Elvis' 2025 cap and roster cleanup proposal (12 Viewers)

[StudioSaint]

THIS. THIS 10X OVER. Especially this part



All these "theories" that don't account for this will always be woefully incorrect. I used to try to explain it on here but I've given up. Too many are stuck thinking about the salary cap as a static 1 year cycle. Too many talking heads, too many fans, and honestly some teams as well. And this couldn't be farther from the truth.
The salary cap is dynamic and it encompasses the spending of a rolling 5 years. It's the reason, teams are always shocked that the Saints can sign anyone every year. I'm dumbfounded that fans who post to SR and know the Saints are capable of signing whoever they want each year, still go into a doom and gloom spiral at the end of the season. Loomis is a numbers guy. Khai Harley is a salary cap savant. Under Loomis, most all personnel decisions have been made by the head coach. The Saints have just severed ties with one of the historically worst coaches in NFL history. Are we really shocked that the personnel choices over the past few years have not been fruitful?
What has been proposed in this thread aligns with the idea that the salary cap is a series of independent, static year to year calculations. When you look at it like that, like the Raiders currently do, you're panicked into letting good players walk. And perhaps the Raiders will change their philosophy this year with ample salary cap space and an interjection of new ownership, but historically they've operated in such a way that they let the cap interfere with their ability to retain talent at the risk of losing cap space. I think the Saints manipulate the cap based on the percentage the player accounts for within a pool that's ever increasing (except the year it didn't which is the one time the Saints really had a salary cap issue) accounting for the players as a percentage over 5 years instead of a hard number in 1 year. Unfortunately, the personnel decisions have now worked out due to injury (Ramczyk) or bad decisions (Hill). But it's also why Loomis can make 80 million seemingly vanish every year while signing new players. The problem as of late has been who the Saints have decided to keep or sign and not how much. The cap problem looks very different if Hendrickson, Elliss, Chauncey, etc. are still Saints instead the people signed or drafted as alternatives. I wish a deep dive explaining the salary cap would help, but what's the point? People will either not get it or ignore it. It reminds me of the scene from Good Will Hunting (NSFW)...

The people who use the credit card analogy don't make the right comparison either. They think the salary cap is like the outstanding balance on a credit card. It's not. This is the accurate analogy to a credit card.

• The salary cap limit is equal to the credit limit on a credit card, not the balance.
• The NFL is equal to a credit card company that:
  • doesn't require you to pay them anything
  • in fact, the credit card company pays you every annual statement cycle and they pay you more than the credit limit is
  • they only require that you keep the balance under the credit limit every annual cycle
  • they automatically raise your credit limit and the amount they pay you every year
• your balance is equal to active player subscriptions plus new player subscriptions
  • if your player subscriptions would put you over the credit limit in the current year's annual cycle, they allow you to move current year subscription charges to future annual cycles so you can get under the current minimum balance
  • since they raise your credit limit every year, you can keep moving some of the current year player subscription charges into future billing cycles (except for when there is a once in a hundred years global pandemic or some other once in a lifetime global catastrophe that causes a one or two year decrease in the credit limit)

That's the only type of credit card that would be analogous to the salary cap. By the way, no such credit card exists. If one does exist, sign me up.

 

[Ghost]

A better way to look at it might be this which is true for any NFL team:

There are three resources to build an NFL team:

1. Draft
2. FA
3. UDFA

All three however are subject to the salary cap. While true the bill never comes due, it does have a hard limit.

The practical effect of the Saints way of managing it is that it’s limiting. Let’s say for the sake of argument a team has $100 to spend to build a roster and $50 is taken up by the QB leaving $50 for the rest of the players. Banking on cap going up to $120 the next year sound great in a vacuum but does present problems.

- that QB might cost $60 the next year or $70
- 31 other teams got that $20 increase as well.
- it might not increase at all.
- a team might spend some of those dollars of which there is only 100 of on a player that doesn’t pan out and can’t be reallocated easily.

While it doesn’t prevent placing a team on the field it might not be the one you want as the other 31 teams have at least some of that $100 on the positive side as opposed to starting out at -$50 each year.

A team can be fielded sure, but it comes at a cost that other teams can get players easier than if for no other reason than they have the $ to do it. The Saints can always find a way but that too comes at a cost on the roster.

 

[Ghost]

Or maybe it’s a better/different way to say it: the rest of the 31 teams start at $100 on the maximum cap each year, the Saints start at $80.

Now I can see that argument that the $20 was already spent the year prior or it’s being spent next year but that $20 (or less) isn’t available for building the team in the current year.

That really appears to be the point of disagreement. I don’t think there is any disagreement on how it works as set up by the NFL, rather how one team chooses to apply it.

 

[Elvis]

I think I can give you a better blueprint/example than Denver. Entering the 2021 off-season the Eagles were coming off a 4-11-1 season (7-9 the prior two seasons). They had a frequently injured Carson Wentz on a big contract and had just watched their rookie Jalen Hurts struggle in 4 starts but he showed some potential. They started $53million over the projected salary cap. They had good pieces on the OL/DL but were without much talent at the skill positions (like drafting Jalen Reagor over Justin Jefferson) and in the back end of the defense.

They fired their head coach and hired Nick Sirianni. The media had the same speculation on what they would do at QB as the Saints are having now. Most assumed they would run it back with Wentz. They ended up trading him to the Colts and taking on a bunch more dead cap split over a couple of years. They cut and restructured like crazy to get cap compliant followed by signing a bunch of cheap 1yr contracts in free agency.

They went 9-8 in 2021 getting a wildcard spot in a tie-break over the Saints. The only team they beat that year with a winning record. In 2022 they made it to the Super Bowl.

2021 Philadelphia Eagles season - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Philadelphia Eagles' salary cap situation heading into 2021

What is the state of the Philadelphia Eagles' salary cap situation in 2021, and what moves could they make to open up more cap space?

www.profootballnetwork.com

THANK YOU!!!!

What an amazing real life example that proves that the method I am talking about can and actually has done what I've been theorizing it would do. They took a near $34m cap hit from just Wentz that year and $63m overall. Which isn't quite as much as the Broncos did last year ($89m in 2024), but the overall scenario is so much closer to where we are. And both teams still got better while cutting their expensive QBs.

 

[StudioSaint]

A better way to look at it might be this which is true for any NFL team:

There are three resources to build an NFL team:

1. Draft
2. FA
3. UDFA

All three however are subject to the salary cap. While true the bill never comes due, it does have a hard limit.

The practical effect of the Saints way of managing it is that it’s limiting. Let’s say for the sake of argument a team has $100 to spend to build a roster and $50 is taken up by the QB leaving $50 for the rest of the players. Banking on cap going up to $120 the next year sound great in a vacuum but does present problems.

- that QB might cost $60 the next year or $70
- 31 other teams got that $20 increase as well.
- it might not increase at all.
- a team might spend some of those dollars of which there is only 100 of on a player that doesn’t pan out and can’t be reallocated easily.

While it doesn’t prevent placing a team on the field it might not be the one you want as the other 31 teams have at least some of that $100 on the positive side as opposed to starting out at -$50 each year.

A team can be fielded sure, but it comes at a cost that other teams can get players easier than if for no other reason than they have the $ to do it. The Saints can always find a way but that too comes at a cost on the roster.

What is being overlooked in the accounting is that if you have $50.00 against the cap in the current year that was pushed forward from a previous year, then you were able to get an extra $50.00 spending credit in a previous year that didn't count against that years cap.

That money isn't being lost in the current year. You spent it in a previous year and didn't count it until the current year, but you still got to spend that money on someone you wouldn't have been able to get if you hadn't pushed the charge for it into the current year.

You aren't losing any net buying power. You already got someone for that $50.00 that counts this year, you just got them in a previous year. You can move current cap this year into the future to give you more space this year to go out an get more players. The cycle only breaks when there is a once in a hundred year occurrence that drives the cap down for a year or two. That shouldn't be an issue again for another 90 years or so.

 

[StudioSaint]

Or maybe it’s a better/different way to say it: the rest of the 31 teams start at $100 on the maximum cap each year, the Saints start at $80.

Now I can see that argument that the $20 was already spent the year prior or it’s being spent next year but that $20 (or less) isn’t available for building the team in the current year.

Unless, you move $20.00 more into future years, which you can do. And in that future year you can move it again into more future years. The only time that cycle breaks is when there is a once in a century event that temporarily lowers the cap one year or the NFL starts losing money. If the NFL starts losing money, the salary cap is the least of a team's problem.

 

[StudioSaint]

THANK YOU!!!!

What an amazing real life example that proves that the method I am talking about can and actually has done what I've been theorizing it would do. They took a near $34m cap hit from just Wentz that year and $63m overall. Which isn't quite as much as the Broncos did last year ($89m in 2024), but the overall scenario is so much closer to where we are. And both teams still got better while cutting their expensive QBs.

The Saints could do it. History and the way Moore was talking yesterday and the way Loomis always talks, it's not likely the Saints will do it, but they definitely could.

Also, the Saints don't have to do it. It's not their only path toward building a competitive team this year and in the future.

The players they acquire are a lot more critical to their success than how they get those players.

 

[livefromDC]

A better way to look at it might be this which is true for any NFL team:

There are three resources to build an NFL team:

1. Draft
2. FA
3. UDFA

All three however are subject to the salary cap. While true the bill never comes due, it does have a hard limit.

The practical effect of the Saints way of managing it is that it’s limiting. Let’s say for the sake of argument a team has $100 to spend to build a roster and $50 is taken up by the QB leaving $50 for the rest of the players. Banking on cap going up to $120 the next year sound great in a vacuum but does present problems.

- that QB might cost $60 the next year or $70
- 31 other teams got that $20 increase as well.
- it might not increase at all.
- a team might spend some of those dollars of which there is only 100 of on a player that doesn’t pan out and can’t be reallocated easily.

While it doesn’t prevent placing a team on the field it might not be the one you want as the other 31 teams have at least some of that $100 on the positive side as opposed to starting out at -$50 each year.

A team can be fielded sure, but it comes at a cost that other teams can get players easier than if for no other reason than they have the $ to do it. The Saints can always find a way but that too comes at a cost on the roster.

Right on cue. And this is why I stay away from salary cap discussion threads. It always leads to these oversimplifications. And the oversimplification always leads to the rationale that you have to cut players until you're under the cap.

Tanking to build is just not a viable solution to winning in the NFL. And having $120 million in cap space doesn't help you become a contender either. We saw Jacksonville give out insane contract amounts for a couple years. We're going to see New England do it soon as well. Because under all of the doom and gloom of having no cap space is the reality that you also have to spend a certain amount of the rolling 5 year cap space as well. These shallow analogies don't take into account how complicated the cap is and perhaps more importantly, the importance of the cost of talent in the league.

 

[Elvis]

Or maybe it’s a better/different way to say it: the rest of the 31 teams start at $100 on the maximum cap each year, the Saints start at $80.

Now I can see that argument that the $20 was already spent the year prior or it’s being spent next year but that $20 (or less) isn’t available for building the team in the current year.

That really appears to be the point of disagreement. I don’t think there is any disagreement on how it works as set up by the NFL, rather how one team chooses to apply it.

My issue is that every year we are talking about how there are players that the team should move on from that we simply can't because we already kicked their money into this year and they would count on the cap regardless. That's why people don't like the idea of cutting Carr. They don't want to pay the bill for 2023/2024 in 2025. They want to refinance it with interest and pay it next year or the year after or the year after while chasing that elusive playoff spot that we haven't reached in the past 4 years.

It's not even just one contract, there are several players that probably shouldn't cost what they do to be on the roster anymore. Like Cam, Demario, Tyrann and probably Taysom who have a combined cap hit of $61.8m cap hit this year, and it would cost $10m more in dead money to cut. That wouldn't be the end of the world if we had cap space and depth but we're starting $54m in the hole and don't have anyone behind them. So the can on those guys is likely to be be kicked one more time as well.

 

[Elvis]

Right on cue. And this is why I stay away from salary cap discussion threads. It always leads to these oversimplifications. And the oversimplification always leads to the rationale that you have to cut players until you're under the cap.

Tanking to build is just not a viable solution to winning in the NFL. And having $120 million in cap space doesn't help you become a contender either. We saw Jacksonville give out insane contract amounts for a couple years. We're going to see New England do it soon as well. Because under all of the doom and gloom of having no cap space is the reality that you also have to spend a certain amount of the rolling 5 year cap space as well. These shallow analogies don't take into account how complicated the cap is and perhaps more importantly, the importance of the cost of talent in the league.

Talk about oversimplifications. Maybe you see it that way, but others do not. In fact MOST NFL teams don't see it the way you do. Most of them are leaving themselves the cap space and flexibility to pivot away from players when they need to. Only the Browns have done to their cap what we've done and they are openly mocked for the contract that put them there. And yet they are still $24m less in the hole that the Saints are. And those Jaguars insane contracts have them sitting $32m above the cap with room for their new coach to work while Kellen Moore is stuck with a bunch of old players and an over priced QB.

 

[livefromDC]

What is being overlooked in the accounting is that if you have $50.00 against the cap in the current year that was pushed forward from a previous year, then you were able to get an extra $50.00 spending credit in a previous year that didn't count against that years cap.

That money isn't being lost in the current year. You spent it in a previous year and didn't count it until the current year, but you still got to spend that money on someone you wouldn't have been able to get if you hadn't pushed the charge for it into the current year.

You aren't losing any net buying power. You already got someone for that $50.00 that counts this year, you just got them in a previous year. You can move current cap this year into the future to give you more space this year to go out an get more players. The cycle only breaks when there is a once in a hundred year occurrence that drives the cap down for a year or two. That shouldn't be an issue again for another 90 years or so.

Yes, all these caveats have to be included in the example. And the more you do it, the more you realize the Saints aren't really too far off. It's more so a personnel issue.

The idea to dump Wentz, who the Eagles drafted to be their franchise QB but was failing miserably is not the same as Derek Carr. Teams are learning to quickly move on from QBs on rookie deals who turn out to not be the guy because they are expensive and usually high draft picks. Knowing he's not the guy, what are you going to do? Ask him to be your back up while you search for the next guy? No, Wentz, Josh Rosen, Justin Fields... These guys get moved for good reason.

 

[StudioSaint]

My issue is that every year we are talking about how there are players that the team should move on from that we simply can't

I think this is where the disconnect is. The Saints may not want to move on from the players that you and others think they should move on from. The Saints might be able to move on from those player is they want to, just like they are always signing players that people say they can't.

There's this constant assumption that what you and others think the Saints should want is what the Saints actually want. History says that's not the case. History says that the Saints get most of the players they want and move on from players when they want.

I just keep seeing this underlying assumption that the Saints don't do what you and others say they should do, because they can't. You and others seem to think it's impossible that the Saints simply don't want to do what you and others think they should do.

 

[ELLIASJWILLIAMS]

Oh, it's controversial alright, at least amongst a group of 3-4 prolific posters. But I have no idea what Moore wants to do. I don't think any coach would ever claim to not be trying to compete for the division. You can do the right thing for the team and still compete. There are always scenarios like what happened in Denver this year where they ate a ton of dead money, started a rookie QB and made the playoffs. They were definitely competing. But they were also taking care of the financial side of things and clearing some players off the roster they didn't want. That is what my proposal attempts to do and I'd love to see it work out the same way as Denver.

Food for thought.

If Moore/Saints were concerned w/ public perception or PR relations, saying anything but “we see an opportunity to compete for the division” would have made sense considering it’s what most don’t want to hear.

That was a true statement and he believes they can and that lines up w/ everything Loomis has been saying last two years.

Loomis is competitive, he’s not planning on having a “we have to lose to win in the future year”. Funny enough it happened organically last year and we get a high pick because of it.

Remember I posted and article in December that pointed out we were the best of the middle of the road teams according to DVOA? Ironically because of the injuries we finished worse than all the teams in that bunch and the losing helped us.

Would love to see Rizzi get more wins, but we need highest slot in the draft we can get.

With all that we've faced this year, and how much we've been told this roster is void of talent - according to EPA we're the best of the middle of the pack teams. Currently we'd pick ahead of the Dolphiins and Seahawks, and are couple of losses away from potentially swapping w/ the Jets and...

saintsreport.com

The team isn’t so far off that they have to execute the plan you’ve laid out.

Nothing is wrong with/ the plan, it’s well crafted, but it’s built around the theory we have to tear it down to win and that’s where the fallacy lies in what you’ve presented.

We’re a talented team, just need to build depth so we can better sustain.

 

[livefromDC]

It's not even just one contract, there are several players that probably shouldn't cost what they do to be on the roster anymore. Like Cam, Demario, Tyrann and probably Taysom who have a combined cap hit of $61.8m cap hit this year, and it would cost $10m more in dead money to cut. That wouldn't be the end of the world if we had cap space and depth but we're starting $54m in the hole and don't have anyone behind them. So the can on those guys is likely to be be kicked one more time as well.

Let's use this as an example. They cost much less when they were signed and the salary cap was lower. They each accounted for a smaller percentage of the salary cap when they were signed. That combined cost of $61.8m this year is better than if the Saints would have assumed it 3 years ago when the cap the much lower. That would have cost the Saints players 3 years ago because they wouldn't have had nearly as much cap space. Instead of getting this cap hit then when it's less manageable for 3 significant team pieces. You assume it now when it's actually a much lower percentage of your cap.

The PROBLEM is NOT that the Saints gave out these contracts. The problem is that they gave them to extremely old veterans and an offensive weapon who is amazing but would not have demanded nearly that much on the open market. The Saints made bad personnel decisions with those contracts. If those contracts are Hendrickson, Baun, and Chauncey Gardner and Ramczyk doens't have degenerative condition, the team is better and still in a great position to add players to a solid nucleus.

 

[Elvis]

Food for thought, if Moore/Saints were concerned w/ public perception or PR relations saying anything but “we see an opportunity to compete for the division” would have made sense considering it’s what most don’t want to hear.

That was a true statement and he believes they can and that lines up w/ everything Loomis has been saying last two years.

Loomis is competitive he’s not planning on having a “we have to lose to win in the future year”. Funny enough it happened organically last year and we get a high pick because of it.

Remember I posted and article in December that pointed out we were the best of the middle of the road teams according to DVOA. Ironically because of the injuries we finished worse than all the teams in that bunch and the losing helped us.

Would love to see Rizzi get more wins, but we need highest slot in the draft we can get.

With all that we've faced this year, and how much we've been told this roster is void of talent - according to EPA we're the best of the middle of the pack teams. Currently we'd pick ahead of the Dolphiins and Seahawks, and are couple of losses away from potentially swapping w/ the Jets and...

saintsreport.com

The team isn’t so far off that they have to execute the plan you’ve laid out, nothing is wrong with/ the plan but it’s built around the theory we have to tear it down to win and that’s where the fallacy in that you’ve presented lies.

We’re a talented team, just need to build depth so we can better sustain.

I think the misconception is that I proposed to tear it down. The plan I suggested cut 5 total players in 2025. One who is in reality is retiring, Ram. Two that have under performed, Williams and Cedrick Wilson. Two that have expensive contracts that will be more expensive in 2026 if they were restructured, Carr and Cam Jordan who is going to be 36 years old. The other old players contracts will void on their own next year and we would be free from being $54m over the cap and free from an aging roster in 13 months.

There is no gutting of the team going on with the plan I laid out and definitely no tanking. It's simply not going all in on an old fan favorite player and an over priced QB.