6 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

No. They have to be under the cap in less than a month and half the guys you want to get rid of they will have to restructure just to make it happen. 

We don't even know what the cap is yet. We only know what the cap floor is.  With that being set at $180M, and teams REQUIRED by CBA to spend a minimum of 88.8% of the cap on players, one can guess we'll see an upper limit between $195-205M. 

10 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Just stop its stupid

Why do you figure that's dumb? 

4 minutes ago, IFB DOG said:

Why do you figure that's dumb? 

So you want to put basically a rookie Quarterback with an entirely new scheme out on the field after getting rid of arguably the best right guard and right tackle in the league??? Hard pass..

28 minutes ago, IFB DOG said:

No such thing.  Carson just got moved. It can be done. Brooks could be moved pre- or post-June 1.  Lane, post-June 1 trade. 

Just because they took the biggest cap hit in league history to move Wentz doesn't mean they'll take more hits to move Lane and Brooks

47 minutes ago, IFB DOG said:

Anyway, for the Eagles: I'm shipping everyone out, 2021 salary cap be damned. 

 

Zach Ertz? Love you buddy, anything higher than a 5th and you're out of town.
Lane Johnson?  Can I get a day 2 pick?  Adios.
Brandon Brooks? Day 3 pick for 2022?  See ya.
Fletcher Cox? Day two and I'll see you around.
Darius Slay? I was so excited to see you come, and I'll be so excited to see you leave. Can I get a 2022 3rd?

Kelce's gone when he realizes what's happening.  

 

You blow it up. Don't do this half-arsed crap where you keep guys in their 30s who aren't going to be around for the next championship.

I'm grabbing Sewell if I can.  I'm kicking Dillard inside or trading him for a Day 3 pick.  I'm looking at more OL help in the second.  If I want Hurts to succeed, we've got to give him a pocket.  Humphrey to replace Kelce? Cosmi or Jenkins for the right side?  Davis inside? 

What

Moving veterans out just to move them makes no sense.

You move players like Ertz that have value and grant you cap savings.

You keep players where there is no cap savings (eat a year of their contract) or who are "anchor" players like Cox that make it easier for young players.

 

4 minutes ago, IFB DOG said:

Why do you figure that's dumb? 

Was already explained to you. You would have to restructure  them first. And then pay for a replacement which will be more than the cap savings

Does anyone really believe Belichick would throw a SB?  I keep hearing to this day that he benched Butler and threw the game on purpose. 

I thought Dallas fans were delusional.

21 minutes ago, IFB DOG said:

We don't even know what the cap is yet. We only know what the cap floor is.  With that being set at $180M, and teams REQUIRED by CBA to spend a minimum of 88.8% of the cap on players, one can guess we'll see an upper limit between $195-205M. 

You are all over the place here and merging two separate things into one. 

The $180 is what the cap will minimally be. It has nothing to do with cap floor spending which is based on a 4 year  rolling average anyway. 

54 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Pretty sure we can't ship out Brooks or Lane because of their contracts

i think cox too falls into that list 

6 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

You are all over the place here and merging two separate things into one. 

The $180 is what the cap will minimally be. It has nothing to do with cap floor spending which is based on a 4 year  rolling average anyway. 

Correct, you can be below the cap floor if your average would still be over it (as you said, rolling four-year period), but that is the designated floor - meaning your four-year average would still have to be above it.

Net cost = (Salary - Dead Cap) + $800,000 (roughly) for average vet minimum, or the person that would be bumped onto the ledger.

 

If salary - dead cap >> $800K, they can be cut and it is a net benefit, period.

43 minutes ago, IFB DOG said:

Yes, they can.  You're talking about savings from Brooks that is more than the vet minimum (top 51 contracts vest/count against cap).  Same with Lane Johnson on a post-June 1.

Actually, they can not.

Cox if traded saves 2 million

Graham actually adds 89,000 to the cap if traded

Brooks would save 1.5

Why would you severely weaken the team  just to gain 3.4 million in cap room.

Lane Johnson can only be a post June 1 as you said, does not help them be cap compliant on March 17th.

These guys are not going anywhere.

 

 

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

Actually, they can not.

Cox if traded saves 2 million

Graham actually adds 89,000 to the cap if traded

Brooks would save 1.5

Why would you severely weaken the team  just to gain 3.4 million in cap room.

Lane Johnson can only be a post June 1 as you said, does not help them be cap compliant on March 17th.

These guys are not going anywhere.

 

 

So you agree. It CAN be done.

Now you're talking justification, of $3.4M AND 2022, 2023 savings AND draft picks vs. These veterans.

That's fine. We can have philosophical disagreements about it. But the fact remains, you can find $12-20M in savings even after trading these players - a big one being Ertz, who I listed.

3 minutes ago, IFB DOG said:

So you agree. It CAN be done.

Now you're talking justification, of $3.4M AND 2022, 2023 savings AND draft picks vs. These veterans.

That's fine. We can have philosophical disagreements about it. But the fact remains, you can find $12-20M in savings even after trading these players - a big one being Ertz, who I listed.

As I posted several pages ago, after all the cuts the Eagles can make, they are still 26 million over the cap.  Cutting the players we just discussed makes no sense, does not get you under the cap, and cripples the team.  Plus, on top of the dead cap, you are going to have to pay their replacement, whether it be FA or draft picks, so the net gain is zero.

If you are trading / cutting Cox and Brooks, it is next off season when the gain is 20 million in cap space.

 

And if you're building a young team, you want a few veterans with history with the franchise, not just mercenaries you bring in from outside.

Winning teams have winning cultures, and that's anchored by key veteran voices in the locker room.

Slay on the other hand, has no "Eagle blood."

5 hours ago, vikas83 said:

Smith or Chase -- take whichever one is on the board. If they are both there, take Chase. 

If they are both gone, and Sewell is gone, trade back with someone looking for a QB (like Carolina). 

I don't know why we need to overthink this. 

I’m an overthinker 1) Chase 2) Pitts 3) Waddle in that order but I think all special. I was OL, OL, OL this morning  but now I say let Stoutland pick them later in a strong OL class so a value play, 2 is enough. Still need LB and CB and better get them early. Man we need more top 100 picks. Trade back a little get an extra 3rd and a possibility to still end up with one of those guys

1 hour ago, 315Eagles said:

Does anyone really believe Belichick would throw a SB?  I keep hearing to this day that he benched Butler and threw the game on purpose. 

I thought Dallas fans were delusional.

Eagles would have scored more than 41 points if Butler played that game.  NE pass defense was 30th in the NFL all season long, with Butler playing.  Belichick knows defense; if he knew Butler wasn’t a good matchup he was right 

1 hour ago, downundermike said:

Actually, they can not.

Cox if traded saves 2 million

Graham actually adds 89,000 to the cap if traded

Brooks would save 1.5

Why would you severely weaken the team  just to gain 3.4 million in cap room.

Lane Johnson can only be a post June 1 as you said, does not help them be cap compliant on March 17th.

These guys are not going anywhere.

 

 

Agreed on Cox, Brooks, and Lane. Graham is about to fall off a cliff. Get value while you can and give him a shot at a championship

4 minutes ago, Saltpeter said:

Agreed on Cox, Brooks, and Lane. Graham is about to fall off a cliff. Get value while you can and give him a shot at a championship

He already has a championship.  Let him retire am Eagle unless he asks to be traded.

1 hour ago, IFB DOG said:

So you agree. It CAN be done.

Now you're talking justification, of $3.4M AND 2022, 2023 savings AND draft picks vs. These veterans.

That's fine. We can have philosophical disagreements about it. But the fact remains, you can find $12-20M in savings even after trading these players - a big one being Ertz, who I listed.

Your point is to have the first pick of every round next year ? NFL isn’t the NBA, I don’t think they’ll have it. Sure get rid of expensive players if it makes financial/cap sense but not to throw the season

• 
  12.
  Ja'Marr Chase

  WR LSU
  
• 
  37.
  Christian Barmore

  DT Alabama
   
• 
  77.
  Jevon Holland

  S Oregon
  
• 
  92.
  Quinn Meinerz

  OC Wisconsin-Whitewater
  
• 
  118.
  Trill Williams

  CB Syracuse
  
• 
  135.
  Chuba Hubbard

  RB Oklahoma State
  
• 
  151.
  Paulson Adebo

  CB Stanford
   
• 
  220.
  Justin Hilliard

  LB Ohio State
   
• 
  232.
  Noah Gray

  TE Duke
   
• 2022 SF 1st

Absolute unit, but kinda redundant with Reagor already here. 

6 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Absolute unit, but kinda redundant with Reagor already here. 

If he's good, he's not redundant with anyone here.

Caleb Farley and Rondale Moore would be 2 big time upside picks that we could maybe take with our first 2 picks, with injury history that definitely rear its ugly head here just because thats how those things go for us.