Packers Huddle

go pak go wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 12:48

He's actually still in the window to have a competitive team. Your first 3 years on a deal can be pretty cap friendly. But the Chiefs will start finding the struggles next year.

I feel like the cracks are starting to show this year. I didn't expect us to actually beat them, but it did not shock me; I said in advance of the game that KC would be a tough opponent but they are not the Juggernaut as people are used to thinking of them.

They certainly took advantage of the window, though. 3 SB appearances, 2 wins. Definitely a success.

Yoop wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 12:58

go pak go wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 12:49

Yoop wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 12:48

oh for goodness sakes , the cost of QB is only relative at the beginning of there contracts, depending on contract structure, sure if ya front load the deal it can cripple a team, but thats not usually how these contract are structured, your using what our GM did to retain Rodgers as the model of normality

That's literally what the Chiefs did. You just aren't seeing it yet. You are still seeing the honeymoon period of the contract.

agree, it takes a big jump next year, then levels off again, thing is he is far below top pay at the position now and still is arguable the best in the game, I agree with Andrew Brandt in that this is just the cost of having a great franchise QB.

While that is all true, I think we can expect another extension relatively soon. A bunch of new money to pay him top of the market and kicking the cap further down the road.

I also don't think I have ever paid attention to how poorly the Vikings have managed Cousins contracts. Looks like almost $30M to account for whether he plays for them next year or not.

I've made this argument before, and my post on the Love possible contract proves it.

With cap-carryover and a steadily increasing cap, it just 100% makes sense to backload contracts and add void years.

If we try to fit in $200 million for Jordan into '25-'28, that is dumb.

Cap in '25-'26 is gunna be like 275-300, cap in '29 and '30 will be pushing 350-400M.

Borrow 3% from a future cap and save 5% on a current cap, rinse and repeat in perpetuity. No penalty, no inflation, no interest, just maximizing the present structure.

Don't hate the player, hate the game, but its the most advantageous strategy for any GM with no more than 1-4 years on their own contracts.


Chiefs are doing it, everyone will do it, just the way the current game works.


Same with Kirk, 30M from next years cap of 230M, but they saved on their caps when it was like 150M. And Adofo-Mensah will gladly borrow 40M from the '27 cap to make up for that 30M shortfall next year.

Not only is that an interest free loan, its a loan that pays you interest in return.

never really worried about this stuff, absolutely agree with the Wimpy economic plan,(well when it comes to this stuff anyway) I will gladly pay you tomorrow for your production today

BF004 wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 13:45

I've made this argument before, and my post on the Love possible contract proves it.

With cap-carryover and a steadily increasing cap, it just 100% makes sense to backload contracts and add void years.

If we try to fit in $200 million for Jordan into '25-'28, that is dumb.

Cap in '25-'26 is gunna be like 275-300, cap in '29 and '30 will be pushing 350-400M.

Borrow 3% from a future cap and save 5% on a current cap, rinse and repeat in perpetuity. No penalty, no inflation, no interest, just maximizing the present structure.

Don't hate the player, hate the game, but its the most advantageous strategy for any GM with no more than 1-4 years on their own contracts.


Chiefs are doing it, everyone will do it, just the way the current game works.


Same with Kirk, 30M from next years cap of 230M, but they saved on their caps when it was like 150M. And Adofo-Mensah will gladly borrow 40M from the '27 cap to make up for that 30M shortfall next year.

Agreed. It is how you should do it.

I personally miss the days when you had a limit on cap rollover. I liked the "pay as you play" CBA structure.

Honestly I just thought the league was just so much better pre 2011 CBA.

go pak go wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 14:00

BF004 wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 13:45

I've made this argument before, and my post on the Love possible contract proves it.

With cap-carryover and a steadily increasing cap, it just 100% makes sense to backload contracts and add void years.

If we try to fit in $200 million for Jordan into '25-'28, that is dumb.

Cap in '25-'26 is gunna be like 275-300, cap in '29 and '30 will be pushing 350-400M.

Borrow 3% from a future cap and save 5% on a current cap, rinse and repeat in perpetuity. No penalty, no inflation, no interest, just maximizing the present structure.

Don't hate the player, hate the game, but its the most advantageous strategy for any GM with no more than 1-4 years on their own contracts.


Chiefs are doing it, everyone will do it, just the way the current game works.


Same with Kirk, 30M from next years cap of 230M, but they saved on their caps when it was like 150M. And Adofo-Mensah will gladly borrow 40M from the '27 cap to make up for that 30M shortfall next year.

Agreed. It is how you should do it.

I personally miss the days when you had a limit on cap rollover. I liked the "pay as you play" CBA structure.

Honestly I just thought the league was just so much better pre 2011 CBA.

Yeah, I like the idea of the cap-carryover, but it should probably be tweaked a bit to curb the current unintended consequences.

BF004 wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 13:45

With cap-carryover and a steadily increasing cap, it just 100% makes sense to backload contracts and add void years.

Help me be OK with void years. I see their use when trying to squeeze as much out of a 2-3 year window, but in a "rebuild," I feel they are unnecessary and add needless dead cap.

Labrev wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 13:01

go pak go wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 12:48

He's actually still in the window to have a competitive team. Your first 3 years on a deal can be pretty cap friendly. But the Chiefs will start finding the struggles next year.

I feel like the cracks are starting to show this year. I didn't expect us to actually beat them, but it did not shock me; I said in advance of the game that KC would be a tough opponent but they are not the Juggernaut as people are used to thinking of them.

They certainly took advantage of the window, though. 3 SB appearances, 2 wins. Definitely a success.

there not done, they'll pay Mahomes, draft or bring in UFA receivers and keep right on dominating, kicking money to the future is what every team is doing when it comes to paying these franchise QB's.

Folks are so in tune with balanced books and not operating in the red when that seems to be what everyone is doing, this stuff isn't like buying a house, there is no equity gained by being frugal in sports

Yoop wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 15:10

there not done, they'll pay Mahomes, draft or bring in UFA receivers and keep right on dominating, kicking money to the future is what every team is doing when it comes to paying these franchise QB's.

So why trade an elite WR Tyreek Hill away when you have a HOF-caliber QB in his prime and a team looking to compete for a SB every year.

Folks are so in tune with balanced books and not operating in the red when that seems to be what everyone is doing, this stuff isn't like buying a house, there is no equity gained by being frugal in sports

Saints.

The drama over NYJ/Zach Wilson is lolzy. I wonder if the leaked report (unclear if true) about Wilson not wanting to play was made in retaliation against him to get his ass in line.

*edit*

Lazor show is over. Jets have cut Rodgers's buddy Tim Boil and are signing Brett Rypien off Seattle's practice squad.

NCF wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 13:22

I also don't think I have ever paid attention to how poorly the Vikings have managed Cousins contracts. Looks like almost $30M to account for whether he plays for them next year or not.


image.png

We have been talking about this in Vikingland for 3 years. I think somewhere down the road the NFL is going to put a stop to void years. Cousins isn't the only player in the league that has void years. And it's stupid to do it. Hope your team doesn't do it.

Raptorman wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 16:49

NCF wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 13:22

I also don't think I have ever paid attention to how poorly the Vikings have managed Cousins contracts. Looks like almost $30M to account for whether he plays for them next year or not.


image.png

We have been talking about this in Vikingland for 3 years. I think somewhere down the road the NFL is going to put a stop to void years. Cousins isn't the only player in the league that has void years. And it's stupid to do it. Hope your team doesn't do it.

Oh we do it plenty.

And it’s smart too.

BF004 wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 17:12

And it’s smart too.

Seriously, honest question, why is it smart for this Packers team?

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 17:56

BF004 wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 17:12

And it’s smart too.

Seriously, honest question, why is it smart for this Packers team?

Take 3 million from the ‘26 cap to pay for a guy in ‘22.

Only 1% of the ‘26 cap, it’s closer to like 1.5% of the ‘22 cap.

You can then replace that 1% of the missing ‘26 cap with only .666% of the ‘30 cap. Generating a virtual higher salary cap.

BF004 wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 18:32

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 17:56

BF004 wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 17:12

And it’s smart too.

Seriously, honest question, why is it smart for this Packers team?

Take 3 million from the ‘26 cap to pay for a guy in ‘22.

Only 1% of the ‘26 cap, it’s closer to like 1.5% of the ‘22 cap.

You can then replace that 1% of the missing ‘26 cap with only .666% of the ‘30 cap. Generating a virtual higher salary cap.

What about wasted cap space with dead cap because of the void years?

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 18:42

BF004 wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 18:32

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 17:56

Seriously, honest question, why is it smart for this Packers team?

Take 3 million from the ‘26 cap to pay for a guy in ‘22.

Only 1% of the ‘26 cap, it’s closer to like 1.5% of the ‘22 cap.

You can then replace that 1% of the missing ‘26 cap with only .666% of the ‘30 cap. Generating a virtual higher salary cap.

What about wasted cap space with dead cap because of the void years?

It’s not wasted, you just keep borrowing from future years.

BF004 wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 18:32

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 17:56

BF004 wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 17:12

And it’s smart too.

Seriously, honest question, why is it smart for this Packers team?

Take 3 million from the ‘26 cap to pay for a guy in ‘22.

Only 1% of the ‘26 cap, it’s closer to like 1.5% of the ‘22 cap.

You can then replace that 1% of the missing ‘26 cap with only .666% of the ‘30 cap. Generating a virtual higher salary cap.

BF004 wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 18:48

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 18:42

BF004 wrote: ↑

05 Dec 2023 18:32

Take 3 million from the ‘26 cap to pay for a guy in ‘22.

Only 1% of the ‘26 cap, it’s closer to like 1.5% of the ‘22 cap.

You can then replace that 1% of the missing ‘26 cap with only .666% of the ‘30 cap. Generating a virtual higher salary cap.

What about wasted cap space with dead cap because of the void years?

It’s not wasted, you just keep borrowing from future years.

Am I wrong that Amos cost $8 million this year because of his void year? While that $8 million may equate to $6.5 million when we restructured him, does the $8 million this year still mean we can't use 4% of this year's cap?