salary cap hell, huh?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    It seems this post has turned into a post filled with confusion. 

    The issue is salary cap hell, and can the teams in supposed salary cap hell sign free agents.

    the issue is not if the GM of said teams is making the correct signings. The issue also is not whether aging, past their prime highly paid vets should be replaced with younger, less expensive players. (Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, Michael Oher, we are looking at all of you, and Ray Rice, maybe you too) 

    If the Ravens make the playoffs this year, does this all become a moot point? If Flacco does a Brady, and restructures his contract freeing up gobs of cap space, does this become a moot point? 

    It seems to me that the Ravens depth chart posted on this thread is a reflection of bad drafting. 

    In seems like such an easy concept. With 98% of all contracts in the NFL back loaded into a players aging years, and with no guaranteed base salary in the NFL, moving salary off the roster is an easy exercise (sentiments aside) 



    Oher is in his prime, he's 27, not 34. Why's he mentioned? Salary cap issues cause you to lose players like Oher and Monroe and Arthur Jones and Dickson, vital young veteran players you'd prefer to keep. As with the Pats and Talib and Edelman. In a non-capped world, those guys would all be retained. As would Red Bryant and Sidney Rice in Seattle.

    When you are faced with possibly having to replace your LT and your RT with rookies or lower level FAs, because of the salary cap, is that a good place to be? Maybe it won't come to that and they'll release this other guy and restructure that guy. But to deny that the cap is a major issue and that some teams don't do it as well as others is just wrong.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    Oh, Thanks guys, I finally get it.

    So when the Pats extend guys or don't re-up guys or or let FA's hit the market, or trade guys or sign others "value" discards, due to cap hits, it's called due diligence or doing their "home work" or more commonly  "BB in the weeds" but when other teams do it, it's called "CAP HELL".Wink

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    Oh, Thanks guys, I finally get it.

    So when the Pats extend guys or don't re-up guys or or let FA's hit the market, or trade guys or sign others discards, due to cap hits, it's called due diligence or doing their "home work" or more commonly  "BB in the weeds" but when other teams do it, it's called "CAP HELL".Wink



    Did anybody say the Pats were immune to the salary cap, because I haven't read that anywhere? Please point to it. 

    Name a guy in his prime that the Pats would like to have kept and who walked because of the cap? Only ones that come to mind are Branch and Samuel and in each of those cases, there was a major disagreement as to the player's value. 

    If you lose your LT, your RT and a valued DT in the same year because you don't have cap room (not because of perceived value), that's a big setback.  It's not a value issue, it's just not managing resources. They'll make due, but it's not good business no matter how you spin it.

    I can't think of a comparable situation with the Pats, but maybe my memory is failing...

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    Oh, Thanks guys, I finally get it.

    So when the Pats extend guys or don't re-up guys or or let FA's hit the market, or trade guys or sign others discards, due to cap hits, it's called due diligence or doing their "home work" or more commonly  "BB in the weeds" but when other teams do it, it's called "CAP HELL".Wink



    Did anybody say the Pats were immune to the salary cap, because I haven't read that anywhere? Please point to it. 

    Name a guy in his prime that the Pats would like to have kept and who walked because of the cap? Only ones that come to mind are Branch and Samuel and in each of those cases, there was a major disagreement as to the player's value. 

    If you lose your LT, your RT and a valued DT in the same year because you don't have cap room (not because of perceived value), that's a big setback.  It's not a value issue, it's just not managing resources. They'll make due, but it's not good business no matter how you spin it.

    I can't think of a comparable situation with the Pats, but maybe my memory is failing...



    You know, the more logically you speak, the more confused they get...

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    Oh, Thanks guys, I finally get it.

    So when the Pats extend guys or don't re-up guys or or let FA's hit the market, or trade guys or sign others discards, due to cap hits, it's called due diligence or doing their "home work" or more commonly  "BB in the weeds" but when other teams do it, it's called "CAP HELL".Wink



    Did anybody say the Pats were immune to the salary cap, because I haven't read that anywhere? Please point to it. 

    Name a guy in his prime that the Pats would like to have kept and who walked because of the cap? Only ones that come to mind are Branch and Samuel and in each of those cases, there was a major disagreement as to the player's value. 

    If you lose your LT, your RT and a valued DT in the same year because you don't have cap room (not because of perceived value), that's a big setback.  It's not a value issue, it's just not managing resources. They'll make due, but it's not good business no matter how you spin it.

    I can't think of a comparable situation with the Pats, but maybe my memory is failing...




    So when the Pats lose guys like Branch, Samuels, Seymore, Welker and maybe Edelman and Talib it's due to "Value issues" and is not cap related?  Hmmm

    Wonder how much it cost to replace those guys that have never really been replaced with talent?

    How about losing 90% of your receivers in one year?  Is that not a problem?

    Wouldn't replacing talent like Branch, Moss, Welker over a period of time, be a better option?  Signing guys like Jackson, Price, Galloway, Ocho and Lloyd to replace those guys putting them in cap hell with dead money is not an issue?

    How about the 20 DBs they drafted and the FA pick ups  who were never good enough and also caused DM, putting them in cap hell?

    Or the Pass rushers since they lost what they had prior to 2007 who were replaced with junk?

    Regardless of the reason,  which some choose to ignore, it all comes down to bad contracts, ending with the same results unless you think 3 contracts for your QB in 4 years, to create additional cap and relieving dead money, is a good thing.

    I'm still trying to figure out where the 20M in cap they had last year, went.

    Oh yea, more dead money, to be determined......

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    Oh, Thanks guys, I finally get it.

    So when the Pats extend guys or don't re-up guys or or let FA's hit the market, or trade guys or sign others "value" discards, due to cap hits, it's called due diligence or doing their "home work" or more commonly  "BB in the weeds" but when other teams do it, it's called "CAP HELL".Wink




    You forgot "low risk, high reward"

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MileHighMike. Show MileHighMike's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    Oh, Thanks guys, I finally get it.

    So when the Pats extend guys or don't re-up guys or or let FA's hit the market, or trade guys or sign others "value" discards, due to cap hits, it's called due diligence or doing their "home work" or more commonly  "BB in the weeds" but when other teams do it, it's called "CAP HELL".Wink



    Yes, that's exactly it.  Why is that so hard to understand, Bustchise?

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MileHighMike. Show MileHighMike's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    Oh, Thanks guys, I finally get it.

    So when the Pats extend guys or don't re-up guys or or let FA's hit the market, or trade guys or sign others discards, due to cap hits, it's called due diligence or doing their "home work" or more commonly  "BB in the weeds" but when other teams do it, it's called "CAP HELL".Wink



    Did anybody say the Pats were immune to the salary cap, because I haven't read that anywhere? Please point to it. 

    Name a guy in his prime that the Pats would like to have kept and who walked because of the cap? Only ones that come to mind are Branch and Samuel and in each of those cases, there was a major disagreement as to the player's value. 

    If you lose your LT, your RT and a valued DT in the same year because you don't have cap room (not because of perceived value), that's a big setback.  It's not a value issue, it's just not managing resources. They'll make due, but it's not good business no matter how you spin it.

    I can't think of a comparable situation with the Pats, but maybe my memory is failing...

     

    Here you go:

    In response to Queenie's comment:

    BB is the best GM that the NFL has ever seen in the cap era and he is immune to cap hell and is very handsome.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MileHighMike. Show MileHighMike's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    Oh, Thanks guys, I finally get it.

    So when the Pats extend guys or don't re-up guys or or let FA's hit the market, or trade guys or sign others discards, due to cap hits, it's called due diligence or doing their "home work" or more commonly  "BB in the weeds" but when other teams do it, it's called "CAP HELL".Wink



    Did anybody say the Pats were immune to the salary cap, because I haven't read that anywhere? Please point to it. 

    Name a guy in his prime that the Pats would like to have kept and who walked because of the cap? Only ones that come to mind are Branch and Samuel and in each of those cases, there was a major disagreement as to the player's value. 

    If you lose your LT, your RT and a valued DT in the same year because you don't have cap room (not because of perceived value), that's a big setback.  It's not a value issue, it's just not managing resources. They'll make due, but it's not good business no matter how you spin it.

    I can't think of a comparable situation with the Pats, but maybe my memory is failing...




    So when the Pats lose guys like Branch, Samuels, Seymore, Welker and maybe Edelman and Talib it's due to "Value issues" and is not cap related?  Hmmm

    Wonder how much it cost to replace those guys that have never really been replaced with talent?

    How about losing 90% of your receivers in one year?  Is that not a problem?

    Wouldn't replacing talent like Branch, Moss, Welker over a period of time, be a better option?  Signing guys like Jackson, Price, Galloway, Ocho and Lloyd to replace those guys putting them in cap hell with dead money is not an issue?

    How about the 20 DBs they drafted and the FA pick ups  who were never good enough and also caused DM, putting them in cap hell?

    Or the Pass rushers since they lost what they had prior to 2007 who were replaced with junk?

    Regardless of the reason,  which some choose to ignore, it all comes down to bad contracts, ending with the same results unless you think 3 contracts for your QB in 4 years, to create additional cap and relieving dead money, is a good thing.

    I'm still trying to figure out where the 20M in cap they had last year, went.

    Oh yea, more dead money, to be determined......



    Please learn the players' names who played here.  Its Samuel and Seymour, not how you spelled them. Ugh.

    Samuel and Seymour left due to greed. So did Branch. That has nothing to do with cap management, moron.  

    They got rings, wanted to showcase their Pats cache to rape another franchise, which is exactly what they did, moron.

    The Pats have NEVER, EVER been in a cap hell. Ever. And they never will be.  Getting old and transitioning the team is not a cap hell. It's called scaling back, getting ROI on your chips (Cassel, Vrabel, Seymour), and drafting well, which is EXACTLY what BB has done.

    Brady has SUCKED badly in the postseason lately and we're all still waiting on him.

    Who knows if he'll ever wake up.  



    "Please learn the players' names who played here.  Its Samuel and Seymour, not how you spelled them. Ugh."

    Oh my.... just oh my.  What a loser.  Queenie, nobody besides the internet's biggest loser(that's you) cares .  Each time you correct someone on something this stupid you follow it up with your own stupididy, then I point it out and you look like a complete moron.  Why do you bring it upon yourself?  You're a "very very unique" loser.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:



    So when the Pats lose guys like Branch, Samuels, Seymore, Welker and maybe Edelman and Talib it's due to "Value issues" and is not cap related?  Hmmm

    Wonder how much it cost to replace those guys that have never really been replaced with talent?

    How about losing 90% of your receivers in one year?  Is that not a problem?

    Wouldn't replacing talent like Branch, Moss, Welker over a period of time, be a better option?  Signing guys like Jackson, Price, Galloway, Ocho and Lloyd to replace those guys putting them in cap hell with dead money is not an issue?

    How about the 20 DBs they drafted and the FA pick ups  who were never good enough and also caused DM, putting them in cap hell?

    Or the Pass rushers since they lost what they had prior to 2007 who were replaced with junk?

    Regardless of the reason,  which some choose to ignore, it all comes down to bad contracts, ending with the same results unless you think 3 contracts for your QB in 4 years, to create additional cap and relieving dead money, is a good thing.

    I'm still trying to figure out where the 20M in cap they had last year, went.

    Oh yea, more dead money, to be determined......



    You're all over the map as usual, just throwing stuff against the wall like a loon. Focus! We're talking about the salary cap, not bad draft picks or trades.

    Almost everything is cap "related" these days. But it's one thing to decide that a player is not worth what he will bring on the FA market, like the Pats did with Branch and Samuel, and like every team has done at some point. The Steelers do it all the time, let guys walk. They did it with Wallace. In some cases, guys just want out or it's just time to part ways. See Welker, Wes.

    It's quite a different thing when you have a guy (or maybe four) you really want to keep and who would like to stay, but it's not going to work out because of the cap. That's what we're talking about.

    Some of the the examples you bring up really make no sense. Moss? His leaving was not cap related. He was a nutjob and a cancer and they traded him, fleece job by the way. Jackson and Price were draft picks who couldn't play, nothing cap-related there (don't worry though, I do realize now that the Pats are the only team that has ever blown a draft pick...).  

    Galloway, Ocho, Lloyd, what do they have to do with anything? Just part of a good, if incoherent, rant I guess? Seymore? Oh, you mean Seymour. They traded him, as I recall? Got a nice return, as I recall. Again, irrelevant to this discussion.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MileHighMike. Show MileHighMike's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:



    So when the Pats lose guys like Branch, Samuels, Seymore, Welker and maybe Edelman and Talib it's due to "Value issues" and is not cap related?  Hmmm

    Wonder how much it cost to replace those guys that have never really been replaced with talent?

    How about losing 90% of your receivers in one year?  Is that not a problem?

    Wouldn't replacing talent like Branch, Moss, Welker over a period of time, be a better option?  Signing guys like Jackson, Price, Galloway, Ocho and Lloyd to replace those guys putting them in cap hell with dead money is not an issue?

    How about the 20 DBs they drafted and the FA pick ups  who were never good enough and also caused DM, putting them in cap hell?

    Or the Pass rushers since they lost what they had prior to 2007 who were replaced with junk?

    Regardless of the reason,  which some choose to ignore, it all comes down to bad contracts, ending with the same results unless you think 3 contracts for your QB in 4 years, to create additional cap and relieving dead money, is a good thing.

    I'm still trying to figure out where the 20M in cap they had last year, went.

    Oh yea, more dead money, to be determined......



    You're all over the map as usual, just throwing stuff against the wall like a loon. Focus! We're talking about the salary cap, not bad draft picks or trades.

    Almost everything is cap "related" these days. But it's one thing to decide that a player is not worth what he will bring on the FA market, like the Pats did with Branch and Samuel, and like every team has done at some point. The Steelers do it all the time, let guys walk. They did it with Wallace. In some cases, guys just want out or it's just time to part ways. See Welker, Wes.

    It's quite a different thing when you have a guy (or maybe four) you really want to keep and who would like to stay, but it's not going to work out because of the cap. That's what we're talking about.

    Some of the the examples you bring up really make no sense. Moss? His leaving was not cap related. He was a nutjob and a cancer and they traded him, fleece job by the way. Jackson and Price were draft picks who couldn't play, nothing cap-related there (don't worry though, I do realize now that the Pats are the only team that has ever blown a draft pick...).  

    Galloway, Ocho, Lloyd, what do they have to do with anything? Just part of a good, if incoherent, rant I guess? Seymore? Oh, you mean Seymour. They traded him, as I recall? Got a nice return, as I recall. Again, irrelevant to this discussion.



    So, what you're saying is that trading Seymour was not cap related, even though they were up against the cap and it made their D worse?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    Oh, Thanks guys, I finally get it.

    So when the Pats extend guys or don't re-up guys or or let FA's hit the market, or trade guys or sign others discards, due to cap hits, it's called due diligence or doing their "home work" or more commonly  "BB in the weeds" but when other teams do it, it's called "CAP HELL".Wink



    Did anybody say the Pats were immune to the salary cap, because I haven't read that anywhere? Please point to it. 

    Name a guy in his prime that the Pats would like to have kept and who walked because of the cap? Only ones that come to mind are Branch and Samuel and in each of those cases, there was a major disagreement as to the player's value. 

    If you lose your LT, your RT and a valued DT in the same year because you don't have cap room (not because of perceived value), that's a big setback.  It's not a value issue, it's just not managing resources. They'll make due, but it's not good business no matter how you spin it.

    I can't think of a comparable situation with the Pats, but maybe my memory is failing...




    So when the Pats lose guys like Branch, Samuels, Seymore, Welker and maybe Edelman and Talib it's due to "Value issues" and is not cap related?  Hmmm

    Wonder how much it cost to replace those guys that have never really been replaced with talent?

    How about losing 90% of your receivers in one year?  Is that not a problem?

    Wouldn't replacing talent like Branch, Moss, Welker over a period of time, be a better option?  Signing guys like Jackson, Price, Galloway, Ocho and Lloyd to replace those guys putting them in cap hell with dead money is not an issue?

    How about the 20 DBs they drafted and the FA pick ups  who were never good enough and also caused DM, putting them in cap hell?

    Or the Pass rushers since they lost what they had prior to 2007 who were replaced with junk?

    Regardless of the reason,  which some choose to ignore, it all comes down to bad contracts, ending with the same results unless you think 3 contracts for your QB in 4 years, to create additional cap and relieving dead money, is a good thing.

    I'm still trying to figure out where the 20M in cap they had last year, went.

    Oh yea, more dead money, to be determined......



    Please learn the players' names who played here.  Its Samuel and Seymour, not how you spelled them. Ugh.

    Samuel and Seymour left due to greed. So did Branch. That has nothing to do with cap management, moron.  

    They got rings, wanted to showcase their Pats cache to rape another franchise, which is exactly what they did, moron.

    The Pats have NEVER, EVER been in a cap hell. Ever. And they never will be.  Getting old and transitioning the team is not a cap hell. It's called scaling back, getting ROI on your chips (Cassel, Vrabel, Seymour), and drafting well, which is EXACTLY what BB has done.

    Brady has SUCKED badly in the postseason lately and we're all still waiting on him.

    Who knows if he'll ever wake up.  




    Greed?  How about the Pats didn't want to pay them and ended up paying out the butt with FAILURES, for not doing so.  The Pats are in cap hell more than you think.

      Brady's restructures hide that.  FACT

    That ship has sailed.

    22 teams have a better cap situation than the Pats.  Dead money (for years) keeps their space lower than it could be.  It's a vicious cycle, robbing Peter to pay Paul the Bust.  That's what BAD contracts do.  Most teams endure it for a year or so and bounce back while the Pats dead money is continuously high. 

    50M in 3 years, ugh. 

    BB's teams have sucked for years, not the QB he keeps extending.

    Learn the game.

    You aint winning no SB's with S HITTY DEFENSES and receivers that drop 7 balls a game.

    Never happened and never will.

    Gotta run.  You have fun in your cap hell, now, ya hear!  LOL

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:



    So when the Pats lose guys like Branch, Samuels, Seymore, Welker and maybe Edelman and Talib it's due to "Value issues" and is not cap related?  Hmmm

    Wonder how much it cost to replace those guys that have never really been replaced with talent?

    How about losing 90% of your receivers in one year?  Is that not a problem?

    Wouldn't replacing talent like Branch, Moss, Welker over a period of time, be a better option?  Signing guys like Jackson, Price, Galloway, Ocho and Lloyd to replace those guys putting them in cap hell with dead money is not an issue?

    How about the 20 DBs they drafted and the FA pick ups  who were never good enough and also caused DM, putting them in cap hell?

    Or the Pass rushers since they lost what they had prior to 2007 who were replaced with junk?

    Regardless of the reason,  which some choose to ignore, it all comes down to bad contracts, ending with the same results unless you think 3 contracts for your QB in 4 years, to create additional cap and relieving dead money, is a good thing.

    I'm still trying to figure out where the 20M in cap they had last year, went.

    Oh yea, more dead money, to be determined......



    You're all over the map as usual, just throwing stuff against the wall like a loon. Focus! We're talking about the salary cap, not bad draft picks or trades.

    Almost everything is cap "related" these days. But it's one thing to decide that a player is not worth what he will bring on the FA market, like the Pats did with Branch and Samuel, and like every team has done at some point. The Steelers do it all the time, let guys walk. They did it with Wallace. In some cases, guys just want out or it's just time to part ways. See Welker, Wes.

    It's quite a different thing when you have a guy (or maybe four) you really want to keep and who would like to stay, but it's not going to work out because of the cap. That's what we're talking about.

    Some of the the examples you bring up really make no sense. Moss? His leaving was not cap related. He was a nutjob and a cancer and they traded him, fleece job by the way. Jackson and Price were draft picks who couldn't play, nothing cap-related there (don't worry though, I do realize now that the Pats are the only team that has ever blown a draft pick...).  

    Galloway, Ocho, Lloyd, what do they have to do with anything? Just part of a good, if incoherent, rant I guess? Seymore? Oh, you mean Seymour. They traded him, as I recall? Got a nice return, as I recall. Again, irrelevant to this discussion.




    Ummm. I'm sorry for being a loon.  I was under the impression that draft picks (especially failed ones) and FA signings (especially Failed ones) had something to do with salary cap or lack of it.  It apperars to me that all those wasted signing have  lowered the available cap and have done that for YEARS.

    My bad!

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    Ummm. I'm sorry for being a loon.  I was under the impression that draft picks (especially failed ones) and FA signings (especially Failed ones) had something to do with salary cap or lack of it.  It apperars to me that all those wasted signing have  lowered the available cap and have done that for YEARS.

    My bad!



    Bad draft picks have comparatively little impact on the cap, bad FA signings can be huge. Mostly, you're forced to keep a guy you'd prefer to lose or you're stuck with dead money, which you are the resident expert on. It's why the Pats generally avoid bringing in outside talent on big contracts. The big contracts they tend to give out are inside jobs, Mankins, Wilfork, Brady, Gronk, Hern, etc. It might still go wrong, but it won't be because the guy can't play in their system, they already know that part.

    I know some don't get this, but system fit is a huge part of the equation, especially with the Pats. Just because a guy can play in one system doesn't mean he'll be any good in yours, see Thomas, Adalius. Besides Hernandez (which is a special case), all the relatively big contracts that turned out bad were outsiders. Which is why nobody should expect them to splurge on big names, ever.

    But that stuff is a different subject from general cap management. If you are at risk of losing the guys Baltimore is this year, there's a failure somewhere along the way.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MileHighMike. Show MileHighMike's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    Ummm. I'm sorry for being a loon.  I was under the impression that draft picks (especially failed ones) and FA signings (especially Failed ones) had something to do with salary cap or lack of it.  It apperars to me that all those wasted signing have  lowered the available cap and have done that for YEARS.

    My bad!



    Bad draft picks have comparatively little impact on the cap, bad FA signings can be huge. Mostly, you're forced to keep a guy you'd prefer to lose or you're stuck with dead money, which you are the resident expert on. It's why the Pats generally avoid bringing in outside talent on big contracts. The big contracts they tend to give out are inside jobs, Mankins, Wilfork, Brady, Gronk, Hern, etc. It might still go wrong, but it won't be because the guy can't play in their system, they already know that part.

    I know some don't get this, but system fit is a huge part of the equation, especially with the Pats. Just because a guy can play in one system doesn't mean he'll be any good in yours, see Thomas, Adalius. Besides Hernandez (which is a special case), all the relatively big contracts that turned out bad were outsiders. Which is why nobody should expect them to splurge on big names, ever.

    But that stuff is a different subject from general cap management. If you are at risk of losing the guys Baltimore is this year, there's a failure somewhere along the way.



    But great draft picks can have a serious impact upon cap health.  Look at the Jets needing to re-up Mangold, Brick, Harris and Revis all in a short time. 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

    It seems this post has turned into a post filled with confusion. 

    The issue is salary cap hell, and can the teams in supposed salary cap hell sign free agents.

    the issue is not if the GM of said teams is making the correct signings. The issue also is not whether aging, past their prime highly paid vets should be replaced with younger, less expensive players. (Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, Michael Oher, we are looking at all of you, and Ray Rice, maybe you too) 

    If the Ravens make the playoffs this year, does this all become a moot point? If Flacco does a Brady, and restructures his contract freeing up gobs of cap space, does this become a moot point? 

    It seems to me that the Ravens depth chart posted on this thread is a reflection of bad drafting. 

    In seems like such an easy concept. With 98% of all contracts in the NFL back loaded into a players aging years, and with no guaranteed base salary in the NFL, moving salary off the roster is an easy exercise (sentiments aside) 

     



    Oher is in his prime, he's 27, not 34. Why's he mentioned? Salary cap issues cause you to lose players like Oher and Monroe and Arthur Jones and Dickson, vital young veteran players you'd prefer to keep. As with the Pats and Talib and Edelman. In a non-capped world, those guys would all be retained. As would Red Bryant and Sidney Rice in Seattle.

     

    When you are faced with possibly having to replace your LT and your RT with rookies or lower level FAs, because of the salary cap, is that a good place to be? Maybe it won't come to that and they'll release this other guy and restructure that guy. But to deny that the cap is a major issue and that some teams don't do it as well as others is just wrong.



    Oher is mentioned because he has deteriorated into an over paid vet with his less than mediocre play. His 6 years in the league have made him seem like a 16 year vet

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to DeadAhead2's comment:

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

    It seems this post has turned into a post filled with confusion. 

    The issue is salary cap hell, and can the teams in supposed salary cap hell sign free agents.

    the issue is not if the GM of said teams is making the correct signings. The issue also is not whether aging, past their prime highly paid vets should be replaced with younger, less expensive players. (Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, Michael Oher, we are looking at all of you, and Ray Rice, maybe you too) 

    If the Ravens make the playoffs this year, does this all become a moot point? If Flacco does a Brady, and restructures his contract freeing up gobs of cap space, does this become a moot point? 

    It seems to me that the Ravens depth chart posted on this thread is a reflection of bad drafting. 

    In seems like such an easy concept. With 98% of all contracts in the NFL back loaded into a players aging years, and with no guaranteed base salary in the NFL, moving salary off the roster is an easy exercise (sentiments aside) 

     



    Oher is in his prime, he's 27, not 34. Why's he mentioned? Salary cap issues cause you to lose players like Oher and Monroe and Arthur Jones and Dickson, vital young veteran players you'd prefer to keep. As with the Pats and Talib and Edelman. In a non-capped world, those guys would all be retained. As would Red Bryant and Sidney Rice in Seattle.

     

    When you are faced with possibly having to replace your LT and your RT with rookies or lower level FAs, because of the salary cap, is that a good place to be? Maybe it won't come to that and they'll release this other guy and restructure that guy. But to deny that the cap is a major issue and that some teams don't do it as well as others is just wrong.



    Dude, they don't get it.  They also were forced to extend a fading Suggs/overpay him as well because a Suggs knows he has the team by the balls, the selfish "me" player he is.

    Pitta resigned because Baltimore had to cave. Now, watch the windfall go from this.  

    Leave it to RKrap, Pezzy, Mt HUrl, TFB12, etc, all Brady Ballwashers, to piszs in the wind with this topic.

    If you go back and look at Baltimore's drafts recently, you either see busts, disappointments or average returns.  I can name a few good picks in Webb, Jimmy Smith, Torrey Smith and Pierce at RB.   And, with Webb, that's going back a while (2009). This is like the last 4 or 5 drafts. This is what Baltimore has to show.  That's not very good.

    The reason why they don't have their leverage to avoid the cap hell is because they drafted poorly lately and it allowed their key FAs or older players to dicate salary. It really started with Flacco last year. Newsome has had no leverage this whole time.

    Flacco, Suggs and now Pitta are wildly overpaid to cover for those busts taken in the draft by Ozzie Newsome.

    The irony is, if Brady went into this season without knowing who his two starting Tackles were/didn't have a player on the roster who looked good and could seen as a starter, the Mt Hurls, Kraps, TFB12s, Pezzy types would all be in here asking for BB to resign.

    They're in a desperate place to keep contibuity, but I am just not sure Suggs and Pitta will be enough to keep what they had as a .500 team.

    Kubiak coming in to replace Caldwell should also be something to watch with more changes. Roethlisberger still hasn't recovered from losing Arians. lol

     



    You see, you are the biggest don't get it offender. 

    Signing Suggs rather than Monroe is a choice the team is making. Signing Pitta is a choice the team is making. You can disagree with the signings. You can agree with the signings. you are having issue with how that team is allocating their resources. Fair enough. But that's not salary cap hell, that's poor GM work, if they miss the playoffs again. 

    The team has ample resources, they have drafted poorly, and you don't agree with how they are spending their resources. 

    As was said above, the Ravens have more cap space than the Pats. The pats are most likely walking away from Edelman, and maybe Wendell and Wilfork. But you don't term that cap hell, you term that prudence in the cap era? The ravens let Reed go, will let Oher go, signed Suggs and Pitta, but that is cap hell?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to MileHighMike's comment:

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    Oh, Thanks guys, I finally get it.

    So when the Pats extend guys or don't re-up guys or or let FA's hit the market, or trade guys or sign others discards, due to cap hits, it's called due diligence or doing their "home work" or more commonly  "BB in the weeds" but when other teams do it, it's called "CAP HELL".Wink



    Did anybody say the Pats were immune to the salary cap, because I haven't read that anywhere? Please point to it. 

    Name a guy in his prime that the Pats would like to have kept and who walked because of the cap? Only ones that come to mind are Branch and Samuel and in each of those cases, there was a major disagreement as to the player's value. 

    If you lose your LT, your RT and a valued DT in the same year because you don't have cap room (not because of perceived value), that's a big setback.  It's not a value issue, it's just not managing resources. They'll make due, but it's not good business no matter how you spin it.

    I can't think of a comparable situation with the Pats, but maybe my memory is failing...

     

    Here you go:

    In response to Queenie's comment:

    BB is the best GM that the NFL has ever seen in the cap era and he is immune to cap hell and is very handsome.




    Why do you hate BB so much...did he steal the affections of one of your late night, bush bound feline "conquests"?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?


    Every team is in cap hell because every team has to deal within the confines of the cap...it's all about how you manage that...the decisions you make and where you place most of your cap from year to year...anyone having huge cap space from year to year shows little evidence of a plan to stay a  good team over time...it merely reflects a difference in management philosophy...and now since all teams are "INCENTIVIZED" by NFL mandate to exhaust their caps, every team can be seen to be in cap hell...

    It's always been the skill of team management that dictates how a team performs...having to spend to the cap will only make that more clear as time moves on...in this case, I feel very comfortable with how the Pats will stack up versus other NFL teams...no problem

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from 42AND46. Show 42AND46's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:


    I don't know about the terminology but when you have to cut half your starters, miss the playoffs after winning a SB and still have 6 starting roster spots to fill in 2014 then yeah, you had some issues no?

     



    No. Ownership wanted to win a SB. They allowed Ray and Reed to stay 1 year too long, gambled and lost on Flacco, and missed on some draft choices. BUt they won a SB, and have plenty of cap space to restock the roster.

     

    THey missed going to the SB on a missed chip shot FG...they then won a SB....and they missed the playoffs by 1 game...



    Yes, they were 1 of 32 teams to "Go For It" and win. I think all ownership wants to win a super bowl...except Cleveland maybe!

    And I applaud Baltimore but the fact is they represent the typical NFL Super Bowls winner. It is so difficult to keep a good team together especially when your QB joins the "$ Club" they don't look to be in any better shape going into 2014 either. The Seahawks will feel this soon as the Saints are feeling it now and have been for years. There has really only been 1 guy to maintain a competitive team in the cap era for any significant amount of time. 




    yeah Tom Brady (and an assist to the AFC Easy)

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to rkarp's comment:


    You see, you are the biggest don't get it offender. 

    Signing Suggs rather than Monroe is a choice the team is making. Signing Pitta is a choice the team is making. You can disagree with the signings. You can agree with the signings. you are having issue with how that team is allocating their resources. Fair enough. But that's not salary cap hell, that's poor GM work, if they miss the playoffs again. 

    The team has ample resources, they have drafted poorly, and you don't agree with how they are spending their resources. 

    As was said above, the Ravens have more cap space than the Pats. The pats are most likely walking away from Edelman, and maybe Wendell and Wilfork. But you don't term that cap hell, you term that prudence in the cap era? The ravens let Reed go, will let Oher go, signed Suggs and Pitta, but that is cap hell?



    This is how I look at it.

    I don't consider a guy like Wilfork a cap casualty, Edelman would be yes, Talib maybe.

    I don't consider Ed Reed a cap casualty, Oher, Monroe, Jones and Dickson are all potential cap casualties.

    A cap casualty is a guy in his prime earning years that you can't keep because you can't afford him, not because you decide he's not worth his market value. Edelman is a guy in his prime the Pats want to keep but might not be able to because of the cap. Wilfork is not, Ed Reed was not. Suggs would not have been had they let him go, no longer in his prime. Pitta would have been.

    All those other Ravens are. Talib I say maybe because I just don't know what his value is due to the durability issues. He might be, might not.

    No matter how you slice it, if you lose your two starting OTs, your DT and a valuable TE, and you're replacing them with rookies or stopgap veterans, that's not good. I suspect they won't lose all of them, but we'll see. 

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

     



    This is how I look at it.

    I don't consider a guy like Wilfork a cap casualty, Edelman would be yes, Talib maybe.

    I don't consider Ed Reed a cap casualty, Oher, Monroe, Jones and Dickson are all potential cap casualties.

    A cap casualty is a guy in his prime earning years that you can't keep because you can't afford him, not because you decide he's not worth his market value. Edelman is a guy in his prime the Pats want to keep but might not be able to because of the cap. Wilfork is not, Ed Reed was not. Suggs would not have been had they let him go, no longer in his prime. Pitta would have been.

    All those other Ravens are. Talib I say maybe because I just don't know what his value is due to the durability issues. He might be, might not.

    No matter how you slice it, if you lose your two starting OTs, your DT and a valuable TE, and you're replacing them with rookies or stopgap veterans, that's not good. I suspect they won't lose all of them, but we'll see. 



    It appears that the way to avoid having to cut your expensive, high-quality players is never to sign them at all and instead hire the rookies and stopgap veterans right from the beginning. 

    Either approach leaves you with a roster full of rookies and stopgap veterans.  The only difference is that if you hire the expensive, high-quality veterans you have them on your roster for a year or two . . . and maybe that's the year or two when you win a Super Bowl, kind of like the Ravens did . . .  Wink

     

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: salary cap hell, huh?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    It appears that the way to avoid having to cut your expensive, high-quality players is never to sign them at all and instead hire the rookies and stopgap veterans right from the beginning. 

    Either approach leaves you with a roster full of rookies and stopgap veterans.  The only difference is that if you hire the expensive, high-quality veterans you have them on your roster for a year or two . . . and maybe that's the year or two when you win a Super Bowl, kind of like the Ravens did . . .  Wink

     



    Sounds good, except the Ravens didn't really do any of that. 

  •  
    Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share