Strategies for an uncapped world

[MoLewisrocks]

Gene Upshaw stated that if the cap was gone, then it was gone for good. I am not sure how the new President will go as that person hasn't been elected yet. In fact, I am expecting the owners to lock out the players after the SB to prevent an uncapped year from occuring.



I would have to say yes.



I believe so. However, as I said, I don't foresee the owners allowing the uncapped year to occur as its not in their best interest financially.

I believe there is language in the currently expiring CBA that precludes a lockout (or either side from instituting any kind of work stoppage) before 2011.

 

[spacecrime]

Many of the time players who are getting cut because they are getting paid more than they are worth is because of their base salary and amortized bonus money combined is too much. In an uncapped year, the amortized bonus money is irrelevant.

???????? I don't think you meant what you typed.

Amortised bonus money is irrelevant. Cutting a player does not make amortised bonus money go away. It is still on the cap.

The only money you can save by cutting a player is current and future salary. That is what determines the players worth. Is he worth the salary we are going to pay him, or would we be better off with the cash?

This is like the guys who say that Jarvis Green's cap number at $5 mil is too high for a backup. His salary is only about $2 mil, and that is the only number that counts when you are looking to reduce a cap hit in a capped year. That $3 mil of amorised bonuses and incentives is there whether you cut him or not.

Or perhaps a better analogy is repairing your car. You spent $3000 four months ago to replace the transmission. Now the water pump goes for $1000. You have to ask yourself if the car is worth the $1000 dollars, not $4000. $1000 is all you will save by "cutting" you car.

The Patriots will do just fine in an uncapped year. There will be plenty of players to sign, and the Partiots under Kraft and Belichick will have placed themselves ina position to capitalize on opportunities and minimize the pitfalls of an uncapped year. Or years.

 

[spacecrime]

I believe there is language in the currently expiring CBA that precludes a lockout (or either side from instituting any kind of work stoppage) before 2011.

Yes, I think that was someone's point, that in the 2010 uncapped year, with no salary minimum floor, cash-poor teams would be dumping salaried players to have the cash to withstand a 2011 lockout.

I hope it doesn't happen, be a shame if it does, but if I owned the Bills I would have to plan for such a contingency.

 

[solman]

In fact, I am expecting the owners to lock out the players after the SB to prevent an uncapped year from occuring.

[...]

However, as I said, I don't foresee the owners allowing the uncapped year to occur as its not in their best interest financially.

This is very probably wrong.

*All indications from the owners suggest that they view 2011 as the year when any possible stoppage would occur.

* Article 4 section 1 of the CBA prohibits the owners from locking the players out in 2010. I am not a labor lawyer, so I don't know if this is enforceable or not; but I don't see why they would put it in the labor agreement if it wasn't

* It is highly questionable whether or not an uncapped 2010 would be financially detrimental to the owners. Over the course of this labor agreement (occurring mostly during "boom" times), the owners have paid less than the amounts targeted by the CBA (leading to upward adjustments of the cap). In a troubled economy, with many teams deeply in debt, the possibility of a lockout looming, and no minimum required salary expenditure, many teams will attempt to significantly reduce their payroll. It remains to be seen whether or not increased spending by the financially strong teams will be more or less important than decreased spending by the lower 24. I predict that during an uncapped 2010 salaries will increase by a smaller rate than required under the CBA for a capped 2010.



When Gene Upshaw made his threat, the possibility of an uncapped year was terrifying to the owners who expected salaries to skyrocket. Today, expectations have changed dramatically, and its just not that effective a threat.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Here is the list of players who will be free agents next year. Beside their name, I have put the type of free agent. If it says RFA/UFA then the player would be a RFA in an uncapped year and a UFA in a capped year.

Sam Aiken, WR - UFA
Tully Banta-Cain, LB - UFA
Leigh Bodden, CB - RFA/UFA
Tedy Bruschi, LB - UFA (expected to retire)
Kevin Faulk, RB - UFA
Jarvis Green, DE - UFA
Chris Hanson, P - UFA
Russ Hochstein, G - UFA
Nathan Hodel, LS - UFA
Matt Light, OT - UFA <------ Key Player
Stephen Neal, G - UFA
Richard Seymour, DE - UFA
Ben Watson, TE - UFA
Vince Wilfork, DT - UFA <------ Key Player
Eric Alexander, LB - UFA
Stephen Gostkowski, K - RFA/UFA <------ Key Player
Ellis Hobbs, CB - RFA/UFA <------ Key Player
Nick Kaczur, T - RFA/UFA
Logan Mankins, G - RFA/UFA <------ Key Player
Ryan O'Callaghan, T - RFA/UFA
Le Kevin Smith, DE - RFA/UFA
David Thomas, TE - RFA/UFA
Raymond Ventrone, S - RFA/UFA
Pierre Woods, LB - RFA/UFA
Billy Yates, G - RFA/UFA
Gary Guyton, LB - ERFA
Brad Listorti, TE - ERFA

There are 5 players who I feel are MUST re-signs unless the Pats have someone in the pipeline to replace them. And you are reading that properly. I don't consider Seymour a must re-sign. I love the guy, but if he's expecting to make Haynesworth money, then he won't be retained, regardless of whether the year is capped or uncapped.

And I disagree. Seymour is Foundation Tackle. Those guys come along once a Decade, and make all those players around them better. They never get traded, and go directly to the Hall of Fame as soon as eligible. Sey should have been a probowler in 2008. The Merlin Olsens, Alan Pages, Bob Lillys, Mean Joe Greenes, and Dan Hamptons stay with their teams for their entire careers. And they get paid.

The only Foundation lineman that I know who walked was the Reverend Reggie Wright, at age 36.

Bill would cut half his team to keep his Defensive line.

And he certainly would not let a young 31 year old HOFer go. I just don't understand the posters here who are trying to run Seymour out of town.

 

[Miguel]

Baltimore Ravens News - Will an "uncapped" 2010 shift the NFL's balance of power towards the rich?

may be useful

 

[upstater1]

Nice article.

One year is not enough to change the balance of power, BUT, you can set yourself up nicely for a good run if you run things right.

I'm not concerned that other teams will give out big bonuses, but if a player is willing, a team could give him an astronomical first year salary in lieu of a bonus, and thereby they could circumvent (somewhat) the hit on futre caps.

Whatever owner shells out big $$$ for contracts next year will set his team up well in the future.

It's interesting to note that this uncapped year is happening is a horrific time for the economy, which will likely make owners reluctant to take advantage of the uncapped year. But maybe I'm wrong on that.

 

[Rob0729]

???????? I don't think you meant what you typed.

Amortised bonus money is irrelevant. Cutting a player does not make amortised bonus money go away. It is still on the cap.

The only money you can save by cutting a player is current and future salary. That is what determines the players worth. Is he worth the salary we are going to pay him, or would we be better off with the cash?

This is like the guys who say that Jarvis Green's cap number at $5 mil is too high for a backup. His salary is only about $2 mil, and that is the only number that counts when you are looking to reduce a cap hit in a capped year. That $3 mil of amorised bonuses and incentives is there whether you cut him or not.

Or perhaps a better analogy is repairing your car. You spent $3000 four months ago to replace the transmission. Now the water pump goes for $1000. You have to ask yourself if the car is worth the $1000 dollars, not $4000. $1000 is all you will save by "cutting" you car.

The Patriots will do just fine in an uncapped year. There will be plenty of players to sign, and the Partiots under Kraft and Belichick will have placed themselves ina position to capitalize on opportunities and minimize the pitfalls of an uncapped year. Or years.

I meant exactly what I wrote. Amortize bonuses are not irrelevant in an uncapped year. No they do not go away if a player is cut, but in a capped year the combination of the amortized bonus and base salary can make a player too expensive to keep even if the team can easily afford their base salary vs. the cap.

Every team is only allowed to spend $127 million or so vs. the cap. That means the amortized bonus can play a key roll in the value of the player. Don't forget other than this year, dead money can be spread out over two year in the NFL capped world.

Take the Jarvis Green example you used, in pure salary cap terms his salary this year is $5 million. From a salary cap standpoint, it doesn't matter where the money is coming from (base salary, amortized bonus, etc.). That is the number the Pats have to deal with and make him work under the cap. Right now he accounts for roughly 4% of the cap (would be about 2-2.5% if there was no amoritized bonus) which is high for a back up. So if the Pats cut Green, his amortized bonus money would still be there but they would free up 1.5-2% of cap space. If Green had additional years left on his contract and if this wasn't a year vs. an uncapped year the Pats could probably free up 2.5-3% of overall cap space by cutting Green.

If this was an uncapped year, the only thing the Pats would care about is the base salary and any bonuses paid out in the current year. So all they care about is real dollars, not cap dollars. That makes it far easier for teams (even some of the smaller market teams) to bear especially with bigger name, popular players like Fred Taylor who can generate additional revenue for the team with merchandise sales and marketing opportunities. Amortized bonus would not play a part of the overall decision.

In a capped NFL, teams may decide to cut an older player who is making say $2 million in real money, but has a $5 million hit reducing the cap by say $3.5 million (assuming it was any other year besides this one, the dead money would be split over two years). And then they turn around and sign a lesser player with a $750k base salary and a $3 million signing bonus because his current year cap hit will only be $1.5 million this year. So they saved $2 million in total against the cap because of the amortized bonus of the original player, but actually spent $1.75 million more in real dollars to make this move. In an uncapped year, you see it will be more cost effective to keep the veteran.

Bottom line in a capped NFL, amortized bonus along with a spending limit makes players' salaries more bloated than they really are in real dollars and making older veterans far more expendable to maintain an overall salary budget under the NFL cap. In an uncapped world, teams only have to deal with real dollars which in many cases favors keeping the older veteran over cutting him and pay more to get a replacement.

 

[Synovia]

I
Take the Jarvis Green example you used, in pure salary cap terms his salary this year is $5 million. From a salary cap standpoint, it doesn't matter where the money is coming from (base salary, amortized bonus, etc.). That is the number the Pats have to deal with and make him work under the cap. Right now he accounts for roughly 4% of the cap (would be about 2-2.5% if there was no amoritized bonus) which is high for a back up. So if the Pats cut Green, his amortized bonus money would still be there but they would free up 1.5-2% of cap space. .

No, the bonus money that is being amortized is irrelevant. Its sunk cost. Whether or not Jarvis Green is worth 5M doesn't matter, because that 3M is already gone. They can't save it. The question is whether he is worth 1.5-2% (2m) of the cap. The 3M is gone, and theres nothing they can do to get it back. Its irrelevant.

 

[Rob0729]

No, the bonus money that is being amortized is irrelevant. Its sunk cost. Whether or not Jarvis Green is worth 5M doesn't matter, because that 3M is already gone. They can't save it. The question is whether he is worth 1.5-2% (2m) of the cap. The 3M is gone, and theres nothing they can do to get it back. Its irrelevant.

First off, Green is only one situation. Many times a veteran is cut because he has multiple years left on his deal and the dead money can be split over two years sometimes even lowering that number in the current year because teams can push more of the dead money into the second year than the first.

Second, amortized bonus is very relevant in a capped world vs. an uncapped world. Next year, no one is going to be cut because he eats too much cap space if there is no cap. No team is going to say that they aren't going to say they can't spend because they would go over the cap because of amortized bonuses, but eventhough it is irrelevant it is irresponsible to spend over the non-existent cap. It is a fact of the NFL cap that amortized bonuses reduces the amount teams can spend and eventhough they may spend $127 million or so of cap dollars, the number of real dollars could be far more or far less depending on how many bonuses they do or don't pay out in that year. Amortized bonuses are extremely relevant.

 

[Deus Irae]

First off, Green is only one situation. Many times a veteran is cut because he has multiple years left on his deal and the dead money can be split over two years sometimes even lowering that number in the current year because teams can push more of the dead money into the second year than the first.

Second, amortized bonus is very relevant in a capped world vs. an uncapped world. Next year, no one is going to be cut because he eats too much cap space if there is no cap. No team is going to say that they aren't going to say they can't spend because they would go over the cap because of amortized bonuses, but eventhough it is irrelevant it is irresponsible to spend over the non-existent cap. It is a fact of the NFL cap that amortized bonuses reduces the amount teams can spend and eventhough they may spend $127 million or so of cap dollars, the number of real dollars could be far more or far less depending on how many bonuses they do or don't pay out in that year. Amortized bonuses are extremely relevant.

Ok, but how does breast size play into all of this?

 

[Rob0729]

Ok, but how does breast size play into all of this?

I think it all has to do with padding and stuffing the bra. In a capped year, it means so much more than in an uncapped year.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

And I disagree. Seymour is Foundation Tackle. Those guys come along once a Decade, and make all those players around them better. They never get traded, and go directly to the Hall of Fame as soon as eligible. Sey should have been a probowler in 2008. The Merlin Olsens, Alan Pages, Bob Lillys, Mean Joe Greenes, and Dan Hamptons stay with their teams for their entire careers. And they get paid.

The only Foundation lineman that I know who walked was the Reverend Reggie Wright, at age 36.

Bill would cut half his team to keep his Defensive line.

And he certainly would not let a young 31 year old HOFer go. I just don't understand the posters here who are trying to run Seymour out of town.

Seymour's Canton bust isn't a given just yet...

There was a reason (or reasons...) they signed him to a 3 year $30M extension (that could be amortized over 4 years including that final rookie season after the 2005 in which he threatened a holdout with 2 years remaining on his rookie deal...). It was like leasing a Lexus. We haven't won it all since signing the lease, although with a year left the jury is still out.

Richard poses long range health and cost concerns. He's a player who doesn't play well hurt, and he's been hurt a lot since 2004. He's also a player who has lingering issues with the system vs. talent argument. Like Lawyer who mentored him as a rookie, he's been something of a stubborn koolaid sipper, not a guzzler like Brady. I think he (by example that is polar opposite to Brady) is the reason Branch and Asante couldn't be extended earlier. If he wants top 3 money on a long term deal, he's likely tagged and traded. They haven't hinted at an extension so he will be a UFA in 2010 and not the kind who willingly plays under a tag.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Seymour's Canton bust isn't a given just yet...

There was a reason (or reasons...) they signed him to a 3 year $30M extension (that could be amortized over 4 years including that final rookie season after the 2005 in which he threatened a holdout with 2 years remaining on his rookie deal...). It was like leasing a Lexus. We haven't won it all since signing the lease, although with a year left the jury is still out.

Richard poses long range health and cost concerns. He's a player who doesn't play well hurt, and he's been hurt a lot since 2004. He's also a player who has lingering issues with the system vs. talent argument. Like Lawyer who mentored him as a rookie, he's been something of a stubborn koolaid sipper, not a guzzler like Brady. I think he (by example that is polar opposite to Brady) is the reason Branch and Asante couldn't be extended earlier. If he wants top 3 money on a long term deal, he's likely tagged and traded. They haven't hinted at an extension so he will be a UFA in 2010 and not the kind who willingly plays under a tag.

I didn't know you were an eledtor for Canton... The teh rest is rumor and innuendo. Fact:he had a knee injury and arm injury in late 2006, yet played injured in 2007. Aand came back to make more sacks than anyone else on the team at 8.5, in 2008. He lead the team in pressures at 16, I believe. He commanded double teaming as always. In short the was a Probowl player once again. He also helped make Wilfork's game.

By the way, the enire DL only produced 4 sacks without him. If you substract him, then all the Pass rushing is on the OLBs. Are you ready to find two 15-20 sacks per year OLBs? Where? picking in the 20s or 30s? As for your assertion of Frequently injured? When?

In short, your speaking through your cloacal cavity.

 

[solman]

Nice article.

One year is not enough to change the balance of power, BUT, you can set yourself up nicely for a good run if you run things right.

I ask my self the following question:

Who, in the entire universe, is most capable of using a rich team and an uncapped year to gain a significant long term competitive advantage over his opponents?

Hands down its Bill Belichick.

And in 2010 he will be in charge of one of the richest franchises in football. He will have a huge number of UFAs, RFAs and other players who need a new deal (including one who is "very naive, almost like a child").

This is a very happy thought.



I don't think it is completely impossible that the possibility of an uncapped year factored into our current very large crop of FA's for 2010. BB would have had to understand that an early voiding of the contract was likely back in 2006, but there were a number of people who believed that at the time. However none of them would have been confident enough to actually act on that belief [except BB?].

 

[solman]

Second, amortized bonus is very relevant in a capped world vs. an uncapped world. Next year, no one is going to be cut because he eats too much cap space if there is no cap. No team is going to say that they aren't going to say they can't spend because they would go over the cap because of amortized bonuses, but eventhough it is irrelevant it is irresponsible to spend over the non-existent cap. It is a fact of the NFL cap that amortized bonuses reduces the amount teams can spend and eventhough they may spend $127 million or so of cap dollars, the number of real dollars could be far more or far less depending on how many bonuses they do or don't pay out in that year. Amortized bonuses are extremely relevant.

I am not sure whether you are writing things in a very hard to understand way or you just don't understand the salary cap. To be clear:

Amortized amounts that are scheduled to count against the cap in 2009 are completely irrelevant to 2009 decisions about the player personnel those amounts are associated with. Cut, trade or keep, that amount will count against our 2009 salary cap.

Amortized amounts that are scheduled to count against the cap in 2010 ARE relevant to 2009 personnel decisions. If 2010 remains an uncapped year, amortized amounts scheduled for that year effectively REDUCE the cap cost of keeping a player on the roster.

For example, Randy Moss has a 2009 salary cap hit of about $9.75M. His 2009 salary and bonus total roughly $5M. His 2010 amortized amount is $4.75M. If he is cut, the total cap savings for the Patriots would only be about $0.25M. The $4.75M in amortized compensation decreases the savings from cutting him by exactly that amount.

So even if the Patriots thought he was getting old and was only worth $3M of cap space, it would still be to their competitive advantage to keep him. $3M of on field production is better than $0.25M in cap space.

Bottom line: There is NO scenario under the current CBA in which a high amount of amortized compensation makes a player MORE likely to be cut than an identical player with an identical salary but no amortized compensation. There are many scenarios in which a high amount of amortized compensation makes a player LESS likely to be cut.


[Miguel, you have only partially adjusted your numbers to reflect Randy's recent restructuring. The columns labeled "Prorated Signing Bonus Amortization" and "2009 Cap Savings if Cut or Traded" appear to be off]

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I didn't know you were an eledtor for Canton... The teh rest is rumor and innuendo. Fact:he had a knee injury and arm injury in late 2006, yet played injured in 2007. Aand came back to make more sacks than anyone else on the team at 8.5, in 2008. He lead the team in pressures at 16, I believe. He commanded double teaming as always. In short the was a Probowl player once again. He also helped make Wilfork's game.

By the way, the enire DL only produced 4 sacks without him. If you substract him, then all the Pass rushing is on the OLBs. Are you ready to find two 15-20 sacks per year OLBs? Where? picking in the 20s or 30s? As for your assertion of Frequently injured? When?

In short, your speaking through your cloacal cavity.

That must be the same cavity you were projecting a $14.6M backup QB out of...

He'd been injured since 2004 (when he missed the last game of the season and the first two playoff games). Over his 8 year career he's missed just over a full season of games including 2 playoff games we managed to win anyway. I happen to think he wanted his deal extended before the reality that he was going to need surgery and miss more than half a season became reality. That's why he held out of camp in 2005. He's softspoken so it never got ugly but it had it's effect none the less including in the locker room. He missed 9 of the 18 games we went undefeated in during 2007. Despite his presence in 2008 the defense could not remotely compensate for Brady's or anyone elses absence.

I don't think any of that is lost on Bill. He loved Lawyer Milloy like a son, he was his first foundation player on defense in a league where safeties have become foundation franchise players. He cut him a year after winning the first Superbowl because he wasn't performing commensutate with his salary and he refused to take a paycut. I think if Seymour remains healthy and performs and is reasonable in his contract demands, he will retire a Patriot like Brady. Just not convinced we'll see the value trifecta from that player because that's not his history.

 

[Rob0729]

I am not sure whether you are writing things in a very hard to understand way or you just don't understand the salary cap. To be clear:

Amortized amounts that are scheduled to count against the cap in 2009 are completely irrelevant to 2009 decisions about the player personnel those amounts are associated with. Cut, trade or keep, that amount will count against our 2009 salary cap.

Amortized amounts that are scheduled to count against the cap in 2010 ARE relevant to 2009 personnel decisions. If 2010 remains an uncapped year, amortized amounts scheduled for that year effectively REDUCE the cap cost of keeping a player on the roster.

For example, Randy Moss has a 2009 salary cap hit of about $9.75M. His 2009 salary and bonus total roughly $5M. His 2010 amortized amount is $4.75M. If he is cut, the total cap savings for the Patriots would only be about $0.25M. The $4.75M in amortized compensation decreases the savings from cutting him by exactly that amount.

So even if the Patriots thought he was getting old and was only worth $3M of cap space, it would still be to their competitive advantage to keep him. $3M of on field production is better than $0.25M in cap space.

Bottom line: There is NO scenario under the current CBA in which a high amount of amortized compensation makes a player MORE likely to be cut than an identical player with an identical salary but no amortized compensation.There are many scenarios in which a high amount of amortized compensation makes a player LESS likely to be cut.


[Miguel, you have only partially adjusted your numbers to reflect Randy's recent restructuring. The columns labeled "Prorated Signing Bonus Amortization" and "2009 Cap Savings if Cut or Traded" appear to be off]

Bottom line: Amortized bonus money does effect the cap and therfore how teams decide on whether to cut or keep players. In an uncapped NFL, the amortized bonuses are irrelevant because teams only deal with real dollars for the current season. If a player has a cap hit of $5 million this year, it is still $5 million whether it is 100% salary or a salary/amortized bonus split and a teams have to weigh every player on whether their value is worth that cap hit. So yes, amortized bonuses plays a big factor in personal decisions.

Next year salaries will be determined on real dollars paid out. The real dollar cost to acquire a new player is sometimes much higher than keeping an existing player even if his cap number in that year is significantly lower. So the shift will become far greater in keeping a player like a Fred Taylor than paying far more real dollars in acquiring a similiar player. Taylor might not be the best example because of his age and how much longer he has left. But I bet Vrabel would be here right now if it wasn't for the cap considerations which included about $1 million of dead money.

Bottom line: There is NO scenario under the current CBA in which a high amount of amortized compensation makes a player MORE likely to be cut than an identical player with an identical salary but no amortized compensation.

I never once argued that amortized bonuses make one player more or less likely than another player because he has amortized bonus vs a guy with all salary. That is stupid. I am saying the player's overall cap hit is higher when you factor in the amortized bonus which would make him far more likely to get cut if a team didn't have a cap and that money was off the books all together in terms of real money. And that it may be more attractive to a team when all they have to deal with is real money of an uncapped NFL to keep that player rather than shell out more real money to a free agent of equal or lesser quality in bonuses.

Again, I understand that amortized bonuses do not come off the book when a player is cut and still count vs. the cap. Other than this year, it could be spread over two year with more money going to the second year for players with more than one year left on their contract. So it could affect the current year's amortized money if cut. I am not arguing any differently.

I am arguing that the amortized money makes every player with a bonus' cap number significantly higher than their base pay in that season which in the case for many older players or players who aren't living up to their contract and that makes them more expendable. In an uncapped year with only real dollars to deal with and no spending limit, these players may not be cut especially when you look at the acquistion costs of other players (signing bonuses are irrelevant in an uncapped world too).

 

[solman]

If a player has a cap hit of $5 million this year, it is still $5 million whether it is 100% salary or a salary/amortized bonus split and a teams have to weigh every player on whether their value is worth that cap hit. So yes, amortized bonuses plays a big factor in personal decisions.

This is flat out wrong.

Consider two players: A and B

Player A has a $5M cap hit, all of it salary.

Player B has a $5M cap hit; $2.5M in salary and $2.5M in amortized bonus.

Both contracts end after this season.

Q: If both players are playing equally at a $3M level which players if any get cut?

A:

Player A gets cut, because you don't pay $5M for a $3M performance. You cut him and use the $5M to sign free agents who are worth $5M.

Player B gets kept. If you cut him, you will only have $2.5M in extra cap space. You can't sign a better player with $2.5M.

So even though both players have the same cap cost and are playing at the same level, one is cut while the other is not.

 

[Rob0729]

This is flat out wrong.

Consider two players: A and B

Player A has a $5M cap hit, all of it salary.

Player B has a $5M cap hit; $2.5M in salary and $2.5M in amortized bonus.

Both contracts end after this season.

Q: If both players are playing equally at a $3M level which players if any get cut?

A:

Player A gets cut, because you don't pay $5M for a $3M performance. You cut him and use the $5M to sign free agents who are worth $5M.

Player B gets kept. If you cut him, you will only have $2.5M in extra cap space. You can't sign a better player with $2.5M.

So even though both players have the same cap cost and are playing at the same level, one is cut while the other is not.

Again, who is comparing players besides you. What I said is 100% correct. You are changing the argument.

What you don't get is I am saying teams judge players on individual basises and not comparing two player based on their cap dollars. When the Pats traded away Vrabel, they didn't sit there and compare him to Jarvis Green who had a similiar cap hits at least not as the overall deciding factor. They looked at Vrabel, his cap hit, cap savings, age, production level, etc. It was never a compare two players scenario.

Again, IF you have two players who are being considered cut and IF they played the same decision and IF they played at the same level and IF they had significantly different contracts, you would have a point. I am not even arguing what you are arguing. Never had, nor do I really care to. So you are right. Never actually said anything to disagree with you, but you won the argument with me that I was never actually a part of. Congrats.

But thanks for clearing up that if a player has a cap hit of $5 million and it is part amortized money and part salary it is really over $5 million. LOL! Apparently it is some kind of new math. Please don't tell me you are a math teacher.