Jump to content

"It's going to be a massacre next week all around the league"


Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, pa_falcon_fan said:

Carp and maybe Fowler are the 2 on your list that make sense. I think Carp is a goner since he has the biggest potential cap savings ($4M) if we cut him.  Add Tyler Davison ($2.2M) as well.  I suspect Fowler will be spared because Pees defense is similar to the one he excelled in with the Rams... so the new staff may think he has a shot to actually earn his money this year.

As far as the rest, the money we're paying Oliver, Gage, Senat, Ito, Green and Oz is peanuts.  It could potentially cost us more to replace them than to just leave them on the roster for now.  Plus, we're already going to be struggling to fill out the roster for next year... so why create even more unnecessary holes?

Beyond Carp, Fowler, and Davison.. I think we restructure Grady and Julio and restructure or extend Ryan (as is being discussed in another thread right now).   Playing with the contracts of those 3 could potentially free up as much as $35M in cap space... add in another $6.2 from cutting Carp and Davison and we flip our cap situation from being $20M over the cap to having $20M+ in cap space to play with.

 

It all adds up.  Those that I mentioned cleared over $15m in cap space.  Fowler actually makes the least sense given his dead cap hit.

I think we extend Grady and Debo and restructure Ryan and Jones.  

I also wouldn't cut Davison.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is why I'm not overly concerned about free agency or our cap situation.  The pool of players is going to be so so so much larger this year that it will drive overall cost down.  We should be able

I  can’t say for sure, but I believe the cap is adjusted according to revenues.  The players wanted to have a percentage of the revenues.  I don’t see how the players’ union can object.

He’s not. Go find some James Stone pics to keep you busy.

47 minutes ago, itsryanwonder said:

Well as long as Matt Ryan is the highest paid player in the nfl, we can all sleep well.  Does highest paid mean best player or best money maker?  Not sure how many Matt Ryan jersey or ticket sales he is producing lately. 

I love the fact that you embrace the Village Idiot role here on TATF, it's about your only endearing quality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'all should have more sympathy.

Do you realize how much it would suck to decide at the start of the 2008 season that you're going to hate Matt Ryan for his entire career, only for him to turn into an MVP/potential Hall of Fame player?

This dude has to work harder than you'll ever understand to slag such a tremendous football player!

If the guy had directed this much energy toward bitcoin, he'd be a billionaire right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jidady said:

Y'all should have more sympathy.

Do you realize how much it would suck to decide at the start of the 2008 season that you're going to hate Matt Ryan for his entire career, only for him to turn into an MVP/potential Hall of Fame player?

This dude has to work harder than you'll ever understand to slag such a tremendous football player!

If the guy had directed this much energy toward bitcoin, he'd be a billionaire right now.

I had stumbled onto bitcoin when each one was like 100 bucks and I almost took the plundge...I'm pretty salty about not owning an island right now.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PokerSteve said:

I don't see how the player's union is letting the owners get away with cutting the cap by $18m this year. The pandemic isn't the player's fault, yet they are being put in the lurch because teams can't keep their vets and stay within the lower cap. The NFL needs to bring the cap up to a $190m minimum and amortize the owner's losses over the next few years. This is ridiculous.

It’s because the HAVES don’t like knowing or having what they could have had.Your right though these NFL owners have been making money hand over fist for years and they can’t take some pain for a year or 3 good lord.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PokerSteve said:

I don't know for sure either, but that sounds like it could be right. Still, with an isolated event like this past season, and plenty of increased revenues in the offing with all the new tv and streaming deals being done even now, there should be some way for the NFL to adjust this huge cap reduction and spread it out to prevent what's happening to these veteran players.

It’s called good will.

As I mentioned they the owners are all billionaires already they aren’t going to die losing a mill or 10-20.Once Covid is conquered in a year or 3 the ground will reset and the billion dollar machine that is the NFL will kick back into gear and money will start printing itself again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, athell said:

This is why I'm not overly concerned about free agency or our cap situation.  The pool of players is going to be so so so much larger this year that it will drive overall cost down.  We should be able to sign some quality players at a much lower price tag than normal.  Either way, buckle up, sounds like it's gonna be a crazy couple weeks in the league!

 

 

15 hours ago, PokerSteve said:

I don't see how the player's union is letting the owners get away with cutting the cap by $18m this year. The pandemic isn't the player's fault, yet they are being put in the lurch because teams can't keep their vets and stay within the lower cap. The NFL needs to bring the cap up to a $190m minimum and amortize the owner's losses over the next few years. This is ridiculous.

 

15 hours ago, etherdome said:

I  can’t say for sure, but I believe the cap is adjusted according to revenues.  The players wanted to have a percentage of the revenues.  I don’t see how the players’ union can object.

 

15 hours ago, Herr Doktor said:

Billionaires going to billionaire.  Economics 101.  Right or wrong, it's legal.  Sucky, but legal.  

Cap went from 218 down to a projected 180,  thats' a 20-plus percent drop.   Players got paid last season as if there was no drop in revenues.   Because of this I do think the owners are going to take a hard line on cap reduction as called for in the Collective Bargaining Agreement..... but this poses a problem too.   

A lower cap number -should- mean less money spent on players' salaries.   However.... if a team is saving say, 30 million because of cap reduction, then turns around and cuts a player(s) which creates 30 million dead cap space....  where is the owner saving money?  They aren't.   Plus, replacements for the cut player(s) has to be found....

Somewhere in there, is a balance that needs to be reached.   Its up to the NFL owners and NFLPA tp find that balance, and from what I see, it's the NFLPA who is going to have to give concessions.   Or else some high-paid players are going to be released, and not be able to replace the salaries they lose. 

Plus, this upcoming FA period is already going to be hard on players' contract offers.   No need to see the market flooded by even -more- FA's who can't get decent contracts.   I expect to see lots of one-year contracts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, hjerry said:

There's going to be a record number of mid tier FAs signing 1yr contracts, with the intent to try and cash in next year when the cap goes up again.

Meanwhile, teams will be signing bottom tier FAs to vet min contracts all over the place.

The roster turnover across the league next year will be something to see

Agree with you on the one year deals.    About next year.....  there are strong indications that the decline in NFL revenues was partly because of the politics and endorsements being adopted by the sports leagues and athletes.   Stadiums could see a dramatic increase in fans and revenues, but what about TV ratings?

This last Super Bowl should have been a -huge- ratings bonanza, but it wasn't.  Same for the NBA playoffs, and racing.  Fans aren't happy, they have started to tune out.   Covid-19 is not the only factor.

I  think there is a good chance that next year's salary cap either stays where it is, or might even go -down-.

Edited by egoprime II
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, egoprime II said:

 

 

 

Cap went from 218 down to a projected 180,  thats' a 20-plus percent drop.   Players got paid last season as if there was no drop in revenues.   Because of this I do think the owners are going to take a hard line on cap reduction as called for in the Collective Bargaining Agreement..... but this poses a problem too.   

A lower cap number -should- mean less money spent on players' salaries.   However.... if a team is saving say, 30 million because of cap reduction, then turns around and cuts a player(s) which creates 30 million dead cap space....  where is the owner saving money?  They aren't.   Plus, replacements for the cut player(s) has to be found....

Somewhere in there, is a balance that needs to be reached.   Its up to the NFL owners and NFLPA tp find that balance, and from what I see, it's the NFLPA who is going to have to give concessions.   Or else some high-paid players are going to be released, and not be able to replace the salaries they lose. 

Plus, this upcoming FA period is already going to be hard on players' contract offers.   No need to see the market flooded by even -more- FA's who can't get decent contracts.   I expect to see lots of one-year contracts.

One year contracts is probably the smart move from everyone concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, falcons007 said:

Final 2021 number will likely be higher than 180 M floor. 

Interesting.  Probably quite a bit more when the TV cheddar rolls in.  Either way, this weirdly works to our advantage with signing FA.  Short deals, lower deals, etc 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, egoprime II said:

A lower cap number -should- mean less money spent on players' salaries.   However.... if a team is saving say, 30 million because of cap reduction, then turns around and cuts a player(s) which creates 30 million dead cap space....  where is the owner saving money?  They aren't.   Plus, replacements for the cut player(s) has to be found....

 

Not disagreeing with you but just clarifying something. 

Most of the $30M dead cap you talk about in your example is money that the player already has in his pocket. It's signing bonus money already paid, but for reasons of cap mechanics gets pro-rated to cap hits over the life of the contract. That owner already spent that money years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Geneaut said:

Not disagreeing with you but just clarifying something. 

Most of the $30M dead cap you talk about in your example is money that the player already has in his pocket. It's signing bonus money already paid, but for reasons of cap mechanics gets pro-rated to cap hits over the life of the contract. That owner already spent that money years ago.

Right, I get what you are saying.   For example, Ryan's salary this year is 23 million, it's paid out in the form of 'gameday paychecks'.  .   That does -not- include the guaranteed money he is getting this year.   If say, Ryan were cut, then he would not be paid that 23 million.

Taking Ryan's salary and converting it to guaranteed money so the Falcons can open up cap space..... basically the Falcons are asking Ryan to 'play now, get paid later'.   I thought about that, then asked myself..... why is it the Falcons need cap space?   The answer is, to sign yet -more- players.   Most times very expensive players like Dante Fowler.

And from what I have seen, the signing of expensive FAs that do not work out and get released ...... which produces the dreaded "dead cap space"  (example:  Jamon Brown)  happens at least as often as the signing of expensive FA's that DO work out (example:  Alex Mack, who played out his entire contract.... a true rarity.)   Even the release of Michael Turner created dead money because he was let go a year early.

I like to deal with facts, but the fact is, someone would have to dig deep into what NFL teams do with the cap money created by converting salaries into future guaranteed money.   Players signed with the created cap space, do those players work out?   Or create dead cap space themselves?  When it comes to the Falcons, I think we know the answer.   To the point where I feel comfortable with saying, Blank is going to end up losing some money, somewhere down the line.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/3/2021 at 12:55 PM, PokerSteve said:

I don't see how the player's union is letting the owners get away with cutting the cap by $18m this year. The pandemic isn't the player's fault, yet they are being put in the lurch because teams can't keep their vets and stay within the lower cap. The NFL needs to bring the cap up to a $190m minimum and amortize the owner's losses over the next few years. This is ridiculous.

The Pandemic isn't the owners fault either, it affects everybody , one way or the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...