2022 Salary Cap Outlook, v2 (PostPace)
Moderator: wab
- Moriarty
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6909
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
- Has thanked: 394 times
- Been thanked: 712 times
I know most people are wrapped up in the HC/GM search, but I'm more interested in the roster and overall direction.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15543&hilit=2022+cap
The earlier version of the conversation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, an updated look at the roster.
In this version, I've gone the simple/lazy route and not built in any trades or cuts (except Trevathan, because it's so obvious), just let all the free agents who aren't cheaper than ~2.5M to resign walk (Daniels, ARob, Ifedi, Peters, Dalton, Hicks, Nichols). Resigned some cheap/low demand free agents.
(I'll add or talk about a more aggressive version shortly, but this is a useful starting point for deciding approach)
And what does that leave us?
To be perfectly blunt - a total shit sandwich of a roster.
7 huge holes (at minimum, see below) and still only 8.5M in cap space to work with.
Now given that and some other key parameters - Fields going into year 2, new GM, HC, OC, DC, and systems - what is the sensible approach?
a) Spend really well and fix those 7 problems with your 8.5M
b) Start a brand new regime off by going all in and spending future money (restructuring, backloading, and such)
c) Fuck it and start building with an eye on 2023 or, more likely, 2024
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15543&hilit=2022+cap
The earlier version of the conversation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, an updated look at the roster.
In this version, I've gone the simple/lazy route and not built in any trades or cuts (except Trevathan, because it's so obvious), just let all the free agents who aren't cheaper than ~2.5M to resign walk (Daniels, ARob, Ifedi, Peters, Dalton, Hicks, Nichols). Resigned some cheap/low demand free agents.
(I'll add or talk about a more aggressive version shortly, but this is a useful starting point for deciding approach)
And what does that leave us?
To be perfectly blunt - a total shit sandwich of a roster.
7 huge holes (at minimum, see below) and still only 8.5M in cap space to work with.
Now given that and some other key parameters - Fields going into year 2, new GM, HC, OC, DC, and systems - what is the sensible approach?
a) Spend really well and fix those 7 problems with your 8.5M
b) Start a brand new regime off by going all in and spending future money (restructuring, backloading, and such)
c) Fuck it and start building with an eye on 2023 or, more likely, 2024
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
- Moriarty
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6909
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
- Has thanked: 394 times
- Been thanked: 712 times
Code: Select all
PLAYER POS. AGE EXPIRES 2022 CAP FIGURE
R2 CB 1,800,000 7,361,878 solid
Jaylon Johnson CB 23 2024 1,764,210
Artie Burns CB 26 2023 2,000,000
Kindle Vildor CB 25 2024 972,668
Thomas Graham CB 23 825,000
Eddie Goldman DL 28 2024 11,810,000 21,730,028 1 mediocre starter
Mario Edwards DL 28 2024 4,224,116 2 huge holes
Angelo Blackson DL 30 2023 3,000,000
whatever vet DL 1,000,000
R5 DL 850,000
Khyiris Tonga DL 26 2025 845,912
Roquan Smith ILB 25 2023 9,735,000 13,312,333 1 very good starter
Ogletree ILB 1,000,000 1 huge hole
R5 ILB 900,000
R6 ILB 850,000
Caleb Johnson ILB 24 2024 827,333
Cody Whitehair OL 30 2025 12,300,000 21,244,599 1 starter
Teven Jenkins OL 24 2025 1,906,329 3 young hopes
R3 OL 1,200,000 1 huge hole
whatever vet OL 1,000,000
whatever vet OL 1,000,000
whatever vet OL 1,000,000
Sam Mustipher OL 965,000
Alex Bars OL 965,000
Larry Borom OL 23 2025 908,270
Khalil Mack OLB 31 2025 30,150,000 51,363,918 strong
Robert Quinn OLB 32 2025 17,137,500
J Attaochu OLB 29 2023 3,100,000
Trevis Gipson OLB 25 2024 976,418
Nick Foles QB 33 2023 10,666,667 14,955,748 ok
Justin Fields QB 23 2026 4,289,081
Tarik Cohen RB 27 2024 5,750,000 8,209,222 solid
D Montgomery RB 25 2023 1,226,545
Khalil Herbert RB 24 2025 857,677
Damien Williams RB 30 2022 375,000
Eddie Jackson S 30 2025 15,090,000 20,090,000 1 mediocre starter
DHC S 2,000,000 1 huge hole
Teez Tabor S 1,000,000
Bush S 1,000,000
whatever vet S 1,000,000
Cairo Santos ST-K 31 2024 3,175,000 6,175,000 strong
Pat Scales ST-LS 1,000,000
O'Donnell ST-P 2,000,000
Jesse James TE 28 2,500,000 6,531,667 ok
Cole Kmet TE 23 2024 2,066,667
Jesper Horsted TE 965,000
Nall/Holtz TE/FB 1,000,000
Coulter WR 1,000,000 5,965,513 1 starter
Goodwin/Byrd WR 1,000,000 2 huge holes
Jakeem Grant WR 1,000,000
whatever vet WR 1,000,000
whatever vet WR 1,000,000
Darnell Mooney WR 25 2024 965,513
176,939,906 roster
24,533,424 dead
201,473,330 total
210,000,000 cap
8,526,670 room
Deadpool
PLAYER POS. AGE 2022 CAP
Danny Trevathan ILB 32 2023 8,925,000
Andy Dalton QB 35 5,000,000
Jimmy Graham TE 36 4,660,000
Charles Leno LT 31 2,788,000
Germain Ifedi OL 28 2022 1,500,000
Tashaun Gipson S 32 750,000
Jesse James TE 28 2022 487,500
Riley Ridley WR 26 170,649
Thomas Graham CB 23 98,031
Dazz Newsome WR 23 65,354
A Hambright T 26 49,554
Charles Snowden DE 24 10,000
Thomas Schaffer DT 6,667
S Harrington TE 25 6,667
Sam Kamara DT 25 4,667
Dareuan Parker G 24 3,334
D Archibong DT 3,334
Khalil McClain WR 23 2,000
C.J. Marable RB 25 2,000
Dionte Ruffin CB 667
Last edited by Moriarty on Thu Jan 13, 2022 11:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
- LacertineForest
- MVP
- Posts: 1677
- Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:39 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Has thanked: 1856 times
- Been thanked: 336 times
I think you've gotta be in full rebuild mode at this point. Trade whatever older players you can and gain as many draft assets as possible. Build a strong offensive and defensive line. Get some offensive-minded people in to develop JF and maybe sign a top-tier FA WR to help him out. But really, the team just needs to start drafting and developing their own talent as much as possible. It could turn around quickly, especially if JF can ascend, but I'm thinking it's going to be a couple of years before the Bears are playing for anything meaningful.
- Ditka’s dictaphone
- Head Coach
- Posts: 4048
- Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:33 pm
- Has thanked: 700 times
- Been thanked: 903 times
These are crucial questions for the GM interview in my opinion.
I’d want a GM who can correct the problems we have at the moment follows by a clear succession plan going forward for the organisation.
I’d want a GM who can correct the problems we have at the moment follows by a clear succession plan going forward for the organisation.
(26/09/2023) Winner of the inaugural
- Z Bear
- MVP
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:45 am
- Has thanked: 21 times
- Been thanked: 148 times
Why is cutting Trevathan obvious? He costs $5.9 if you play him or $8.9 million if you cut him. He was playing better until he got hurt again and you are creating a hole and less cap room by cutting him. This is not going to be popular; but trading Mack, Quinn, or Roquan makes more sense than cutting DT as you will actually gain cap space and be able to get a very high draft pick or two in return.
- The Cooler King
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5015
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
- Has thanked: 1220 times
- Been thanked: 348 times
I know this is a rehash from the other thread, but it's more accurate to say IMO.Z Bear wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 11:01 am Why is cutting Trevathan obvious? He costs $5.9 if you play him or $8.9 million if you cut him. He was playing better until he got hurt again and you are creating a hole and less cap room by cutting him. This is not going to be popular; but trading Mack, Quinn, or Roquan makes more sense than cutting DT as you will actually gain cap space and be able to get a very high draft pick or two in return.
You can take an additional 3.5M cap hit to delay Trevathan's 6.5M dead cap by one year, or save the 3.5M and take the hit now.
If you owed me $650 and I told you I'd take $350 today, but next year you still owe me the $650, most wouldnt take the deal. It's a really tough argument to make that the little bit of extra money today is worth that outlay, even if that 3.5M outlay is also relatively small in the grand scheme of things. (this analogy isnt perfect from a cash outlay, but is roughly illustrative).
Basically theres not a shortage of ways to accommodate a 6.5M cap acceleration. Gotta separate opportunity and sunk costs.
- Arkansasbear
- Head Coach
- Posts: 4952
- Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
- Has thanked: 478 times
- Been thanked: 698 times
I can see value in trading Mack and Quinn if you get a decent return. The fact that Quinn may never have as much value ever again makes him even more appealing. Since '23 or '24 are likely the goals to when we will be competing, those guys seem like better trades as they would likely bring little or no value at that point.Z Bear wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 11:01 am Why is cutting Trevathan obvious? He costs $5.9 if you play him or $8.9 million if you cut him. He was playing better until he got hurt again and you are creating a hole and less cap room by cutting him. This is not going to be popular; but trading Mack, Quinn, or Roquan makes more sense than cutting DT as you will actually gain cap space and be able to get a very high draft pick or two in return.
Smith is still young enough he can be a part of that and he has shown he is a leader on the defense (although I don't think he was ever given his one week to do do ). He's a guy I can see building around. Now I get the NFL has changes and he is not a premium position. I'm not saying he is not touchable, but he is a much harder sell for me.
- Moriarty
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6909
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
- Has thanked: 394 times
- Been thanked: 712 times
I didn't really see that. PFF has him at the same 45 rating, last year and this.
If I understand it right (his contract is a mess), you can either pay:
22: 5.9M + 23: 6.4M for him to play in 2022
or
22: 8.9M for him to go away now
2022 is going absolutely nowhere for this team. Better to eat 3.4M less overall and eat the costs in the least competitive year you can.
I absolutely agree that some anti-sentimental moves should be made - that's what I'm alluding to by the "aggressive version" of the roster.
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
- Z Bear
- MVP
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:45 am
- Has thanked: 21 times
- Been thanked: 148 times
Totally agree and I want Roquan a Bear for a long time, but you for sure could get a first round draft pick for him and he is an instant $9.7M savings with no dead money. In today's NFL paying $60M of your cap to LBs (Mack, Quinn, Roquan) reall doesn not make sense. My order or preferemce would be Quinn > Mack > Roquan, but moving Roquan is the best for the cap of the three and would net you probably the most in a trade due to his youth.
EDIT: Just want to say I would not be upset at all about cutting DT, but is it just not an obivous move with the cap situation.
EDIT: Just want to say I would not be upset at all about cutting DT, but is it just not an obivous move with the cap situation.
Last edited by Z Bear on Thu Jan 13, 2022 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
- wab
- Mod
- Posts: 29943
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
- Has thanked: 132 times
- Been thanked: 2033 times
If the new GM comes in and says "hey George, my first order of business is trading away the one young superstar you have on your team...well because cap stuff...and trade him for a pick that I'll use later, assuming I'm still employed here. How's that sound?"
People would lose their shit.
This obsession over the cap is weird.
People would lose their shit.
This obsession over the cap is weird.
- Z Bear
- MVP
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:45 am
- Has thanked: 21 times
- Been thanked: 148 times
Your cap room is the best way to judge the talent you can acquire. The Bears really need to bring in talent on offense, especially at WR which is an expensive position. The Bears are not in a bad situation this year but there needs to be an adjustment from the money spent on defense to offense so the O can get more talented.
- wab
- Mod
- Posts: 29943
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
- Has thanked: 132 times
- Been thanked: 2033 times
I mean weird in the context of it doesn't "really" matter. The Bears will find money if they need to find money.
Hand-wringing over the cap is probably a better way to put it. I don't understand the thought process behind "we gotta have 90 million in cap space!"
- Moriarty
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6909
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
- Has thanked: 394 times
- Been thanked: 712 times
???
You've completely lost me on this.
Are you imagining Roquan being traded for a pick in 2026 or later?
That doesn't make any sense.
Pace was fighting for his job in 2021. He couldn't find the money for a better CB than Desmond Trufant (1M). He couldn't find the money to keep Leno, in case Jenkins was broken. He couldn't find the money for a 2nd ILB. Etc.
If teams could find money whenever they wanted it, player salaries would skyrocket without end, because difference makers are in very limited supply. Bidding would go up like crazy, because you can always find the money you need.
It's just not true. The cap is limiting. Resource is finite.
There is some squishiness with regard to pushing costs forward, but that still doesn't allow you to do anything and get everyone.
If there's a handful of players on your team you're committed to keeping, then yes, you can always find a way to keep those couple of players. But the cost of doing so is real and it hurts your team if you pay more than their worth, just to keep them, and sometimes you're better off not paying whatever it takes to keep them. See Khalil Mack, for example, as a player who's now more burden than benefit, because they found a way to pay him.
Last edited by Moriarty on Thu Jan 13, 2022 12:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
- Ditka’s dictaphone
- Head Coach
- Posts: 4048
- Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:33 pm
- Has thanked: 700 times
- Been thanked: 903 times
It’s good to have these problems as it will take an exceptional GM to figure them out and any shysters will be instantly exposed at interview.
(26/09/2023) Winner of the inaugural
- Grizzled
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5658
- Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
- Has thanked: 640 times
- Been thanked: 515 times
Will the Bears play the NE style and get rid of guys before they demand huge extensions? Roquan has another year before a decision has to be made; he’d bring a high draft pick. I don’t think Mack would bring a first anymore, don’t know about Quinn’s value after his great year. Try to re-sign Daniels but let him go if he gets a big offer from elsewhere. Lots of holes and few picks so trades would be the only way to rebuild.
[Where are my old Chicago Bears and what have you done with them, Ryan Poles?
- The Cooler King
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5015
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
- Has thanked: 1220 times
- Been thanked: 348 times
Paying big money for an ILB is a tough proposition, but if they wait a couple years and didn't extend him they'll probably have like a 80M+ hole they NEED to spend and very likely no one as good as Roquan to spend it on.
Perfect can't get in the way of good. The idea isn't the be the most cap efficient team, it's to be the team with the best talent. Cap efficiency can help make that possible, but only to a point. This isn't a team projected to be busting out the seems with extensions anytime soon. Let's lock up Roquan and make sure the next DC maximizes his value.
Perfect can't get in the way of good. The idea isn't the be the most cap efficient team, it's to be the team with the best talent. Cap efficiency can help make that possible, but only to a point. This isn't a team projected to be busting out the seems with extensions anytime soon. Let's lock up Roquan and make sure the next DC maximizes his value.
- The Cooler King
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5015
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
- Has thanked: 1220 times
- Been thanked: 348 times
Yep the only real benefactors to those big cap space years is the owners pocket books. There is a point of diminishing returns on either spectrum and the Bears aren't in either spectrum.wab wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 11:56 amI mean weird in the context of it doesn't "really" matter. The Bears will find money if they need to find money.
Hand-wringing over the cap is probably a better way to put it. I don't understand the thought process behind "we gotta have 90 million in cap space!"
- mmmc_35
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6118
- Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:25 am
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 99 times
In responding to both of you, I guess I dont see it that way. I think I understand your logic.The Cooler King wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 1:21 pmYep the only real benefactors to those big cap space years is the owners pocket books. There is a point of diminishing returns on either spectrum and the Bears aren't in either spectrum.wab wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 11:56 am
I mean weird in the context of it doesn't "really" matter. The Bears will find money if they need to find money.
Hand-wringing over the cap is probably a better way to put it. I don't understand the thought process behind "we gotta have 90 million in cap space!"
I think i would analogize your views as, "If you need food you will find a way wether it skip a bill or eat cheap ramen."
The other side of the coin is, "let's not get cable, so we can order lobster ".
If this was a successful team with a lot of talent I would understand in having to eat ramen weekly, but this team is not successful. Having cap difficulties and a losing team isnt ideal. Luckily nfl contracts generally work in 2 year windows allowing teams to offload fiscal burdens.
- The Cooler King
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5015
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
- Has thanked: 1220 times
- Been thanked: 348 times
I mean the two year window is a component as well as the 90% cash requirement (over 4 year periods) . The teams with consistent big cap space tend to just be owners meeting the 90% cash requirement and pocketing the rest.
Go be the team spending 110% of the cap (I don't know what an actual number would be) and using deferrals to get there. It's a competitive advantage to be the cap taker and not the cap giver (the cap will get realloacted league wide to make sure the NFLPA revenue share is met).
As far as the Bears specifically, team situation of course has some bearing, but I think the diminishing returns are real. Take a long term outlook and then try and normalize your spending as much as possible, IMO. I had run a calc and posted in another thread but the Bears very conservatively figure to have about 50% of their cap spending capability over the next 3 year window. I'd suggest normalizing that cash spend across the 3 years (and basically continually reevaluate each year, keeping that long term view) . No real benefit in starving today and so you can binge tomorrow.
I guess if you really feel they're in a tank position you could argue to wait for the binge, but with potential franchise QB already in hand I 100% believe they can't have that attitude. The moment is continued incrimemtal improvement.
Go be the team spending 110% of the cap (I don't know what an actual number would be) and using deferrals to get there. It's a competitive advantage to be the cap taker and not the cap giver (the cap will get realloacted league wide to make sure the NFLPA revenue share is met).
As far as the Bears specifically, team situation of course has some bearing, but I think the diminishing returns are real. Take a long term outlook and then try and normalize your spending as much as possible, IMO. I had run a calc and posted in another thread but the Bears very conservatively figure to have about 50% of their cap spending capability over the next 3 year window. I'd suggest normalizing that cash spend across the 3 years (and basically continually reevaluate each year, keeping that long term view) . No real benefit in starving today and so you can binge tomorrow.
I guess if you really feel they're in a tank position you could argue to wait for the binge, but with potential franchise QB already in hand I 100% believe they can't have that attitude. The moment is continued incrimemtal improvement.
- The Cooler King
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5015
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
- Has thanked: 1220 times
- Been thanked: 348 times
Being on year 2 of a 1st round QB matters too. A team like the Cardinals for example (who have pretty broadly a similar cap situation as Bears) know they have a QB contract looming. Little specifics like that matter. Even using the long term 3 year outlook I'm using Fields contract falls out of view. Closer I get to that date and the more I know about Fields development the more I can revise my outlook and adjust my agressiveness or plan to keep my powder clear.
- crueltyabc
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5136
- Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 7:36 pm
- Location: Dallas TX
- Has thanked: 81 times
- Been thanked: 235 times
I think you can only reasonably shore up one side of the ball and it makes the most sense to build a good offense for Fields to grow in. They need to get younger on defense anyway so let's start now and backfill the defense with draft picks (I see you've mostly done this Moriarty). I additionally would waive Eddie Goldman and probably Tarik Cohen unless the new OC really wants to throw to RBs every play. I spend on WR and OL. If I can trade Mack or Quinn and turn that quality into quantity on D I do that and I hope the young defenders contribute early.
xyt in the discord chats
- Moriarty
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6909
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
- Has thanked: 394 times
- Been thanked: 712 times
DisagreeThe Cooler King wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 1:19 pm The idea isn't the be the most cap efficient team, it's to be the team with the best talent. Cap efficiency can help make that possible, but only to a point.
While the first part is technically true, you're almost never becoming the team with the best talent without excelling at efficiency. And efficiency is what you need to drive most of your decisions off of.
Sure, if one team spends 210M and another spends 150M, the 150 team can be more efficient and still have less talent.
But most teams aren't spending way short of the cap. Your competition should be and is the other teams who are also spending. With that pretty trivial caveat (and a couple other minor ones), after that, it's mostly a game of who can spend the smartest.
For a highly exaggerated & simplified example:
Let's suppose your team's C retired and all you have is a cheap 2nd yr backup, who isn't starter material.
There's 2 FA choices: a slightly below average veteran starter who can be had for 2M or an average starter who is going to cost 20M.
Who do you take?
If you think in terms of "who's the most cap efficient", you'll take the 1st one
If you think in terms of "who improves my team talent more right now", you'll take the 2nd one
Which one is correct?
Everything is circumstantial, but 95+% of the time, the correct answer is going to be the first one.
The average guy makes your team better at that moment, but the extra cost makes your team worse in the bigger picture.
The choice isn't really "A or B?", it's "A + 18M on something else or B?"
(not to mention B will count against your comp picks and A won't, which is another form of resource efficiency you need to consider and 'win' at)
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
- The Cooler King
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5015
- Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 11:07 pm
- Has thanked: 1220 times
- Been thanked: 348 times
I honestly don't know how to respond to a hypothetical where slightly below average to average is 10x cost driver.
So I guess I won't.
So I guess I won't.
- dplank
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 12196
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
- Has thanked: 1254 times
- Been thanked: 2235 times
This right here. I keep reading your posts Cooler and you know I respect you and your knowledge in this area, but this truth right here just keeps surfacing and I can't get past it. I know you said that Pace could've pushed a few more contacts out to accommodate Fuller, but there is a limit to that and each time you do it you take that option away going forward and continue to build up 'bad debt'. I mean, I remember some of you guys warning us ahead of the last FA cycle not to get our hopes up because we couldn't afford any of the top players. That was real, and you were right - to now hear from some of the same voices that we shouldn't be overly concerned with cap management just doesn't make any sense to me at all. And before you point to the unexpected cap drop due to Covid, I'd point out that other teams managed to keep key players and sign high priced free agents - just not us. It matters, clearly it matters as we just saw it's impact during our last free agency cycle - we signed a bunch of low cost bottom feeders while cutting our LT and CB1 just so we could make the cap. And now, looking forward to this cycle, we appear to be in a very similar position - we have a MASSIVE need for a WR1, Adams will likely be available, but we can't afford to go after him.Moriarty wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 12:12 pm
Pace was fighting for his job in 2021. He couldn't find the money for a better CB than Desmond Trufant (1M). He couldn't find the money to keep Leno, in case Jenkins was broken. He couldn't find the money for a 2nd ILB. Etc.
If teams could find money whenever they wanted it, player salaries would skyrocket without end, because difference makers are in very limited supply. Bidding would go up like crazy, because you can always find the money you need.
It's just not true. The cap is limiting. Resource is finite.
There is some squishiness with regard to pushing costs forward, but that still doesn't allow you to do anything and get everyone.
If there's a handful of players on your team you're committed to keeping, then yes, you can always find a way to keep those couple of players. But the cost of doing so is real and it hurts your team if you pay more than their worth, just to keep them, and sometimes you're better off not paying whatever it takes to keep them. See Khalil Mack, for example, as a player who's now more burden than benefit, because they found a way to pay him.
- Z Bear
- MVP
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:45 am
- Has thanked: 21 times
- Been thanked: 148 times
The Bears absolutely can go after Devante Adams, they are not in that bad of a cap position. You can give Adams a 5 yr $25M per contract but only have it cost $10-15M against next years cap very easily. There are only a few players that have negative cap hits if cut or traded, so there is a ton of flexibility this offseason. Plus....the new regular TV and Sunday Ticket money is hitting in the next 3 years and the cap will go WAY up.
- dplank
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 12196
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
- Has thanked: 1254 times
- Been thanked: 2235 times
Can we still field a full 53? Or will we have the Golden Girls out there pass blocking?Z Bear wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 3:50 pm The Bears absolutely can go after Devante Adams, they are not in that bad of a cap position. You can give Adams a 5 yr $25M per contract but only have it cost $10-15M against next years cap very easily. There are only a few players that have negative cap hits if cut or traded, so there is a ton of flexibility this offseason. Plus....the new regular TV and Sunday Ticket money is hitting in the next 3 years and the cap will go WAY up.
- Moriarty
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6909
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
- Has thanked: 394 times
- Been thanked: 712 times
Like I said, it's a silly exaggeration to prove a point. Most decisions aren't this clear-cut, or there'd be no arguing and no need for intelligent GMs. But it illustrates the underlying principles.The Cooler King wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 3:35 pm I honestly don't know how to respond to a hypothetical where slightly below average to average is 10x cost driver.
So I guess I won't.
The bottom line is:
- Player B is better than A, but not by a lot
- Player B costs more than A, by a lot
- Player A is a good value contract
- Player B is a really bad value contract
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.