(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.

---