Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="OldSchool101" data-source="post: 1090432" data-attributes="member: 10086">Good information.The only thing I would offer is to not use these figures as gospel. First of all several players have Roster bonus $ tied to their respective contracts. So the current cap futures change when the league year starts and those monies activate. I’m not positive those roster incentives are calculated in that post June figure you might know better than me, but I’m guessing not because they are not a factor until starting 2026 (March 2026 etc)Also in many cases the reason the Cap $ changes drastically post and pre June is because of, the obvious, it allows a removal of the 2026 Capital $$ hit. Many times it’s still there. Meaning you’re pushing $5,10,$15mil into 2027 (or beyond with void years) and it’s added to sunk $$.Now that said. I’m not saying not to. I’m also not saying it can’t be done because it obviously can be done. Yet often with larger disparity cap $$ seemingly “disappearing”, it’s really not disappearing as we’d still factoring Aaron’s cap hit spread across 2026-27 seasons (or beyond if there’s void years setup) So we pay it but it’s more similar to a 0% loan deferment, so it’s not free $$ if that makes sense.It’s a massive blow to next year but the reasons it can happen is because the Capital cost of funds (as a %) lowers as each league years goes by because of the effective of deflating % to the total capital $$ limits. Unless there is no league Cap increase in a given year.Now that said, there IS still a strategic advantage in having options in spreading $$ capital hits. This would be Particularly advantageous in a win now. So then we ask ourselves are we in a “win now”?? I think our signing Micah pretty much sums up that our financial officers were instructed by the Packers Brass that they feel we are in a win now environment. So regardless how I personally feel, it’s very apparent pushing $$ is on the table for the Packers Brass. Contracts like Banks’ contract is still an ugly financial move. As with many contracts the “contract out” gets easier with each passing year.I made this same mistake on Banks status mostly out of some disappointment and wanting to erase this mistake, but Poker reminded me of this push effect.  So I’ve changed my mind on Banks, I think we’ll keep him but mainly he’s pedestrian level and it would be a large financial loss and we’re really not guaranteed if we pay both him and his successor that the results will be that much better.</blockquote>

Verification

Members online

No members online now.

Total: 954 (members: 0, guests: 954)

Latest posts

Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
- Latest: DoURant
- Yesterday at 8:17 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
P
The Crew - 2026
- Latest: Pugger
- Yesterday at 4:38 PM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
- Latest: milani
- Yesterday at 3:46 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
- Latest: milani
- Yesterday at 3:44 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Valuation of NFL Teams
- Latest: milani
- Yesterday at 3:40 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum