Olin Speaks on LT

[The Cooler King]

Thinking cash doesn't matter is exactly the issue. Cash is ALL that matters. If cash hits a players account it's going to affect the cap (absent some very narrow circumstance such as the veteran exception). No, the cash isn't meaningful to the owners pocket, but if new cash is spent, it hits the cap, just a question sometimes of timing.

Yes its a hard cap, but between rollover functionality and ability to defer cap hits with relative ease, (over a 5 year period) , it's practically speaking almost never a concern. Of course there's always cost-benefits to weigh.

While not a perfect analogy, caring about dead cap is like being penny wise and dollar foolish. You're actually spending more resources to resolve a pretty small financial burden.

I'll go back to phrasing it like this: How much in dollar and cap terms is it worth to delay 6.5m of Trevathan's dead cap from 2022 to 2023. Its gonna hit either in 22 or 23 unless you want to extend him. It was money already paid and its already reduced your capacity to spend. How much extra cash and cap are you willing to spend for a one year delay on that?

You can take a step further and then ask what Trevathans contributions are worth. Maybe you think he's already worth 3.5M in which case the whole discussion is moot. Maybe you think he's worth 1M. But the final question is that Trevathans worth and the value of delaying a cap hit one year would need to meet/exceed 3.5M in value.

I'm personally putting value of the delay of the cap hit at zero. This one could be impacted by circumstances. But definitely for the Bears and the flexibility they have, it's worth zero to me. If I were the Packers with the same contract, the answer may well be different because they have a terribly complex cap situation. But those situations like the Packers are rare.

I'd also say Trevathan is basically worth replacement value at this stage. So call it 1M + 0M < 3.5M. Maybe there's some scenario where he outperforms the 3.5M, certainly valuing a player contains uncertainty. But there's probably also scenarios where he doesn't play and provides zero value in 2022. Easy call for me.

[Z Bear]

Trevathan is a bad person to do this analysis as his contract is basically fully guaranteed and there are three void years added to the back of his contract to lesson the already paid to him cap hits. If you cut him today he costs you $8.9M in 2022, if you cut him with a June 1st designation he costs you $6.125M in 2022 because of his stupid guarantees. If you keep him on the team it is a $5.9M cap hit in 2022. Because of this stupid contract he will cost you $6.5M in 2023, when he is not even on the team! So you can cut him today and cost $8.9M next year or let him play out and he will cost $12.4M split between 2022 and 2023. That is a way better way to look at it then saying you can overall save $3.5M by cutting him now.


Contract Notes:
$10M guaranteed (signing bonus + 2020 salary + 2021 salary)
2020-2022 Per Game 46-Man Active Bonus: $17,647 ($300,000, 9 LTBE in 2020)
2022 Roster Bonus: $500,000 (due the 3rd league day of 2022)
2021 Option Bonus: $3.625M (prior to 10th league day of 2021). If declined, 2021 base escalates to $6.625M, fully guaranteed
2022 Option Bonus: $3.625M (prior to the 10th league day of 2022). If declined 2022 base escalates to $6.125M, fully guaranteed.
2023-2025 years automatically void 5 days after 2022 league year Super Bowl

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/chicago-bea ... han-10009/

[The Cooler King]

No that is absolutely all the wrong way to look at it. Void years are pretty irrelevant. The only reason they'd be relevant at this point is if an extension was a possibility.

The guarantees on his deal are all paid out. Theres just the 6.5M left to amortize. The 3.5M is all unguaranteed and they can get out of it.
(edit actually there's 8.9 left to amortize, but 2.4 will hit in 2022 no matter what they do).

So the cost to amortize in 2023 instead of 2022 is 3.5M. Again, is the cost to delay that hit one year worth 3.5M? (less whatever value you think Trevathan may provide if kept in 2022).

[wab]

The cap/contract stuff is much to do about nothing. The Bears can find money for contracts if they need to. The cap situation isn't as dire as everyone seems to want to make it out to be.

[thunderspirit]

The cap/contract stuff is much to do about nothing. The Bears can find money for contracts if they need to. The cap situation isn't as dire as everyone seems to want to make it out to be.

This.

[wab]

The cap/contract stuff is much to do about nothing. The Bears can find money for contracts if they need to. The cap situation isn't as dire as everyone seems to want to make it out to be.

This.

Additionally, there's a significant amount of people on this board that think Pace is a clueless bumbling idiot that can't evaluate talent, throws away picks, and doles out terrible contracts. So what difference does it make if the Bears have 50 million in space or 150 million? If you don't trust the guy spending the money, they should be happy there's less money to spend.

[Z Bear]

The Bears are no where near a bad cap situation this year. Aside from the rookies with guaranteed contracts they can move on from just about anyone. I was just pointing out the fallacy that cutting DT will save the Bears cap room in 2022. The main take away on DT is it makes way more sense for the Bears to let him play out and eat the dead cap in 2023 (where they have way more room than 2022) than it does cutting him now and eating $3M more of cap room this year. Matter of fact I think DT would be the highest cap loss if cut on the team.

[The Cooler King]

The Bears are no where near a bad cap situation this year. Aside from the rookies with guaranteed contracts they can move on from just about anyone. I was just pointing out the fallacy that cutting DT will save the Bears cap room in 2022. The main take away on DT is it makes way more sense for the Bears to let him play out and eat the dead cap in 2023 (where they have way more room than 2022) than it does cutting him now and eating $3M more of cap room this year. Matter of fact I think DT would be the highest cap loss if cut on the team.

Fwiw I'm usually very careful to not speak in annual terms, which I don't think I did.

Keeping Danny costs the Bears 3.5M. If you're focused on 2022 you miss the forest for the trees and hurt your teams' capacity to build within the confines of the cap.

[Z Bear]

Keeping Danny costs the Bears 3.5M. If you're focused on 2022 you miss the forest for the trees and hurt your teams' capacity to build within the confines of the cap.

That is severely misleading to people that do no understand the cap because that expense comes in 2023 but prevents the Bears from using $3M in 2022.

[The Cooler King]

Keeping Danny costs the Bears 3.5M. If you're focused on 2022 you miss the forest for the trees and hurt your teams' capacity to build within the confines of the cap.

That is severely misleading to people that do no understand the cap because that expense comes in 2023 but prevents the Bears from using $3M in 2022.

I mean in a very strict sense it reduces their 2022 capacity, but the capacity to spend is so broad, no it doesn't prevent them. Like there's no sensible world where the Bears cut Danny and are like "damn I wish I had that cap space" , because the capacity to "make room" is so large.

Now, spending 3.5m on Danny that they don't have to spend. That prevents them from spending 3.5M additional against the cap (long term).

So I'm trying to teach the cap the smart way, even if someone is a cap newbie.

[The Cooler King]

It's also me being pedantic. But 80% of the time "saving" and "cost" really means deferring and accelerating, and I try to use the latter terms as much as possible and use the other terms in quotes if it's not literal cash savings/cost. Because words have meanings.

Edit - these are also intentional choices made in response to a very common fan theme that people bitch about kicking the can and can't see that making decisions around dead cap is also that. I could make a cut move + restructure that are perfectly cap neutral in year 1 (offsetting) and people will complain about both the dead cap and the restructure even though when combined it saves cap in the long term. Then it's just a matter of tapping into the long term flexibility.

[dplank]

That is severely misleading to people that do no understand the cap because that expense comes in 2023 but prevents the Bears from using $3M in 2022.

I mean in a very strict sense it reduces their 2022 capacity, but the capacity to spend is so broad, no it doesn't prevent them. Like there's no sensible world where the Bears cut Danny and are like "damn I wish I had that cap space" , because the capacity to "make room" is so large.

Now, spending 3.5m on Danny that they don't have to spend. That prevents them from spending 3.5M additional against the cap (long term).

So I'm trying to teach the cap the smart way, even if someone is a cap newbie.

Question: How exactly could the Bears have kept Kyle Fuller this offseason without cutting a bunch of other key players? I follow everything you're saying but I think you are overstating a teams ability to make room in any given year.

[The Cooler King]

I mean in a very strict sense it reduces their 2022 capacity, but the capacity to spend is so broad, no it doesn't prevent them. Like there's no sensible world where the Bears cut Danny and are like "damn I wish I had that cap space" , because the capacity to "make room" is so large.

Now, spending 3.5m on Danny that they don't have to spend. That prevents them from spending 3.5M additional against the cap (long term).

So I'm trying to teach the cap the smart way, even if someone is a cap newbie.

Question: How exactly could the Bears have kept Kyle Fuller this offseason without cutting a bunch of other key players? I follow everything you're saying but I think you are overstating a teams ability to make room in any given year.

Broadly speaking they didn't empty out the restructure bin, which would be base salaries restructured as bonuses.

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/chicago-bears/
https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/baltimore-ravens/

Take a look at the "base salary" column (make sure you're filtered to 2021). Any vet salary with a base salary larger than like 1M is possible restructure money left on the table. See how the Ravens largest base salary is like 2M? The Bears have a handful of guys larger than that. Exact math aside, they had options along the way, including some of the new money they spent. And the 16M I quoted is the aggregate savings. In 2021 terms I think it was closer to like 10 theyd actually have had to free up.

Strategically the Bears aren't the Ravens. So I'm not advocating they should have taken that approach to be totally clear. Ravens all in approach makes good sense. Packers and a few other true contenders acted in the same manner. Now the Bears and almost every team had to do some of that restructure stuff due to the covid cap crunch, but certainly didn't exhaust it like a handful of clubs ended up doing.

[The Cooler King]

Just using OTCs built in cap calculator from above link, I could max out at about 21M in more room by:

Restructure with void years on Hicks

Basic restructure with no voids (or in the case of the guys who were new FA, more backloading)
Mack, Quinn, Goldman, Foles, Trevathan, Dalton, Ifedi, Blackson, Attaochu

If I maxed out further with max void years in those guys I could do a bit more. A guy like Dalton for example did a 3 year void, but they could have done a 5 year void to push more back.

Now for any void years the player has to agree. And there may be instances where players have incentive not to agree (Rodgers in GB for instance almost certainly did so when he restructured). But financially it's a good deal for players. With someone like Rodgers he would perhaps not agree because he's trying to force his way out and isn't keen on helping the team even if it doesn't financially hurt him.

That's again, obviously all extreme, but it's *possible* and relative to 2021 the Bears are much better off 2022 where I have zero concerns about Trevathan's dead cap acceleration getting in the way of what they're plans. They will be able to go much further just by the fact they're starting with more room.

[The Cooler King]

Oh and as another addendum, if you're concerned about cutting guys like Leno, my point could arguably be strengthened by the following anecdote.

Let's look in the way back machine and Bobby Massie. He was arguably a cut candidate in 2020. But he had that same big dead cap issue. So they held him a year and paid a 6.9 base salary in 2020. Now granted I'm working with some benefit of hindsight, but many wanted to cut him even at the time. And many more argued you shouldn't due to the dead cap hit. He played 8 games in 2020 and got hurt and provided very little value for that 6.9m (after only playing 10 the year before as well).

Had they cut him in 2020, that 6.9m is cash/cap for the Bears in 2021, where they cut Leno over about the same amount.

Cash out the door matters. Pay attention to dead cap at your own peril because the true cost of a mistake lurks beneath the surface.

[dplank]

Super interesting thx!

[The Cooler King]

Super interesting thx!

Just my own ramblings, lol. Hope it's appreciated by more.

It's basically all the difference between opportunity verse sunk costs, if those terms make any sense. Sunk costs are important to the extent that teams have to be cap compliant. But financial decisions should focus on opportunity costs.

This is also slightly counter-intuitive because when you find out Danny T's dead cap eats all the savings in 2022 it sure feels like an opportunity cost, but you still have to step back and look at the aggregate team salary and understand a single 6.5m decision is a pretty fungible asset to solve for. If there were 6-7 of those decisions or they were already 20M over the cap, maybe the discussion would change. Thats why I repeatedly asked what the value of delaying the 6.5 cap hit is worth. Maybe you can make an arguement its worth 3.5M, but I don't think anyone can make a convincing argument for that, certainly not the Bears. Not in 2022.

[dplank]

Follow up question lol: We redid Mack last year to make space. Is Mack now no longer an option for us to use to create space again?

[Bears Whiskey Nut]

This.

Additionally, there's a significant amount of people on this board that think Pace is a clueless bumbling idiot that can't evaluate talent, throws away picks, and doles out terrible contracts. So what difference does it make if the Bears have 50 million in space or 150 million? If you don't trust the guy spending the money, they should be happy there's less money to spend.

Careful WAB, you are straying waaay too close to a logical argument. That has no place on a fan forum.

[The Marshall Plan]

Additionally, there's a significant amount of people on this board that think Pace is a clueless bumbling idiot that can't evaluate talent, throws away picks, and doles out terrible contracts. So what difference does it make if the Bears have 50 million in space or 150 million? If you don't trust the guy spending the money, they should be happy there's less money to spend.

Careful WAB, you are straying waaay too close to a logical argument. That has no place on a fan forum.

But what if the GM actually IS a bumbling idiot?

[Moriarty]

Additionally, there's a significant amount of people on this board that think Pace is a clueless bumbling idiot that can't evaluate talent, throws away picks, and doles out terrible contracts. So what difference does it make if the Bears have 50 million in space or 150 million? If you don't trust the guy spending the money, they should be happy there's less money to spend.

Careful WAB, you are straying waaay too close to a logical argument. That has no place on a fan forum.

It's extreme hyperbole that doesn't have anything to do with a logical argument.

A good GM will accomplish more with 150M than 50M
A average GM will accomplish more with 150M than 50M
A bad GM will accomplish more with 150M than 50M

The only time it doesn't matter at all is if the GM never, ever gets anything for their money.
I doubt there's ever been such a GM. Even Phil Emery made at least one useful signing, I'm sure.

[o-pus #40 in B major]

Remember when Jerry Angelo's mistake cost the Bears a draft pick or maybe it was two? It might have been a compensatory pick deal.

The Bears lost the pick(s) because Jerry failed to sign an important form and the mistake was discovered too late to correct it. The deadline had passed and the league was apparently legally bound to deny the paperwork which resulted in the loss of one (or two?) draft picks. Mid-rounder(s) as I recall.

[Z Bear]

Angelo forgot to check a box on a draft day trade with Baltimore which resulted in giving Warrick Holdman away for free.

[o-pus #40 in B major]

Angelo forgot to check a box on a draft day trade with Baltimore which resulted in giving Warrick Holdman away for free.

Thanks for the clarification. Bears should have put him out to pasture then and there - I still feel that way.

[Moriarty]

Angelo forgot to check a box on a draft day trade with Baltimore which resulted in giving Warrick Holdman away for free.

Closer.

He missed the check box, lost the ability to retain Holdman cheaply, panicked, gave Holdman a big contract to spare the embarrassment of losing him over the mistake. Then, having spent big money on Holdman, he subsequently chose to let Colvin go in free agency, because they didn't want too much money tied up at LB. This was a stupendously bad idea, because Colvin rushed from the edge on passing downs and was far more valuable than Holdman.

[Burl]

That moron Angelo picked a bunch of borderline HOF talents like Briggs, Tillman, Hester, Olsen to name a few.
Has Pace taken anyone of that caliber? I guess maybe Roquan in 7 years.

[o-pus #40 in B major]

That moron Angelo picked a bunch of borderline HOF talents like Briggs, Tillman, Hester, Olsen to name a few.
Has Pace taken anyone of that caliber? I guess maybe Roquan in 7 years.

Roquan the only one?