ESPN piece on Seahawks Wilson breakup

[bigskydoc]

Cash over Cap doesn't allow a team to be competitive "year in and year out" and that is not what the speaker of that video is saying. He's saying that it allows a team to stack their roster because they are delaying cap hits to future years through signing bonus allocations (and unmentioned void years). You can't keep kicking the can down the road. Accounting doesn't work like that.

A team like the Rams showed how it can be done to win a SuperBowl. Teams will eventually start using this method in addition to having a ton of cap room when they have young stud QB on their rookie contract and then really have a stacked roster. A roster so stacked that even teams with a good QB will have trouble competing. If you are a poor team that can never use the Cash over Cap method? Good luck. You'll always run into a team willing to sacrifice the future for the current season which creates a competitive disadvantage since they can't do this.

As long as the salary cap, and contracts, keep going up, a well-managed cash over cap strategy will give the most consistent, year in and year out, success. A poorly managed cash over cap strategy will give the worst results. If you are staying out of the cash over cap game, you will constantly be chasing those teams who play it well.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Unless you're the Rams. Who magically have no cap. And I'm sure everything they do is above board
Hawks fans getting offended and sticking up for the Rams in 3.....2.....1.........

 

[bigskydoc]

Rams played the cash over cap game well until this last round of contracts. Unless the cap goes up more than expected, they will hit a rough patch in 2025. Their competitiveness over the next 2 years will probably be worth a couple of down years.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Fair enough, I don't buy it one bit. But I get blasted for it. So.......

 

[Recon_Hawk]

As long as the salary cap, and contracts, keep going up, a well-managed cash over cap strategy will give the most consistent, year in and year out, success. A poorly managed cash over cap strategy will give the worst results. If you are staying out of the cash over cap game, you will constantly be chasing those teams who play it well.

Just my opinion, the increase in the salary cap is irrelevant to the discussion of how the cash over cap method works in managing your cap since the cap goes up for everybody, equally.

So yes, the cap increase helps avoid the pain of an increasing cap hit from players signed using the cash over cap method, but then you are competing against teams who also gain from the cap increase AND don't have the increased cap hit hitting their books.

The cash over cap is more about making a championship run and then keeping that championship window open as long as possible. But eventually the cap hit needs to be recognized.

A poor cash over cap strategy would be thinking you are close enough to compete for a championship run and you really aren't. Like Seattle trading and signing Jamal Adams to a record contract. 2021 and 2022 were supposed to be our championship window with Russ. Of course that never played out and now we are eating the 5th most dead cap in the league and will be dealing with Adams contract over the next couple years.

"Adams was given a $21 million signing bonus, bringing his base salaries in 2021 and 2022 down to $1 million and $2 million, respectively."

Structure of Jamal Adams' Extension Explained

Now that the Seahawks have safety Jamal Adams under contract through the 2025 season, here's how the whole deal looks.

www.si.com

It's basically the same base strategy that the video described Rams using with Stafford.

 

[sc85sis]

Think Sanchez will win superbowls on '13 and '14 Hawks? or Kaep? or Flacco? or lol JimmyG? I gave these ideas some thoughts, and you know what? While none of these QB are better than Wilson individually, in fact far from it, but they could be adequate with Marshawn and that defense.

No idea whether Sanchez would have won Superbowls, but I'm sure Pete would have handled him better than Rex Ryan did. Flacco won a SB in Baltimore, so I think he could have done so here while he was still in his prime. Kaep back in the day? Maybe, though he'd have had to learn to put more touch on the ball instead of constantly throwing fastballs. Not sure about Jimmy G. He couldn't get there in SF with a pretty stacked team.

 

[Lagartixa]

Unless you're the Rams. Who magically have no cap. And I'm sure everything they do is above board
Hawks fans getting offended and sticking up for the Rams in 3.....2.....1.........

Not offended. Just disappointed that you continue to make unfounded allegations against the Rams. I've asked and asked, and you have still failed to come up with anything that could even be construed as suspicious on the Rams' cap. In fact, what seems to get your panties in a bunch is when the Rams sign a player to a top-of-the-market contract, which is the opposite of how cheating on the cap would look.

There are things about the way the officials treat the Rams in games that can at least be construed as suspicious. If I were a Saints fan, I'd still be pissed off. And at this point, I think Aaron Donald could stomp a player into bloody chunks on the field long after the whistle had blown and not get even a suspension for it. But I look at the numbers on sites where contract information is available, and I can't see anything even remotely suspicious about the Rams' cap situation.

You keep claiming the Rams "magically have no cap," but a complete list of their top 53 contracts plus "dead money" shows they're under the salary cap by over $4M. You roll your eyes after saying you're sure everything they do is above-board. OK, so what do you think they're doing that's not? So far, you've been able even to suggest anything they might be doing wrong. If you think they're cheating, tell us how. You don't even need to present evidence. Just tell us what you think they're doing that's against the cap rules.

 

[AgentDib]

Just my opinion, the increase in the salary cap is irrelevant to the discussion of how the cash over cap method works in managing your cap since the cap goes up for everybody, equally.

So yes, the cap increase helps avoid the pain of an increasing cap hit from players signed using the cash over cap method, but then you are competing against teams who also gain from the cap increase AND don't have the increased cap hit hitting their books.

The cash over cap is more about making a championship run and then keeping that championship window open as long as possible. But eventually the cap hit needs to be recognized.

A poor cash over cap strategy would be thinking you are close enough to compete for a championship run and you really aren't. Like Seattle trading and signing Jamal Adams to a record contract. 2021 and 2022 were supposed to be our championship window with Russ. Of course that never played out and now we are eating the 5th most dead cap in the league and will be dealing with Adams contract over the next couple years.

"Adams was given a $21 million signing bonus, bringing his base salaries in 2021 and 2022 down to $1 million and $2 million, respectively."

Structure of Jamal Adams' Extension Explained

Now that the Seahawks have safety Jamal Adams under contract through the 2025 season, here's how the whole deal looks.

www.si.com

It's basically the same base strategy that the video described Rams using with Stafford.

I couldn't agree more with your entire post here; there's no free lunch to be had when borrowing from the future. It's a discounting question of whether n% more this season is worth n% less in the future. The lack of an interest rate makes it appealing for many teams, and if the front office is on a short leash then they are going to be short-minded by necessity.

 

[toffee]

No idea whether Sanchez would have won Superbowls, but I'm sure Pete would have handled him better than Rex Ryan did. Flacco won a SB in Baltimore, so I think he could have done so here while he was still in his prime. Kaep back in the day? Maybe, though he'd have had to learn to put more touch on the ball instead of constantly throwing fastballs. Not sure about Jimmy G. He couldn't get there in SF with a pretty stacked team.

Our '13 and '14 team were stacked, and Wilson was playing game manager. I would say that our '13 and '14 was as stacked if not more so than JimmyG's 9ers? Flacco's Raven or Sanchez' Jets? I would say so, our defense was historic, our running game was very very good.

My point was these so so mediocre QB played in conference championship games, some of them not once but twice. Frankly with our super star QB, we got the same result.

 

[Cyrus12]

Letsride.com

Just like Russ' "Seahawks for life", John63 claimed to be a "Hawks fan first"

Ya I think we all knew the guy was a joke...im sure after a few games he will be crying the blues there as well in defence of his hero..

 

[bigskydoc]

Just my opinion, the increase in the salary cap is irrelevant to the discussion of how the cash over cap method works in managing your cap since the cap goes up for everybody, equally.

So yes, the cap increase helps avoid the pain of an increasing cap hit from players signed using the cash over cap method, but then you are competing against teams who also gain from the cap increase AND don't have the increased cap hit hitting their books.

The cash over cap is more about making a championship run and then keeping that championship window open as long as possible. But eventually the cap hit needs to be recognized.

Cash over cap allows you to pay a player now, as if you were paying them under the future cap. Teams that are not playing that game are paying all their players under the current cap, thus are hamstrung in picking up free agents, and retaining their own players.

A salary that takes up 10% of today's cap might take up less than 7% under the future cap. In effect the cash over cap team gets to pay a smaller percentage of the cap than the team not playing the game. That team will be paying 10% every year.

If you structure your extensions well, you can spread that hit out over multiple years, and push any piper paying even further into the future.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Again, I'm not buying it, and never will. Sorry it bothers people so much. Meh. Screw the Rams.

Go Hawks

 

[Recon_Hawk]

Cash over cap allows you to pay a player now, as if you were paying them under the future cap. Teams that are not playing that game are paying all their players under the current cap, thus are hamstrung in picking up free agents, and retaining their own players.

A salary that takes up 10% of today's cap might take up less than 7% under the future cap. In effect the cash over cap team gets to pay a smaller percentage of the cap than the team not playing the game. That team will be paying 10% every year.

If you structure your extensions well, you can spread that hit out over multiple years, and push any piper paying even further into the future.

I think you are missing the part that the other teams also gains from the increase in salary cap.

Let use an example and keep it simple.

The salary cap is $200million over the next two years and it doesn't increase. Take that variable out of it.

Team A would choose to use cash over cap. They would pay 10 players, $5 Million in 2022 and $15million each in 2023. That's $50Million for 10 players in year 1 and $150million in year 2. They remaining $150 million and $50million is paid out in year 1 and year 2 for the remaining 43 players on the roster, respectively.

Team B would choose to pay out the same contract, but split equally each year. They pay the same 10 players $10 Million in 2022 and $10million in 2023. That's $100Million for 10 players in year 1 and $100million in year 2. They remaining $100 million is paid out in year 1 and year 2 for the remaining 43 players on the roster, respectively.

Team A is at the advantage in Year 1. They have $150 million to pay for 43 players. Team B would only have $100million.

Team B is at the advantage in Year 2. Team B has $100million to pay for 43 players, but Team A has only $50Million.

Now, let's add back the increase in salary cap. Assume the salary cap goes up $50Million in year 2 for a total of $250M.

Year 1 is the same. Team A still have the advantage paying $100Million for 43 players.

In Year 2, the cap goes up. Team A has $100M to spend on 43 players. HOWEVER, team B now has $150M to pay for 43 players. They still have the advantage over Team A in year 2.

It's all the same because every team receives the same cap increase as each other. Of course, Team A can continue to push cap hits into the future to keep the same 10 players on the roster, but over time Team A will have less and less cap space to pay the other 43 players to the point they can't afford the same 10 players and will have not be able to keep them because they are forced to recognize the delayed cap hit.

 

[Maelstrom787]

It also wasn't Wilson's only option, but Seattle perferred option, because of Drew Lock and… What is being left out of the article. Seattle only wanted to trade him to the AFC, because they are absolutely mortified of Wilson killing them every year, or nearly every year. The other teams interested were NFC.

Oh, hey. Look.

 

[Hollandhawk]

Oh, hey. Look.

You saying Fade is making up stuff?

 

[Maelstrom787]

You saying Fade is making up stuff?

Oh heavens, no!

 

[Fade]

Oh, hey. Look.

My post was referring to the 2022 off-season, not what may have transpired and inevitably never happened the previous off-seasons.

Pete or John, in an interview/presser brought up moving him to the AFC. Sorry I can't remember which or I would pull it up for you, Pete does a lot of pressers, might've been John.

 

[Fade]

Rams played the cash over cap game well until this last round of contracts. Unless the cap goes up more than expected, they will hit a rough patch in 2025. Their competitiveness over the next 2 years will probably be worth a couple of down years.

If they do indeed hit a rough patch in 2025, it will have been a good run for them. They've been doing this since 2018 or thereabouts, 8 seasons of having an advantage over most of your opponents is more than worth it. Have a reset season, and then go right back to doing it again.

I'm skeptical it will even come though. Because there will be just another 5 seasons (2026-2031) to kick the can down to with the salary cap ever increasing. Even the decreased cap of 2021 didn't stop them. Now the cap is going to be climbing at rates we've never seen before upcoming. The key is as long as the owner isn't using the team as a major source of income, and they are willing to put $500M-$1B+ into escrow every year.

Having the ability to do this strategy not only allows your team to remain competitive longer, but coming out of a reset you can rebuild faster. So even if the Rams have a bad year they will be back to being contenders before you can blink.

While the other teams do it the old fashioned way, taking anywhere from a few years to a decade to hit on a enough draft picks to be contenders themselves. "F@#$ them picks!"

 

[Maelstrom787]

My post was referring to the 2022 off-season, not what may have transpired and inevitably never happened the previous off-seasons.

Pete or John, in an interview/presser brought up moving him to the AFC. Sorry I can't remember which or I would pull it up for you, Pete does a lot of pressers, might've been John.

Fair enough. They have brought it up a few times, so I can't refute that. It'd be foolish of them to not have AFC as a desired trait for the eventual suitor.

I don't think it was necessarily the deal breaker, but I could see them weighting conference pretty heavily.

 

[bigskydoc]

If they do indeed hit a rough patch in 2025, it will have been a good run for them. They've been doing this since 2018 or thereabouts, 8 seasons of having an advantage over most of your opponents is more than worth it. Have a reset season, and then go right back to doing it again.

I'm skeptical it will even come though. Because there will be just another 5 seasons (2026-2031) to kick the can down to with the salary cap ever increasing. Even the decreased cap of 2021 didn't stop them. Now the cap is going to be climbing at rates we've never seen before upcoming. The key is as long as the owner isn't using the team as a major source of income, and they are willing to put $500M-$1B+ into escrow every year.

Having the ability to do this strategy not only allows your team to remain competitive longer, but coming out of a reset you can rebuild faster. So even if the Rams have a bad year they will be back to being contenders before you can blink.

While the other teams do it the old fashioned way, taking anywhere from a few years to a decade to hit on a enough draft picks to be contenders themselves. "F@#$ them picks!"

Agreed. It has been well worth it, and a stumble in 2025 isn't inevitable, that's just how it looks from the way the current contracts are laid out.

All it takes is a couple of restructurings, to smooth that rough spot out. And yes, even if they do need a reset year, they will be right back to the cash over cap game after a season or two.

As long as the cap keeps going up, they can outcompete anyone who is playing the traditional cap game, because they will essentially be perpetually paying their stars and free agents under a future salary cap.

The Seahawks can afford to play that game too, but their history with free agents leaves me with great skepticism that they could play it well.