Salary Cap fact versus fiction

LatinMind

iPhotoshop
Messages
17,430
Reaction score
11,554
2 hours til brackets and I have time soooo... let's try to make the board a little smarter.

Idiom: The cap keeps rising so pushing money off means it is worth less and is a good strategy.
FICTION: This is a very common and accepted bunch of nonsense. Why?? Because you know what else goes up? Player contracts. You need more money to sign the next guy because the next guy is on a higher salary scale. You are competing in any given window and you've shorted yourself for that window to benefit one that will quickly be in the past. Any GM who hands out 50M+ in restructures then wins 7 or less games should be fired week 17.

Idiom: The salary cap isn't real and cap hell doesn't exist.
HARD MEH: This is one of those things people like to say and sound smart but they will eventually capitulate and admit teams have to make tough decisions versus the cap. Those tough decisions are very real for the teams making them. The cap has a ton of built in flexibility but all money does come due.

Idiom: There are 3 ways to improve a roster: Drafting, FA and trades.
HARD MEH: This is one of those meaninglessly true statements always taken out of context. Drafting is numero uno by a mile. Trading is very limited and free agency is more about finding value and especially among un-drafted guys than it is adding super stars. Superstars in FA are a terrible "hit rate". In truth, the 2nd best way to improve a roster is to exercise good cap mgmt. That way you maintain good players and continue to develop depth going forward without coming in 1 man short because you cut a guy and paid him anyway. Trades are very tough because the team you are buying from knows the player/s you are acquiring better than you. Hard to outsmart someone on a guy they saw daily during the NFL season for years.

Idiom: But we can free up 70M THIS easy.
MOSTLY FACT: It is very easy to flip deals because most players want that guaranteed money that handing them a check today delivers. They can claim the interest on that large sum of money. BUT, not if the agent wants a longer term deal you can't. The agent can play hardball knowing you have a large cap hit you don't want to eat.
This is a lot like knowing you can take out a pay day loan or remortgage your house for money. These things are factually possible but also still really desperate acts that will almost certainly cost you more money in the end.

Idiom: So we should just never sign anyone ever then.
MOSTLY FICTION: Teams have to "pay" for draft mistakes. See Cam Fleming. Chaz Green was trash thus that expenditure was VERY necessary. WR misses amongst later picks made signing Hurns a reality. But you merely want to fill absolute holes so you can draft true to your board. You don't go get shiny player X because you think he makes you better. A lot of the FA safeties would have been superior to Jeff Heath. Very, very few of them that have already signed would have been a better value.

Idiom: The only cap that matters is this year.
FICTION x 10: This is where fan GMs get in the most trouble. They could care less about future seasons but the NFL is a business and businesses very much do care. They have 3 and 5 year plans. Transformation projects and overall directions that go well beyond 1 season or year. DAL has a great cap situation but they also know they have to pay DLaw, Zeke, Dak and Amari. These are elite players at expensive positions. You have to plan for that. 120M cap space in a future season? You can basically assume 75M of that is gone for these 4 guys. DAL planned ahead smartly. Compare to Philly who have ~30M free but a cap projection of 30m per season for Wentz. Franchising Wentz if needed to bide time for deal would essentially be impossible without drastic moves elsewhere.

This stuff would frustrate me far less if Dallas fans hadn't witnessed the failure of credit card cap management and Free Agency as a primary roster building pillar for a decade plus. Restructuring guys with injuries: Lee, Romo, Dez. Restructuring guys who were crazy: Ratliff. Restructuring guys who were simply poor cap values: Brandon Carr/late in career Witten.

It is quite OK to NOT be off-season champs. That title means exactly zero come week 1 much less by the Super Bowl.
This is where Dallas is ahead of the game. They structure deals to keep it at minimal to future caps. As with Tyron's deal. 100mil with only a 10mil signing bonus. he had one yr with a very high caphit in the deal and it was last yr at 17mil. For the rest of the deal he's at a friendly costs. And can actually move on from him after this yr if they need to with only 5mil dead money. Dallas has paid him 70over the course of 7yrs. and most of it upfront with SB and restructures that lowered his cap hits and has never been a strain in the cap. I wouldnt be suprised to see Dallas strike a new restructured deal with him and lower his cap hits to around 8-10 for 4more yrs and i can then see him calling it quits.

Now not all deals go like this. Tyron is a case where he loves this team and has done what was needed to surround him with players like Frederick and Martin. When his deal was signed it was talked about alot because of the lack of guranteed money and SB. But he's got most of that money and has never been a reason they couldnt sign people or resign the people they wanted. The same was done with Romo.
 

Nightman

Capologist
Messages
27,121
Reaction score
24,038
Signed and traded are the same thing....? In what world?

Lol Seahawks signed very few contributors and quite a few busts. That's a huge fail on your part.
How are they different? They still paid SRice, PHarvin, MFlynn, ZMiller and MLynch big money on Offense alone.... that is buying a team.....doesn't matter whether you traded or just signed them.... you still have to pay them

Once you get them how you got them is irrelevant

The idea is you aggressively went out to instantly upgrade your team
 

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,690
Reaction score
91,134
Oh you're talking about the 2014 Seahawks. I'm talking about the 2013 Seahawks when they won their 1st Super Bowl. William's wasnt on the team for their SB run. He wasnt even a "small" part of their success, he wasnt a part of their success at all lol.

Their 2013 starters Drafted or UDFA by Seahawks
Wilson
Baldwin
Tate
Okung
Carpenter
Unger
Sweezy
Bryant
Mebane
Wagner
Irvin
Smith
Wright
Sherman
Browner
Chancellor
Thomas

Those are just the starters drafted. Now compare that to the contributors that weren't in house:
Marshawn, Bennett, Avril, McDaniel, Clemons, McQuistan.

McDaniel prior to joining the Seahawks:
In 7 seasons had 8.5 sacks and averaged 17 tackles per season. We make those signings all the time lol. That's some revisionist history.

Typo. They won the SB in 2014 but it was the 2013 season, you are right.

Now tell for me who the equivalent of Avril and Bennett this team has signed. Avril had 30 sacks in the previous three seasons in Detroit, for example.
 

QuincyCarterEra

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,324
Reaction score
10,736
Typo. They won the SB in 2014 but it was the 2013 season, you are right.

Now tell for me who the equivalent of Avril and Bennett this team has signed. Avril had 30 sacks in the previous three seasons in Detroit.
Greg Hardy
Had 27 sacks in 32 games the three seasons before us signing him
 

817Gill

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,141
Reaction score
19,113
What's the measure/basis for this statement?
There’s more right in drafting well and re-signing those who are worth it than being a average to below average drafting team like we used to be and spend big money on FA’s annually to create a contender.

I’d rather be an upper tier franchise that has to figure out how to get over the last few obstacles to win the big one than a franchise who has 1 or 2 good teams per decade like the skins for example.

Any given year, there’s probably no more than 2 FA signings for big $$ who make that significant of an impact. You can’t make a living off 1/2 guys an offseason, you’ll end up as a top heavy team with little depth and sporadic success.

Do I want to sign a FA or 2 this offseason as I think we are the closest we’ve been in my lifetime to a SB roster? Yes again. But this is also the first year the team doesn’t have major and glaring needs. I’m willing to let this play out a little longer as the team has steadily improved since 2016. Using the years before that are moot as this team building strategy was introduced in Romo’s waning years. Dak’s three years have been pretty successful for anyone that doesn’t need lump 23 years of SB drought into one season.
 

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,690
Reaction score
91,134
Greg Hardy
Had 27 sacks in 32 games the three seasons before us signing him

Hardy was a total flier on the cheap because no one would touch him with a thirty foot pole. His contract was heavily incentive laden. He only ended up seeing like 4MM of that contract.

That is nothing like the Seattle signing Avril.
 

Nightman

Capologist
Messages
27,121
Reaction score
24,038
Hardy was a total flier on the cheap because no one would touch him with a thirty foot pole. His contract was heavily incentive laden.

That is nothing like the Seattle signing Avril.
He must have meant Mincey
 

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,690
Reaction score
91,134
There’s more right in drafting well and re-signing those who are worth it than being a average to below average drafting team like we used to be and spend big money on FA’s annually to create a contender.

I’d rather be an upper tier franchise that has to figure out how to get over the last few obstacles to win the big one than a franchise who has 1 or 2 good teams per decade like the skins for example.

Any given year, there’s probably no more than 2 FA signings for big $$ who make that significant of an impact. You can’t make a living off 1/2 guys an offseason, you’ll end up as a top heavy team with little depth and sporadic success.

Do I want to sign a FA or 2 this offseason as I think we are the closest we’ve been in my lifetime to a SB roster? Yes again. But this is also the first year the team doesn’t have major and glaring needs. I’m willing to let this play out a little longer as the team has steadily improved since 2016. Using the years before that are moot as this team building strategy was introduced in Romo’s waning years. Dak’s three years have been pretty successful for anyone that doesn’t need lump 23 years of SB drought into one season.

And you know how to get over that hump?

Add a key player or two in FA to supplement your existing roster.
 

817Gill

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,141
Reaction score
19,113
Any given year, there’s probably no more than 2 FA signings for big $$ who make that significant of an impact. You can’t make a living off 1/2 guys an offseason, you’ll end up as a top heavy team with little depth and sporadic success.

Do I want to sign a FA or 2 this offseason as I think we are the closest we’ve been in my lifetime to a SB roster? Yes again. But this is also the first year the team doesn’t have major and glaring needs. I’m willing to let this play out a little longer as the team has steadily improved since 2016. Using the years before that are moot as this team building strategy was introduced in Romo’s waning years. Dak’s three years have been pretty successful for anyone that doesn’t need lump 23 years of SB drought into one season.
And you know how to get over that hump?

Add a key player or two in FA to supplement your existing roster.

Yeah already said that. Also said I’d be ok waiting it out this year as well because I’ve seen real incremental growth in Dak’s 3 seasons from a personnel building standpoint.
 

Verdict

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,960
Reaction score
20,118
I could write a book, too. Wouldn't change the fact that we only need one or two impact players from FA to reach a Super Bowl, or the fact that the organization refuses to take this final step to win it all.
That's been Jerry's plan for all but the last 5 years since the super bowl days.
 

Verdict

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,960
Reaction score
20,118
And you know how to get over that hump?

Add a key player or two in FA to supplement your existing roster.

You hope that a referee doesn't rip you off with Dez catch I and Dez catch II.
 

Verdict

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,960
Reaction score
20,118
The Patriots signing the #1 CB on the marketing in 2017 for top dollar has ended that fallacy years ago. The Rams went all in last year.

We also need to stop with the idea of "off-season champs" or "winning free agency" ..this whole all-or-nothing approach. There's a canyon-sized gap of in-between. You can get significantly better with one to two major acquisitions, as the Patriots showed in 2017.

The Rams MAY end up being irrelevant for about 5 years after this year. Same with the Eagles.
 

Verdict

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,960
Reaction score
20,118
My point is you can't use the Pats and Rams as examples of teams that sign Free Agents based on 1 season in their history.
Neither of those teams have signed a premium FA this year AT ALL.

Dallas shouldn't worry about any other team, they should worry about themselves.
Maximize talent by using their money properly and not stupidly on short term gains.

They tried that for a decade and failed marvelously.

They tried it for almost 20 years. But it's a valid point nevertheless.
 

Verdict

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,960
Reaction score
20,118
good lord... you get comp pick for net FA loss/gain.
if you cut the guy he doesn't count you.
the fringe players they signed in FA will be earmarked as expendable to protect 4th and 5th round comp picks.
see D.Thompson last year in DAL.

NE is very unlikely to sign a bunch of budget guys then let those guys go unrewarded with com picks for guys they pay 2m a year to.
In another words they will end up with a net loss almost certainly.
DAL's big loss was Beasley who is likely not worth much when all is said and done so they may not be as concerned as they usually are.

New England seems to be good at adding CUTS, (not expiring contract free agents) to one year deals and then getting a comp pick out of that player when his contract expires with them the following year. It's a great strategy.
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
56,908
Reaction score
64,316
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
It always comes due at some point. You can’t just keep kicking the can down the road.

That depends on how you define being over the cap.

Teams can be over the cap (up to a limit) at the beginning of each year without the bill ever coming due.

@Nightman can corroborate this concept.

I explained it in great detail here at CZ several years ago.

There is a way to calculate whether a team is on the path to having the bill come due but just looking at cap space alone does not really provide enough information.
 

Johnny23

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,338
Reaction score
1,757

That's why you sign select free agents to short term deals and not sign everyone to long term deals. But that goes against your free agency is bad narrative. That's wht the G-Strings did in 2015 leveraging their future for Elisha and his dwindling skillset to get one more ring than his brother. That hilariously blew up in their face and they're in shambles.

I wouldn't hurt to sign Earl to a deal with an out clause.

It wouldn't hurt to sign a Justin Houston to a 1 year deal.

With a Super Bowl in mind because it doesn't stop you from drafting and still building a young core and giving them playoff experience.

Seattle won the Super Bowl signing Cliff Avril, Michael Bennett, and Chris Clemons to free agent deals.

New England trades for players, signs players like Stephon Gilmore and they win.

The Rams traded for Talib, Peters, Cooks, and Signed Suh. They got to a Super Bowl and it was their young QB who didn't get the job done. That defense with all those studs kept them in the entire game.

All people like myself are saying is why can't we? Why can't we make the 1-3 yr deals with impact players in select positions of need to win the damn super bowl like New England, Philly, and all the other recent winners of the big game.

Why can't we? It seems that's too much to ask but I don't think so.

Chris Covington and Kerry Hyder, Jr. are nice signings for depth but their not the difference between Dallas losing yet another divisional playoff game in the same exact way they have the past 20 years and winning the Super Bowl.
 

Rockport

AmberBeer
Messages
41,077
Reaction score
41,060
That depends on how you define being over the cap.

Teams can be over the cap (up to a limit) at the beginning of each year without the bill ever coming due.

@Nightman can corroborate this concept.

I explained it in great detail here at CZ several years ago.

There is a way to calculate whether a team is on the path to having the bill come due but just looking at cap space alone does not really provide enough information.
Over the cap is over the cap. Once that happens the team is severely limited in obtaining players.
 

ondaedg

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,891
Reaction score
3,034
2 hours til brackets and I have time soooo... let's try to make the board a little smarter.

Idiom: The cap keeps rising so pushing money off means it is worth less and is a good strategy.
FICTION: This is a very common and accepted bunch of nonsense. Why?? Because you know what else goes up? Player contracts. You need more money to sign the next guy because the next guy is on a higher salary scale. You are competing in any given window and you've shorted yourself for that window to benefit one that will quickly be in the past. Any GM who hands out 50M+ in restructures then wins 7 or less games should be fired week 17.

Idiom: The salary cap isn't real and cap hell doesn't exist.
HARD MEH: This is one of those things people like to say and sound smart but they will eventually capitulate and admit teams have to make tough decisions versus the cap. Those tough decisions are very real for the teams making them. The cap has a ton of built in flexibility but all money does come due.

Idiom: There are 3 ways to improve a roster: Drafting, FA and trades.
HARD MEH: This is one of those meaninglessly true statements always taken out of context. Drafting is numero uno by a mile. Trading is very limited and free agency is more about finding value and especially among un-drafted guys than it is adding super stars. Superstars in FA are a terrible "hit rate". In truth, the 2nd best way to improve a roster is to exercise good cap mgmt. That way you maintain good players and continue to develop depth going forward without coming in 1 man short because you cut a guy and paid him anyway. Trades are very tough because the team you are buying from knows the player/s you are acquiring better than you. Hard to outsmart someone on a guy they saw daily during the NFL season for years.

Idiom: But we can free up 70M THIS easy.
MOSTLY FACT: It is very easy to flip deals because most players want that guaranteed money that handing them a check today delivers. They can claim the interest on that large sum of money. BUT, not if the agent wants a longer term deal you can't. The agent can play hardball knowing you have a large cap hit you don't want to eat.
This is a lot like knowing you can take out a pay day loan or remortgage your house for money. These things are factually possible but also still really desperate acts that will almost certainly cost you more money in the end.

Idiom: So we should just never sign anyone ever then.
MOSTLY FICTION: Teams have to "pay" for draft mistakes. See Cam Fleming. Chaz Green was trash thus that expenditure was VERY necessary. WR misses amongst later picks made signing Hurns a reality. But you merely want to fill absolute holes so you can draft true to your board. You don't go get shiny player X because you think he makes you better. A lot of the FA safeties would have been superior to Jeff Heath. Very, very few of them that have already signed would have been a better value.

Idiom: The only cap that matters is this year.
FICTION x 10: This is where fan GMs get in the most trouble. They could care less about future seasons but the NFL is a business and businesses very much do care. They have 3 and 5 year plans. Transformation projects and overall directions that go well beyond 1 season or year. DAL has a great cap situation but they also know they have to pay DLaw, Zeke, Dak and Amari. These are elite players at expensive positions. You have to plan for that. 120M cap space in a future season? You can basically assume 75M of that is gone for these 4 guys. DAL planned ahead smartly. Compare to Philly who have ~30M free but a cap projection of 30m per season for Wentz. Franchising Wentz if needed to bide time for deal would essentially be impossible without drastic moves elsewhere.

This stuff would frustrate me far less if Dallas fans hadn't witnessed the failure of credit card cap management and Free Agency as a primary roster building pillar for a decade plus. Restructuring guys with injuries: Lee, Romo, Dez. Restructuring guys who were crazy: Ratliff. Restructuring guys who were simply poor cap values: Brandon Carr/late in career Witten.

It is quite OK to NOT be off-season champs. That title means exactly zero come week 1 much less by the Super Bowl.

Here is a fact: There is no difference to signing your own star free agent vs a star free agent from another team. Suh paid off for the Rams. How many defensive tackles paid off for the Pats over the years. It's about signing the right guy for your team. Some teams do it better than others. There is no system.
 

jterrell

Penguinite
Messages
33,428
Reaction score
15,601
Here is a fact: There is no difference to signing your own star free agent vs a star free agent from another team. Suh paid off for the Rams. How many defensive tackles paid off for the Pats over the years. It's about signing the right guy for your team. Some teams do it better than others. There is no system.
Did Suh "pay off"? Statistically, it was one of his worst seasons.

From the "Rams Wire"
Just going off of the way he played in 2018, it’s easy to think he’s not worth another big contract. The Rams paid him $14 million for one year, which was the seventh-highest salary of any interior defender last season, but he was just 20th in PFF’s positional rankings.


He was the Rams’ second-best pass rusher, which doesn’t say much, but it was a fairly disappointing season for a player of his caliber. He did show the ability to win as a pass rusher, though, like on this rush against the Cardinals.


The Rams went for it last year and fell a bit short. Now this year they are short of cap cash.
This year they've lost a worrisome number of starters in FA (number would include Suh if he ever signs anywhere).

All that said:
Signing quality vets to 1 year deals is a solid move generally. It does zero to violate any basic tenet of free agency.
It is fact quite useful. When the guy leaves via FA you can re-coop a Comp pick and a 1 year deal leaves you zero dead money.

But it does in fact looks like Suh will need to take a pay cut to play in 2020.
 
Top