According OTC, the Giants have $6.5 million in dead money because of voidable years on three UFAs:
Adoree' Jackson ... $3 million in dead money
A'Shawn Robinson ... $2.1 million in dead money
Tyrod Taylor ... $1.4 million in dead money
When you factor in the dead money hits for Leonard Williams ($10.6 million), Mark Glowinkski ($1.5 million), and various other small hits, the Giants have $19 million in dead money this year.
Once a few teams do it, most teams need to compete with them.
And then an assumption about what you believe is the downside, and that it's players who are not on the team this year have cap hits. Is that generally the issue you have?
all dead money is the salary cap version of buying something but paying for part of it on a future cap, signing bonuses and void years included. that is how a player can sign a 5 year/158m contract today yet only count 7m against the cap in 2024 like Chris Jones.
no gm has a gun to their head, they can pay for it up front if they choose to. or not spend at all. or use their future cap space to pay off something they want right now.
in the end it doesnt matter in the sense that every $1 paid to a player will count against the salary cap $1, the timing of when it hits is the only thing that flexible (with gimmicks like void years, restructures, etc).
as long as such a big chunk of contracts are non-guaranteed (which is probably forever) the system will remain excessively complicated.
Once a few teams do it, most teams need to compete with them.
nobody needs to do it to compete. teams can do whatever they want. pretty sure the chiefs dont have any void years on their books right now.
it's just an accounting choice. take the hit now, take the hit later.
I think the main difference is that void years don't give the team an option to retain the player for the final year(s). Back-loaded contracts do convey a team option, albeit at a salary that makes the team unlikely to exercise the option. So a void year doesn't generally cost the team anything up front, where the bonus on a back-loaded deal includes some small premium for that team option on the out year(s).
Dead Money Spotrac - ( New Window )
If the Giants didn't trade Williams there would be no dead money this year.
I doubt his contract gets that far without being re-worked, but today he does not have dead money with his void year.
It's actually kind of genius how they worked his contract (if you believe in his skill set), it's almost like they extended his rookie contract a few years. They basically get a 6 year rookie deal (or close to it) then two years of paying Hurts like an elite QB, then they can cut him at 30 years old with no dead money. I doubt they do that, but they can.
obviously if he's released before then sure, but his void year is his 31 year old season. Eagles probably trade him before then.
It seems like it would catch up sooner or later, but somehow/so far the Cowboys and Eagles have avoided cap hell.
The Giants don't do that much with voidable years.
Check out the Saints cap. They are already 80 million over next year's projected cap.
Once a few teams do it, most teams need to compete with them.
Yet the Eagles and Cowboys, who have been doing this for years, have less dead money than the Giants.
It gives you flexibility to make new deals now, pushing the money off. As long you are are prepared to eventually pay the piper, the idea of voidable years if a no brainer.
Link - ( New Window )
That's probably exactly how your work does their accounting.
I don't like $19 million in cap space being wasted when it could be be spent on players.
That's a lot of cap space.
2025 DM. $40 million
2026 DM $14 million
2027 DM. $2 million
2028 DM. $1 million
Things will be interesting the next 11 months in Dallas with respect to Dak contract extension. Also Dak has all the leverage.
Quote:
Eric, is your issue with dead money in general or void years that create dead money?
I don't like $19 million in cap space being wasted when it could be be spent on players.
That's a lot of cap space.
But the reality is that the use of voidable years puts more dollars on the field any, and possibly every, given year. In terms of putting the most talent on the field, using voidable years, paying cash up front and spreading out the hit, easily outpaces a balanced books approach. We want our team to use these accounting loopholes to field the most competitive squad.
From a pure finance point, think of it like the Dodgers contract with Ohtani. NPV of future dollars, and playing the cap against it.
In simpler terms. Beyond the cap advantage. A $5mm future cap hit. In FUTURE DOLLARS. And as a percent of future cap percentage. Equals more bang for your Buck. I’m sure I’m not explaining it well. But financially anytime you pay the same dollar in the future, it’s a discount if that makes sense.
That works great when a team is winning. But could the Giants have had the same shitty record the last ten years by signing all min wage players instead? Probably close. But instead of carrying forward dead cap space, they’d be doing the opposite. They’d be carrying over. EXTRA CAP space.
So when they are ready to build. Winner, they’d be at a competitive advantage of actually having three things
1) a higher salary cap then any other team in the league
2) which would allow them to trade for star players like Burns with relatively little draft capital. It happens every offseason now
3) and do this without having to role future dead cap money into future years
Doing this, while managing comp picks like the Eagles and Niners is the surefire way for long term franchise success IMO
2025 DM. $40 million
2026 DM $14 million
2027 DM. $2 million
2028 DM. $1 million
Things will be interesting the next 11 months in Dallas with respect to Dak contract extension. Also Dak has all the leverage.
These hits are easily offset by one good draft and a cheap QB, preferably on a rookie deal.
As long as you are prepared to account for it down the road, why would you not do it?? You need to sign guys and stay competitive. This is a year to year league with tons of parity.
You kick the can, the cap increases, the dead money per year does not increase, and you continue to restructure deals as you go.
I don't like $19 million in cap space being wasted when it could be be spent on players.
That's a lot of cap space.
This is an earnest question not intended to be patronizing, but you understand those figures just represent dollars already paid to players?
Is your view those players made too much money or would have just preferred the accounting stayed in the years they were on the roster?
Quote:
Eric, is your issue with dead money in general or void years that create dead money?
I don't like $19 million in cap space being wasted when it could be be spent on players.
That's a lot of cap space.
I don't like it either but the agreement for it seems to be if they don't spend future dollars today they won't be able to be competitive enough with their offers to sign guys they want in FA.
Personally I hate that approach, but then again the Giants aren't close to winning anything.
https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space - ( New Window )
Of course. So would your preference have been they paid those players less money, or would your preference had been to account for it when they were on the roster?
Every team uses void years. It would be a disadvantage not to.
I view dead cap space like I do credit card interest... just a waste.
I view dead cap space like I do credit card interest... just a waste.
If the Giants were a contender, pushing the can down the road would make more sense. Get your financial house in order now when you are down.
It's actually the complete opposite, you are deferring $ interest free and creating more spending cash now.
The dead money does not increase year over year but the cap space and subsequent cash for the team does.
It's actually the complete opposite, you are deferring $ interest free and creating more spending cash now.
The dead money does not increase year over year but the cap space and subsequent cash for the team does.
I understand what you are saying, and maybe that's a bad analogy, but my point remains, the Giants ARE being affected by the dead money THIS YEAR. The $19 million loss is REAL.
For instance it would have been better for the Giants to find a way for A'shawn Robinson to have a 5M cap hit last year? And if not, either paid him less or not sign him?
Quote:
My preference is keep voidable contracts to a minimum. Schoen did a good job of cleaning up the cap in 2022, but he screwed the pooch with the Daniel Jones contract. They spent on Burns and the OL and now they are up against the cap again, having to already re-structure Lawrence.
I view dead cap space like I do credit card interest... just a waste.
If the Giants were a contender, pushing the can down the road would make more sense. Get your financial house in order now when you are down.
AMMMEEENNNN brother
But you are pointing out the real problem.
They always think they are about to turn the corner and are ready for the upswing. And all the decisions they make follow that.
Just blow it up and build the right way, from the ground up scouting, players, front office, etc
They exist as a way to smooth out cap decisions, functioning as someone said earlier as interest free loan against future cap. It is why the Eagles were able to spend roughly twice as much on their roster last year as we did. It is also why when a team says they have no cap room it is usually just GM BS. There is almost always cap room. You just have to decide whether you want to borrow to spend it. Good or bad idea systemically? I don't like it but it is where we are at.
If you want a defense of the Giants' use of it, well that is pretty simple. They have made very little use of it. Assuming the rules don't change that will change at some point in the future. The sensible path is to decide when you have a window and then spend.
For instance it would have been better for the Giants to find a way for A'shawn Robinson to have a 5M cap hit last year? And if not, either paid him less or not sign him?
Yes. But this gets back to them overrating their chances in 2023. I think they felt they were going to be far better. I just hope moving forward there aren't a lot of voidable years. I understand it needs to be done, but it does come at a cost.
Obviously, a team as bad as the Giants have been shouldn't be doing this.
For NFL payrolls, unlike personal borrowing, there is no interest hit, plus the cap keeps increasing. Like the nation, NFL teams basically print money, so spending dollars today, earmarked for the future, makes sense.
The fact is, every contract is not going to be a winner. Every team strives for perfect player evaluation and performance but it is not possible.
Dead money is the price you pay for roster flexibility in a league where player performance is always fluctuating and the cap is always increasing.
Should not be sweating $19mm in dead cap in '24 -- that is business as usual in today's NFL.