Saw this on Reddit. Thought it was a better talking point than trading McDuffie, or trading resources for a LT. Also hoping I can get a better understanding from some of you guys who understand it more than me.
[OC] Assessing how aggressively teams are using future cap space - the Eagles effectively spent 399 million on their 2024 roster, 32% more than the average team and the most in the league
In recent years, teams have become more aggressive in structuring backloaded contracts to take advantage of the fact that the cap increases every year. Howie has taken this further than any GM in the league.
To assess this, I used APY, which is the average yearly cap hit of a contract. For example, if a player has a cap hit of $5 million this year and $25 million next year, their APY is $15 million.
The average team is effectively spending $303 million on their roster, much higher than the current salary cap of $260 million. While this shows most teams are pushing some of their player's cap hits to the future, none are close to the Eagles. There are multiple reasons the Eagle's value is so high
1. Howie has signed many core players to long term, backloaded contracts
1. Howie aggressively uses void years to push money owed later for even short term contracts. For example, CJGJ has a cap hit of 14.5 million for the Eagles in 2027, even though his three year deal ends in 2026
1. Howie already been employing this strategy, meaning the Eagles had $61 million in dead cap in 2024.
You can see other teams like the Niners and Lions leaning into this strategy, giving long extensions to core players that push their cap hits into the future. Notable, the Chiefs have not, meaning they have the option to start spending more aggressively if they adopt this practice.
The most interesting question is if this practice is sustainable. Howie seems to plan to continually kick the can down the road, always paying the current roster with future cap. The advantage of this is clear, having a larger effective salary cap allows you to assemble/keep a talented roster. But there is a downside, it limits flexibility and can make it hard for a team to reset in a down year. Whether the Eagles will run into this problem, and whether adopts this practice across the board remains to be seen. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chargem:
I'm not sure, but I don't think that's true - if a contract has multiple void years I think the cap hits stay on those years unless the player is cut before the end of the contract.
It’s true unless the player signs an extension. If he does that, then the void hits stay on for the years he’s still with the team.
If he leaves, it all hits your cap at once. Take Josh Sweat for example. If/when he leaves Philly, all his void year hits are going to go on the ‘25 cap. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rainbarrel:
The Eagles won one season. I am unsure of the cohesiveness of the team as a whole. Players and coaches
As an organization in the last 8 years they’ve been to 3, and won 2 also beat Brady and Mahomes. In last 8 years. KC has been to 5 and won 3 (plus B2B) [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rainbarrel:
Josh Allen's August 2021 contract will be redone. Cap goes up salaries follow
It will be and should be, but Buffalo’s cap still isn’t in a great place. Lot of bad extensions they can’t get out of with any real tangible benefit.
Beane has to nail his next draft class or risk falling behind the top of the AFC as the roster’s best players continue to age out.
That’s where Veach has been pretty masterful. Hasn’t paid everybody — see Tyreek, Sneed for example — so the cap is healthy short and long term. Also hasn’t had any awful draft classes in at least five to seven years.
Just keep doing what you’ve been doing and if you make good picks, it’s AFCCG year after year. If you have a bad class, you aren’t ****ed because you haven’t abused your cap either.
I guess what I mean by that is, if Veach did have a disaster draft — say anything resembling 2018-2020 — the cap is in a place where he can correct for that error the following offseason. [Reply]
Question. If we can manipulate our player contracts to take advantage of future cap increases, then why do you suggest trading our guys for more picks? Why not sign our best and do better with the picks we have? Or trade down to accumulate more picks? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Couch-Potato:
Question. If we can manipulate our player contracts to take advantage of future cap increases, then why do you suggest trading our guys for more picks? Why not sign our best and do better with the picks we have? Or trade down to accumulate more picks?
If people haven’t realized it by yet, the Eagles won this championship through the draft first and foremost. As did we win all ours that way.
They aren’t in that spot without Jalen Carter, Nolan Smith, Quinyon Mitchell, and DeJean. Period.
Again, they had a $17m AAV pass rusher as a healthy scratch in the Super Bowl. A guy they just signed! And he couldn’t get on the field over Nolan Smith. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chargem:
You can say it shouldn't be allowed, but it benefits the teams, because they get cap flexibility, and it benefits the players because they get bigger contracts and more money. Who do you think is going to put a stop to this?
They should set a % of the cap that can be pushed past a playing days. If not, we will see more and more teams use the dead cap to help now and then have a "tank" year,
That wont be good for football. Basically the same strategy the small market teams in baseball are forced to use to even have a chance once in a decade. [Reply]
Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19:
I guess what I mean by that is, if Veach did have a disaster draft — say anything resembling 2018-2020 — the cap is in a place where he can correct for that error the following offseason.
Just was about to say this. It takes a disciplined approach and having far-ahead plans and different scenarios. [Reply]
Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19:
If people haven’t realized it by yet, the Eagles won this championship through the draft first and foremost. As did we win all ours that way.
They aren’t in that spot without Jalen Carter, Nolan Smith, Quinyon Mitchell, and DeJean. Period.
Again, they had a $17m AAV pass rusher as a healthy scratch in the Super Bowl. A guy they just signed! And he couldn’t get on the field over Nolan Smith.
I don't know if this would fit, so correct me if I am wrong. I am just throwing this one out as an example from my perspective.
When Tyreek was about up to get paid in 2022, the Chiefs had a dilemma to either:
A) Make Tyreek the most expensive WR in the league (due to his speed) on a 4 year / $120 million. Not going to go all technical/specifics/backloading/frontloading, etc., we will just use the "average" of $30 million a year. That takes up a big chunk of the cap one way or another, especially if you need to consider Pat Mahomes contract and Chris Jones will need to get paid eventually (which Jones did in 2023 "renegotiation" and a new deal in 2024).
or
B) Trade the player while his value is still high to get similar or better value in return. The old saying is that it is better to trade an asset while its value is high, even if it stays high in the following year or two, because eventually, it will depreciate.
The Chiefs went option B, traded Hill to Miami who he signed a 4 year / $120 million. The Chiefs received a first-round pick, a second-round pick, two fourth-round picks, and a sixth-round pick. The Chiefs used this no. 29 pick and Miami's 2022 4th-round pick to trade up for cornerback Trent McDuffie, which was a hit.
The bad of course was the Chiefs traded the Dolphins' second-round pick to the Patriots, receiving picks No. 54 and No. 158. They used pick No. 54 to draft WR Skyy Moore and used No. 158 to trade up in the fifth round for OT Darian Kinnard. Unfortunately, this didn't pan out, especially on Moore's case.
But the wild-card here is when the Chiefs traded Miami's 2023 fourth-round pick as part of a package to move up from No. 63 to No. 55 to select WR Rashee Rice. Rice does show flashes of greatness, but the injury and off-field issue remains to be seen.
Finally, that 6th round pack was traded to Dallas for the 5th pick in 2024, which was a lineman Hunter Nourzad, OL, Penn State. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chargem:
You can say it shouldn't be allowed, but it benefits the teams, because they get cap flexibility, and it benefits the players because they get bigger contracts and more money. Who do you think is going to put a stop to this?
It violates the spirit of the league's sacred cow - parity. Eventually they will crack down on it.
Or the cap will stop going up and these teams' bill will come due all at once. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chargem:
You can say it shouldn't be allowed, but it benefits the teams, because they get cap flexibility, and it benefits the players because they get bigger contracts and more money. Who do you think is going to put a stop to this?
I said that it seems like it shouldn't be allowed because it, IMO, is against the intent of the cap. Allowing teams to overspend and then, like in 2020 when Covid hit, the league gave the Saints a way out of it and remain competitive despite their mistakes. Since the cap goes up every year, it doesn't seem to be the risk that it used to be.
IMO, this affects the competitive balance by forcing other teams to do the same and again, IMO, it's similar to what teams in other sports do which allow them a competitive advantage over teams that choose not to do this.
Do we want the NFL to return to the pre-salary cap era where certain teams bought up the talent? Shall we turn the NFL into MLB where teams that spend the most win the most? [Reply]
Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19:
It’s true unless the player signs an extension. If he does that, then the void hits stay on for the years he’s still with the team.
The Chiefs did this very thing with Chris Jones. We gave him $6.75M in new money 2 years ago. They added 4 void years on his deal but it only added $3.4M of dead cap after the 2023 season, giving the Chiefs a total of $4M on the books so far for 2024. Then they gave him a new deal to balance it out.
Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19:
If he leaves, it all hits your cap at once. Take Josh Sweat for example. If/when he leaves Philly, all his void year hits are going to go on the ‘25 cap.
This is exactly why I don’t like this approach. Josh Sweat is projected to have $17 million of dead money paid to him moving forward. They already have a little over $29 million in dead cap already and will almost assuredly have the $9.98 million owed to Sweat added onto that for 2025.
That’s almost $39 million dedicated to players not playing on your team. That’s a truly terrible way for us to stay competitive. This board freaked out enough paying Frank Clark dead money. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
It violates the spirit of the league's sacred cow - parity. Eventually they will crack down on it.
Or the cap will stop going up and these teams' bill will come due all at once.
Originally Posted by crayzkirk:
I said that it seems like it shouldn't be allowed because it, IMO, is against the intent of the cap. Allowing teams to overspend and then, like in 2020 when Covid hit, the league gave the Saints a way out of it and remain competitive despite their mistakes. Since the cap goes up every year, it doesn't seem to be the risk that it used to be.
IMO, this affects the competitive balance by forcing other teams to do the same and again, IMO, it's similar to what teams in other sports do which allow them a competitive advantage over teams that choose not to do this.
Do we want the NFL to return to the pre-salary cap era where certain teams bought up the talent? Shall we turn the NFL into MLB where teams that spend the most win the most?
I don't see how it's against parity or competitive balance if all teams have access to it.
Should we ban trading draft picks just in case some teams are too good at valuing picks and end up finding a competitive edge from it? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chargem:
I don't see how it's against parity or competitive balance if all teams have access to it.
Should we ban trading draft picks just in case some teams are too good at valuing picks and end up finding a competitive edge from it?
All teams don't have access to it. It's basically a high interest credit card and only teams that are cash flush can pay the monthly payments. It flies in the face of competitive parity. [Reply]