The Saints' Future Is Almost Here & It's Bleak (1 Viewer)

[BoNcHiE]

Do I? No. But then again, there are also other factors we need to take into account,such as injuries.

Either way, If he plays til he is 39 or not, if he is out the door by 40 or 41 then we are still taking on $6m in dead cap space each year, and that is what the article is talking about. We are in a never ending cycle of salary cap hell. The salary cap goes up, and thats great, but we are still not working with a full deck of cards as we are weighted down by contracts of players no longer on our team. This isn't new, kicking the can down the road is something we are familiar with, but when its the end of the line we are going to be in a bad spot (which is what the article is talking about).

Like I said, win, and this isn't talked about. Lose, and you are a HBS case study about what not to do in football management.

And it's ridiculously stupid for these writers to pretend like the Saints aren't doing something 31 other teams wouldn't do to keep Brees. Every player in the league who has a big contract is at risk of getting hurt and handing the team dead money. You can't just stop signing players to multi-year deals because of that.

We are not kicking the can down the road. We are making the only (and smart) possible financial decision to keep our best choice at QB, by far.

$6m-$12m in dead money 3-4 years from now is nothing (that assumes he only plays 3 more years). It's irrelevant to a team's success and it's a price every team would pay to get Drew Brees an additional 3 years.

 

[El Caliente]

And it's ridiculously stupid for these writers to pretend like the Saints aren't doing something 31 other teams wouldn't do to keep Brees. Every player in the league who has a big contract is at risk of getting hurt and handing the team dead money.

We are not kicking the can down the road. We are making the only (and smart) possible financial decision to keep our best choice at QB, by far.

$6m-$12m in dead money 3-4 years from now is nothing (that assumes he only plays 3 more years). It's irrelevant to a team's success and it's a price every team would pay to get Drew Brees an additional 3 years.

Yes, injuries could cause an acceleration. That's every high paid player in the league though. Every single one. You can't just decide you aren't gonna sign players ever because there could be dead money in the case of injury.

Obviously we can't know for certain what 31 other teams would do to keep Brees as we already know what 1 team did to not keep him, and several teams don't have to think about keeping Brees as they already have a qb of greater or equal value than Brees, but I get your point.

The article isn't talking about Brees as much as our bad contracts in the past. As to Brees the article agrees with you

For years now, the Saints’ have been in win-now mode, spending every possible dollar each season as long as Drew Brees remains effective. That’s a defensible strategy—QBs like Brees don’t come along often—but there is going to be hell to pay.

The article points out (to me) that we have been racking up a huge debt on our credit card, and not only has it hurt us in ability to work team friendly deals, but it is effecting our play on the field. This isn't a rare occurrence (signing a player to a bad contract), and really should give way to threads that ask "who will be our next dead money contract" because we know its going to happen in the near future.

It should be interesting to see how we navigate through these waters during these upcoming years.

 

[blackadder]

Do I? No. But then again, there are also other factors we need to take into account,such as injuries.

Either way, If he plays til he is 39 or not, if he is out the door by 40 or 41 then we are still taking on $6m in dead cap space each year, and that is what the article is talking about. We are in a never ending cycle of salary cap hell. The salary cap goes up, and thats great, but we are still not working with a full deck of cards as we are weighted down by contracts of players no longer on our team. This isn't new, kicking the can down the road is something we are familiar with, but when its the end of the line we are going to be in a bad spot (which is what the article is talking about).

Like I said, win, and this isn't talked about. Lose, and you are a HBS case study about what not to do in football management.

They really got to caught up in FA at the same time they were drafting horrifically.

The 2009 team came together pretty easily and at pretty low cost. They drafted well and found a key UDFA in Pierre Thomas. Drew Brees was a bargain FA signing. Shockey was bargain. Sharper was bargain. After 2009 Sproles was a relative bargain and all those signings worked out.

Somehow those low risk successes enticed them to get into the big money world risky FA signings. They ate the cheese. I get they were trying to win but with hindsight you can see the weaknesses in due diligence and getting the organization on the same page.

Byrd was apparently thrust on Rob Ryan, so why wasn't there a discussion? There was some kind of dysfunction and it may persist. You can overlook a couple of misfires. In juries happen and sometimes you are wrong but it really looks like they were reckless on the big money signings and the manipulation of the cap to enable even more questionable personnel moves like extending Gallette.

If you fast forward to Fleener, it not out of the question that we have yet to learn anything. Shouldn't we have seen some kind of flash from Fleener that he was worth the $$$?

And in the midst of all that there was the constant silliness of trading away draft picks to get the coveted target, most of which have been underwhelming choices. The Saints indeed are heading toward immortality as a case study in why drafting BPA and stocking picks is the best long term approach (assuming you have the staff to develop talent) and why if you are going to rob peter to pay paul your decisions better be bullet proof.

The question I have is that what would it take for someone to intervene and who would it be? Is Benson even aware and capable and fully understanding the state of things?

Who is the boss to step in and get Payton and Loomis in line? Because this point their decisions needs to pass through a second review layer. That's only natural when your performance in your job has fallen off.

 

[El Caliente]

They really got to caught up in FA at the same time they were drafting horrifically.

The 2009 team came together pretty easily and at pretty low cost. They drafted well and found a ley UDFA in Pierre Thomas. Drew Brees was a bargain FA signing. Shockey was bargain. Sharper was bargain. After 2009 Sproles was a relative bargain and all those signings worked out.

Somehow those low risk successes enticed them to get into the big money world risky FA signings. They ate the cheese. I get they were trying to win but with hindsight you can see the weaknesses in due diligence and getting the organization on the same page.

Byrd was apparently thrust on Rob Ryan, so why wasn't there a discussion? There was some kind of dysfunction and it may persist. You can overlook a couple of misfires. In juries happen and sometimes you are wrong but it really looks like they were reckless on the big money signings and the manipulation of the cap to enable even more questionable personnel moves like extending Gallette.

If you fast forward to Fleener, it not out of the question that we have yet to learn anything. Shouldn't we have seen some kind of flash from Fleener that he was worth the $$$?

And in the midst of all that there was the constant silliness of trading away draft picks to get the coveted target, most of which have been underwhelming choices. The Saints indeed are heading toward immortality as a case study in why drafting BPA and stocking picks is the best long term approach and why if you are goping to rob peter to pay paul your decisions better be bullet proof.

The question I have is that what would it take for someone to intervene and who would it be? Is Benson even aware and capable and fully understanding the state of thing?

Who is the boss to step in and get Loomis and Payton in line. Because this point their decisions needs to pass through a second review layer. That's only natural when your performance in your job has fallen off.

It is interesting isn't it (about the Big Money FAs), sure we signed Greer, but up to him we weren't big money spenders, then we tried to keep up with the Jones' and at the same time we started tightening the noose. People want Byrd gone, but in cutting Byrd we would essentially be jumping off the tree branch with the noose tied to the damn branch.

We need to get back to finding the proper mix of quality free agents, and low price free agents. Right now we are forced into bargain bin shopping because we have maxed out the credit card and can't afford better than the bargain bin brand.

 

[BoNcHiE]

Obviously we can't know for certain what 31 other teams would do to keep Brees as we already know what 1 team did to not keep him, and several teams don't have to think about keeping Brees as they already have a qb of greater or equal value than Brees, but I get your point.

The article isn't talking about Brees as much as our bad contracts in the past. As to Brees the article agrees with you

No, I know for certain. You are comparing what one team didn't do back in 2006 before Brees was Brees to now. Don't be obtuse.

31 other teams, if they were in our position (i.e. no QB to replace him with) would do what it takes to keep him.

The article points out (to me) that we have been racking up a huge debt on our credit card, and not only has it hurt us in ability to work team friendly deals, but it is effecting our play on the field. This isn't a rare occurrence (signing a player to a bad contract), and really should give way to threads that ask "who will be our next dead money contract" because we know its going to happen in the near future.

It should be interesting to see how we navigate through these waters during these upcoming years.

If the article had said, "here's the past mistakes and here's what the future has," then I'd agree it'd be an ok article. The problem is it doesn't give full context and just pronounces our future bleak. It's actually the opposite. 2017 looks very bright. We'll have a ton of cap space, Brees under contract, a lot of good starters on cheap deals, and no real big FAs to re-sign.

I realize it's cooler to write articles that just make things seem terrible without pointing out that the things they are bringing up are actually getting corrected. Cutting Spiller this year instead of next is yet another move that sets up better for 2017.

So we can keep *****ing about Junior Galettes 12m in dead money this year or we can just accept that several things happened and we are now getting out from under them. Some were bad signings. Some were things Loomis couldn't know at the time (Galette going crazy, Lewis getting hurt).

 

[BoNcHiE]

They really got to caught up in FA at the same time they were drafting horrifically.

The 2009 team came together pretty easily and at pretty low cost. They drafted well and found a key UDFA in Pierre Thomas. Drew Brees was a bargain FA signing. Shockey was bargain. Sharper was bargain. After 2009 Sproles was a relative bargain and all those signings worked out.

Somehow those low risk successes enticed them to get into the big money world risky FA signings. They ate the cheese. I get they were trying to win but with hindsight you can see the weaknesses in due diligence and getting the organization on the same page.

Byrd was apparently thrust on Rob Ryan, so why wasn't there a discussion? There was some kind of dysfunction and it may persist. You can overlook a couple of misfires. In juries happen and sometimes you are wrong but it really looks like they were reckless on the big money signings and the manipulation of the cap to enable even more questionable personnel moves like extending Gallette.

We also signed cheap guys like Fujita and Shanle in 2006 who played key roles in the SB. I much preferred that to the spending spree from 2011-2015.

BUT, we didn't do that this year. We signed guys like JL, Kruger, and Fairley. Those are much more like 2007-2009 signings.

We also haven't given ridiculous extensions out the past few years. Jordan's is actually pretty cheap for a starting DE and structured well. Unger is worth what we paid him.

Mistakes were made and we appear to be correcting them. I say appear because we can't know for sure, but if we go through 2017 making the same, smarter decisions with money, then I think we can assume the right changes were indeed made.

You have to start somewhere and nothing is gained by continuing to cry about guys like Galette. That decision is now 2 years old.

If you fast forward to Fleener, it not out of the question that we have yet to learn anything. Shouldn't we have seen some kind of flash from Fleener that he was worth the $$$?

I'm gonna have to call you out on this one. You moaned for years that Graham can't block and wouldn't block. Fleener spent most of Sunday blocking because that's what the gameplan needed and he did a dang good job. He'll get his targets as the season goes on. Other teams will play us deep and then he'll produce.

As for his contract, it's pretty friendly. As long as he plays this year and next (he will), then we garner savings from cutting him in year 3. I think he's here for the long haul though. He's a good blocker and he will produce yards at some point.

 

[El Caliente]

We lead the league in Dead Cap Space this year and next. We have a lot of cap space this offseason, but we are still down $7.886 (possibly more). When the average dead cap space for the league is $1.143m (include ours and the average is 18% more or 1.354m) you have to say you still have a problem. Its a problem, and will continue to be a problem until we learn how to fix it.

 

[bradman1965]

Not buying it, you can get well in a hurry in the NFL and a reset year with the right breaks gets you right back in the mix. The year after Brees is done has always been penciled in as a reset and I've sat through enough 3-13's to know that they aren't the end of the world if you emerge competitive.

What the FO or the next regime or whatever needs to do is get its mojo back. Miss after miss again does look pretty bleak but that's standard operation when that happens.

 

[mccombmike]

The other thing to realize is that the salary cap goes up every year. Thus not all dead money is bad. Sometimes passing off some of the cap money to future years is a good idea, if the cap will be higher then.

It's like in business, where having a little debt is a good thing. Debt pushes current costs into the future where it is more affordable. On the other hand, too much cost shifting is a bad thing if you are just putting off a big reckoning.

The Saints have certainly made some mistakes with dead money. But in the case of Brees, a franchise quarterback, it makes some sense to spread out the money over a little longer period if it allows you to stock the team.

As I said, there have been some mistakes. But I don't think that is true with Brees. To have a QB anywhere near his caliber will cost at least $20 million in cap money, no matter who you are. Spreading it out a little, and risking his retirement, is just part of doing business.

 

[BoNcHiE]

We lead the league in Dead Cap Space this year and next. We have a lot of cap space this offseason, but we are still down $7.886 (possibly more). When the average dead cap space for the league is $1.143m (include ours and the average is 18% more or 1.354m) you have to say you still have a problem. Its a problem, and will continue to be a problem until we learn how to fix it.

How about some context? Like I said, don't be obtuse.

7.886m would of had us the 9th lowest in dead money this year, below almost every playoff team from last year.

We've made our major cuts early. Lewis and CJ are the kinds of cuts that normally would come after this season. But we took our lumps this year instead to set us up for 2017.

Looking at the top players who could possibly add dead money as offseason cuts, the only one I see is Byrd. Hopefully he plays well enough this year that he doesn't have to be cut.

Playoff teams routinely manage 10-20m in dead money. Expecting to have 0 is unrealistic. Where it gets out of control is when you have to eat 12m for people like Galette and 5m for chumps like Browner. Then suddenly, it's 40m.

 

[El Caliente]

How about some context? Like I said, don't be obtuse.

7.886m would of had us the 9th lowest in dead money this year, below almost every playoff team from last year.

We've made our major cuts early. Lewis and CJ are the kinds of cuts that normally would come after this season. But we took our lumps this year instead to set us up for 2017.

Looking at the top players who could possibly add dead money as offseason cuts, the only one I see is Byrd. Hopefully he plays well enough this year that he doesn't have to be cut.

What am I being obtuse on, us having real dead money issues? They are real issues, thats not being obtuse, thats looking at $7m in dead cap space and saying "that's an issue."

Sure $7m would have put us at 9th lowest in dead money, but that isn't taking into account contracts on this team that will be terminated at the end of this season. As you mentioned, who saw Gallete going crazy, Lewis getting hurt, Browner turning into a walking flag, or Colston & Evans production falling off a cliff? These are variables we must take into consideration when we create this false narrative that we are only going to be $7m in the hole to start the offseason. It is going to jump.

Also, you and I both know that number will our dead cap number jump, from where it is now. Heck the dead cap numbers for the rest of the league will change as well. We know where everyone is starting, we just know we are starting further behind than everyone else.

Until you start winning again you open every move you make to be scrutinized.

 

[Goatman Saint]

This is the year of reckoning. It has been obvious to anyone paying attention the Saints are and have been in a rebuilding mode. They cut and absorbed the dead money for players who were not performing. Addition by subtraction. Even if Galette was here, those two Achilles would've happened the he'd be dead weight on the roster. This is the last year of the huge dead money and taking out the players they don't want. Obviously, Spiller wasn't someone they wanted in their plans. Why keep them around? As far as Fleener, give him more than one game before calling him a bust ok? The overreaction on this board is getting bad. He stayed in to block. Brees had very little pressure all game, so obviously someone was doing their job.

Thing is we have one of the three best QBs in the league. You can whine all you want, but you want top 3 you pay for them. For anyone who says cut Brees, come on. Without Brees this team is Cleveland.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BoNcHiE]

What am I being obtuse on, us having real dead money issues? They are real issues, thats not being obtuse, thats looking at $7m in dead cap space and saying "that's an issue."

Sure $7m would have put us at 9th lowest in dead money, but that isn't taking into account contracts on this team that will be terminated at the end of this season. As you mentioned, who saw Gallete going crazy, Lewis getting hurt, Browner turning into a walking flag, or Colston & Evans production falling off a cliff? These are variables we must take into consideration when we create this false narrative that we are only going to be $7m in the hole to start the offseason. It is going to jump.

Also, you and I both know that number will our dead cap number jump, from where it is now. Heck the dead cap numbers for the rest of the league will change as well. We know where everyone is starting, we just know we are starting further behind than everyone else.

Until you start winning again you open every move you make to be scrutinized.

I'm taking that into account. Look at the list of players who carry any substantial dead money. Who's going to get cut? My contention is that we have done our cutting of dead weight early with Spiller and Lewis. We don't have 3-4 more old/busted players on the backend of big deals like we have in years past. There's no Browner/Colston/Evans trifecta to cut this coming off season.

Strief will likely stay as a backup at worst and he's cheap. The only other possibility is Byrd. I'll just hope we don't have to cut him. 15 more weeks to see.

Regardless, we are going to have a bunch of young, talented players already under contract, 22.5 million in cap space (likely Ellerbe cut would add more), and less dead money than we've had in half a decade.

And in 2018, it's 60m in cap space. The needle is pointing up financially. I won't belabor this article anymore. If you think it's a fair representation of our future years and that they are "bleak," so be it. I don't.