Possible cap casualties in 2017

H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Releasing Crosby next offseason would result in $3.75 million of dead money counting against the cap and an additional $150K in cap hit compared to holding on to him.
Correct. I misspoke. Cutting him results in a $150k cap hit over what it costs to keep him. The point remains the same. If you want a free agent rookie kicker next year as you wanted this year, the additional cost to you is a scant $150k + the rookie minimum.

Players like big signing bonuses for two reasons. The first is obvious; it puts cash immediately in their pockets. The second reason, which may be more obvious to the agent than the player, is sizeable dead cap in subsequent years is protection against getting cut. A guy with large dead cap presents high net value. There's little future liability in these players, and they expect to be compensated for your risk aversion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Championships.
I agree. But you have to accept the subsequent dry spells that are likely to occur if you make that push.

Your management is more risk averse and prone to hedge bets. The thinking is stay the course, limit risks, and during a healthy season and with a couple of breaks, you can go all the way. In a way, it's like saying the difference between making the playoffs and winning a SB boils down to a margin of luck.

I believe that having a defense that alternately gets blown out or collapses when it's time to close out a game in the playoffs is not merely a matter of luck.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
I agree that the deal Daniels was signed to is a pretty moderate one.
I think it's a fair deal. "Moderate" is not a term I would use looking at it in isolation. In the context of "who else ya' got", it was good to lock him down at that pay level.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Correct. I misspoke. Cutting him results in a $150k cap hit over what it costs to keep him. The point remains the same. If you want a free agent rookie kicker next year as you wanted this year, the additional cost to you is a scant $150k + the rookie minimum.

It's no secret I wanted the Packers to go with a rookie kicker this offseason. Taking a look at Crosby's contract there's no reason to believe he's in any danger of getting released next year.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
It's no secret I wanted the Packers to go with a rookie kicker this offseason. Taking a look at Crosby's contract there's no reason to believe he's in any danger of getting released next year.
I agree there's no reason to think Crosby will not be back in 2017, based on what we know now, but there's little disincentive for the Packers to change their minds if the situation dictates as would be the case when the net cost of a replacement would be prohibitive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,080
Reaction score
7,896
Location
Madison, WI
One big name that I feel needs to be kept in the discussion when it comes to FA's is Julius Peppers. Some maybe aren't including him because they expect him to retire. Just from some of his comments, I not only think he will want to play at least another year after this season, but his game won't drop off that much this year. If that is the case, at what price do the Packers keep him? I suppose a lot of that will depend on the development of the guys behind him. I think he has added a whole lot to the Packer Defense and will miss him when he does hang it up, but I hope if that isn't after this season, the Packers and JP can figure out a way to keep him in GB until such time.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,080
Reaction score
7,896
Location
Madison, WI
In regards to Crosby, I don't expect him to, but if all of a sudden he sucks, no reason to keep him. The money is already spent. Plenty of dead cap money already on the books from guys who either aren't earning it or aren't even on the roster.

However, the structure of his contract sure is an incentive for the Packers to give him a lot of rope. So if he does have a mid season slump , I doubt anything would be done until next year, when he again would have to fight for his job.
 
OP
OP
A

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
In regards to Crosby, I don't expect him to, but if all of a sudden he sucks, no reason to keep him. The money is already spent. Plenty of dead cap money already on the books from guys who either aren't earning it or aren't even on the roster.

However, the structure of his contract sure is an incentive for the Packers to give him a lot of rope. So if he does have a mid season slump , I doubt anything would be done until next year, when he again would have to fight for his job.

Unfortunately that is another issue with making a big investment in a kicker, we will most likely not do that.

If we didn't move on from him after his dreadful 2012 I doubt we will do so even if he has another dud year after we've upped the ante.

Crosby's contract is not team-friendly the way it's structured at all.

In 2018 his cap number jumps to over $5M so there is a window there to move on but it would still be a move with a fair amount of dead money.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,080
Reaction score
7,896
Location
Madison, WI
Unfortunately that is another issue with making a big investment in a kicker, we will most likely not do that.

If we didn't move on from him after his dreadful 2012 I doubt we will do so even if he has another dud year after we've upped the ante.

Crosby's contract is not team-friendly the way it's structured at all.

In 2018 his cap number jumps to over $5M so there is a window there to move on but it would still be a move with a fair amount of dead money.

It's a big issue with any position that you end up paying top positional money for, not just kicker. How many teams have gotten stung by this principle at just the QB position alone? Has Cobb been worth what he got paid?

Hate to rehash the Crosby signing and I am not saying that Mason wasn't over-paid. Of course we could have signed an UDFA and saved a boat load of money, but at what cost in performance or games? What can one lost game potentially cost a team in the standings or in revenue? To me, if Crosby is responsible for winning just one extra game in a season, it was money well spent. Conversely, it could be said if he loses a game, it was money poorly spent. I think MM and TT were banking on the first scenario being more likely.

IMO his body of work over the last 3 years has been consistent enough, along with his age (not too old by Kicker standards), for the Packers to structure a deal in this way and not worry too much about the crap he went through in 2012 happening again. Could it happen again? Sure, but it can happen with any kicker. For some he may have been overpaid, but I don't see any indications that at the end of this contract, fans are going to look back and think his contract was a complete waste.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
One big name that I feel needs to be kept in the discussion when it comes to FA's is Julius Peppers. Some maybe aren't including him because they expect him to retire. Just from some of his comments, I not only think he will want to play at least another year after this season, but his game won't drop off that much this year. If that is the case, at what price do the Packers keep him? I suppose a lot of that will depend on the development of the guys behind him. I think he has added a whole lot to the Packer Defense and will miss him when he does hang it up, but I hope if that isn't after this season, the Packers and JP can figure out a way to keep him in GB until such time.
There are a lot of factors that come into play, so it's too early to call. I would not rule out Peppers coming back as some would have it.

While he'll be 37 in 2017, he hasn't shown any fall off in the last 2 years, and he fits the profile of some other Hall of Fame guys who were productive up to that age, Reggie White and Bruce Smith to name a couple.

He'll have to want to come back. It will have to be a 1 year deal for a relatively modest amount. And then there's that often unappreciated factor..."who else ya got?" We'll have to see if the rotational OLBs show enough this season to make Peppers expendable. Expecting to find an immediately productive 3-4 OLB in the 2017 draft from a low first round position who can step in and play 3 downs is asking a bit much.
 
OP
OP
A

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
It's a big issue with any position that you end up paying top positional money for, not just kicker. How many teams have gotten stung by this principle at just the QB position alone? Has Cobb been worth what he got paid?

Hate to rehash the Crosby signing and I am not saying that Mason wasn't over-paid. Of course we could have signed an UDFA and saved a boat load of money, but at what cost in performance or games? What can one lost game potentially cost a team in the standings or in revenue? To me, if Crosby is responsible for winning just one extra game in a season, it was money well spent. Conversely, it could be said if he loses a game, it was money poorly spent. I think MM and TT were banking on the first scenario being more likely.

IMO his body of work over the last 3 years has been consistent enough, along with his age (not too old by Kicker standards), for the Packers to structure a deal in this way and not worry too much about the crap he went through in 2012 happening again. Could it happen again? Sure, but it can happen with any kicker. For some he may have been overpaid, but I don't see any indications that at the end of this contract, fans are going to look back and think his contract was a complete waste.

Without diving too deep into the Crosby argument again, I'll just say 1)There's no real evidence that there was any more risk of losing a game because of not keeping Crosby than the opposite risk of losing a game because OF him (goes back to the clutch argument, which Crosby really isn't), and 2) 1 win in 4 years isn't worth $16.1M. Unless maybe it's a playoff game depending on what happens after that.

As far as Cobb goes it certainly looks like an overpay now but at the time it looked like a fair deal. I look for Cobb to (hopefully) rebound again now that he won't be the #1 option this year. If he falls behind on the depth chart, he could have a problem sticking around.
 

GreenBaySlacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
3,008
Reaction score
184
You've forgotten the accelerated cap hit again. Not 100% accurate for this purpose, but visit over the cap. See the dead-money column that would happen if a player were to be cut? That's pretty much the same cap hit the trade-away team has to eat.

So incredibly unlikely to happen.
........Even if another team picks up his contract? That just seems nuts.
 

mradtke66

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
522
Location
Madison, WI
........Even if another team picks up his contract? That just seems nuts.

It's the signing bonus. That money has been paid, it has nothing to do with the contract going forward. We've been over this before.

Simple math here. Let's say Cobb's contract was 4 years, 12 million dollars. 8 million signing bonus, 1 million per year.

On day one of that contract, Cobb gets 8 million, the bonus. That part of the transaction is done and completed. Cap rules let you spread the hit for that over the life of the contract, up to 5 years, iirc. The salary is paid out in 17 game checks per year (1 million / 17 = 58823.53). His cap hit would be 3 million per year: 2 million of bonus, 1 million in salary.

When you cut or trade a player, you have to reconcile the signing bonus, because again, it has already been paid. Done, zip. Transaction completed, just need to do the paper work. This is the concept of a cap hit or dead money. So, if we traded Cobb in our simplified example after year 1/before year 2, we would have an accelerated cap hit of 6 million. (3 years, 2 million per year.) The new team is only responsible for salary going forward. Ignoring vested vets having their base salary guaranteed if they on the roster week 1, technically the new team could cut or trade Cobb at any time any one be 58823.53 * the games he played. That's it.

It is my understanding that trading a player is worse in this regard. As you cannot do tricks like calling it a "Post June 1st" (or however that rule works, I always have to re-read it) cut to spread the accelerated cap hit over 2 seasons..
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
One big name that I feel needs to be kept in the discussion when it comes to FA's is Julius Peppers. Some maybe aren't including him because they expect him to retire. Just from some of his comments, I not only think he will want to play at least another year after this season, but his game won't drop off that much this year. If that is the case, at what price do the Packers keep him? I suppose a lot of that will depend on the development of the guys behind him. I think he has added a whole lot to the Packer Defense and will miss him when he does hang it up, but I hope if that isn't after this season, the Packers and JP can figure out a way to keep him in GB until such time.

The Packers limited cap space next offseason is the main reason I think Peppers won´t be back with the team in 2017. While it´s possible he wants to play another season after this one he would have to take a discount for Green Bay to be able to afford him.

Plenty of dead cap money already on the books from guys who either aren't earning it or aren't even on the roster.

The Packers currently have a total of only $739,957 dead money counting against the cap which is the fifth lowest number in the league.

It's a big issue with any position that you end up paying top positional money for, not just kicker.

While that´s true it´s way easier to adequately replace a kicker than most other positions on a football team.

Hate to rehash the Crosby signing and I am not saying that Mason wasn't over-paid. Of course we could have signed an UDFA and saved a boat load of money, but at what cost in performance or games? What can one lost game potentially cost a team in the standings or in revenue? To me, if Crosby is responsible for winning just one extra game in a season, it was money well spent. Conversely, it could be said if he loses a game, it was money poorly spent. I think MM and TT were banking on the first scenario being more likely.

IMO his body of work over the last 3 years has been consistent enough, along with his age (not too old by Kicker standards), for the Packers to structure a deal in this way and not worry too much about the crap he went through in 2012 happening again. Could it happen again? Sure, but it can happen with any kicker. For some he may have been overpaid, but I don't see any indications that at the end of this contract, fans are going to look back and think his contract was a complete waste.

A lot of posters have brought up a potential game winning or tying field goal as a reason to hold on to a veteran kicker. Unfortunately Crosby hasn´t been clutch in situations like that making only 6 of 11 kicks (54.5%) over his career with four of the successful ones coming from 31 yards or less.
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
6,428
Reaction score
1,499
........Even if another team picks up his contract? That just seems nuts.

You think that's bad? In hockey, you can't even prorate contracts, and you could be stuck with a guy's cap total for 5 or 6 years after he's not even playing for you anymore, even if his career is ended by injury. Happened to my Flyers with Chris Pronger.
The NHL should have a long talk with the NFL about how to have a cap.
 

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,467
Reaction score
599
Some of us old farts long for the days when (a) we could understand the magnitude of the numbers in the contracts and (b) nobody got paid if they didn't play.
 

jrock645

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
266
Reaction score
10
I think Bahktiari is as good as done in GB. This is his swan song, cause it sounds like he wants high end LT money and he is just nowhere even close to deserving it. Dude is a starter by default.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I think Bahktiari is as good as done in GB. This is his swan song, cause it sounds like he wants high end LT money and he is just nowhere even close to deserving it. Dude is a starter by default.

As long as Spriggs shows enough promise either during training camp and preseason or in limited action during the regular season I agree with that assessment.
 

jrock645

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
266
Reaction score
10
As long as Spriggs shows enough promise either during training camp and preseason or in limited action during the regular season I agree with that assessment.

Yep, that will be the key. Even if Spriggs doesn't get many opportunities to shine, I have a hard time seeing TT overpaying for Bahk.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Yep, that will be the key. Even if Spriggs doesn't get many opportunities to shine, I have a hard time seeing TT overpaying for Bahk.

While Thompson tends to overpay for the team´s own free agents the Packers won´t have a lot of cap space available next offseason. There´s no reason to re-sign Bakhtiari if Spriggs proves to be capable of starting at left tackle in 2017.
 

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,467
Reaction score
599
Lots of 'what if' questions, but specifically in this case, if they end up with Spriggs and Bulaga in '17, and one of them goes down, don't we end up with the same 'who's left that can play tackle?' problem we had this year?
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Lots of 'what if' questions, but specifically in this case, if they end up with Spriggs and Bulaga in '17, and one of them goes down, don't we end up with the same 'who's left that can play tackle?' problem we had this year?

The Packers drafted Kyle Murphy this year as well and if they decide to let Bakhtiari walk in free agency next offseason could still address the backup spots in 2017.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Some of us old farts long for the days when (a) we could understand the magnitude of the numbers in the contracts and (b) nobody got paid if they didn't play.
Well, I'm bordering on "old fart" status. You reset your thinking to the times we live in.

The NFL is now big time entertainment. Think of players like female movie actresses. Their shelf lives are short, and the top "players" get paid big time $ whether the film is a hit or a bomb. After the first bomb, the money drops precipitously.

Though not a football example, I took some interest in a Cleveland government official's comments in the "30 for 30" documentary "Believeland" regarding the affect of Lebron James' return. He asserted there was a $100 million in increased downtown economic activity in James' first season back in town.

Actually, the interplay of on-field performance and economics is hardly new, even if it's more frequent and obvious today. The original Yankee Stadium was, after all, "the house that Ruth built."
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top