 number 1 overall picks? Or do you think it is more likely that it is the total from the past few years?

Plus, NO is 32 on the list. How could they be 32 if it was only in the rookie draft class, when they had two first-round picks this year?

As far as the Bradberry signing, it does get reflected in the columns, but only as a pure number. His salary gets subtracted from the Giants and added to the Eagles, lowering their score and increasing ours.

But that's the end of the analysis. The valuation chart is only numbers. It doesn't take into account any real world considerations, namely that the Giants will now be starting Aaron Robinson and the Eagles won't be starting Zech McPhearson. And that's the failure that I see. I really need a better explanation of how the chart takes that into account that is a little better than "the chart takes that into account," because all I see is the chart subtracting his salary from the Giants and adding it to the Eagles, and I don't think that is a great way to evaluate the move. 

 

[BayAreaLennie]

2 hours ago, jsb235 said:

Here is how they put together the first column.

"We converted every rookie-contract player currently on each team’s roster into their Fitzgerald-Spielberger value in the same manner Timo Riske analyzed each team’s 2021 Draft capital to weight the value of each player."

Why you would think that applied to only the current draft class, when they explicitly say that they put a value on "every rookie-contract player." Plus, do some simple math. Jacksonville has a score of 24,000. The number one overall pick is worth 3,000. Do you really think that their draft from this year is worth 8 number 1 overall picks? Or do you think it is more likely that it is the total from the past few years?

Plus, NO is 32 on the list. How could they be 32 if it was only in the rookie draft class, when they had two first-round picks this year?

As far as the Bradberry signing, it does get reflected in the columns, but only as a pure number. His salary gets subtracted from the Giants and added to the Eagles, lowering their score and increasing ours.

But that's the end of the analysis. The valuation chart is only numbers. It doesn't take into account any real world considerations, namely that the Giants will now be starting Aaron Robinson and the Eagles won't be starting Zech McPhearson. And that's the failure that I see. I really need a better explanation of how the chart takes that into account that is a little better than "the chart takes that into account," because all I see is the chart subtracting his salary from the Giants and adding it to the Eagles, and I don't think that is a great way to evaluate the move. 

 

OK, that's what I get for reading fast, writing in a hurry before a meeting, and not subscribing fully to PFF.

I looked at the Timo Riske article referenced in your quote (or what I could look at without a subscription), which was analyzing the draft capital for just the incoming rookies, and assumed "rookie-contract player" meant just incoming rookies.  Contributing to that was that they describe the 4th column (Top 51 Veteran Valuation) as being a "total valuation of all player in each club's top 51, excluding 2022 draft picks", which made me think the 1st column was meant to fill in the gap of the 2022 draft picks being excluded in the 4th column.  Based at least on the NO score in the 1st column, it looks like you are correct that the 1st column is all rookie-contract players.  WIth that understanding, I can see your point.  (It seems like they are double-counting the year 2-4 guys in a way.)

On the Bradberry point, if what you are saying is that if you add, say, a good safety to a team that already has two good safeties, it should be accounted for in the analysis differently than adding that good safety to a team that has a weak spot at safety, there may be merit to that.  But I think they are trying to do a fully numerical non-subjective analysis, and when you collectivize all the data, those types of considerations sort of melt into the numbers -- I am not sure diving deeper on that would really result in differences substantial enough to significantly change the conclusions.  (Though I agree it would be worth understanding.)

Bottom line for me is that, regardless, the analysis in that chart is a pretty blunt instrument.  I suspect looking too closely at how the sausage is made would make you not very hungry for the sausage.

[CouchKing]

I see the chart with the $52million in dead cap money for 2022.

Where are we for 2023? Is there a new set of problems / dead money for 2023?

[paco]

On 7/11/2022 at 8:18 AM, CouchKing said:

I see the chart with the $52million in dead cap money for 2022.

Where are we for 2023? Is there a new set of problems / dead money for 2023?

 

On 5/27/2022 at 9:12 AM, paco said:

I believe @Bwestbrook36 was asking about the 2023 dead cap hit for players no longer on the team.  Assuming nothing happens (contract extensions, post june 1 cuts, etc), this is what we are currently looking at:

Cox (2022 cut)	$15,359,292
Javon Hargrave	$16,758,000
Brandon Brooks	$9,797,237
Isaac Seumalo	$3,838,000
James Bradberry	$4,972,000
Kyzir White	$1,572,000
Anthony Harris	$997,412
T.J. Edwards	$711,000
	$54,004,941

 

@downundermike : You mentioned that it was a bit unclear about Cox's hit due to the cut.  I found this on OverTheCap, pretty interesting read.  That is where I got the $15,359,292 number from for 2023.  It looks like there will be a second dead cap hit in 2024 for $7,500,000. 

 

On 6/1/2022 at 7:57 AM, paco said:

I started to look at 2024 and realized I missed a pair of players on this list.  First:  Jason Kelce.  

Given that, I'm going to keep him off the total for now since its pure speculation.  But if you believe he will retire, it will have a significant bump to the total, either to the tune of $21,123,000 or $9,675,000, depending on if it they designate him as a post June 1st cut.  (And to be able to designate him as post June 1st, they will need to have $21 million laying around to "hold" him from March to June, so expect massive restructures over the next 8 months.  This is another area where an inflexible cap bites you.)

 

Second, Fletcher Cox (non 2022 cut)

 

Similar to Kelce, if I am reading the numbers right, we are looking at a pretty decent sized dead cap hit in 2023 if the Eagles decide to move on.  It will be either $10 million or 2.5 million depending if they use post June 1st.

 

 

Assume this is the last year for both AND the Eagles designate both as their two post June 1st "cuts", I think this is what we are looking at from a dead cap hit perspective

2023:  $9,675,000  + $2,500,000 = $12,175,000

2024: $11,448,000 + $7,500,000 = $18,948,000

 

Again, this is speculative, but if the numbers are right AND we assume both retire\cut with a June 1st designation, that takes the 2023 dead cap to $66,179,941

 

On 6/1/2022 at 8:21 AM, paco said:

Current 2024 dead cap projection.

We spoke about Cox and Kelce above.  Since its likely both will be gone in 2024, lets speculate a June 1st roll over from 2023.  It will be the most conservative estimate.  That gives us the following

Speculative 2023 6/1 cut	$ 18,948,000
Darius Slay	$ 13,798,000
Brandon Graham	$ 10,148,000
Derek Barnett	$  7,215,000
	$ 50,109,000

 

So assuming no extensions (Slay MIGHT a candidate, Barnett only if he gets his crap together) or any other cap movements AND Kelce\Cox being 2023 post June 1st designations, that puts us at

2023: $66,179,941

2024: $50,109,000

 

Admittedly, the Cox cut and resign is by far the most murkey of the numbers.  If I got anything wrong that throws off the projections, it will likely be that.

 

[CouchKing]

Thanks for the 2023 analysis.

If guys like Hargrave, Seumalo, and Bradberry are still here, then less dead cap money.

Brooks is gone and Cox looks like he is on the way out. 

[paco]

In case anyone cares, they finally updated Jaquiski Tartt's contract
$1,120,000 with $500,000 guaranteed.

So... nothing.

[paco]

Ummm.....

 

2022 Wide Receiver Salaries

 

Player	Team	Cap Number	Cash Spent
Kenny Golladay	Giants	$21,150,000	$17,750,000
Keenan Allen	Chargers	$19,200,000	$16,500,000
DeAndre Hopkins	Cardinals	$17,950,000	$17,300,000
Cooper Kupp	Rams	$17,800,000	$30,000,000
Nelson Agholor	Patriots	$14,882,353	$10,000,000

 

[Procus]

 

[Iggles_Phan]

2 minutes ago, Procus said:

 

Outside of Qb... just the most expensive position in the NFL.

[HazletonEagle]

NFL teams losing excellent players as cap casualties.

AJ Brown, James Bradberry, and Gardner-Johnson.

Eagles always in position to snag those players. Eagles fans complain about cap hell for like 3 years straight.

Man, the eagles version of cap hell really sucks. To be able to add all of these good players.... God our GM must suck.

 

[Procus]

On 8/7/2022 at 8:00 AM, paco said:

Ummm.....

 

2022 Wide Receiver Salaries

 

Player	Team	Cap Number	Cash Spent
Kenny Golladay	Giants	$21,150,000	$17,750,000
Keenan Allen	Chargers	$19,200,000	$16,500,000
DeAndre Hopkins	Cardinals	$17,950,000	$17,300,000
Cooper Kupp	Rams	$17,800,000	$30,000,000
Nelson Agholor	Patriots	$14,882,353	$10,000,000

 

Gettleman was the gift that kept on giving.  Seems pretty apparent that Brandon Beane was the one really responsible for building those great Carolina teams from around 10 years ago

[Godfather]

9 hours ago, HazletonEagle said:

NFL teams losing excellent players as cap casualties.

AJ Brown, James Bradberry, and Gardner-Johnson.

Eagles always in position to snag those players. Eagles fans complain about cap hell for like 3 years straight.

Man, the eagles version of cap hell really sucks. To be able to add all of these good players.... God our GM must suck.

 

I think AJ was more of they weren't willing to pay or come close to what he wanted. Probably has to do with the style of offense they run

[paco]

11 hours ago, HazletonEagle said:

NFL teams losing excellent players as cap casualties.

AJ Brown, James Bradberry, and Gardner-Johnson.

Eagles always in position to snag those players. Eagles fans complain about cap hell for like 3 years straight.

Man, the eagles version of cap hell really sucks. To be able to add all of these good players.... God our GM must suck.

 

True or False:  The Eagles will have to continue to aggressively restructure their own players just to get under the cap for the next several years.

 

Because I think you missed the point.

[HazletonEagle]

26 minutes ago, paco said:

True or False:  The Eagles will have to continue to aggressively restructure their own players just to get under the cap for the next several years.

 

Because I think you missed the point.

No you missed the point. 

That's part of the successful plan to allow us to continue making awesome moves year after year. 

[paco]

13 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

No you missed the point. 

That's part of the successful plan to allow us to continue making awesome moves year after year. 

I missed the point of the thread I created?