NOF: Saints in position to get under the cap with ease and create another $30+ million in cap space to add new players (2 Viewers)

[St. Widge]

What they really want to maintain is flexibility to move on from players when needed, a flexibility we lack. That is the principle difference between our strategy and the one used by everyone else.

That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that those owners want to keep their player costs as low as possible so they can make as much money as possible. I think all owners would rather win than not (in part because winning teams make more money), but some look at owning a NFL team as an investment and opportunity to make money where as others care more about winning. A lot of the teams with all that flexibility have owners that care more about the money and others only care to win enough to maximize profits while keeping the player cost as low as possible. The salary cap allows owners to guarantee certain amounts of profit as long as you don't do things to actually spend more than the cap allows. And they can make even more by staying far under the cap.

 

[St. Widge]

Right? I don't see why people can't see how this works. Nobody that is criticizing kicking the can is doing so because they think we can't get under the cap and add a few guys. We're saying it because it locks us into guys that we might want to move off of to make the team better. For example, a declining DE for a better one at the same cap number. To do that now means you have to eat the dead money (if even possible) AND also pay the new guy. Which is probably why we're not going to get better at DE this off season.

Who is it that you think they really want to move on from but can't because of the cap?

Also, with the way the Saints do things, they can keep Cam Jordan (whose name you did not use) and also add a DE.

 

[St. Widge]

They are using it, by maintaining space they have more options than we do when it comes to roster management. Creating and spending every cap dollar you can gets rid of those options.

Options have value, I don't know why it's such a controversial view.

Lol. They are using it by continuing to have a bunch of cap space just in case they may want to cut a player that they gave a big contract to at some point? That's not using cap space, that's increasing your profits.

 

[Rouxble]

That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that those owners want to keep their player costs as low as possible so they can make as much money as possible. I think all owners would rather win than not (in part because winning teams make more money), but some look at owning a NFL team as an investment and opportunity to make money where as others care more about winning. A lot of the team with all that flexibility have owners that care more about the money and others only care to win enough to maximize profits while keeping the player cost as low as possible. The salary cap allows owners to guarantee certain amounts of profit as long as you don't do things to actually spend more than the cap allows. And they can make even more by staying far under the cap.

There are minimum cash spending requirements, so the days of being cheap relative to the cap to squeeze out extra profit are practically over.

Right now, seven teams have higher cash payrolls than the Saints in 2024, before any new deals are signed. Eight teams spent more than us the year prior, and eleven teams spent more than us in 2021.

Having the highest future cap commitment doesn't necessarily mean we are spending the most money.

 

[Elvis]

That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that those owners want to keep their player costs as low as possible so they can make as much money as possible. I think all owners would rather win than not (in part because winning teams make more money), but some look at owning a NFL team as an investment and opportunity to make money where as others care more about winning. A lot of the teams with all that flexibility have owners that care more about the money and others only care to win enough to maximize profits while keeping the player cost as low as possible. The salary cap allows owners to guarantee certain amounts of profit as long as you don't do things to actually spend more than the cap allows. And they can make even more by staying far under the cap.

The CBA has a cap floor that requires all teams to spend 89% of the cap over a 4 years period. Can a cheap team save a little more money spending less? Sure. In reality the 11% they'd gain in salaries over that 4 years period is less than they'd gain if they spent 95-100% and their teams were good. If the Saints were good, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Our problem is that our roster is the most expensive in the league AND not even good enough to get to the playoffs in the weakest division in the league and with the one of the easiest schedules on record.

 

[Rouxble]

Lol. They are using it by continuing to have a bunch of cap space just in case they may want to cut a player that they gave a big contract to at some point? That's not using cap space, that's increasing your profits.

As already posted, plenty of teams are spending more than us without being tremendously over the cap each year. They pay base salaries, we pay restructuring bonuses, the cash still goes out the door.

 

[St. Geezy]

The CBA has a cap floor that requires all teams to spend 89% of the cap over a 4 years period. Can a cheap team save a little more money spending less? Sure. In reality the 11% they'd gain in salaries over that 4 years period is less than they'd gain if they spent 95-100% and their teams were good. If the Saints were good, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Our problem is that our roster is the most expensive in the league AND not even good enough to get to the playoffs in the weakest division in the league and with the one of the easiest schedules on record.

This is debatable. Can you honestly say we wouldn’t be playing this weekend if we had SP or competent coaching? Do you feel our talent is being maximized?

 

[St. Widge]

There are minimum cash spending requirements, so the days of being cheap relative to the cap to squeeze out extra profit are practically over.

Right now, seven teams have higher cash payrolls than the Saints in 2024, before any new deals are signed. Eight teams spent more than us the year prior, and eleven teams spent more than us in 2021.

Having the highest future cap commitment doesn't necessarily mean we are spending the most money.

Yes and those minimum cash spending requirements allows owners to still make a huge profit.

And I didn't say all teams do that and some of the teams that spend a bunch of money, do it the same way we do, but not necessarily to the same extent we do. Philly for example.

The point is that there are many ways to manage the cap and it's not clear that any one way is better than the other. They all have issues some don't allow you to keep your own good but expensive players, some give you less flexibility if you sign a bad contract, some make you sacrifice older leadership and talent in exchange for flexibility, others force you to tear your team apart once you have a really good year, etc.

But, in the end, none of them work well if you are bad at talent evaluation and coaching where as most of them work really well if you are good at talent evaluation and coaching. In the end, it's likely that the best way to manage the cap depends on the situation and circumstances you are in.

 

[Rouxble]

This is debatable. Can you honestly say we wouldn’t be playing this weekend if we had SP or competent coaching? Do you feel our talent is being maximized?

I think our talent is being limited more by the offensive and defensive lines than it is by the coaching. Using the DL as an example, here were our rankings the last three years on pass rush win rate:

2021 - 26th
2022 - 32nd
2023 - 31st

Is it really coaching that just can't figure out how to use talent, or are we overrating the talent because it's our team?

I would blame the front office more than the coaching, if we can get pressure and protect the QB but still can't win then the culprit becomes either the QB or the coaching.

 

[St. Widge]

As already posted, plenty of teams are spending more than us without being tremendously over the cap each year. They pay base salaries, we pay restructuring bonuses, the cash still goes out the door.

If you look over the last 10 years the Saints are still very high up in what is spent. And, how much flexibility they have will depend on the age of the team. The team is old right now which means less flexibility. That changes when Cam, Demario, Lattimore, AK, MT, Mathieu, Ram, etc. are gone. Then they will have that flexibility again. And, yes, they will start to get less flexible over time again.

But, my point was that having flexibility is pointless if you aren't using the space. If you have space, you could be spending more for more and better players. I'd also wager that a lot of the teams with all that flexibility are young teams with young QBs that are still on rookie deals.

But, again, what players have we lost or failed to sign because we didn't have the money?

And, what players do we want to cut that we can't cut?

 

[St. Widge]

I think our talent is being limited more by the offensive and defensive lines than it is by the coaching. Using the DL as an example, here were our rankings the last three years on pass rush win rate:

2021 - 26th
2022 - 32nd
2023 - 31st

Is it really coaching that just can't figure out how to use talent, or are we overrating the talent because it's our team?

I would blame the front office more than the coaching, if we can get pressure and protect the QB but still can't win then the culprit becomes either the QB or the coaching.

The DL lacks talent but because DA is a good DC (terrible HC but good DC) the defense is still good. 6th in scoring defense last I looked. But, I think that's because DA thought he was good enough that he could scheme around mediocre DL talent and he was wrong.

As far as the OL, I don't think it's a talent issue. We have plenty talent to at least have an above average OL. It's an issue with coaching. Likely with the OL Coach, offensive scheme, and play calling.

 

[St. Geezy]

I think our talent is being limited more by the offensive and defensive lines than it is by the coaching. Using the DL as an example, here were our rankings the last three years on pass rush win rate:

2021 - 26th
2022 - 32nd
2023 - 31st

Is it really coaching that just can't figure out how to use talent, or are we overrating the talent because it's our team?

I would blame the front office more than the coaching, if we can get pressure and protect the QB but still can't win then the culprit becomes either the QB or the coaching.

I’d say that this still can’t be attributed to cap issues.
Davenport, and possibly also Foskey busting is a big reason for that.

Sure it would be nice to have kept Trey in hindsight, but we decided to roll the dice on Davenport and also during the most unique financial offseason ever, we (incorrectly) bet that Trey was a one year wonder.

 

[Rouxble]

Yes and those minimum cash spending requirements allows owners to still make a huge profit.

And I didn't say all teams do that and some of the teams that spend a bunch of money, do it the same way we do, but not necessarily to the same extent we do. Philly for example.

The point is that there are many ways to manage the cap and it's not clear that any one way is better than the other. They all have issues some don't allow you to keep your own good but expensive players, some give you less flexibility if you sign a bad contract, some make you sacrifice older leadership and talent in exchange for flexibility, others force you to tear your team apart once you have a really good year, etc.

But, in the end, none of them work well if you are bad at talent evaluation and coaching where as most of them work really well if you are good at talent evaluation and coaching. In the end, it's likely that the best way to manage the cap depends on the situation and circumstances you are in.

The Eagles definitely spent more than us over the last three years. This chart is for three year cash spending from before the 2023 league year, the Eagles were just $6m behind us and that was before they spent $55m on Hurts, Johnson, and Slay. Saints are 17th on the below chart, the idea that we are outspending the league is false. We are just limiting our future options by paying bonuses instead of salaries. Only four teams were considerably behind us (more than 10% less cash spent).

 

[Rouxble]

I’d say that this still can’t be attributed to cap issues.
Davenport, and possibly also Foskey busting is a big reason for that.

Sure it would be nice to have kept Trey in hindsight, but we decided to roll the dice on Davenport and also during the most unique financial offseason ever, we (incorrectly) bet that Trey was a one year wonder.

Loomis was on record saying he wanted to keep Trey but the numbers would need to work. Trey only got $16m guaranteed, it's almost pitiful that we couldn't sign him for that. At the time 45 edge rushers had more guaranteed money on their contracts than he did.

We gave more guaranteed money to Granderson after just two games this season.

 

[kcirdor]

Imagine if we had the flexibility to keep Trey Hendrickson and Terron Armstead... 2023 Saints would be playing this week with just those two players... the mic was dropped and it broke. No more mics.