It seems like the cap doesn't matter anymore

[stang233]

I find it fascinating that teams like the saints were 70 million over the cap and suddenly are not. It is also interesting how teams like the Packers were 10 million over the cap and somehow going to deal done with Rogers and Adams. I know Schneider said that getting rid of Russell gives us cat flexibility, which I agree with but it's almost like the cap doesn't matter anymore.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

A team just won the Super Bowl by magically somehow being under the cap :roll:
As if anyone should be surprised, I mean it's the almighty Rams.

 

[bigskydoc]

I haven't looked into the Saints situation, but as for the Packers, the Rodgers deal actually lowered his cap hit for 2022 by $18 million.

Cutting Za’Darius Smith saved another $14.5 million.

Reworking Preston Smith's contract saved $8.3 million.

Randall Cobb also reworked his deal, but I haven't seen the details.

They also reworked the Clark, Jones, and Bakhtiari contracts.

All of these moves push the cap hits to later years, in hopes that the increasing cap will offset.

The big question for GB now is what to do with Adams.

He's going to get paid, and I'm not sure how they will free up the space to do it. They would have to give him a 5 plus year contract, with a huge signing bonus, to even get close.

 

[sdog1981]

Teams can always come up with money if they need to. Sportrack will even show what that estimate will look like. On the link, you can select any team you want and from there if you hit the recycle icon you can see what cap relief a team will get if they convert the base to a bonus.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/tools/roste ... -seahawks/

Restructuring a contract by converting base salary to a signing bonus creates immediate relief, but also creates problems in future years. Some agents are not big fans of doing this.

Here is a link to the quick and dirty rules.
https://www.profootballrumors.com/2019/ ... -contracts

 

[Sgt. Largent]

The Saints restructured a bunch of contracts and cut players, so now they're 16M under the cap.

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/new-orleans-saints/

While that's probably not enough still to trade for Watson and sign the rest of the players they want to, I never put too much stock in the cap.

Seems like teams always figure out a way to make what they want to do work.

I honestly don't think the Saints are trading for Watson, they don't have as much to offer as the other team's interested. They're just getting involved to drive up the price for the Panthers in their own division.

 

[James in PA]

The Rams situation last year was ridiculous. The cap just didn't apply. To their credit, they found loopholes and took full advantage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fade]

Anyone who studies the salary cap knows it's a joke. There is a ceiling, sure. But you have to spend recklessly for a decade or thereabouts, and then have a flush year. And you're back in business.

You can always create more space.

 

[nutluck]

The reason other teams are doing this and the Hawks don't is because the FO doesn't like to use void years. Something pretty much every other team uses a lot, same with converting base into bonus. Both push the cap hits down the road and spread them out over several years and since the cap goes up by about 20 mil a year. As long as you are careful you can manage doing that for a really long time.

I mean for example the Rams could very easily make about 100 mil in cap space. yes you read that right, now going that extreme would bite them in the ass in 3-5 years from now but they could do it. Doing it in smaller chunks and you can keep doing it for a long time and then take one year off to recoup cost. Looks like the Rams are going to do it this year. Mostly just resigning some of their players and not bringing in new FA's, with a cheap draft class(no 1st or 2nd rounders to pay for), then next year they will have a the money to pay Stafford if they extend him.

 

[AgentDib]

since the cap goes up by about 20 mil a year... As long as you are careful you can manage doing that for a really long time.

We did use void years on six contracts last year (and shouldn't have). Consider that unlike balancing a budget or financing the national debt, the only thing that matters in the NFL is your talent level compared to other teams. At any given point the ability to borrow from the future is not relevant because every team has that same option.

Imagine a situation where Team A has $20m less to spend than team B because they spent it in the past. It's true that they could make that up by borrowing another $20m from next year, but so could team B. Then they'd both have $20m less to spend next year, but team B would still be $20m ahead this year.

What the idea about pushing costs into the future is actually about is the high discount rate in the NFL where future benefits are worth much less than current benefits to front offices who are judged based on winning now. Season ticket holders have a longer point of view and a lower discount rate that puts more value on the long-term prospects of the team.

 

[Fade]

The reason other teams are doing this and the Hawks don't is because the FO doesn't like to use void years. Something pretty much every other team uses a lot, same with converting base into bonus. Both push the cap hits down the road and spread them out over several years and since the cap goes up by about 20 mil a year. As long as you are careful you can manage doing that for a really long time.

I mean for example the Rams could very easily make about 100 mil in cap space. yes you read that right, now going that extreme would bite them in the ass in 3-5 years from now but they could do it. Doing it in smaller chunks and you can keep doing it for a long time and then take one year off to recoup cost. Looks like the Rams are going to do it this year. Mostly just resigning some of their players and not bringing in new FA's, with a cheap draft class(no 1st or 2nd rounders to pay for), then next year they will have a the money to pay Stafford if they extend him.

The Seahawks used voidable years last year. What are you talking about? Dunlup & Carson spring to mind immediately, I am sure there were others, too.

The Rams have been skirting the cap every year for the last 6 years. And they will continue to do so because the cap is a joke. And the owner is willing to spend whatever it takes. That is the bigger impediment, not the cap itself, but a willing owner.

 

[nutluck]

I know the hawks did it last year but typically they rarely do it, same with void years. Recently I remembered reading something saying they didn't plan to in the future, believing in a pay as you go. Yes every team gets the same money long term the difference is, you can use void years and converting base to bonus for 4-6 years to give you a edge in those years to push for a SB title, just like the Rams did this past year.

Then you can take a down year to recover and not compete for a year or maybe two but still be decent, then rinse and repeat. Personally I think it gives a team a edge in winning a SB. It is not a for sure thing of course, look at the Saints and Packers but the Bucs and Rams both did it to add a few extra star players and it worked.

 

[Elemas]

You mean like Allen Robinson to the Rams?

 

[Recon_Hawk]

As an accountant, it pains me to see so many people clueless on how deferred liabilities work. It's like explaining to your client why their tax bill is higher this year because they took 100% depreciation last year.

The salary cap is a true number with consequences based on how you spread your cap hits around. There is a lot of flexibility on how recognize a salary, but today or tomorrow that expense will be charged against the cap.

Using future cap increases doesn't work since every agent uses that into their contract. Bobby Wagner's last contract was a good example of escalating salary.

An owner willing to spend whatever it takes can't be done every year or else the Cowboys would win it every year. Just take a look around the league. There's too many rich owners cutting good players for this to be true.

Yes, a team like the Saints can rise from the dead by delaying charges, but is that enough? For every team like the Saints there's a team like the Rams who are going all in because they have the flexibility (or balls) to do so . When you can, at best, only re-sign your players you are going to struggle to compete against teams that have cap space AND are willing to push cap hits to the future to stack their team.

 

[nutluck]

You mean like Allen Robinson to the Rams?

They hadn't done anything yet, when I posted that. looks like they are going to wait on burning off a little of the cap. guess they think they have a chance to repeat. But my point still stands, if you are willing to use void years a lot and convert base into bonus you can basically overspend for years and then have a slightly down year or two and then rinse and repeat.

 

[AgentDib]

give you a edge in those years to push for a SB title, just like the Rams did this past year.

There can be good reasons to borrow money, whether it's a housing loan or a franchise that thinks they are in that Super Bowl window due to a good QB on a rookie contract. The distinction I'm making is that it's still a real cost that is felt in the future. It puts you at a disadvantage in the future with every team that borrowed less than you did. And if nothing else, it limits the amount you can borrow again the following season.

If the Saints made all the same moves this off-season but weren't starting from so far back then they could be looking at a very talented team. Instead they are like the person with maxed out credit card debt who is juggling things to stay afloat, when afloat doesn't matter in the NFL. Winning is what matters and you do that by having a top roster, not an average one.

Also, the Rams borrowing money last year isn't why they were good. They had good coaching and a bunch of players playing below market value due to rookie contracts. Kupp was the best receiver in the NFL and played for $5.3m. They had 20+ impact players on cheap $800k-$2m rookie deals including FOUR starting OL, two more WR, their top two RBs, three DL, three starting LBs, and both safeties. OBJ signed for 850k and Von Miller for 700k because they both wanted to play there cheap for a ring.

 

[nutluck]

give you a edge in those years to push for a SB title, just like the Rams did this past year.

Also, the Rams borrowing money last year isn't why they were good. They had good coaching and a bunch of players playing below market value due to rookie contracts. Kupp was the best receiver in the NFL and played for $5.3m. They had 20+ impact players on cheap $800k-$2m rookie deals including FOUR starting OL, two more WR, their top two RBs, three DL, three starting LBs, and both safeties. OBJ signed for 850k and Von Miller for 700k because they both wanted to play there cheap for a ring.

The above is wrong in several places

WR Kupp, WR Woods, I forget his name the starting RT(was not on a rookie deal), AD, Ramsey, all had restructured deals to free up a lot of cap space last year that was used elsewhere partially on Stafford but other places too. OLB Floyd signed a back loaded contract to give them cap space last year and just restructured his deal again this year to free up another 12mil, this year and again they used void years on his contract.

But this is exactly what I was getting at they had a lot of players like Kupp playing for way below market value, but they did that with converting base to bonus and adding in void years. Exactly what i was talking about above.

Only one of the DL that was a starter was on a rookie.

They did have 3 OL on rookie deals and resigned 2 of their OL to pretty cheap deals and their new LT resigned he was the backup to a so so deal this year, to become the new starting LT.

Yes part of why the Rams have done well is they have drafted very well, they have had a high number of starters without a first round pick in. But they also restructure deals a lot and used void years a lot, to free up cap space.

Eventually that will come back to bite them but typically it just means having one or 2 average to bad years then you can try again. If the team is coached well and plans well, when doing this stuff.

My only point is the Hawks can do the same thing. Personally I would rather have a 4-5 year window with a decent shot at winning the SB, then have a down year or two and use those high draft picks to reload while you burn off cap debt, then try again for another 4-5 years. Over just being good enough but not good enough to make a serious push year after year.

You guys can disagree if you want, I am not trying to convince anyone I am right. I was only pointing out how the cap can be worked and teams that do that have a edge IMHO.

 

[AgentDib]

But this is exactly what I was getting at they had a lot of players like Kupp playing for way below market value, but they did that with converting base to bonus and adding in void years.

We're going to have to completely disagree on that. They drafted Kupp on a cheap rookie contract, and then worked out a very favorable extension for him because teams have enormous leverage in that situation. The 4.6m tacked on in void years is not the reason that he was playing for a 5.3m cap hit with a valuation 4-5x higher than that. Kupp is an argument for building through the draft and you're using him as argument for borrowing from the future.

Personally I would rather have a 4-5 year window with a decent shot at winning the SB, then have a down year or two.

It could make sense in certain situations, say Tampa Bay this year if you know this is Tom Brady's last (last) season for real this time.

But in general in my view you're giving way too much of the credit to the cap games and not enough to the strong underlying roster. Maybe the cap games took the Rams from a 12% chance of winning to a 13% chance of winning or something, but is that worth going from a 9% chance of winning in 2024 to a 2% chance of winning? Obviously all of those numbers are made up and can be adjusted based on how you feel about it. My real point is that this is more about discounting future costs and benefits than it is about some trick that only a few teams are smart enough to use.

 

[Fade]

I know the hawks did it last year but typically they rarely do it, same with void years. Recently I remembered reading something saying they didn't plan to in the future, believing in a pay as you go. Yes every team gets the same money long term the difference is, you can use void years and converting base to bonus for 4-6 years to give you a edge in those years to push for a SB title, just like the Rams did this past year.

Then you can take a down year to recover and not compete for a year or maybe two but still be decent, then rinse and repeat. Personally I think it gives a team a edge in winning a SB. It is not a for sure thing of course, look at the Saints and Packers but the Bucs and Rams both did it to add a few extra star players and it worked.

Yes. Definitely. The Seahawks have what they call "Rolling Guarantees." They are hyper protective of the future, even if it means to sacrifice the present. Which they've gone too far. Cap hell is not a 10 year death sentence. But the Seahawks treat it that way. Just see the Saints and Rams if you don't believe me.

They also refuse to do deals beyond 4 years at most, which screws them. For example they signed Bobby to a 4 year $40M deal on his second contract. It expired and then they had to pay him $18M APY. If they just would've signed him to a 6 yr $60M deal, like how the rest of the league does contracts for their mega stars it would've saved them a lot of money. And a lot of trouble having to cut him.

Their logic is they think the shorter deals leads to more competitive players, from what I've seen it doesn't really matter. Great players play great no matter how much they are making or how long their contract is. Lesser players don't get signed to lengthy contracts anyway so they don't matter. The way the Seahawks are doing contracts is putting them at a competitive disadvantage.