(03-17-2021, 08:51 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:

(03-17-2021, 08:39 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: All back loading does is pull cap space forward into the current year.  It only hurts you if you fill up your cap and fail to carry over any excess cap space.  Otherwise, it's a wash.  You have a lot more flexibility if you back load contracts.  

For example, a 4 year $50 million dollar contract that is back loaded has the same cap hit over 4 years as it does if it is front loaded.

That's what Baalke failed to do in San Francisco and a contributing factor why he was fired. Depending on how this contract is structured, front loading avoids this altogether when you have an incompetent GM. Say you have a ton of cap space. You offer a guy 5 years $80 million contract. You give them $25 million the first year, $23 million the 2nd year, $18 million the 3rd year, $9 million the 4th year and $5 million the final year the cap numbers are easier to swallow. You never know what the future holds. Spend the money when you have it and save for the future. 

I'm all for carrying over some cap space for the future, but if you carry over too much, you're not getting good players. You're basically getting bargain basement players.

---

But any garden variety accountant can project the cap hit from these contracts.   It's really easy.   It's like when Coughlin got us into cap hell and took all the blame.  It wasn't just Coughlin.  It was Weaver and Michael Huygue and everyone else who said, okay, let's roll the dice, go for it, and worry about the consequences later.  TC gets to be the scapegoat, just like Baalke, because I am 100% certain that the ownership in San Fran knew what was going to happen.  

Besides, in your scenario, your player is going to quit after year 3 and demand a new contract.  So what you've done is instead of giving the guy a 5 year $80 million contract, he's taken a 3 year $66 million contract and now you have a disgruntled player who is refusing to play.

---