He is awful and there's no reason to believe he'll be much better in the future. He's already 27 or 28 years old. Stop wasting time on this guy and start finding someone who can do the job adequately.
I think they may try Solder on the right side. His salary is going to be a bitch to move.
This is what I am thinking. He has a dead cap number of $13M next season due to the restructure. While his cap hit is higher next year, I don't think it makes sense to cut him and no team is going to trade for him. I think the line will be ???-Hernandez-???-Zeitler-Solder.
He is awful and there's no reason to believe he'll be much better in the future. He's already 27 or 28 years old. Stop wasting time on this guy and start finding someone who can do the job adequately.
Sorry for butchering his name, too lazy to look it up😄
Pio may stay on the team as a back up, but a replacement starter better be coming.
Solder's is the interesting case. He hasn't played well, he's expensive, but we also have seen what else is out there and it isn't pretty. Gettleman will try to find a new LT, but it may not materialize.
"they just need another year together to click". - Gettleman Â
Yes, they need 3 new starters and a backup or two. Is that realistic in one offseason. Probably not. So you're stuck with some of this year's folks starting for next year's line. Just the way it is.
My bad, I honestly meant RT not RG. They are set at guard as long as Zeitler can get/stay healthy.
I think they draft a LT as they do not want to allocate another HUGE contract to a FA LT that doesn't work out.....
My bad, I honestly meant RT not RG. They are set at guard as long as Zeitler can get/stay healthy.
I think they draft a LT as they do not want to allocate another HUGE contract to a FA LT that doesn't work out...
Remmers won't be resigned but the other 4 will be here and fighting for a starting job.
solder's contract is an anchor.
Solder's contract isn't an anchor. He can be cut with like $6m in cap savings. Doesn't mean he will be but he certainly could be.
What would the cap penalty be?
Follow-up question to this - what would it have been without Solder's restructure to cover the dead money of Omameh and Snacks, which could have funded in-season moves instead?
We need to stop looking at the net cap room in a vacuum without considering the dead money implications. You still have to find a replacement for the player you cut, so $6M in new cap space for releasing Solder is not a net gain unless his replacement costs less than $6M. Otherwise, it's just paying full freight on Solder PLUS the delta between the cap room generated by releasing Solder and whatever the cost is for his replacement. And no chance at a compensatory pick when Solder signs elsewhere.
The Giants' dysfunctional cap management is bad enough without fans acting like there's a silver lining in it.
with a 1st or 2nd round pick replacing him at LT. If Solder struggles at RT he can be replaced by Gates. This at least would allow the Giants to spend a key draft asset on the LT spot and add a center in free agency. Joe Thuney or Ted Karras would be ideal.
That's the only figure that matters when deciding whether to cut him. Dead money is a sunk cost whether he's on the team or not.
As someone else said, replacing 2 T and a C is a tall order. We can pray that Gates can be one, or that Solder has been injured and will improve to average/meh with recovery.
That's the only figure that matters when deciding whether to cut him. Dead money is a sunk cost whether he's on the team or not.
As someone else said, replacing 2 T and a C is a tall order. We can pray that Gates can be one, or that Solder has been injured and will improve to average/meh with recovery.
That's an incredibly simplistic take, to put it kindly. Unless you're going to replace him for less than the savings, there are no savings. And if you're replacing him with a draft pick, which is the only realistic way you'd be upgrading the talent for similar or less money than the net savings, you're wasting a resource on a revolving door within your depth chart rather than upgrading depth elsewhere.
Furthermore, because the unamortized money from the signing bonus accelerates, the dead money is not simply a sunk cost in the same manner and construction as the initial contract may have intended as part of a larger salary cap forecast.
Finally, cutting a player before the end of his contract precludes the opportunity to acquire compensatory picks. Go look at which teams have been consistently good over the past two decades and you'll see a lot of the same franchises that are generally near the top of the list for compensatory picks each year. That's not a coincidence. But players have to reach the end of their contract to qualify - released free agents do not count.
Dead money is only a sunk cost in its most simple sense, but it represents a massive inefficiency in the way some teams operate vs others. Shrewd salary cap management and dead money mitigation is one of the few real advantages available to teams. The Giants end up on the disadvantageous side of that more often than not.
And fans continue to lap it up with a fucking spoon.
certainly, there are a lot of factors involved in deciding whether to part ways with a player. You mentioned quite a few of them. Fiscally, it starts with a very simple question: what is the cap hit of jettisoning a player? In the case of Solder, there's a net increase of cap space of 6.5 mil. After that, the following questions of is anyone available to bring in, and at what costs, can be addressed.
Dead money is bad, but it IS already a sunk cost. It is a sign of a bad deal, but the milk is spoiled whether you leave it in the fridge, or dump it out. Dead money is a measuring point for evaluating management and whether or why they're acquiring proper talent. Incurring dead money is bad, but it shouldn't be part of the decision of cutting a player. Net cap hit of cutting a player is the overwhelming factor in comparing the cap hit of bringing in equal or greater talent. Far too many people get hung up on dead money when cutting a player. If a player needs replacing, he needs replacing.
certainly, there are a lot of factors involved in deciding whether to part ways with a player. You mentioned quite a few of them. Fiscally, it starts with a very simple question: what is the cap hit of jettisoning a player? In the case of Solder, there's a net increase of cap space of 6.5 mil. After that, the following questions of is anyone available to bring in, and at what costs, can be addressed.
Dead money is bad, but it IS already a sunk cost. It is a sign of a bad deal, but the milk is spoiled whether you leave it in the fridge, or dump it out. Dead money is a measuring point for evaluating management and whether or why they're acquiring proper talent. Incurring dead money is bad, but it shouldn't be part of the decision of cutting a player. Net cap hit of cutting a player is the overwhelming factor in comparing the cap hit of bringing in equal or greater talent. Far too many people get hung up on dead money when cutting a player. If a player needs replacing, he needs replacing.
I agree with that, and I'd point out that our fearless leader and his trusty cap guru just exacerbated the dead money problem for Solder by restructuring his contract this offseason when they took on more dead money than they could afford. So now an additional $5M in dead money hits 2020's cap in the event of a Solder release, which basically means we're actually still paying off Omameh and Snacks' dead money 18 months after they're gone because we couldn't afford their dead money in the same offseason as "we didn't sign him to trade him."
Good teams carry cap room forward with a competitive roster. Bad teams borrow money from tomorrow to pay for today's shitty roster.
Soldier had a serious family thing weighing on him
Some things are more important than sports.
This is a very salient point. And if that's the reason why Solder is in such steep decline, I offer my empathy.
And as a fan of a team in a salary cap league with finite resources, if he's unable to compete at a high level, I would suggest that he consider retirement along with returning his unamortized bonus money.
I realize that's incredibly insensitive, but it does go both ways. He's still collecting the paycheck as though he's fully present, so if he can't deliver on that end of it, I don't think it should be the Giants that bear the brunt of it alone.
to borrow from future cap to cover this year's cap. It's bad cap management.
Once DG and Co decided to get a cash advance on future cap (and trade away draft picks for the right of first negotiation for Williams), it didn't really matter which player they used for the accounting magic.
because Solder's deal is going to be very hard to walk away from next season. Their trying to get away from carrying significant dead money on the books. They've lined up a lot of expiring contracts for 2020. I doubt they'll want to eat $13M for shipping him out. Perhaps he can be moved to RT to limit his exposure(although this is harder to do in today's 'matchup' schemed defenses)and an upgrade acquired for LT and OC.
to borrow from future cap to cover this year's cap. It's bad cap management.
Once DG and Co decided to get a cash advance on future cap (and trade away draft picks for the right of first negotiation for Williams), it didn't really matter which player they used for the accounting magic.
It matters that the players who they chose are two that probably would be potentially be on the roster bubble, for a variety of reasons, chief among them value relative to cap number - Solder and Ellison are two guys that, for a team looking to improve, should be targeted for roster upgrades.
And now it does cost more money to get rid of them if the team is successful in upgrading those spots, or conversely (and potentially worse, depending on how you approach it), makes them more likely to be kept even if there is a better player on the roster, which means that any savings for going younger get washed away by going much more expensive for depth instead of starters.
Unfortunately, the guys that teams want to remain committed to don't often have the bloat in their contract that makes them a good candidate for a restructure in the first place.
Why only two dots of hesitation, why not the typical third dot?
I added a 3rd exclamation point for effect....
Quote:
agree with that.
Why only two dots of hesitation, why not the typical third dot?
That's pretty funny and the way this Giants' season has unfolded, I could really use a chuckle.
Quote:
In comment 14682233 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
agree with that.
Why only two dots of hesitation, why not the typical third dot?
That's pretty funny and the way this Giants' season has unfolded, I could really use a chuckle.
Hi MS, my pleasure.
I think Solder it Hallepio are back
This is what I am thinking. He has a dead cap number of $13M next season due to the restructure. While his cap hit is higher next year, I don't think it makes sense to cut him and no team is going to trade for him. I think the line will be ???-Hernandez-???-Zeitler-Solder.
Sorry for butchering his name, too lazy to look it up😄
Pio may stay on the team as a back up, but a replacement starter better be coming.
Solder's is the interesting case. He hasn't played well, he's expensive, but we also have seen what else is out there and it isn't pretty. Gettleman will try to find a new LT, but it may not materialize.
Remmers won't be resigned but the other 4 will be here and fighting for a starting job.
solder's contract is an anchor.
His skill set is at Tackle, not inside.
Remmers won't be resigned but the other 4 will be here and fighting for a starting job.
solder's contract is an anchor.
Solder's contract isn't an anchor. He can be cut with like $6m in cap savings. Doesn't mean he will be but he certainly could be.
His skill set is at Tackle, not inside.
My bad, I honestly meant RT not RG. They are set at guard as long as Zeitler can get/stay healthy.
I think they draft a LT as they do not want to allocate another HUGE contract to a FA LT that doesn't work out.....
Quote:
Remmers won't be resigned but the other 4 will be here and fighting for a starting job.
solder's contract is an anchor.
Solder's contract isn't an anchor. He can be cut with like $6m in cap savings. Doesn't mean he will be but he certainly could be.
What would the cap penalty be?
I think they draft a LT as they do not want to allocate another HUGE contract to a FA LT that doesn't work out...
Quote:
In comment 14682337 larryflower37 said:
Quote:
Remmers won't be resigned but the other 4 will be here and fighting for a starting job.
solder's contract is an anchor.
Solder's contract isn't an anchor. He can be cut with like $6m in cap savings. Doesn't mean he will be but he certainly could be.
What would the cap penalty be?
Follow-up question to this - what would it have been without Solder's restructure to cover the dead money of Omameh and Snacks, which could have funded in-season moves instead?
We need to stop looking at the net cap room in a vacuum without considering the dead money implications. You still have to find a replacement for the player you cut, so $6M in new cap space for releasing Solder is not a net gain unless his replacement costs less than $6M. Otherwise, it's just paying full freight on Solder PLUS the delta between the cap room generated by releasing Solder and whatever the cost is for his replacement. And no chance at a compensatory pick when Solder signs elsewhere.
The Giants' dysfunctional cap management is bad enough without fans acting like there's a silver lining in it.
Initial hit, it's all about instantness in the run game right now in today's nfl and that includes outside runs.
Surprise draftee- Quick burst running back who gets to the edge instantly and makes the one cut
That's the only figure that matters when deciding whether to cut him. Dead money is a sunk cost whether he's on the team or not.
As someone else said, replacing 2 T and a C is a tall order. We can pray that Gates can be one, or that Solder has been injured and will improve to average/meh with recovery.
That's the only figure that matters when deciding whether to cut him. Dead money is a sunk cost whether he's on the team or not.
As someone else said, replacing 2 T and a C is a tall order. We can pray that Gates can be one, or that Solder has been injured and will improve to average/meh with recovery.
That's an incredibly simplistic take, to put it kindly. Unless you're going to replace him for less than the savings, there are no savings. And if you're replacing him with a draft pick, which is the only realistic way you'd be upgrading the talent for similar or less money than the net savings, you're wasting a resource on a revolving door within your depth chart rather than upgrading depth elsewhere.
Furthermore, because the unamortized money from the signing bonus accelerates, the dead money is not simply a sunk cost in the same manner and construction as the initial contract may have intended as part of a larger salary cap forecast.
Finally, cutting a player before the end of his contract precludes the opportunity to acquire compensatory picks. Go look at which teams have been consistently good over the past two decades and you'll see a lot of the same franchises that are generally near the top of the list for compensatory picks each year. That's not a coincidence. But players have to reach the end of their contract to qualify - released free agents do not count.
Dead money is only a sunk cost in its most simple sense, but it represents a massive inefficiency in the way some teams operate vs others. Shrewd salary cap management and dead money mitigation is one of the few real advantages available to teams. The Giants end up on the disadvantageous side of that more often than not.
And fans continue to lap it up with a fucking spoon.
Dead money is bad, but it IS already a sunk cost. It is a sign of a bad deal, but the milk is spoiled whether you leave it in the fridge, or dump it out. Dead money is a measuring point for evaluating management and whether or why they're acquiring proper talent. Incurring dead money is bad, but it shouldn't be part of the decision of cutting a player. Net cap hit of cutting a player is the overwhelming factor in comparing the cap hit of bringing in equal or greater talent. Far too many people get hung up on dead money when cutting a player. If a player needs replacing, he needs replacing.
Some things are more important than sports.
Dead money is bad, but it IS already a sunk cost. It is a sign of a bad deal, but the milk is spoiled whether you leave it in the fridge, or dump it out. Dead money is a measuring point for evaluating management and whether or why they're acquiring proper talent. Incurring dead money is bad, but it shouldn't be part of the decision of cutting a player. Net cap hit of cutting a player is the overwhelming factor in comparing the cap hit of bringing in equal or greater talent. Far too many people get hung up on dead money when cutting a player. If a player needs replacing, he needs replacing.
I agree with that, and I'd point out that our fearless leader and his trusty cap guru just exacerbated the dead money problem for Solder by restructuring his contract this offseason when they took on more dead money than they could afford. So now an additional $5M in dead money hits 2020's cap in the event of a Solder release, which basically means we're actually still paying off Omameh and Snacks' dead money 18 months after they're gone because we couldn't afford their dead money in the same offseason as "we didn't sign him to trade him."
Good teams carry cap room forward with a competitive roster. Bad teams borrow money from tomorrow to pay for today's shitty roster.
No surprise DG and KA fall into the latter camp.
Some things are more important than sports.
This is a very salient point. And if that's the reason why Solder is in such steep decline, I offer my empathy.
And as a fan of a team in a salary cap league with finite resources, if he's unable to compete at a high level, I would suggest that he consider retirement along with returning his unamortized bonus money.
I realize that's incredibly insensitive, but it does go both ways. He's still collecting the paycheck as though he's fully present, so if he can't deliver on that end of it, I don't think it should be the Giants that bear the brunt of it alone.
Once DG and Co decided to get a cash advance on future cap (and trade away draft picks for the right of first negotiation for Williams), it didn't really matter which player they used for the accounting magic.
Quote:
Remmers won't be resigned but the other 4 will be here and fighting for a starting job.
solder's contract is an anchor.
Solder's contract isn't an anchor. He can be cut with like $6m in cap savings. Doesn't mean he will be but he certainly could be.
So something like 9-11 mill in dead money? But itd free up 6 mill?
Once DG and Co decided to get a cash advance on future cap (and trade away draft picks for the right of first negotiation for Williams), it didn't really matter which player they used for the accounting magic.
It matters that the players who they chose are two that probably would be potentially be on the roster bubble, for a variety of reasons, chief among them value relative to cap number - Solder and Ellison are two guys that, for a team looking to improve, should be targeted for roster upgrades.
And now it does cost more money to get rid of them if the team is successful in upgrading those spots, or conversely (and potentially worse, depending on how you approach it), makes them more likely to be kept even if there is a better player on the roster, which means that any savings for going younger get washed away by going much more expensive for depth instead of starters.
Unfortunately, the guys that teams want to remain committed to don't often have the bloat in their contract that makes them a good candidate for a restructure in the first place.