Complete offseason if I were GM

[Killerinstinct]

You are using Dead Money as the reason to KEEP a player that should be cut.....that makes NO SENSE

In the Hanna case you absolutely save 20m by cutting him......it is just applied to Dead Money first..... then the rest is applied to the General Fund........ in this case 19.5m would be used to pay off Dead Money and the remaining 500k would go towards the pot......but it is still 20m

It wipes out over 10m from next year's cap completely.....that is real

Nope. If Hanna is on a one year contract for 20 mil and a cap hit of 19.5 mil with no cap hit in the future it does me no good to cut him unless I can improve the roster with the 500K in cap resources available to me that otherwise would not be available. It does not affect my future cap at all.

I understand that me personally, as the owner could save some real money but I only care about the cap and fielding the best team possible under the rules available.

 

[Killerinstinct]

The only question is OScandrick worth 3m as the 6th CB?

If no then cut or trade him......who cares if they "only" save 1.4m this year..... that means you pay off his entire debt of 3.8m and still have 1.4m left over to go towards the pot

His replacement will be a draft pick that costs 480k or is already on the team in BJones or XWoods

Again it depends on what he is worth. If the player making 480K improves my roster more than Scandrick then sure I cut him and take the hit. I personally feel Scandrick still has some value and if Chido and Lewis end up pulling a Brown and have a sophomore slump he would be nice to keep around. He may still be the 3rd best cb on the team even if Chido and lewis don't have sophomore slumps.

 

[Nightman]

Nope. If Hanna is on a one year contract for 20 mil and a cap hit of 19.5 mil with no cap hit in the future it does me no good to cut him unless I can improve the roster with the 500K in cap resources available to me that otherwise would not be available. It does not affect my future cap at all.

I understand that me personally, as the owner could save some real money but I only care about the cap and fielding the best team possible under the rules available.

I tried

if you would still keep Hanna at 20m because he has 19.5m in Dead Cap my knowledge is wasted on you

 

[Killerinstinct]

I tried

if you would still keep Hanna at 20m because he has 19.5m in Dead Cap my knowledge is wasted on you

Your lack of knowledge is wasted on everyone. Good day.

I don't want to keep Hanna on a 20 mil contract. I want to avoid that kind of stupidity. I spent hours discussing how to avoid it while being told declining production and injury problems don't matter, then you switch arguments on me about a hypothetical no win situation where I either have to take a cap hit of 20 mil for a player not nearly worth it or a cap hit of 19.5 mil if I cut him.

I am not going to compound the stupidity of the previous GM by releasing him despite only gaining 500K by doing so unless that 500K improves my roster more than keeping the player. I am going to avoid this type of situation in the first place. Maybe he is worth 4 million. If I keep him I have a sunk cost of 16 million thanks to the bone headed move by the last GM. If I cut him I have a sunk cost of the 19.5 million cap hit to release him and the 4 million cap hit to sign his equivalent replacement. Sunk cost is now 23.5 million. A 7.5 million dollar difference.

I am done with both of you. Have a nice day.

 

[xwalker]

I have worked through the details. Now you are conflating two different issues. One an imaginary world where Hanna is making 20 mil with a 19.5 cap hit and the real world where Hanna's cap hit is a fraction of Wittens and Witten is past his prime and the funds used to pay him could be better used elsewhere.

No, if you just answer the question I'll be able to relate the example back to the real world.

If I fail to relate the example back to the real world, then you lose nothing by just answering the question.

Would you keep Hanna in the example situation?

Assume Witten is long gone. I'm not trying to make any point about Witten or about Hanna's ability relative to each other.

This is just a debate about salary cap details.

I think you basically said yes on Hanna in the example but I just need you to confirm.

Recap:
Witten gone.
No TEs acquired (Tried but didn't work out).
Coaches think Hanna is the best of Rico/Swaim/Jarwin/Hanna and he looks better with Witten gone.

20M cap hit to keep.
19.5M cap hit if cut.

Do you keep Hanna in this scenario?

 

[Nightman]

and I have debated cap issues over years and each have convinced the other to change their opinion on specific details.

Biggest point you won me over is the ''saves just x against the cap"....... no it saves the full salary and all future salaries..... it is the long view