(04-17-2023, 03:31 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (04-17-2023, 01:54 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]13 million in 2025 for a #2 or #3 who gives 850 yards and 6 TDs vs 13 million for an empty roster spot gaining 0 yards and 0 TDs seems to be relatively simple to grasp. I don't mind putting future money out there on guys we expect to be here playing, and most of those we just extended fall in that category.
Dead cap money hits the cap whether he's here or not. That's what I'm saying. So whether you plan to keep a guy or not, that makes no difference in whether you want to push the accounting into the future. The money's already been spent. The only decision is whether you want to pay him his base salary and keep him on the team.
When you push a cap hit into the future, you're not pushing the payment into the future. The payment has already been made. So if you want to push a cap hit into the future, whether that player is going to be on the team makes no difference in the decision. Because the money has already been paid. The team is just doing a little accounting trick to shift a cap hit from one year to the next.
So you're saying you don't care if a guy taking up 13 million of your cap isn't on the roster. Got it. I bet you have a swell time every year on Bobby Bonilla Day.
(04-17-2023, 04:03 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (04-17-2023, 03:31 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Dead cap money hits the cap whether he's here or not. That's what I'm saying. So whether you plan to keep a guy or not, that makes no difference in whether you want to push the accounting into the future. The money's already been spent. The only decision is whether you want to pay him his base salary and keep him on the team.
When you push a cap hit into the future, you're not pushing the payment into the future. The payment has already been made. So if you want to push a cap hit into the future, whether that player is going to be on the team makes no difference in the decision. Because the money has already been paid. The team is just doing a little accounting trick to shift a cap hit from one year to the next.
So you're saying you don't care if a guy taking up 13 million of your cap isn't on the roster. Got it. I bet you have a swell time every year on Bobby Bonilla Day.
That $13 million of dead cap money has nothing to do with any decision to keep a guy on the roster. The money is gone. Paid in a previous year.
You don't seem to get it. Maybe I'm not explaining this very well.
Whether he's on the team or not, that money is gone, already paid out. We just used an accounting trick to push the accounting from one year to the next. If I want him on the team, it's not because he's got a big dead cap hit. It only has to do with his value to the team and his cost in terms of base salary not yet paid out. Because that dead cap hit is going to be there whether he's on the team or not.
Does anyone know where the team sits with the cap space?
(04-17-2023, 04:23 PM)OG-JAGFAN Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone know where the team sits with the cap space?
Apparently, we have just under $15 million in cap space right now.
Cap Space Detail
(04-17-2023, 04:11 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (04-17-2023, 04:03 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]So you're saying you don't care if a guy taking up 13 million of your cap isn't on the roster. Got it. I bet you have a swell time every year on Bobby Bonilla Day.
That $13 million of dead cap money has nothing to do with any decision to keep a guy on the roster. The money is gone. Paid in a previous year.
You don't seem to get it. Maybe I'm not explaining this very well.
Whether he's on the team or not, that money is gone, already paid out. We just used an accounting trick to push the accounting from one year to the next. If I want him on the team, it's not because he's got a big dead cap hit. It only has to do with his value to the team and his cost in terms of base salary not yet paid out. Because that dead cap hit is going to be there whether he's on the team or not.
You're explaining it just fine for your point which is not my point. All I'm saying is I feel better about the future money on the cap when the player is still on the roster when we're dinged for it in the future year. I do not like it when we are attributing cap dollars to players who are not on the roster like the $4 million we're taking for Shaq Griffin this year. Lots of players taking up your cap space who aren't actually playing for you anymore is the risk of all these restructures (see Jags 2003). Look at the Rams, they have ~20% of this year's cap tied up in Ramsey, Floyd, Bobby Wagner, and the 2 year retired Andrew Whitworth; that's the textbook definition of cap hell that I want the Jags to avoid.
I would resign Engram before I spend on another free agent.
(04-17-2023, 04:46 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (04-17-2023, 04:23 PM)OG-JAGFAN Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone know where the team sits with the cap space?
Apparently, we have just under $15 million in cap space right now.
Cap Space Detail
and spot trac has us $10 million under, they never are in sync.
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/
(04-17-2023, 08:38 PM)Newton Wrote: [ -> ]I would resign Engram before I spend on another free agent.
Re-signing Engram to a new deal now would open up more cap space as well.
(04-17-2023, 08:47 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-17-2023, 04:46 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Apparently, we have just under $15 million in cap space right now.
Cap Space Detail
and spot trac has us $10 million under, they never are in sync.
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/
Spotrac hasn't adjusted for the Jenkins restructure. Or, since OTC reported it, OTC is incorrect and Jenkins contract wasn't restructured.
(04-17-2023, 08:19 AM)imtheblkranger Wrote: [ -> ] (04-17-2023, 01:12 AM)ChrisJagBoy Wrote: [ -> ]Something people aren't considering is the possible mega deal Calvin Ridley gets if he's his old self.
Sure we are. That's next year and into the. A multi year deal with huge cap increases coming when we already have a ton of space the next few years. We're fine. We're really only tight this year and MAYBE next.
So it's not next years problem but it is? i'm confused.
(04-17-2023, 08:38 PM)Newton Wrote: [ -> ]I would resign Engram before I spend on another free agent.
I absolutely would too. It would free up more cap space.
If Lawrence's usual is now how he was in the last half of last season (borderline elite) then we are always going to be a contending team. But it takes a whole team to win a championship. Those teams have to be willing to pay up, or we'll never see a championship.
(04-17-2023, 05:41 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (04-17-2023, 04:11 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]That $13 million of dead cap money has nothing to do with any decision to keep a guy on the roster. The money is gone. Paid in a previous year.
You don't seem to get it. Maybe I'm not explaining this very well.
Whether he's on the team or not, that money is gone, already paid out. We just used an accounting trick to push the accounting from one year to the next. If I want him on the team, it's not because he's got a big dead cap hit. It only has to do with his value to the team and his cost in terms of base salary not yet paid out. Because that dead cap hit is going to be there whether he's on the team or not.
You're explaining it just fine for your point which is not my point. All I'm saying is I feel better about the future money on the cap when the player is still on the roster when we're dinged for it in the future year. I do not like it when we are attributing cap dollars to players who are not on the roster like the $4 million we're taking for Shaq Griffin this year. Lots of players taking up your cap space who aren't actually playing for you anymore is the risk of all these restructures (see Jags 2003). Look at the Rams, they have ~20% of this year's cap tied up in Ramsey, Floyd, Bobby Wagner, and the 2 year retired Andrew Whitworth; that's the textbook definition of cap hell that I want the Jags to avoid.
Okay, I think I understand what you are saying now. You would feel better if a guy who's carrying a dead cap hit is on the team. There's nothing wrong with that feeling, although personally, I would not want the dead cap hit the guy is carrying around to factor into the decision as to whether to keep him.
I don't like the way we are pushing cap hits, for money already paid, into the future, but that's the result of hiring a bunch of high priced free agents who, against all odds, actually lived up to their contracts, so we don't want to let go of them, and to keep them around, we have to push the cap hits for other players into the future. We've restructured about everyone we can restructure this year, and I don't know what we're going to do next year, unless we do funky stuff like adding (fake) voidable years onto contracts and pushing even more cap hits into the future. There is a limit, I'm just not sure where it is.
(04-18-2023, 10:03 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (04-17-2023, 05:41 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You're explaining it just fine for your point which is not my point. All I'm saying is I feel better about the future money on the cap when the player is still on the roster when we're dinged for it in the future year. I do not like it when we are attributing cap dollars to players who are not on the roster like the $4 million we're taking for Shaq Griffin this year. Lots of players taking up your cap space who aren't actually playing for you anymore is the risk of all these restructures (see Jags 2003). Look at the Rams, they have ~20% of this year's cap tied up in Ramsey, Floyd, Bobby Wagner, and the 2 year retired Andrew Whitworth; that's the textbook definition of cap hell that I want the Jags to avoid.
Okay, I think I understand what you are saying now. You would feel better if a guy who's carrying a dead cap hit is on the team. There's nothing wrong with that feeling, although personally, I would not want the dead cap hit the guy is carrying around to factor into the decision as to whether to keep him.
I don't like the way we are pushing cap hits, for money already paid, into the future, but that's the result of hiring a bunch of high priced free agents who, against all odds, actually lived up to their contracts, so we don't want to let go of them, and to keep them around, we have to push the cap hits for other players into the future. We've restructured about everyone we can restructure this year, and I don't know what we're going to do next year, unless we do funky stuff like adding (fake) voidable years onto contracts and pushing even more cap hits into the future. There is a limit, I'm just not sure where it is.
Hey Marty, I think you are losing us a bit in semantics... There's no such thing as "dead cap money" for a player still on the roster. It's just their cap hit. If we get rid of someone that got a large bonus, then the rest of their bonus years accelerate into the current one (or is split over 2 years if a post June 1 cut designation). Yeah, I get it, some guys have high salaries and cap hits, but if we get rid of them we get hit with the 'dead cap' AND we have to pay someone else to replace them - that's really the biggest difference.
I haven't looked for any updates, but as much as we were up against the cap to start this league year, we had a CRAPTON of available cap in 2024 and 2025. Even though it seems like Baalke and company have pushed a fair amount of bonus money into the future with restructures this year, they had a LOT of room to work with. I think we're still in really good shape going forward.
And considering #1 receivers are getting upwards of $20+million per year these days, $13mil for Kirk feels like a bargain now.
(04-18-2023, 10:03 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (04-17-2023, 05:41 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You're explaining it just fine for your point which is not my point. All I'm saying is I feel better about the future money on the cap when the player is still on the roster when we're dinged for it in the future year. I do not like it when we are attributing cap dollars to players who are not on the roster like the $4 million we're taking for Shaq Griffin this year. Lots of players taking up your cap space who aren't actually playing for you anymore is the risk of all these restructures (see Jags 2003). Look at the Rams, they have ~20% of this year's cap tied up in Ramsey, Floyd, Bobby Wagner, and the 2 year retired Andrew Whitworth; that's the textbook definition of cap hell that I want the Jags to avoid.
Okay, I think I understand what you are saying now. You would feel better if a guy who's carrying a dead cap hit is on the team. There's nothing wrong with that feeling, although personally, I would not want the dead cap hit the guy is carrying around to factor into the decision as to whether to keep him.
I don't like the way we are pushing cap hits, for money already paid, into the future, but that's the result of hiring a bunch of high priced free agents who, against all odds, actually lived up to their contracts, so we don't want to let go of them, and to keep them around, we have to push the cap hits for other players into the future. We've restructured about everyone we can restructure this year, and I don't know what we're going to do next year, unless we do funky stuff like adding (fake) voidable years onto contracts and pushing even more cap hits into the future. There is a limit, I'm just not sure where it is.
Yeah, sucks when you're stuck with someone because they aren't living up to the contract (e.g. Russell Wilson). Fortunately the guys we've paid good money to are pretty much earning it.
(04-17-2023, 03:31 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (04-17-2023, 01:54 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]13 million in 2025 for a #2 or #3 who gives 850 yards and 6 TDs vs 13 million for an empty roster spot gaining 0 yards and 0 TDs seems to be relatively simple to grasp. I don't mind putting future money out there on guys we expect to be here playing, and most of those we just extended fall in that category.
Dead cap money hits the cap whether he's here or not. That's what I'm saying. So whether you plan to keep a guy or not, that makes no difference in whether you want to push the accounting into the future. The money's already been spent. The only decision is whether you want to pay him his base salary and keep him on the team.
When you push a cap hit into the future, you're not pushing the payment into the future. The payment has already been made. So if you want to push a cap hit into the future, whether that player is going to be on the team makes no difference in the decision. Because the money has already been paid. The team is just doing a little accounting trick to shift a cap hit from one year to the next.
first, if the player is still here, it's not technically "dead" cap hit.
second, the issue is not where the payment is being made; it's where the accounting catches up to you; We pushed some money forward on guys who have the expectation of being around while their cap hit is not dead money, i.e., they are active, productive members of the roster. If a team is pushing a bunch of money forward on guys that are likely gone when the bill comes due, you're gonna be hard pressed to keep performance up thanks to the cap hit that is now "dead money".
That's the difference. Dead money bad; pushing money forward not necessarily bad, but there is potential to become bad.
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/0qXdGBBugxmfKJWsR1/giphy.gif)