Dead Money and Correlation to Record

What I want to know though is how the hell the Bills ranked near the top of the league in dead money so often?

Seems logical since dead money limits a team's ability to sign and retain talent.

As for the Giants 2019, I think some of the fan optimism is a little premature. It's going to be a young, inexperienced team, and we're going to see their growing pains. 8-8 might be a successful season with this group. 2020 is the year I'd really expect to see them turn into a contender, and if Jones is the starter and getting his first real game action, that sets them back, too.

I don't get the optimism. I was optimistic the last few seasons, but I'm not getting fooled again. I hope I'm wrong. I think absolute best case scenario is 9-7 or 10-6 and sneak into the playoffs, but I don't see it. I'm probably going to bet the Giants season under, which will be a nice emotional hedge.

I could be off but the general consensus/hope seems to be .500 or a game in either direction.

If everything comes together and clicks (RT/C, the pass rush, a young secondary, a second ILB distinguishes himself, the O isnt hurt by a lack of size/deep speed at WR, a young DL performs, Eli has some gas left, some legitimate leaders emerge on both sides of the ball...not a tall order, right?) and they get lucky with health/injury they *could* top out at 10 wins. If they get all the bounces. Maybe. Certainly wouldnt bet on it. And i think most people feel that way. I dont think anyone thinks this is a no doubt double digit win team.

Finished within 1 game of .500

Basically, 50% of this field finished with a record similar to what a lot of people expect the Giants to ...

This is a young team. We will live with the ups and downs. But there is some young talent here, that with good coaching and game experience will only get bettet. In 2020 when the dead money mostly all falls off, that will be when we could augment these 2 good drafts with a judiciously selected free agent or two. The pieces and processes are being put in place for long term success.

In comment 14462045 No Where Man said:

Quote:

This is a young team. We will live with the ups and downs. But there is some young talent here, that with good coaching and game experience will only get bettet. In 2020 when the dead money mostly all falls off, that will be when we could augment these 2 good drafts with a judiciously selected free agent or two. The pieces and processes are being put in place for long term success.

This

dead money is not an argument for why a team can or cannot be successful -- it is an argument for a team's budget being mismanaged.

We have all already conceded that the Giants were not in a healthy place when MacAdoo and then Reese were fired. A lot of our cap issues stem from shucking off the old and changing the foundation of this team

The real issue is - has the new regime been successful in the drafts and their personnel moves -- end of story

What you didn't say is that the Giants have the second most dead money this year.

wouldn't be considered a successful outing from this group, when its a young talented team with a ton of cap room going into 2020. I actually see a lot of similarities between us and the Browns of last year. Shedding a ton of money over two years and acquiring draft picks. If the Browns stumble this year, it would be a massive disappointment, similar to if we don't make the playoffs in 2020.

year when your dead money is high. It shows you overpaid for players and need to clean that up. It hurts your cap in that given year. So unless you are getting way more production out of your players under contract, especially at QB, you are unlikely to find success that year. Not talking about moving forward, but in that given year. Fortunately, it looks like you can do that in about two years looking at the numbers.

In comment 14462045 No Where Man said:

Quote:

This is a young team. We will live with the ups and downs. But there is some young talent here, that with good coaching and game experience will only get bettet. In 2020 when the dead money mostly all falls off, that will be when we could augment these 2 good drafts with a judiciously selected free agent or two. The pieces and processes are being put in place for long term success.

I don't see how you can say "2 good drafts" when the 2019 class hasn't played a single NFL down yet. I'm not trying to call you out or anything I'm just saying we have no idea what the 2019 class will turn out to be, and the fact people are already calling it a "good draft" is just proof of the unfounded optimism on this board that the OP is referring to.

We went 8-24 the past 2 years and just lost the best (or possibly 2nd best) player on our team. I'm not even knocking the Beckham trade right now I'm just saying we have zero reason to believe the Giants will have a winning season in 2019. 2020 and 2021 are a different story.

bad teams turn it around in the NFL all the time type sentiment, why not us? Well for one it isn't as common as people think just because one team goes from 6-10 or less to an 11 win team in a year. Two - those teams that have done that have been set up that year to succeed. 2019 is not that year for the Giants, but 2020 sure looks like it as long as DJ is the goods.
I'm very optimistic what DG has done here, but to expect this year to be the year they breakthrough is setting oneself up for disappointment. I've done that way too many years as a Giants fan in the last five. Last year I thought Eli had a ton left in the tank going into the season and was just in a terrible situation. After last year though, I don't think he can be much more than a game manager for a good offense, which I believe this one will be as long as the line stays healthy. Hopefully, he goes out on a winning note to keep his WL record positive.

In comment 14462047 gidiefor said:

Quote:

dead money is not an argument for why a team can or cannot be successful -- it is an argument for a team's budget being mismanaged. We have all already conceded that the Giants were not in a healthy place when MacAdoo and then Reese were fired. A lot of our cap issues stem from shucking off the old and changing the foundation of this team The real issue is - has the new regime been successful in the drafts and their personnel moves -- end of story

But unfortunately a lot of the dead money cones from contracts Gettleman signed -- of the 33M in dead money the Giants have at least 19.5M were attached to his players.

Bad contracts are bad contracts and they always have negative impacts. In the case of Beckham and Vernon, Gettleman was able to salvage some value -- that's mitigating, but not absolving. Reese gave Vernon a bad deal, and Gettleman Beckham.

In a capped league where money can be rolled forward, the Giants are better in every scenario with that 33M invested on the field.

into Peppers, Lawrence and Ximines all low salary players with great potential

if he had not signed Beckham and cost controlled him, he wouldn't have gotten that kind of return - so again this really is about whether or not Gettleman is bringing adequate talent to the team. Expensive Beckham has become three players on their rookie deal.

some cap space in 2019 for a 1st, 3rd, and a former first still on his rookie contract that probably fetches a second on the open market. I do not have a problem with that honestly.

it's an effect - if you are a bad team you jettison bad contracts in an attempt to get healthy in later years. When you do that, you have a lot of dead money. It is a backward-looking stat.

...or elite offensive line play?"

Close enough. First, I think this OL and this RB could give us a running game very similar to what the Cowboys got. Second, Eli with that running game and better pass protection will give us a very good year. 12-4? Probably not. .500 or better, sure.

I could see the Giants, or any other team, stinking out the joint even if they didn’t have a dime of dead money. Live money can still buy crappy players.

Avoid the bad to crippling contracts. The shedding of such contracts ensures short term pain, but a healthy organization needs to be built from the ground up. The decisions to shed bad contracts are hard and often unpopular but they have to be made. The challenge is maintaining discipline.

On another thread I projected 6-10 and have said on various threads the plan is about 2020 with real flexibility going into 2021.

DG's working on a 3 year plan. I'm a believer and will be patient.

In comment 14462086 Peter from NH (formerly CT) said:

Quote:

it's an effect - if you are a bad team you jettison bad contracts in an attempt to get healthy in later years. When you do that, you have a lot of dead money. It is a backward-looking stat.

It is a backwards looking stat, but the whole premise of the thread was that there are many people here that think it is possible to be very successful when you are doing that and from the information I've gathered it seems like is only possible if you are getting elite QB play.

In comment 14462076 gidiefor said:

Quote:

into Peppers, Lawrence and Ximines all low salary players with great potential if he had not signed Beckham and cost controlled him, he wouldn't have gotten that kind of return - so again this really is about whether or not Gettleman is bringing adequate talent to the team. Expensive Beckham has become three players on their rookie deal.

You can't leave the accelerated portion of the money out of the equation if you're making an intellectually honest assessment -- part of the reason it's a cost controlled "good" deal for Cleveland is because the Giants ate that 16M dollars, and significantly decreased the guaranteed dollars.

A more fair accounting of all the costs and factors might be the Giants traded:

- 5 years of Beckham and 16M dollars for
- 3 years of Peppers, 5 years of Lawrence, and 4 years of Ximines

In comment 14462145 christian said:

Quote:

In comment 14462076 gidiefor said: Quote: into Peppers, Lawrence and Ximines all low salary players with great potential if he had not signed Beckham and cost controlled him, he wouldn't have gotten that kind of return - so again this really is about whether or not Gettleman is bringing adequate talent to the team. Expensive Beckham has become three players on their rookie deal. You can't leave the accelerated portion of the money out of the equation if you're making an intellectually honest assessment -- part of the reason it's a cost controlled "good" deal for Cleveland is because the Giants ate that 16M dollars, and significantly decreased the guaranteed dollars. A more fair accounting of all the costs and factors might be the Giants traded: - 5 years of Beckham and 16M dollars for - 3 years of Peppers, 5 years of Lawrence, and 4 years of Ximines

Yeh and those guys are on rookie contracts while Beckham is still going to get paid approx 18 million a year by the Browns.

.

Sure, if you want to get into future costs, Beckham actually only has 22.5M of guaranteed money (19.5 in year one), effectively making it a 1 year contract with options for years 2-5.

But let's not lose sight of the fact the Giants gave up the rights to Beckham, who's far and away the best player in the deal and ate the money.

They lose all of the productivity and the money, in exchange for the players and getting out of the contract.

But my point isn't the fairness of the trade, I think it's a fair trade.

My point is and always has been, the Giants would have been better off getting what they could in a trade in 2018, literally hanging onto the 22M they effectively paid him for last year, and the future savings.

I strongly believe the 49ers would have traded their 2018 first and 3rd round picks and negotiated with Beckham.

I'd rather have had 5 years of Mike McGlinchey, Fred Warner and 22M in 2018, than 3 years of Peppers, 5 years of Lawrence and 4 years of Ximines in 2019.

Would allow the Giants to pay for the most expensive RT and C in the league — and still have 6 million leftover.

I think that Gettleman and the Giants were smart to re-sign Beckham rather than losing him a year earlier for a 1 (and perhaps a 3).

I also think that trading OBJ was a reasonable decision, given that it allowed us to land a QB we hope is our future leader, AND strengthened the defense, which has bee a horror show these past two years. Without the trade we couldn't do both. Even with the trade we're likely another draft and FA period away from fixing it.

As for the dead money, Snacks, Apple and Vernon make up the majority of the dead money aside from OBJ's; Omameh's 3M is the only other significant dead money. Now that we cleaned that up we're in good shape going forward.

going to likely have more dead money than others.

I'm not arguing with the original point, but I don't see why we can't see improvement from the team this year, including in record.

In comment 14462249 yatqb said:

Quote:

I think that Gettleman and the Giants were smart to re-sign Beckham rather than losing him a year earlier for a 1 (and perhaps a 3). I also think that trading OBJ was a reasonable decision, given that it allowed us to land a QB we hope is our future leader, AND strengthened the defense, which has bee a horror show these past two years. Without the trade we couldn't do both. Even with the trade we're likely another draft and FA period away from fixing it. As for the dead money, Snacks, Apple and Vernon make up the majority of the dead money aside from OBJ's; Omameh's 3M is the only other significant dead money. Now that we cleaned that up we're in good shape going forward.

The 9th and 70th overall picks and the 22M I'd argue were more valuable. We can agree to disagree on that, who knows, it's a hypothetical.

And to be clear I think Gettleman has done a really good job this year, and I don't disagree with the moves he's made to reboot the salary cap and roster.

But there are consequences to signing bad contracts, and it does take money off the field when you shed them.

posted twice by the Bills and once by the Lions? If you accept the observation that it's a backwards looking stat as Pete said, and certainly the Bills and Lions count as historically consistently badly managed in recent years (obviously the Bills in the Marv Levy era were rampantly successful), then a 9-7 regular season record was surely a success. It was good enough to launch the Giants to Eli's first SB run, and upset a great undefeated team.

A statistical anomaly. Bottom in league in yard for and against but middle of the pack in points. Not sure about the other two. And yeh it was good enough for us, but we are the only team to go 9-7 and win a Superbowl.

and DJ looks good 2020 is looking awfully bright.

In comment 14462300 Zeke's Alibi said:

Quote:

and DJ looks good 2020 is looking awfully bright.

I also think 9-7 is a possibility for this team. It's a very curious approach to imagine though, because it will take a "donut" type of success - there are so few healthy vets in their prime on this team. I mean the guys like Solder, Zeitler, Tate, and Ogletree are really a small minority of our starters. We have a lot of "zombies" that need to come up huge: Eli, Jackrabbit, Bethea, Golden, Remmers, perhaps Tate belongs in this group... And the majority of the projected starters are the young guns: the entire DL, (even Pierre is still young), Saquon, SS, EE, and perhaps Coleman, and of course the biggest key group, Peppers and "the Bunnies" - the 1st and 2nd year CBs/DBs.

It's an interesting mix, for sure.

I for one think way too many here are counting on revivals to form by the Zombies, and that doesn't happen often in the NOT For Long League.

Dead money is a side effect more than a symptom of being a bad team. Typically, the dead money comes from cutting expensive (sometimes overpriced) players whose lack of performance lead to the poor record.

bad past decisions, leading to bad contracts. Vernon was a bad decision on a bad contract. Much of the dead money is the fault of the Reese regime. OBJ is the fault of the current regime. Solder could be dead money walking if he doesn't increase production.
One would expect a spike in dead money whenever a regime change is had, unless a successful coach retires leaving a good team. In a situation such as the Giants, lower dead money means the new regime is not shedding overpaid mediocre players. Dead money can be a sign of good current decision making. If you expect immediate success in the middle of a cleansing, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.
Teams don't buy their way into success, they draft well and find lower paid lunch pail guys.

dead money is the effect of bad contracts. The question I posed is it possible to have a playoff year like some are postulating here while purging those bad contracts. From this sample size I would conclude no unless you get elite play from the QB.

2014, the Panthers won the NFC South at 7-8-1

In comment 14462681 fkap said:

Quote:

bad past decisions, leading to bad contracts. Vernon was a bad decision on a bad contract. Much of the dead money is the fault of the Reese regime. OBJ is the fault of the current regime. Solder could be dead money walking if he doesn't increase production. One would expect a spike in dead money whenever a regime change is had, unless a successful coach retires leaving a good team. In a situation such as the Giants, lower dead money means the new regime is not shedding overpaid mediocre players. Dead money can be a sign of good current decision making. If you expect immediate success in the middle of a cleansing, you're setting yourself up for disappointment. Teams don't buy their way into success, they draft well and find lower paid lunch pail guys.

Solder, if I'm not mistaken, can be cut as soon as next year and actually net a 1M in savings (17M hit, 8 "dead", 9 saved)

You're half right. The dead money is a result of horrible drafting which causes a team to pay full retail for average older players. That's how the Giants got to this point. Hopefully the new GM is better at drafting. He was last year. But it's about the lowest bar in the NFL.

your extra weight is carried around your waist, you very likely have a pre-diabetic type II situation. Especially if there is any history of it in your family.

Get it checked out ASAP. You want to get on top of it early. It involves lifestyle changes, mostly with diet and exercise.

Good luck.

Whoops!

Things have to fall just right for us to finish over .500, let alone reach the playoffs. But next year is a different story.

In comment 14462814 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

2014, the Panthers won the NFC South at 7-8-1

They did, but I left that out due to that being an outlier that is sure not happening in the NFC East this year and has happened how many times in the NFL ever?

Why wouldn't we be optimistic? Even in your debbie downer depressing reasearch you found a few 8-8 teams in there, you are a debbie downer by the way..awful thread although I appreciate the effort but of course a correlation can be made to dead money and not having a great team for that year..you didn't have to do the research but i respect that you did.

I predict 8-8 or 9-7. That would be really good this year. Are we going 11-5-12-4. No probably not but can this talent and our new can do attitude win 8-9 games..hell yes. Next year we will have over 70 million in cap dollars to add to our already young and talented (yes we need more) roster. Optimism right now is 8-8 or 9-7 and def not superbowl. We have gotten rid of all the me,me me's and to do so we had to eat some cap money this year. Look at the roster and not how much we have invested in each player. I see lots and lots of potential and I couldn't be more excited. Gettlemen in 1 season has erased all of cunt Mark Ross's and his accomplice Jerry Reese's disasterous decisions.

Do I think we will win 10+ games..no but this is our transition year where we get pretty good and starting next year ...thats when the real expectations will probably start with me. I am forever the optimist, I know that but why as a fan would you be anything else (unless you have just terrible ownership, which we do not)Someone said he was going to bet the under? you are going to be that the giants win under 6 games this year? I was in vegas last week and threw 1200 on the over at even money. You don't fucking hedge as a Giant fan if you believe. You don't have to risk 1200 on it like I did but Don't you ever ever ever bet against the Giants on a season under and think you're not going to be taken to task, a redskin fan or a cowboy fan perhpas? that hurt right? good. You think we win 5 games or less??? I don't see how someone can be a "fan" and see this team with what we have done so far in our cuts and trades rebuilding our offensive line and secondary, see we win 5 games or less. Awful and you should be ashamed of yourself. Don't believe the media asswipes who just spit out what their other fellow media asswipes say. This team is better then last year with much, much more of a future ahead of us. I couldn't be more excited for a season. We are not some sad sack franchise. We have had a rough go for a little bit because of marc Ross and Jerry Reese,may they rot in hell, especially ross but we are about to be back. How can you not see that? Sorry you don't.

In comment 14462817 GothamGiants said:

Quote:

In comment 14462681 fkap said: Quote: bad past decisions, leading to bad contracts. Vernon was a bad decision on a bad contract. Much of the dead money is the fault of the Reese regime. OBJ is the fault of the current regime. Solder could be dead money walking if he doesn't increase production. One would expect a spike in dead money whenever a regime change is had, unless a successful coach retires leaving a good team. In a situation such as the Giants, lower dead money means the new regime is not shedding overpaid mediocre players. Dead money can be a sign of good current decision making. If you expect immediate success in the middle of a cleansing, you're setting yourself up for disappointment. Teams don't buy their way into success, they draft well and find lower paid lunch pail guys. Solder, if I'm not mistaken, can be cut as soon as next year and actually net a 1M in savings (17M hit, 8 "dead", 9 saved)

Yes and No. If they cut him next year, the $8M in Dead money is a sunk cost already factored in. But impact to the 2020 cap of cutting Solder is that the team would recoup $9M in cap space to spend elsewhere.

You aren't replacing his play for 9 million and even if we draft a tackle high next year you can expect him to replace Remmers. Maybe in 2021 if we have some young guys ready to take over both tackle spots you see him gone. The oline class is supposed to be pretty good next year so I could see that shaking out.

In comment 14462985 bluetothegrave said:

Quote:

Why wouldn't we be optimistic? Even in your debbie downer depressing reasearch you found a few 8-8 teams in there, you are a debbie downer by the way..awful thread although I appreciate the effort but of course a correlation can be made to dead money and not having a great team for that year..you didn't have to do the research but i respect that you did. I predict 8-8 or 9-7. That would be really good this year. Are we going 11-5-12-4. No probably not but can this talent and our new can do attitude win 8-9 games..hell yes. Next year we will have over 70 million in cap dollars to add to our already young and talented (yes we need more) roster. Optimism right now is 8-8 or 9-7 and def not superbowl. We have gotten rid of all the me,me me's and to do so we had to eat some cap money this year. Look at the roster and not how much we have invested in each player. I see lots and lots of potential and I couldn't be more excited. Gettlemen in 1 season has erased all of cunt Mark Ross's and his accomplice Jerry Reese's disasterous decisions. Do I think we will win 10+ games..no but this is our transition year where we get pretty good and starting next year ...thats when the real expectations will probably start with me. I am forever the optimist, I know that but why as a fan would you be anything else (unless you have just terrible ownership, which we do not)Someone said he was going to bet the under? you are going to be that the giants win under 6 games this year? I was in vegas last week and threw 1200 on the over at even money. You don't fucking hedge as a Giant fan if you believe. You don't have to risk 1200 on it like I did but Don't you ever ever ever bet against the Giants on a season under and think you're not going to be taken to task, a redskin fan or a cowboy fan perhpas? that hurt right? good. You think we win 5 games or less??? I don't see how someone can be a "fan" and see this team with what we have done so far in our cuts and trades rebuilding our offensive line and secondary, see we win 5 games or less. Awful and you should be ashamed of yourself. Don't believe the media asswipes who just spit out what their other fellow media asswipes say. This team is better then last year with much, much more of a future ahead of us. I couldn't be more excited for a season. We are not some sad sack franchise. We have had a rough go for a little bit because of marc Ross and Jerry Reese,may they rot in hell, especially ross but we are about to be back. How can you not see that? Sorry you don't.

I'm with many on this board here regarding 2020 as a defining year-- but I'd like to ask you and others who feel similar to you regarding this season for GMEN. Will you be "disappointed if they go 6-10?

Quote:

I'm with many on this board here regarding 2020 as a defining year-- but I'd like to ask you and others who feel similar to you regarding this season for GMEN. Will you be "disappointed if they go 6-10?

It depends what the 6-10 looks like. If it includes Daniel Jones getting several starts and playing well, for a rookie, then I'm OK with that.