Content Post CAP CRAP cheat sheet aka Dont go gently into FA

[Triumph]

What's that about not having a hole at TE? Jonnu's gone. They have to find his replacement now.

 

[Triumph]

In just waiting to Mak Jones to get BB fired. Bob Kraft is becoming increasingly less patient and critical of draftpicks and FAs.

BB is totally responsible for bringing that loser Jones to NE.

 

[mgteich]

What's that about not having a hole at TE? Jonnu's gone. They have to find his replacement now.

Yes, indeed. How much do you think that we will have to spend to get a TE that will match Smith's production (his "replacement")?

 

[archstanton543]

Yes, indeed. How much do you think that we will have to spend to get a TE that will match Smith's production (his "replacement")?

I don't know. Either they're going to have to draft a guy or pick one up in FA. If they draft a guy, that takes a pick away from another position that was more of a priority (like how trading Mason created a hole that needed to be filled). And the guy might need a year or two to develop.

If you pick a FA, sure it's just money but with you're spending a lot on one roster spot when you factor in Jonnu's dead money.

 

[mgteich]

I don't know. Either they're going to have to draft a guy or pick one up in FA. If they draft a guy, that takes a pick away from another position that was more of a priority (like how trading Mason created a hole that needed to be filled). And the guy might need a year or two to develop.

If you pick a FA, sure it's just money but with you're spending a lot on one roster spot when you factor in Jonnu's dead money.

My philosophy is that dead money is just that, dead and gone.

The question with regard to Smith was whether he was worth $10M of new money in 2023 to the patriots and another $11M in 2024. The answer was "no". The "dead money" was old money associated with his bonus, and the only question was when it would hit the cap. The $21M was a new investment by the patriots.

I would note that this was better than cutting Smith, since if he were cut the pats would owe an additional $6.25 million of guranteed 2023 salary.
==============
Folks talk about the small cap savings. The cap savings is $21M, part in the 2023 cap and part in the 2024 cap. I suppose it isn't quite that. If he is replaced by a draftee who costs $2M over the 2 years, the net savings is ONLY $19M.

I was being a bit snarky about replacing production. He didn't have much at all. A 3rd rounder or Sokol should be able to be our blocking TE and replace any production.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

This is the correct way to look at it. They have very little future money in the books and guys like Dugger and Onwenu won't be "break the bank" expensive to extend. If they are willing, the opportunity is there to sign pretty much whichever FA they want this offseason without compromising much of their finances. There's a happy medium between the way the Saints and the Patriots have approached the cap, I'll admit to getting a little antsy in terms of the overall talent level of the roster considering they have a starting QB making peanuts. If Mac allows you the flexibility to build a great roster around him, do it. Otherwise what's the point?

The point is that you keep the cap space in Y4 to Y6 of Mac (assuming he turns the corner in Y3) and then you can lock in a 5th year or spread Y5 and Y6 Mac dollars with an extension. Using up the cap space in "Mac years Y4 to Y6", that has been saved, for when Mac can lead you to a SB. No reason to blow your load in Y3 of Mac when he is still growing (or crashing).

 

[mgteich]

The point is that you keep the cap space in Y4 to Y6 of Mac (assuming he turns the corner in Y3) and then you can lock in a 5th year or spread Y5 and Y6 Mac dollars with an extension. Using up the cap space in "Mac years Y4 to Y6", that has been saved, for when Mac can lead you to a SB. No reason to blow your load in Y3 of Mac when he is still growing (or crashing).

There is no reason to expect an extension.

We have rights to him for 6 years, presuming that he improves next year. Lock in the 5th year, and franchise in the 6th. (and perhaps even in the 7th.

Of course, if Mac is willing to sign an extension after 3 years, before or after we pick up the option, then we can spread money across 4, 5, 6 and 7 and perhaps a void year.

 

[One-If-By-Sea]

Of course, if Mac is willing to sign an extension after 3 years, before or after we pick up the option, then we can spread money across 4, 5, 6 and 7 and perhaps a void year.

Yup and then the cap space in Y4 to Y6 looks great with Mac's leadership significantly improved over Y1 to Y3.

 

[RodThePat]

The point is that you keep the cap space in Y4 to Y6 of Mac (assuming he turns the corner in Y3) and then you can lock in a 5th year or spread Y5 and Y6 Mac dollars with an extension. Using up the cap space in "Mac years Y4 to Y6", that has been saved, for when Mac can lead you to a SB. No reason to blow your load in Y3 of Mac when he is still growing (or crashing).

What guarantee do you have that year 4 Mac will be significantly better than what he is now and ready to lead a contender? So now we're saving money for the eventuality that our QB makes a big jump a couple of years from now? And what if he doesn't? Then we draft another QB and save up that money for his year 4? No, just build the best team you can without completely screwing up the cap structure, but if you have to borrow a little from future years, do it.

 

[long distance]

Yup and then the cap space in Y4 to Y6 looks great with Mac's leadership significantly improved over Y1 to Y3.

This is beyond delusional.

If you want his leadership (and performance bc there is no leadership wo performance) to improve at all, you have to put him in position to succeed which means investment. The better team he will have around him, the more he will improve w leadership and performance (all young QB success story have this pattern its not rocket science, Hurts as lates example).
And vice versa. Save money, keep the offence that is the joke (literally) of the league, waste Mac and #15 pick, rinse, repeat - and enjoy the $ that means nothing unless spent.

I thought my OP would help get the picture how Cap works and how well Pats will be positioned going forward even if they are aggressive in this FA with FEW but HUGE NEEDS - but it was all in vain.

Enjoy the Cap : )

 

[UrbanCowboy]

We have a solid roster + we have lots of draft picks + we are in good financial shape = the sky is falling? I think we're in good shape.

 

[BaconGrundleCandy]

We have a solid roster + we have lots of draft picks + we are in good financial shape = the sky is falling? I think we're in good shape.

Good shape for 8-9 wins or a SB run?

 

[Bill Lee]

Perhaps relevant to this thread:

 

[long distance]

Perhaps relevant to this thread:

I wouldn't like to be the Saints . but even less the Cap Saint : )

 

[Urgent]

Just keep building that middle class and see where that approach gets you without an all-world QB. And the odds are you won't even get to find out if Mac has all-world QB potential if you keep surrounding him with middling players and asking him to just not turn the ball over.

I agree.

My view is that the Patriots have this rap about "not spending" when they have been tight against the cap under the entire Belichick regime.
We remember the Lawyer Milloy situation - the Patriots could not afford one of their key players because they were right against the cap - 20 years ago.

I think the "Pats are cheap" myth is driven by the focus on the middle class. I think Belichick really pushes the next-man-up strategy, expects unpredictable injuries, and wants better-than-average replacement players. So he has 'overpaid' for the middle class - in that he has three or four starting safeties, four or five starting defensive tackles, and so forth. At the expense of fewer elite players.
Brady made this work because he just took less than he could have at QB all those years - so they had an elite QB, the elite QB, at middle class cost.
And he always attracted a few late-career vets who were willing to take a below-market salary to compete for a Super Bowl. Now you see Buffalo and Kansas City playing that same move.

And the Patriots famously had a lot of really solid Nov-Dec-Jan records - partly because their replacements, wherever they were on the field, were a little better than their opponents' late season replacements.

But without an elite, low-cost QB, and without that player attracting high-end vets at middle-class salaries, the model doesn't work.

 

[UrbanCowboy]

Good shape for 8-9 wins or a SB run?

I think a Super Bowl run in the next three years is definitely in the cards. Last year was a step back, but that often happens in a rebuild (although not typically because a DC was put in the OC role -- that's a new one). Full disclosure -- I'm a homer!

 

[SlowGettingUp]

Perhaps relevant to this thread:

The Saints already have some $300m in spend in 2024 ($52m over the cap) plus $227m in spend in 2025. That's $525 million pushed off into the future. (Compared with about $150m for the Pats). Those Saints' bills will come due next year or the year after, and they will undoubtedly go through some years of cap hell.

 

[Vindicate]

Agree.

The issue is if looking at it in a vacuum is not having a using a lot of caps space, kicking the can to future cap years or having a big dead money number.

The issue is using a lot of caps space, kicking the can to future cap years or having a big dead money number on an older, underperforming player.

If Jonnu Smith was putting up even 2018 Gronk numbers no one would be complaining.

See, I appreciate what's going on here with your addition, and also Long Distance's breakdown of time.

So, with your post concluding on a note of personnel and how it relates to both the usage of and therefore the judgment cap space, our case comes down to some sort of combo of "personell on hand and time" when assessing how to use cap.

The question for me, there, becomes this: at what point does it makes sense to be more aggressive with cap? Surely you need to consider your upcoming years to understand how much space you really have.

But also, there has to be a personell package that validates aggressive spending. How does Mac Jones fit into this? Does Mac give you the confidence to spend a lot? Or do you spend a lot _because_ you don't trust Mac?

Getting a little heady here, but what I'm getting at, or asking, is how does your current personell inform how aggressive you should be with cap? Do you go aggressive to overcome bad players? Or do you become aggressive when you have the most confidence it will pay off?

 

[RobertWeathers]

See, I appreciate what's going on here with your addition, and also Long Distance's breakdown of time.

So, with your post concluding on a note of personnel and how it relates to both the usage of and therefore the judgment cap space, our case comes down to some sort of combo of "personell on hand and time" when assessing how to use cap.

The question for me, there, becomes this: at what point does it makes sense to be more aggressive with cap? Surely you need to consider your upcoming years to understand how much space you really have.

But also, there has to be a personell package that validates aggressive spending. How does Mac Jones fit into this? Does Mac give you the confidence to spend a lot? Or do you spend a lot _because_ you don't trust Mac?

Getting a little heady here, but what I'm getting at, or asking, is how does your current personell inform how aggressive you should be with cap? Do you go aggressive to overcome bad players? Or do you become aggressive when you have the most confidence it will pay off?

I think it's OK to be aggressive with young players who have put up very good/great production. There isn't a guarantee for future success but at least you know the player has performed at a high-level and if injured, they are young enough to have the ability to come back and perform at a high level during the term of the deal.

Smith was not that person. Mac is not that person.

On the current roster the only young players i'd consider giving (relatively) big money are Dugger and Onwenu. That's it.

Rham is close but running backs are tougher to project future success.

 

[RodThePat]

The Saints already have some $300m in spend in 2024 ($52m over the cap) plus $227m in spend in 2025. That's $525 million pushed off into the future. (Compared with about $150m for the Pats). Those Saints' bills will come due next year or the year after, and they will undoubtedly go through some years of cap hell.

They've been doing this for literally 10 years. Mickey Loomis became GM in 2013. When have they gone through cap hell?