salary cap hell! (1 Viewer)

[Boudie123456]

saints need to get out of this salary cap situation. projected @ -83 million for 2024. time to trade down and gather as many picks as possible. yeah you might not get all the best picks in the draft,but you could get a lot of good players that could help this team and lower your cap hinderance. it's the only way that this team gets better. 7-9 and 9 -8 teams speak volumes about it's mediocrity. would be nice to see this team with cap space above a negative number. i think the winnow model has not worked. time to try a new strategy. get younger, get faster, and get smarter.

 

[Swampy Saint]

saints need to get out of this salary cap situation. projected @ -83 million for 2024. time to trade down and gather as many picks as possible. yeah you might not get all the best picks in the draft,but you could get a lot of good players that could help this team and lower your cap hinderance. it's the only way that this team gets better. 7-9 and 9 -8 teams speak volumes about it's mediocrity. would be nice to see this team with cap space above a negative number. i think the winnow model has not worked. time to try a new strategy. get younger, get faster, and get smarter.

Yay?

 

[SonOfNOLA]

Salary cap hell is a myth. It’s really not hard at all for the FO to clear 83 million plus additional cap space. The restructures are preplanned every year. Might not be a preferred position to be in but it comes with
re-signing many great players to maintain a good team and attractive destination.

 

[JWDtrey3]

saints need to get out of this salary cap situation. projected @ -83 million for 2024. time to trade down and gather as many picks as possible. yeah you might not get all the best picks in the draft,but you could get a lot of good players that could help this team and lower your cap hinderance. it's the only way that this team gets better. 7-9 and 9 -8 teams speak volumes about it's mediocrity. would be nice to see this team with cap space above a negative number. i think the winnow model has not worked. time to try a new strategy. get younger, get faster, and get smarter.

You must be new here. Welcome to the board.

 

[SigFreudianSlip]

Salary cap hell is a myth. It’s really not hard at all for the FO to clear 83 million plus additional cap space. The restructures are preplanned every year. Might not be a preferred position to be in but it comes with
re-signing many great players to maintain a good team and attractive destination.

I do see your point but I’d argue that we aren’t a good team anymore. During the good Brees years it made sense imo. Think from 09-11 we were like 37-11 or some such. Then from 17-20 we were very good (49-15) as well. Not so much since then, imo.

I mean are we really a good team and an attractive destination nowadays? Not trying to be a Debbie downer, just don’t think we’re good right now.

 

[Elvis]

Salary cap hell is a myth. It’s really not hard at all for the FO to clear 83 million plus additional cap space. The restructures are preplanned every year. Might not be a preferred position to be in but it comes with
re-signing many great players to maintain a good team and attractive destination.

Cap hell isn't a myth because what people mean by cap hell isn't defined. Getting under the cap isn't the question. We always do that. We may even be able to sign a player or two to back loaded contracts. So if by cap hell you mean we can't get under the cap, then we're not in cap hell.

To me cap hell means that our roster is limited by how we manage the cap. How many of those players you listed do you really want to restructure or re-sign? For me, it would only be McCoy and Granderson and maybe Ruiz. The rest I don't want to push more money out to get bitten by their drop-offs or retirements and not be able to move off of them because of the cap. The jury is out on Carr and you certainly don't want to guarantee him more money. Ramczyk has a major knee condition and I wouldn't want to guarantee him more either. Demario and Cam are really old for their positions and are near retirement. AK is approaching RB dropoff age and Taysom is already beyond it. We will be sitting on dead money for those players beyond their playing years because we are running out of younger players to restructure.

So what you consider cap hell and what I consider cap hell are quite different.

 

[SigFreudianSlip]

Cap hell isn't a myth because what people mean by cap hell isn't defined. Getting under the cap isn't the question. We always do that. We may even be able to sign a player or two to back loaded contracts. So if by cap hell you mean we can't get under the cap, then we're not in cap hell.

To me cap hell means that our roster is limited by how we manage the cap. How many of those players you listed do you really want to restructure or re-sign? For me, it would only be McCoy and Granderson and maybe Ruiz. The rest I don't want to push more money out to get bitten by their drop-offs or retirements and not be able to move off of them because of the cap. The jury is out on Carr and you certainly don't want to guarantee him more money. Ramczyk has a major knee condition and I wouldn't want to guarantee him more either. Demario and Cam are really old for their positions and are near retirement. AK is approaching RB dropoff age and Taysom is already beyond it. We will be sitting on dead money for those players beyond their playing years because we are running out of younger players to restructure.

So what you consider cap hell and what I consider cap hell are quite different.

I agree with this, and I also don’t think we are a good team right now nor have we been since Drew retired. The record shows that, so Son of Nola saying we do it to keep a good team and a desirable location…..it isn’t working anymore lol.

 

[Elvis]

I agree with this, and I also don’t think we are a good team right now nor have we been since Drew retired. The record shows that, so Son of Nola saying we do it to keep a good team and a desirable location…..it isn’t working anymore lol.

Right, and the team isn't going to get any better by sitting on old players or players who aren't good anymore with huge contracts. We are just getting worse very slowly. We should be getting out from under a contract or two per year and getting "prove it" type players on cheap contracts to balance things out. I love Cam, but we could have had more production from a cheap player than we got for his $23 million cap number in 2023. The Falcons got 6.5 sacks out of Bud freaking Dupree for $3 million. These are the kind of moves we need to regain the ability to shape our roster the way we would like to from year to year.

 

[SaintsMan209]

i think cutting Derek Carr next year is the only real answer. my guess is this will be cam jordan's final year and maybe demario's as well.

 

[SigFreudianSlip]

i think cutting Derek Carr next year is the only real answer. my guess is this will be cam jordan's final year and maybe demario's as well.

I don’t think they’ll move on from DC that soon but I do think Cam and DD are done after next season.

 

[SonOfNOLA]

I do see your point but I’d argue that we aren’t a good team anymore. During the good Brees years it made sense imo. Think from 09-11 we were like 37-11 or some such. Then from 17-20 we were very good (49-15) as well. Not so much since then, imo.

I mean are we really a good team and an attractive destination nowadays? Not trying to be a Debbie downer, just don’t think we’re good right now.

I mean to maintain being a good team in general. Whether it’s current or to return to a good team the following season or two.

I think we would have a “cap problem” even if the team’s stars were mostly younger with contract extensions. If Hendrickson and Williams were re-signed while they were 26 and 27 at the time of their FA, we would still continue to restructure contracts to clear cap space in the future. There’s a great player or two from every Saints draft since 2016 who are due for big contracts which runs up the future cap and puts the team in position to constantly restructure.

At some point, the older players will come off the books. Playing at a high level at the end of their careers makes it seem like their contract’s high cap hits will never end. The team always has a plan in place to clear space to make any move they want to make.

 

[WhoDat?DrewDat]

Salary cap hell is a myth. It’s really not hard at all for the FO to clear 83 million plus additional cap space. The restructures are preplanned every year. Might not be a preferred position to be in but it comes with
re-signing many great players to maintain a good team and attractive destination.

It's not a "myth" in the sense it forces us to restructure contracts and they become untradeable due to dead money.

 

[SonOfNOLA]

Cap hell isn't a myth because what people mean by cap hell isn't defined. Getting under the cap isn't the question. We always do that. We may even be able to sign a player or two to back loaded contracts. So if by cap hell you mean we can't get under the cap, then we're not in cap hell.

To me cap hell means that our roster is limited by how we manage the cap. How many of those players you listed do you really want to restructure or re-sign? For me, it would only be McCoy and Granderson and maybe Ruiz. The rest I don't want to push more money out to get bitten by their drop-offs or retirements and not be able to move off of them because of the cap. The jury is out on Carr and you certainly don't want to guarantee him more money. Ramczyk has a major knee condition and I wouldn't want to guarantee him more either. Demario and Cam are really old for their positions and are near retirement. AK is approaching RB dropoff age and Taysom is already beyond it. We will be sitting on dead money for those players beyond their playing years because we are running out of younger players to restructure.

So what you consider cap hell and what I consider cap hell are quite different.

Cap hell is a myth when the Saints prove time and time again that cap hell or a huge negative cap # doesn’t stop them from making any signing, roster moves or roster improvement that the team wants to make. Starting offseasons with a large negative cap number is not ideal but it’s not stopping any roster additions from happening.

 

[Rexman100]

Cap hell isn't a myth because what people mean by cap hell isn't defined. Getting under the cap isn't the question. We always do that. We may even be able to sign a player or two to back loaded contracts. So if by cap hell you mean we can't get under the cap, then we're not in cap hell.

To me cap hell means that our roster is limited by how we manage the cap. How many of those players you listed do you really want to restructure or re-sign? For me, it would only be McCoy and Granderson and maybe Ruiz. The rest I don't want to push more money out to get bitten by their drop-offs or retirements and not be able to move off of them because of the cap. The jury is out on Carr and you certainly don't want to guarantee him more money. Ramczyk has a major knee condition and I wouldn't want to guarantee him more either. Demario and Cam are really old for their positions and are near retirement. AK is approaching RB dropoff age and Taysom is already beyond it. We will be sitting on dead money for those players beyond their playing years because we are running out of younger players to restructure.

So what you consider cap hell and what I consider cap hell are quite different.

Right, because when you look at that list, you’re not just extending them for one year, but two minimum. So who on that list will be playing at a high level still in their prime two years from now.

 

[Yingers70]

All that looks like to me is an even deeper hole. With players we won’t be able to get rid of (trade or cut) if they don’t perform. And that many more years of mediocrity or worse before we clean up our finances (multi-year process now) and can actually compete for a championship.