and a DT that's on a hall of fame career trajectory. They can either pay them or go back to being largely irrelevant.
It's ridiculous that this sport where every team is worth a billion dollars still has a salary cap.
Yes, thank you for bringing this up. I completely agree. I have been bitching about this for awhile. It drives me crazy that even mediocre QBs are getting paid through the roof then they complain that the owners can't put a great team around them.
They just look at the NBA salaries like it is a fair comparison. The QB wants to eat a 6th of the teams cap space on a 53 man roster. At the very least the NFL should move to a soft cap and let the owners pay a luxury tax for exceeding it.
I want to agree 100% w the head scratching low salary cap number in a world where they generate a good portion of revenue and have a roster with 70 guys to pay.
On the other hand a roster w 70 guys is exactly why there is a cap. If football were to lose popularity or tv money, the place would go bankrupt trying to sustain money to function on gste revenue alone w only 8-12 games a year
With Quinn and Ogletree the Rams have almost $30M in space.
Without them they have probably over $40M and they don't have long-term cap issues/albatross contracts.
I do think they have several key pieces in need of extension (Donald, then Gurley and eventually Goff), but Goff and Gurley still have the 5th year option and then FT so that's 3/4 years away before they'd have to extend either.
Not sure I buy it that the cap forced the Rams to trade Ogletree.
Donald is about to get a 100 million dollar contract.
They don't want to lose Watkins and they want Joyner long term. Not to mention Marcus Peters needs a new contract after this season and they'd probably like to retain one of Trumaine Johnson or Nickell Robey-Coleman. I'd imagine they don't want to lose their starting center either.
Then there's Goff and Gurley in a couple years...
That 40 million is going to go pretty quickly.
The $40M is this year (2018), right now they're projected at ~$97M in available space in 2019 and over $140M in 2020 (estimated for both).
And those players I listed will dramatically change those numbers. I think you're underestimating the contracts they're about to receive.
but I think the Rams dealt Ogletree more out of a case of buyers remorse than needing to free up cap space. Looking back, that's a bad contract, and the Donald extension (the only one that makes this move make sense) looming they decide to rip the band-aid off now.
You're partly right. It was a bad contract for them. He was just a poor fit for Wade Phillips defense and they have too many guys that need to be paid in the next few years. Donald (who held out last year) and Gurley are no brainers and they appear to want to resign Johnson and Watkins (not sure why here). To answer your question on why they dealt him now instead of waiting...they had to. He has a 7m dollar roster bonus kicking in this week and a 6m dollar roster bonus hitting next year.
For those saying 10m/yr is pricey for a LB, hold that thought until we see what Bradhsm gets. They're comparable players, both in age and skillset. I'm guessing he gets more annually and probably twice the guarantee money that we're on the hook for with Ogletree.
With Quinn and Ogletree the Rams have almost $30M in space.
Without them they have probably over $40M and they don't have long-term cap issues/albatross contracts.
I do think they have several key pieces in need of extension (Donald, then Gurley and eventually Goff), but Goff and Gurley still have the 5th year option and then FT so that's 3/4 years away before they'd have to extend either.
Not sure I buy it that the cap forced the Rams to trade Ogletree.
Sammy Watkins
Aaron Donald
Todd Gurley
Rams badly want all three long term.
Not to mention Goff will get a pay day in 2-3 years.
Watkins, long term? I know people keep waiting for him to show his potential, but those 39 catches last year must have been impressive for them to ditch their starting linebacker for a kicking tee so they can sign Watkins long-term.
Gurley they have two more years (4th year of his contract and 5th year option) before they need to extend him not to mention the FT.
Goff they have one more year than that. Ogletree would have been cuttable before they need to extend any of those guys except Donald.
But the sooner you extend them, the cheaper it can be long term. And Donald has a shot at being the highest paid defender in the NFL
but I think the Rams dealt Ogletree more out of a case of buyers remorse than needing to free up cap space. Looking back, that's a bad contract, and the Donald extension (the only one that makes this move make sense) looming they decide to rip the band-aid off now.
And to that point this site is kind of schizophrenic, I read multiple posts on the Giants cap situation (who have less room than the rams) say the Giants can do anything they want, cap space is fictitious and be created easily, but the Rams had to trade one of their starting linebackers they just signed to a LT deal less than a year ago because they need the cap space.
On the surface I can see why you feel that way but..
After Quinn parting ways with one of their inside LBs just made the most sense. Barron recently had shoulder surgery, he wouldn't pass a physical and you could probably argue he doesn't have the trade value Ogletree has anyway. Ogletree was due a 7 million roster bonus on the 16th.
Two players (Darnold and Goff) are about to receive 100 million dollar contracts with in the next 3 years. Gurley will be paid the highest at his position in the next 2 years. Joyner, Watkins, and Peters will all be paid among the highest at their positions some time between now and next offseason. They don't want to lose Johnson or Robey-Coleman but they'll more than likely have to choose the lesser of the two (RC). If they want to retain all those pieces they have to start the process of moving money now.
The comparison with the Giants just isn't there. They have Beckham and Collins to resign with in the next two years while Eli will be coming off the books during that time.
Stupid deal. Linebackers just aren’t important any longer Â
In comment 13854183 mofti said:
[quote] He can be the leader this team needs to get the defense back into form.
Besides leadership biggest issue for me is talent! For a franchise that once featured LB to build its D: HUFF. LIVINGSTON, CARSON, VAN PELT, LT, ETC. their lack of emphasis in stocking up on high quality LB talent has been sadly lacking in this millennium!
I'm still not clear on the Sammie Watkins love, he hasn't quite been a bust, but he's also clearly not an elite player (so far).
Watkins is still viewed by many as a #1 WR. He's a 24 year old with untapped potential. There's plenty of teams with young QBs who want Watkins. The market would be very strong for him.
and a DT that's on a hall of fame career trajectory. They can either pay them or go back to being largely irrelevant.
It's ridiculous that this sport where every team is worth a billion dollars still has a salary cap.
On this I completely agree. The salary cap sucks.
Salary cap keeps an even playing field (although I hate losing good players. Don't assume that the giants would be one of the biggest spenders, for instance Paul Allen owns the Seahawks and could easily outspend all the other teams.
I'm still not clear on the Sammie Watkins love, he hasn't quite been a bust, but he's also clearly not an elite player (so far).
Watkins is still viewed by many as a #1 WR. He's a 24 year old with untapped potential. There's plenty of teams with young QBs who want Watkins. The market would be very strong for him.
He's barely top 10 from his draft class, let alone a #1 NFL WR. Devonta Freeman (a RB) has more receptions than he does from that draft class.
He's the 3rd WR on his team.
I don't honestly believe the market is a strong for him as others maybe believe.
Non-elite guys get franchised (Cousins) all the time Â
because their teams just don't want to lose them for nothing. Watkins is a really talented young player and those aren't easy to find at premium positions. Same reason the Jags considered franchising Robinson and Dolphins franchised Landry. Obviously none of them deserve to be paid close to OBJ, AB, Julio Jones, etc. I think it's very debateable which of those 3 will have the best career going forward which is why all 3 of those teams didn't want to lose them for nothing.
I'm still not clear on the Sammie Watkins love, he hasn't quite been a bust, but he's also clearly not an elite player (so far).
Watkins is still viewed by many as a #1 WR. He's a 24 year old with untapped potential. There's plenty of teams with young QBs who want Watkins. The market would be very strong for him.
He's barely top 10 from his draft class, let alone a #1 NFL WR. Devonta Freeman (a RB) has more receptions than he does from that draft class.
He's the 3rd WR on his team.
I don't honestly believe the market is a strong for him as others maybe believe.
there are just people here assuming Ogletree was traded for cap purposes:
Quote:
And to that point this site is kind of schizophrenic, I read multiple posts on the Giants cap situation (who have less room than the rams) say the Giants can do anything they want, cap space is fictitious and be created easily, but the Rams had to trade one of their starting linebackers they just signed to a LT deal less than a year ago because they need the cap space.
can't be both, unless it's only the Giants where the salary cap is a mythical limitation and they have super powers to get around it.
It is closer to the truth, he was traded because the Rams gave him a poor contract and they decided to get at least something back for him.
Neither the Rams nor the Giants are in a bad cap situation. I think that idea was floated by somebody above and then others just jumped on the idea that it was correct.
If I understand your post correctly, you don’t like this move for the Giants, correct?
Because if it was a poor contract for LAR, it’s a poor contract for us, unless I’m missing a piece of the caplology.
The signing bonus was tiny. We inherit the roster bonuses, and for as long as he’s a NYG he’s a $10M cap hit (barring a restructure to simply kick some of it down the road, which I abhor), same as he would have been on LAR’s books.
Am I wrong here? I’ve been hoping that I’m missing a piece of the cap story here.
there are just people here assuming Ogletree was traded for cap purposes:
Quote:
And to that point this site is kind of schizophrenic, I read multiple posts on the Giants cap situation (who have less room than the rams) say the Giants can do anything they want, cap space is fictitious and be created easily, but the Rams had to trade one of their starting linebackers they just signed to a LT deal less than a year ago because they need the cap space.
can't be both, unless it's only the Giants where the salary cap is a mythical limitation and they have super powers to get around it.
It is closer to the truth, he was traded because the Rams gave him a poor contract and they decided to get at least something back for him.
Neither the Rams nor the Giants are in a bad cap situation. I think that idea was floated by somebody above and then others just jumped on the idea that it was correct.
Agree. I think the Rams are in fine cap shape, especially for a team that is (in theory at least) already a contender.
Even with all the contracts they'll need to dish out to keep their own players in the next 2 - 3 years I think they're in good cap shape.
I think they had buyers remorse and found Ogletree to not be the best fit with their D.
Giants luck out because with the trade the guarantees accelerate and he becomes cuttable without any pain should the Giants choose to cut him or they can even restructure the deal and lower the cap number. All that was ventured (of value) was a late 4th round pick. No brainer trade for the Giants.
I don't think the Giants cap situation is dire, but I do think it will limit the moves they are able to make. Put it this way, if the Giants had the Browns cap space I think they'd make more of a free agent splash. The reason they won't is because they can't IMO.
They'll sign some players (hopefully Norwell) and maybe others, but I believe they will be more limited than a 3 - 13 team should be. Just my opinion.
Fats
bigbluehoya : 5:32 pm : link : reply
If I understand your post correctly, you don’t like this move for the Giants, correct?
Because if it was a poor contract for LAR, it’s a poor contract for us, unless I’m missing a piece of the caplology.
My post is that the Rams didn't appear to be happy with his productions vs. what they were paying him. I don't mind the contract for the Giants because:
- He is affordable - the Rams are on the hook for ancillary parts
- The Giants need a competent LB.
Why do you and others keep trying to make this about a cap move? Also, it is a cheaper contract for the Giants because they don't have to be liable for the bonus. We just had a thread going about DeMarco Murray being a cap cut. How about a cut for a guy who is on the wrong side of age and injuries?
And don't misconstrue that to mean that any move is made without some consideration of the cap - just that it isn't often a primary motive.
I’m trying to analyze what the Giants actually did here.
You said the Rams gave him a poor contract in your previous post. Hence my question.
When you say he’s “affordable”, what do you mean by that? By all reports, seems that Ogletree will be 3 years of a $10M cap hit to the Giants followed by a final year at $9M.
Doesn’t seem like a bargain by any means. Maybe it’s a contract right at market value; that would imply pretty damned good production. Definitely possible.
My overall point is that trading draft picks for players already being paid every penny of their market value, as would seem to be the case here, is an approach that I have concerns with in principle.
I’m trying to analyze what the Giants actually did here.
You said the Rams gave him a poor contract in your previous post. Hence my question.
When you say he’s “affordable”, what do you mean by that? By all reports, seems that Ogletree will be 3 years of a $10M cap hit to the Giants followed by a final year at $9M.
The contract cap hit is based on a 7m roster bonus that's due in 8 days. The Giants can convert that money into a signing bonus which reduces his cap hit and gives them more maneuverability. This has been reported since the trade.
Raanan: Ogletree currently costs $10 million against the salary cap this season, even though it can be creatively reduced to $4.5 million if the Giants convert his upcoming roster bonus next week into a signing bonus. But that will cost them down the line, which brings into question whether this is the right move for this team at this moment.
http://www.espn.com/blog/new-york-giants/post/_/id/56379/why-alec-ogletree-can-be-viewed-as-a-great-trade-for-the-giants
The "it will cost them down the line" refers to the fact that by converting it to a signing bonus, you're trading situations. Right now he's expensive, but they can easily get out of the deal in a year if they don't touch it. Or they can slash the cap hit, but they'd likely be locking in his deal longer-term.
I get that they can kick the can down the road a bit.
Doesn’t change my general concern. But there are several things about this trade that make me happy
-LINEBACKER LIVES MATTER
-26 years old and under contract — The contract isn’t a bargain by any means, but (barring a significant conversion of salary to signing bonus) it means you can cut the player at any time in the future with very little dead money.
-shows a willingness to go out a do significant things in the trade market, which is something that I wanted from the new regime.
It's ridiculous that this sport where every team is worth a billion dollars still has a salary cap.
Yes, thank you for bringing this up. I completely agree. I have been bitching about this for awhile. It drives me crazy that even mediocre QBs are getting paid through the roof then they complain that the owners can't put a great team around them.
They just look at the NBA salaries like it is a fair comparison. The QB wants to eat a 6th of the teams cap space on a 53 man roster. At the very least the NFL should move to a soft cap and let the owners pay a luxury tax for exceeding it.
On the other hand a roster w 70 guys is exactly why there is a cap. If football were to lose popularity or tv money, the place would go bankrupt trying to sustain money to function on gste revenue alone w only 8-12 games a year
Quote:
In comment 13854373 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
have cap issues?
With Quinn and Ogletree the Rams have almost $30M in space.
Without them they have probably over $40M and they don't have long-term cap issues/albatross contracts.
I do think they have several key pieces in need of extension (Donald, then Gurley and eventually Goff), but Goff and Gurley still have the 5th year option and then FT so that's 3/4 years away before they'd have to extend either.
Not sure I buy it that the cap forced the Rams to trade Ogletree.
Donald is about to get a 100 million dollar contract.
They don't want to lose Watkins and they want Joyner long term. Not to mention Marcus Peters needs a new contract after this season and they'd probably like to retain one of Trumaine Johnson or Nickell Robey-Coleman. I'd imagine they don't want to lose their starting center either.
Then there's Goff and Gurley in a couple years...
That 40 million is going to go pretty quickly.
The $40M is this year (2018), right now they're projected at ~$97M in available space in 2019 and over $140M in 2020 (estimated for both).
And those players I listed will dramatically change those numbers. I think you're underestimating the contracts they're about to receive.
You're partly right. It was a bad contract for them. He was just a poor fit for Wade Phillips defense and they have too many guys that need to be paid in the next few years. Donald (who held out last year) and Gurley are no brainers and they appear to want to resign Johnson and Watkins (not sure why here). To answer your question on why they dealt him now instead of waiting...they had to. He has a 7m dollar roster bonus kicking in this week and a 6m dollar roster bonus hitting next year.
For those saying 10m/yr is pricey for a LB, hold that thought until we see what Bradhsm gets. They're comparable players, both in age and skillset. I'm guessing he gets more annually and probably twice the guarantee money that we're on the hook for with Ogletree.
Quote:
In comment 13854373 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
have cap issues?
With Quinn and Ogletree the Rams have almost $30M in space.
Without them they have probably over $40M and they don't have long-term cap issues/albatross contracts.
I do think they have several key pieces in need of extension (Donald, then Gurley and eventually Goff), but Goff and Gurley still have the 5th year option and then FT so that's 3/4 years away before they'd have to extend either.
Not sure I buy it that the cap forced the Rams to trade Ogletree.
Sammy Watkins
Aaron Donald
Todd Gurley
Rams badly want all three long term.
Not to mention Goff will get a pay day in 2-3 years.
Watkins, long term? I know people keep waiting for him to show his potential, but those 39 catches last year must have been impressive for them to ditch their starting linebacker for a kicking tee so they can sign Watkins long-term.
Gurley they have two more years (4th year of his contract and 5th year option) before they need to extend him not to mention the FT.
Goff they have one more year than that. Ogletree would have been cuttable before they need to extend any of those guys except Donald.
But the sooner you extend them, the cheaper it can be long term. And Donald has a shot at being the highest paid defender in the NFL
And to that point this site is kind of schizophrenic, I read multiple posts on the Giants cap situation (who have less room than the rams) say the Giants can do anything they want, cap space is fictitious and be created easily, but the Rams had to trade one of their starting linebackers they just signed to a LT deal less than a year ago because they need the cap space.
On the surface I can see why you feel that way but..
After Quinn parting ways with one of their inside LBs just made the most sense. Barron recently had shoulder surgery, he wouldn't pass a physical and you could probably argue he doesn't have the trade value Ogletree has anyway. Ogletree was due a 7 million roster bonus on the 16th.
Two players (Darnold and Goff) are about to receive 100 million dollar contracts with in the next 3 years. Gurley will be paid the highest at his position in the next 2 years. Joyner, Watkins, and Peters will all be paid among the highest at their positions some time between now and next offseason. They don't want to lose Johnson or Robey-Coleman but they'll more than likely have to choose the lesser of the two (RC). If they want to retain all those pieces they have to start the process of moving money now.
The comparison with the Giants just isn't there. They have Beckham and Collins to resign with in the next two years while Eli will be coming off the books during that time.
Besides we won our last superbowls with pedestrian type linebackers...
[quote] He can be the leader this team needs to get the defense back into form.
Besides leadership biggest issue for me is talent! For a franchise that once featured LB to build its D: HUFF. LIVINGSTON, CARSON, VAN PELT, LT, ETC. their lack of emphasis in stocking up on high quality LB talent has been sadly lacking in this millennium!
I'm still not clear on the Sammie Watkins love, he hasn't quite been a bust, but he's also clearly not an elite player (so far).
I'm still not clear on the Sammie Watkins love, he hasn't quite been a bust, but he's also clearly not an elite player (so far).
Sammy
I'm still not clear on the Sammie Watkins love, he hasn't quite been a bust, but he's also clearly not an elite player (so far).
Watkins is still viewed by many as a #1 WR. He's a 24 year old with untapped potential. There's plenty of teams with young QBs who want Watkins. The market would be very strong for him.
Quote:
and a DT that's on a hall of fame career trajectory. They can either pay them or go back to being largely irrelevant.
It's ridiculous that this sport where every team is worth a billion dollars still has a salary cap.
On this I completely agree. The salary cap sucks.
Salary cap keeps an even playing field (although I hate losing good players. Don't assume that the giants would be one of the biggest spenders, for instance Paul Allen owns the Seahawks and could easily outspend all the other teams.
Quote:
among the highest at his position?
I'm still not clear on the Sammie Watkins love, he hasn't quite been a bust, but he's also clearly not an elite player (so far).
Watkins is still viewed by many as a #1 WR. He's a 24 year old with untapped potential. There's plenty of teams with young QBs who want Watkins. The market would be very strong for him.
He's barely top 10 from his draft class, let alone a #1 NFL WR. Devonta Freeman (a RB) has more receptions than he does from that draft class.
He's the 3rd WR on his team.
I don't honestly believe the market is a strong for him as others maybe believe.
Quote:
In comment 13854880 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
among the highest at his position?
I'm still not clear on the Sammie Watkins love, he hasn't quite been a bust, but he's also clearly not an elite player (so far).
Watkins is still viewed by many as a #1 WR. He's a 24 year old with untapped potential. There's plenty of teams with young QBs who want Watkins. The market would be very strong for him.
He's barely top 10 from his draft class, let alone a #1 NFL WR. Devonta Freeman (a RB) has more receptions than he does from that draft class.
He's the 3rd WR on his team.
I don't honestly believe the market is a strong for him as others maybe believe.
I suppose we'll see very soon.
can't be both, unless it's only the Giants where the salary cap is a mythical limitation and they have super powers to get around it.
It is closer to the truth, he was traded because the Rams gave him a poor contract and they decided to get at least something back for him.
Neither the Rams nor the Giants are in a bad cap situation. I think that idea was floated by somebody above and then others just jumped on the idea that it was correct.
Because if it was a poor contract for LAR, it’s a poor contract for us, unless I’m missing a piece of the caplology.
The signing bonus was tiny. We inherit the roster bonuses, and for as long as he’s a NYG he’s a $10M cap hit (barring a restructure to simply kick some of it down the road, which I abhor), same as he would have been on LAR’s books.
Am I wrong here? I’ve been hoping that I’m missing a piece of the cap story here.
Quote:
And to that point this site is kind of schizophrenic, I read multiple posts on the Giants cap situation (who have less room than the rams) say the Giants can do anything they want, cap space is fictitious and be created easily, but the Rams had to trade one of their starting linebackers they just signed to a LT deal less than a year ago because they need the cap space.
can't be both, unless it's only the Giants where the salary cap is a mythical limitation and they have super powers to get around it.
It is closer to the truth, he was traded because the Rams gave him a poor contract and they decided to get at least something back for him.
Neither the Rams nor the Giants are in a bad cap situation. I think that idea was floated by somebody above and then others just jumped on the idea that it was correct.
Agree. I think the Rams are in fine cap shape, especially for a team that is (in theory at least) already a contender.
Even with all the contracts they'll need to dish out to keep their own players in the next 2 - 3 years I think they're in good cap shape.
I think they had buyers remorse and found Ogletree to not be the best fit with their D.
Giants luck out because with the trade the guarantees accelerate and he becomes cuttable without any pain should the Giants choose to cut him or they can even restructure the deal and lower the cap number. All that was ventured (of value) was a late 4th round pick. No brainer trade for the Giants.
I don't think the Giants cap situation is dire, but I do think it will limit the moves they are able to make. Put it this way, if the Giants had the Browns cap space I think they'd make more of a free agent splash. The reason they won't is because they can't IMO.
They'll sign some players (hopefully Norwell) and maybe others, but I believe they will be more limited than a 3 - 13 team should be. Just my opinion.
bigbluehoya : 5:32 pm : link : reply
If I understand your post correctly, you don’t like this move for the Giants, correct?
Because if it was a poor contract for LAR, it’s a poor contract for us, unless I’m missing a piece of the caplology.
My post is that the Rams didn't appear to be happy with his productions vs. what they were paying him. I don't mind the contract for the Giants because:
- He is affordable - the Rams are on the hook for ancillary parts
- The Giants need a competent LB.
Why do you and others keep trying to make this about a cap move? Also, it is a cheaper contract for the Giants because they don't have to be liable for the bonus. We just had a thread going about DeMarco Murray being a cap cut. How about a cut for a guy who is on the wrong side of age and injuries?
And don't misconstrue that to mean that any move is made without some consideration of the cap - just that it isn't often a primary motive.
You said the Rams gave him a poor contract in your previous post. Hence my question.
When you say he’s “affordable”, what do you mean by that? By all reports, seems that Ogletree will be 3 years of a $10M cap hit to the Giants followed by a final year at $9M.
Doesn’t seem like a bargain by any means. Maybe it’s a contract right at market value; that would imply pretty damned good production. Definitely possible.
My overall point is that trading draft picks for players already being paid every penny of their market value, as would seem to be the case here, is an approach that I have concerns with in principle.
You said the Rams gave him a poor contract in your previous post. Hence my question.
When you say he’s “affordable”, what do you mean by that? By all reports, seems that Ogletree will be 3 years of a $10M cap hit to the Giants followed by a final year at $9M.
The contract cap hit is based on a 7m roster bonus that's due in 8 days. The Giants can convert that money into a signing bonus which reduces his cap hit and gives them more maneuverability. This has been reported since the trade.
Raanan: Ogletree currently costs $10 million against the salary cap this season, even though it can be creatively reduced to $4.5 million if the Giants convert his upcoming roster bonus next week into a signing bonus. But that will cost them down the line, which brings into question whether this is the right move for this team at this moment.
http://www.espn.com/blog/new-york-giants/post/_/id/56379/why-alec-ogletree-can-be-viewed-as-a-great-trade-for-the-giants
The "it will cost them down the line" refers to the fact that by converting it to a signing bonus, you're trading situations. Right now he's expensive, but they can easily get out of the deal in a year if they don't touch it. Or they can slash the cap hit, but they'd likely be locking in his deal longer-term.
Doesn’t change my general concern. But there are several things about this trade that make me happy
-LINEBACKER LIVES MATTER
-26 years old and under contract — The contract isn’t a bargain by any means, but (barring a significant conversion of salary to signing bonus) it means you can cut the player at any time in the future with very little dead money.
-shows a willingness to go out a do significant things in the trade market, which is something that I wanted from the new regime.