Offensive Line

[ECHornet]

3 minutes ago, Toomers said:

Then it’s not a loophole. It’s an organizations choice. The owner is paying it this year either way. It’s just getting most early instead of over 17 games in the fall. 
 

  Void years hit immediately when a player is no longer on the team. It’s the same as dead cap. It doesn’t just stay there over years after a player is gone. What’s Matt Ionnadis cap hit for Carolina in 2023? 

$3,812,000? Trying to get up to speed on how these contracts work.

[Toomers]

2 minutes ago, ECHornet said:

$3,812,000? Trying to get up to speed on how these contracts work.

Yes. All 4 void years when his contract is up after SB. It’s actually an example of using it wisely. Like Reddick before, it was a 1 yr/6M contract. Same setup. They were worth that so it’s not an issue. But that is dead money that was used last year. 

[ECHornet]

Just now, Toomers said:

Yes. All 4 void years when his contract is up after SB. It’s actually an example of using it wisely. Like Reddick before, it was a 1 yr/6M contract. Same setup. They were worth that so it’s not an issue. But that is dead money that was used last year. 

Is there a situation where a pre/post June assignment can make one of the years apply in '23 and the rest hit in '24?

[kungfoodude]

3 minutes ago, Toomers said:

Then it’s not a loophole. It’s an organizations choice. The owner is paying it this year either way. It’s just getting most early instead of over 17 games in the fall. 
 

  Void years hit immediately when a player is no longer on the team. It’s the same as dead cap. It doesn’t just stay there over years after a player is gone. What’s Matt Ionnadis cap hit for Carolina in 2023? 

It is a loophole. It is an accounting trick built in to the way the salary cap works. It just took some longer to figure out how to exploit it and invent to ways to abuse it. 

Hence why there have been discussions in owners meetings and league meetings about restricting the ability to use void years the way they are currently being used.

Yes the void years immediate hit when they leave. The intent of the void years is to buy time to lessen those impacts(like making space with other salaries by creating void years in their contracts).

You don't escape the money hitting the cap, you just tightrope walk the line of being able to space those hits out and still afford the talent necessary to win. It's a bet that the cap will keep increasing and that you will be able to mete out the big contracts accordingly so that you don't end up in Hurney cap hell.

 

[Toomers]

3 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

It is a loophole. It is an accounting trick built in to the way the salary cap works. It just took some longer to figure out how to exploit it and invent to ways to abuse it. 

Hence why there have been discussions in owners meetings and league meetings about restricting the ability to use void years the way they are currently being used.

Yes the void years immediate hit when they leave. The intent of the void years is to buy time to lessen those impacts(like making space with other salaries by creating void years in their contracts).

You don't escape the money hitting the cap, you just tightrope walk the line of being able to space those hits out and still afford the talent necessary to win. It's a bet that the cap will keep increasing and that you will be able to mete out the big contracts accordingly so that you don't end up in Hurney cap hell.

 

Now it’s an accounting trick? But only certain teams know how? What part isn’t simple math? Void years, in any form, is a rule that is available for everyone. Who are these owners who are complaining? Players love it. So good luck getting rid of them. 


And this front office has spent this team up to cap hell adjacent. 

 

[kungfoodude]

1 minute ago, Toomers said:

Now it’s an accounting trick? But only certain teams know how? What part isn’t simple math? Void years, in any form, is a rule that is available for everyone. Who are these owners who are complaining? Players love it. So good luck getting rid of them. 


And this front office has spent this team up to cap hell adjacent. 

 

You are doing the classic thing that you do, inventing arguments in your head that I am not making. 

You can take what I said at face value or just fill in the blanks with whatever is bouncing around in your head.

I will let you continue that argument with yourself.

[Stuart Smith]

1 hour ago, lumbeecheraw75 said:

Bozeman came here because of Campen. Better make certain he sticks around too while we're at it.

Exactly. I hope Campen stays somehow, Chris Tabor too.

[Waldo]

3 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

It is a bottomless well, you can kick the can forever and as old contracts drop off they are replaced by new ones. 

It isn't real because it quite literally doesn't work the way it was intended. The intent was a fair system that allows small market teams to compete with larger market teams whole simultaneously suppressing salaries across the league so that it doesn't turn into soccer or MLB. Well.....the first part of that hasn't worked well because of these loopholes. The second part works somewhat well.

The loopholes will continue to be exploited as long as they exist because it is a way teams and owners with more money can get a POTENTIAL competitive advantage. 

It doesn't mean you can completely buy a Super Bowl every year, that doesn't work. But it can allow you to keep and acquire a LOT of talent. Vastly more so than if you aren't using those loopholes. 

But, it is a double edged sword. If you mismanage those assets while performing this juggling act, you might have to make some difficult decisions a few offseasons.

We are not a team that should be worrying about the salary cap. We are not even REMOTELY in bad shape.

You are contradicting yourself. If it's a bottomless well then why do the Saints have to figure it out? They went into this year dropping their LT and rolling with Hill and Watson because that was the best they could do with unlimited cap? It isn't real because it has evolved into a new way to use the same system? The cap still exist it's just being used in a new way. It is not dead and it does exist, even if you can't see it. It just isn't what it used to be, it evolved. I'm not even sure the competitiveness is not a wash at this point if every team is using it, again it adjusted and just works in a way that is beyond the original intent but still in the same mold. They can still only spend the same money that year under the cap no matter how they cut it up. The only competitive advantage was when the Saints figured it out and the rest of the league was trying to understand, that time has passed. Every penny of those contracts gets fit under the cap in some way so the only difference in how different teams deal with it is how they handle their internal cash flow. I do not belive this is like baseball and the As, otherwise how does GB afford Rodgers? Because the NFL's cap is well below the NFL team's revenues so no team is put into that position unless they are managed poorly into that position (which I would need an example of because most of the piss poor management is roster and employees related, not profit).  

The NFL will never go back to the old way, like Scott said, unless they or the NFLPA force it IMO. All I am saying is that it is still in the trial and error phase of the new chapter with it being used this way. Both the Saints and Rams have shown downsides to go along with the massive upside. I think there will be some more failures as teams figure out how to use this but also not fug themselves so drastically than those two examples.

Every loophole should be taken advantage of but this one looks like the new normal. Neither the owners or NFLPA has any issues with it moving forward from what anything I have seen or heard. 

 

Edited January 11, 2023 by Waldo

[kungfoodude]

24 minutes ago, Waldo said:

You are contradicting yourself. If it's a bottomless well then why do the Saints have to figure it out? They went into this year dropping their LT and rolling with Hill and Watson because that was the best they could do with unlimited cap? It isn't real because it has evolved into a new way to use the same system? The cap still exist it's just being used in a new way. It is not dead and it does exist, even if you can't see it. It just isn't what it used to be, it evolved. I'm not even sure the competitiveness is not a wash at this point if every team is using it, again it adjusted and just works in a way that is beyond the original intent but still in the same mold. They can still only spend the same money that year under the cap no matter how they cut it up. The only competitive advantage was when the Saints figured it out and the rest of the league was trying to understand, that time has passed. Every penny of those contracts gets fit under the cap in some way so the only difference in how different teams deal with it is how they handle their internal cash flow. I do not belive this is like baseball and the As, otherwise how does GB afford Rodgers? Because the NFL's cap is well below the NFL team's revenues so no team is put into that position unless they are managed poorly into that position (which I would need an example of because most of the piss poor management is roster and employees related, not profit).  

The NFL will never go back to the old way, like Scott said, unless they or the NFLPA force it IMO. All I am saying is that it is still in the trial and error phase of the new chapter with it being used this way. Both the Saints and Rams have shown downsides to go along with the massive upside. I think there will be some more failures as teams figure out how to use this but also not fug themselves so drastically than those two examples.

Every loophole should be taken advantage of but this one looks like the new normal. Neither the owners or NFLPA has any issues with it moving forward from what anything I have seen or heard. 

 

Okay, "bottomless" is a poor choice of words. It's more about managing how the cap hits fall. That can theoretically be done forever.....if most of your gambles work well and you make the right choices. It only takes one Michael Thomas or CMC level decision to make a large impact to your cap when you weren't anticipating it. 

Which, we need to keep this in mind because we have a guy like Burns who is going to need a deal very soon and this on the tail of signing Moore to a big deal. Or even a guy like Jackson who we signed to a decent sized contract who may never be the same player again after that injury. 

It is events of that nature that can start to poke holes in your overladen ship.

[Waldo]

14 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Okay, "bottomless" is a poor choice of words. It's more about managing how the cap hits fall. That can theoretically be done forever.....if most of your gambles work well and you make the right choices. It only takes one Michael Thomas or CMC level decision to make a large impact to your cap when you weren't anticipating it. 

Which, we need to keep this in mind because we have a guy like Burns who is going to need a deal very soon and this on the tail of signing Moore to a big deal. Or even a guy like Jackson who we signed to a decent sized contract who may never be the same player again after that injury. 

It is events of that nature that can start to poke holes in your overladen ship.

Agreed. I really have had a problem with bottomless and the cap is dead, other than that I agree. 

Fully guaranteed contracts look to be another wrench for that system. It looks bad for Denver and Cleveland even utilizing the new cap approach. 

[kungfoodude]

3 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Agreed. I really have had a problem with bottomless and the cap is dead, other than that I agree. 

Fully guaranteed contracts look to be another wrench for that system. It looks bad for Denver and Cleveland even utilizing the new cap approach. 

Lamar is the next one to watch on that. He wants a fully guaranteed contract and the owners are getting pretty upset about these fulluly guaranteed deals. If he gets his way, you might see even more of them.

[Waldo]

22 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Lamar is the next one to watch on that. He wants a fully guaranteed contract and the owners are getting pretty upset about these fulluly guaranteed deals. If he gets his way, you might see even more of them.

I honestly think they should take less overall for a fully guaranteed contract and I don't see any positive for making longer deals in that scenario. I don't want Lamar because he wants both.

Is he worth a big contract? Sure. Fully guaranteed at that level for more than 2 or 3 years? Hell no thank you very much. Hate it for him but the Ravens are smart to just tag and trade him to someone dumb enough to make that mistake. I just don't see how it's going to work or make the game better, it's already hobbled 2 teams for years more. 

I don't expect to see players stop trying anytime soon, I just hope more teams don't cave into doing deals like that.

Edited January 11, 2023 by Waldo

[ECHornet]

12 minutes ago, Waldo said:

I honestly think they should take less overall for a fully guaranteed contract and I don't see any positive for making longer deals in that scenario. I don't want Lamar because he wants both.

Is he worth a big contract? Sure. Fully guaranteed at that level for more than 2 or 3 years? Hell no thank you very much. Hate it for him but the Ravens are smart to just tag and trade him to someone dumb enough to make that mistake. I just don't see how it's going to work or make the game better, it's already hobbled 2 teams for years more. 

I don't expect to see players stop trying anytime soon, I just hope more teams don't cave into doing deals like that.

The answer to that dilemma is limiting the guaranteed portion of the contract to 3 years max and prioritizing roster bonuses over huge signing bonuses for years 4+

[Waldo]

1 minute ago, ECHornet said:

The answer to that dilemma is limiting the guaranteed portion of the contract to 3 years max and prioritizing roster bonuses over huge signing bonuses for years 4+

I agree but that is not what the players are pushing for.