Reminder

Having 0% with of dead cap in any given year is bad. It means you didn't take enough risks, which means you're not getting value on the roster.
Having more than 10% of dead cap in any given year is also bad. It means you either misevaluated or took too many risks.

So having dead cap by design is good. For 2022, roughly 17% of our cap is dead cap. That's WAY too high. See the Jeffrey/Cox/Brooks extensions. 

26 minutes ago, RLC said:

Reminder

Having 0% with of dead cap in any given year is bad. It means you didn't take enough risks, which means you're not getting value on the roster.
Having more than 10% of dead cap in any given year is also bad. It means you either misevaluated or too too many risks.

So having dead cap by design is good. For 2022, roughly 17% of our cap is dead cap. That's WAY too high. See the Jeffrey/Cox/Brooks extensions. 

Agreed 100%.   Dead cap space will happen, but when you are constantly at the top of the league, it means you are paying now for lots of past performance.  And when you are in a down turn, you should STOP pushing money forward and pay for it all now, so that when the uptick comes, you have more money to lock up your own current players without kicking as much to the future so that when you need to sign that one free agent to push you over the top, you have flexibility to do so and again, not go too far into the future with the money.    

I think you take the dead cap on a case by case basis.  Fletcher Cox needed to be extended after the SB.  In order to do so, they needed to take on some tough years at the end, which were re-worked into dead cap over time.  Ertz was on a fine extension.  He was traded, and the hit was worked into dead cap.  Smart offseason trade&signs or UFA additions...Slay/Hargrave...dead cap there is fine too.

Extending Alshon and Brooks when they still had multiple years under contract and no need to be extended...just plain dumb.  Dead cap on old red flag vets who should have just been quick, clean 1-2 year deals (the Jacksons) so we can get out clean...also stupid.  Barnett...he's now a zero upside stopgap.  Also someone who we should just be able to get out from cleanly.  Any dead cap there is poorly allocated.

 

Mortgaging a house...a foundational piece...might make sense.  Financing everything you buy is unwise.  

7 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

I think you take the dead cap on a case by case basis.  Fletcher Cox needed to be extended after the SB.  In order to do so, they needed to take on some tough years at the end, which were re-worked into dead cap over time.  Ertz was on a fine extension.  He was traded, and the hit was worked into dead cap.  Smart offseason trade&signs or UFA additions...Slay/Hargrave...dead cap there is fine too.

Extending Alshon and Brooks when they still had multiple years under contract and no need to be extended...just plain dumb.  Dead cap on old red flag vets who should have just been quick, clean 1-2 year deals (the Jacksons) so we can get out clean...also stupid.  Barnett...he's now a zero upside stopgap.  Also someone who we should just be able to get out from cleanly.  Any dead cap there is poorly allocated.

 

Mortgaging a house...a foundational piece...might make sense.  Financing everything you buy is unwise.  

 

You mean like financing Ryan Kerrigan, Anthony Harris, Eric Wilson and Steven Nelson last year.  All "1" year deals that were spread out over two, even for the guy that they cut mid-season?     Oh, I forgot Joe Flacco.

Just now, Iggles_Phan said:

Per usual...The FO had a reasonable, fairly novel idea with the strategic amortization of the salary cap through dead money...and now they think they've reinvented the wheel, are over-doing it, and patting themselves on the back in the process.

1 hour ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Let this sink in.  Then constantly defend Lowie.  
 

 

 I want Jameson Williams, torn ACL and all.  I think a team gambles on him in the top 10 however.  It's a loaded class though.  Howie has to get it right.

 

9 hours ago, HazletonEagle said:

well, it sounds and appears like theyre done doing that. So we are good. 

Not hardly. A big part of the cap space they carried over this year was because of the restructuring of Barnett’s fifth year salary.  A big part of what they have this year is 1.:restructuring Slay’s salary to bonus to spread it forward and how they initially structured the extensions last year.  Look what they just did with Barnett and Kelce too.  Same pattern of contract structure.

The pandemic killed the idea the pot will always be greater.  They better solve their streaming issue and a possible NFL + isn’t it in an over saturated subscription market when their content is limited or they are going to lose the millennials and following generations that don’t have network TV.  They need to hook up with an Amazon, Apple or some sort of Hulu/Spotify like deal.  They probably need a team specific package.  The NFL plus package shown at the owner’s meeting looks DOA to me.  Limited content.  And who wants to pay for more Spads?  Me? I would rather subscribe to the new EMB.  From The Athletic:
 

NFL considers creating a streaming service of its own

There is Apple TV Plus, Paramount Plus and Disney Plus, not to mention scores of streaming services without the plus in their monikers. And perhaps coming soon could be the latest entrant, NFL Plus.

The NFL is developing a subscription streaming service that would include games, radio, podcasts and team content. Teams were briefed on the development at the annual NFL owners’ meetings occurring in Palm Beach, Fla.

The NFL has distributed live games for free through mobile devices and on Yahoo for tablets and laptops, but these deals have expired. In the future, it appears if fans on the go want to stream games on their phone and they don’t have a cable subscription, they will need to pay for what is tentatively called NFL Plus.

The brand, NFL +, was included on slides viewed by a meeting of team presidents Sunday at The Breakers, the resort hosting the meetings. The streaming service is nascent, and likely won’t be ready for an owners’ vote until the next meeting in May, said one team president, who requested anonymity because the plans are still developing.

Lee Berke, a sports media consultant, said it makes sense for the NFL to enter the streaming wars, which have sparked a wave of subscription overload among consumers.

"It makes perfect sense that the NFL would be exploring the development of a streaming channel, much like they developed platforms for cable and satellite when each was cutting-edge media technology,” Berke said.

"That noted, any streaming launch could tie into the NFL’s negotiations to potentially sell a portion of NFL Media to a technology partner like Apple or Amazon.”

The NFL has three major media deals percolating: finding a replacement for its mobile streaming; a replacement for Sunday Ticket, which has one more year remaining on DirecTV; and potentially selling a stake in NFL Media, which include NFL Network and NFL.com.

Berke speculates that if Apple or Amazon buy the NFL Media stake, then that party may have a role in NFL Plus. Right now, however, the trio of deals are moving on different tracks. The league needs a solution to how games are distributed via mobile, tablets and laptops by the upcoming season.

There is no similar hard deadline on the NFL Media sale, for which the league over a year ago hired Goldman Sachs to shop. But sources said there is no deal imminent, and one may not materialize, at least in the form of a hard equity sale.

Similarly, the league has a year remaining on Sunday Ticket, so a deal for the out-of-market package is still at the very least months away, if not longer,

Mobile streamed games, which were available in-market (so fans in Chicago could stream on their phones Bears games but not others), had been exclusive with NFL sponsor Verizon. The league loosened that exclusivity, opening the streaming to all mobile carriers in recent years.

It now appears that the league is moving in a different direction. Patrick Crakes, a sports media consultant, wonders if the prospective NFL Plus is merely a way to leverage a better deal out of mobile carriers.

"It’s hard for me to see how any one mobile NFL Plus system replaces the economics from Verizon/Yahoo,” he wrote in a text. "The big question is whether the NFL is suggesting this to get Verizon to pay more. I don’t think the NFL has a lot of bidders for this package.”

What would NFL Plus cost? The price on the slides presented to team owners was $5 a month, though a team president cautioned that number is more hypothetical.

A potential element of a new NFL Plus is team content, said one club president. How this would work is unclear, the president said, whether all 32 teams would have content on the new channel, or would they have their own.

Nine years ago, the NFL launched an ultimately unsuccessful site, NFL Now, which aggregated content from the 32 teams.

Teams then resisted the content demands from the league for the new outlet. Clubs today, however, are major generators of media content, so that same tension is unlikely to surface if the league wants to tap the 32 franchises for NFL Plus.

 

2 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

 I want Jameson Williams, torn ACL and all.  I think a team gambles on him in the top 10 however.  It's a loaded class though.  Howie has to get it right.

 

Really talented classes at any position are generally when Howie is at his worst.  Draft a safer, less talented player in round 2 who represents "great value" and "would have been a first round pick in most years if not for the depth of the class."  Then reach for a thinner position and inferior prospect in round 1 because that position was not as deep.  End up with a pair of disappointments.

We've seen this movie.  I'm sure the sequel will be in theaters this April.

1 minute ago, eagle45 said:

Really talented classes at any position are generally when Howie is at his worst.  Draft a safer, less talented player in round 2 who represents "great value" and "would have been a first round pick in most years if not for the depth of the class."  Then reach for a thinner position and inferior prospect in round 1 because that position was not as deep.  End up with a pair of disappointments.

We've seen this movie.  I'm sure the sequel will be in theaters this April.

I think you're giving him credit for trying to find value in round 2.  Howie can find that talent that gets pushed down in round 4-6!

7 hours ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

The major issue with the cap was the timing of Wentz' trade and Covid dropping the cap in 2021.  

Howie threw a bunch of dead money into 2022 to a) ensure they were safely under the cap in 2021 and b) put the money into a year with a much higher cap.

That does not dismiss the crappy extensions and addiction to voidable years.

But the Wentz hit was the largest in the history of the league.

Not anymore.  I don’t think it is even in the top 3 at this point. 

7 hours ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

The major issue with the cap was the timing of Wentz' trade and Covid dropping the cap in 2021.  

Howie threw a bunch of dead money into 2022 to a) ensure they were safely under the cap in 2021 and b) put the money into a year with a much higher cap.

That does not dismiss the crappy extensions and addiction to voidable years.

But the Wentz hit was the largest in the history of the league.

How much of the dead money this season and next is Wentz?

14 minutes ago, garingovt2000 said:

No safety. Fail

That article from Roseman about the cap.  Talk about a word salad to justify the bad decisions you made organisationally in previous years. 

Void years are a get out clause for teams who have done a bad job managing their roster and costs over a number of years  Using his analogy, the Eagles overpaid for a house based on potential future earnings, agreed to maintenance contracts from bad firms and had to borrow from future years to afford to live.  If void years were a good idea, all teams would be doing them

1 hour ago, eagle45 said:

Mortgaging a house...a foundational piece...might make sense.  Financing everything you buy is unwise.  

This.

The approach of void years and restructures are actually good. However they're not selective enough when they do it so it's a problem.

The Barnett restructure is one thing. The void years for Flacco is another.

 

1 minute ago, RLC said:

This.

The approach of void years and restructures are actually good. However they're not selective enough when they do it so it's a problem.

The Barnett restructure is one thing. The void years for Flacco is another.

Signing Flacco at all was dumb. 

7 minutes ago, UK Eagle said:

That article from Roseman about the cap.  Talk about a word salad to justify the bad decisions you made organisationally in previous years. 

Void years are a get out clause for teams who have done a bad job managing their roster and costs over a number of years  Using his analogy, the Eagles overpaid for a house based on potential future earnings, agreed to maintenance contracts from bad firms and had to borrow from future years to afford to live.  If void years were a good idea, all teams would be doing them

I believe the phrase, living beyond your means is appropriate.  And when you live beyond your means, and use credit to pay for what you need now, all you are really doing is digging a hole for your future.  It's based on the idea that my future earnings will be higher than my current earnings, so I can do this now and deal with the consequences later, and the consequences later won't be so bad, because then I will have more available to deal with it.   And he's doing it based on the expectation that the cap will always go up.  But, what happens when it doesn't?  What happens when it goes down?  Well, then you find yourself in a real pickle.  And you can choose to swallow the medicine in that moment, or you can just double down on the kick the can approach.  Howie chose to kick the can after he saw a situation where the strategy bit him and rather than actually scrutinizing that decision more closely, he decided that after he's gotten bit by his plan, now he's going to divulge his plan to everyone so that everyone can understand just how brilliant his plan is.  

 

You don't buy rice and beans on credit.  And that's what Kerrigan, Smith, Flacco, Wilson and Nelson all were last year.   They were rice and beans.  You pay cash for those.  Its lazy management because it allows you to not have to make the tough decisions... like moving on from aging vets when their production wanes, but their costs go up.  Those decisions are the ones that define how good a manager you really are.  Banner was actually pretty good at it, with one glaring example.  The rest of the moves he made with moving on from aging vets almost all turned out well.  And it's better to move on a year too soon from these guys than to hold on to them for 3 years too long.

8 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Signing Flacco at all was dumb. 

But, somehow they managed to squeeze the Jets for a 6th.  

 

11 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

If Wilson/Olave/London all go early, some team is going to trade up with us for Williams.

DT is not a surprise. Wyatt or Davis are going to be Eagles.

4 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I believe the phrase, living beyond your means is appropriate.  And when you live beyond your means, and use credit to pay for what you need now, all you are really doing is digging a hole for your future.  It's based on the idea that my future earnings will be higher than my current earnings, so I can do this now and deal with the consequences later, and the consequences later won't be so bad, because then I will have more available to deal with it.   And he's doing it based on the expectation that the cap will always go up.  But, what happens when it doesn't?  What happens when it goes down?  Well, then you find yourself in a real pickle.  And you can choose to swallow the medicine in that moment, or you can just double down on the kick the can approach.  Howie chose to kick the can after he saw a situation where the strategy bit him and rather than actually scrutinizing that decision more closely, he decided that after he's gotten bit by his plan, now he's going to divulge his plan to everyone so that everyone can understand just how brilliant his plan is.  

 

You don't buy rice and beans on credit.  And that's what Kerrigan, Smith, Flacco, Wilson and Nelson all were last year.   They were rice and beans.  You pay cash for those.  Its lazy management because it allows you to not have to make the tough decisions... like moving on from aging vets when their production wanes, but their costs go up.  Those decisions are the ones that define how good a manager you really are.  Banner was actually pretty good at it, with one glaring example.  The rest of the moves he made with moving on from aging vets almost all turned out well.  And it's better to move on a year too soon from these guys than to hold on to them for 3 years too long.

But, somehow they managed to squeeze the Jets for a 6th.  

That was an expensive sixth-round pick to purchase. 

7 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

But on his way out he is playing fantasy football.  And we're the dummies to stand for it.  

To be fair, he came in playing fantasy football.  That's how Mike Mamula became the first pick under his ownership.  Third round prospect that blows up the combine from Boston College... and we trade up to take him and let Warren Sapp and Derrick Brooks go to the Bucs.  We ended up regretting that as those two were on the team that beat us in the last game at the Vet to go to the Super Bowl.  Oh well, at least Lurie is less involved now.

Teams make mistakes, Eagles overreached after the SB, Howie and Lurie have admitted that, and that they were too attached to the players who won them a championship.

Jeffrey was a big mistake, Brooks is more complicated, Allpro guards often play at a high level until 35, Peters came back from an achilles and played at a high level four more years.

Lane was extended, now that he's healthy, he's going from overpaid to underpaid as salaries rise (he's still an elite RT).

Signings like Jerrigan and Malik were just bad luck.  Good players in their peak when signed, like Hargrave, but different outcome.

Wentz was one of those things, even Reich didn't realize how far off the rails he'd gone. Howie came out smelling like a rose, but they had to eat the dead money for one season.

 

The dead money is being cleared out, the top young players have been extended, they have a huge draft haul coming, and the cap is rising $20M a year through the rest of the decade.

The dead money will have no impact on this team going forward, unless you're itching to grossly overpay some free agents.

 

8 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

You don't buy rice and beans on credit.  And that's what Kerrigan, Smith, Flacco, Wilson and Nelson all were last year.  

They cost almost nothing, and had no impact on decisions this season. And they did help (well Nelson did) get them to the playoffs.

What Howie did last year was more about "income smoothing," spreading the Wentz cap hit over two years, than living on your credit cards.

Talk about much ado about nothing.

2 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

That was an expensive sixth-round pick to purchase. 

Jaylen Watson had a real nice pro day .