knownone":2w0bigwa said:
Jville":2w0bigwa said:
knownone":2w0bigwa said:
Guess what? People stopped talking about the cap because we traded Frank. That's the only reason. If you added Frank's contract to this team, we'd still be having that conversation.
Why not do the math?
Because even if the Seahawks signed Frank to those high Kansas City contract numbers, the resulting 2020 effective cap space would still have been upwards of around $55 million last time I checked. With or without Frank Clark, there was and still is plenty of cap space ...... more cap space than many thought.
Looking at cap space and doing basic arithmetic is not doing math. Math in this situation would ask; what is your talent level relative to your cap space? That is the question some people seem to be missing. No one argued that Seattle couldn't create cap space. They argued whether Seattle could maintain a deep roster while giving a large percentage of their cap space to a handful of players. Make sense?
Yours is a creative extension to the term math. My use of the term math indeed refers to common adding and subtracting as practiced by Over The Cap (OTC) and other entities who track contracts, cap costs and cap space. After all, cap space is the subject of this thread.
If anyone has some creative ideas about developing some kind of talent weighted cap cost or value, then by all means organize them into a digestible form for all of us to see and enjoy. Such a unique presentation would surely demand its own subject specific thread. I would be among the first to welcome such a contribution.
As to whether the front office and staff can continue to remain competitive with depth while managing the cap, that's essentially an expression of the degree of confidence each individual poster possesses in the Seahawks organization.