29th in Active Cash Spending
28th in Total Cash Spending
22nd in Cash to Cap Ratio
I think there is a lot of confusion over the Giants cap and financial situation.
We are objectively spending less on this 2022 team than most of the teams in the league.
This is a rebuilding year, of course, but eventually we will have to spend cash up front on bonuses for quality players, and run the kinds of deficits the Bills, Rams, Eagles routinely do.
NFL cash spending by team - overthecap.com - (
New Window )
they could have restructured Bradberry and paid him something like 19m cash this year. that is +19m cash spending. depending on how they did it i think they actually would have saved more money than they did by cutting him.
but then they would have carried a big cap hit on him into future years.
same is true if they gave him a big extension with a big signing bonus.
they are low in cash spending because they chose a more prudent course of not over committing to the existing roster (or being more active in FA with manipulated low cap hits this year and future balloon payments).
they could have restructured Bradberry and paid him something like 19m cash this year. that is +19m cash spending. depending on how they did it i think they actually would have saved more money than they did by cutting him.
but then they would have carried a big cap hit on him into future years.
same is true if they gave him a big extension with a big signing bonus.
they are low in cash spending because they chose a more prudent course of not over committing to the existing roster (or being more active in FA with manipulated low cap hits this year and future balloon payments).
Don't think I am misdiagnosing anything. I said it is a rebuilding year. But many on BBI say the Giants should never carry balances into the future and have discipline to keep things balanced, even when they turn things around. But in the NFL eschewing Cash Over Cap strategies puts you at a competitive disadvantage. Capice?
completely unrelated to my point. We will eventually have to spend into the future as most good teams do.
Quote:
the reason why they are low in this is because of the fact that they made the decision to carry less future money. example:
they could have restructured Bradberry and paid him something like 19m cash this year. that is +19m cash spending. depending on how they did it i think they actually would have saved more money than they did by cutting him.
but then they would have carried a big cap hit on him into future years.
same is true if they gave him a big extension with a big signing bonus.
they are low in cash spending because they chose a more prudent course of not over committing to the existing roster (or being more active in FA with manipulated low cap hits this year and future balloon payments).
Don't think I am misdiagnosing anything. I said it is a rebuilding year. But many on BBI say the Giants should never carry balances into the future and have discipline to keep things balanced, even when they turn things around. But in the NFL eschewing Cash Over Cap strategies puts you at a competitive disadvantage. Capice?
ok but to be clear what you're endorsing is what they did last year with how they structured Golladay, Williams, and Jackson to squeeze them all under the cap. They paid all 3 big cash signing bonuses (almost $90m cash in total) in return for artificially lower base year salaries, which leads to balloon payments in future years like we saw with all 3 of them (and bradberry) as that 90m gets accounted for over the life of the contract.
which leads to needing to do more restructures like Schoen had to do with Williams and Jackson to get cap compliant, which again is a cash spend that converts base salary to signing bonus which punts the cap hit into the future. jackson and williams each got something like 10-20m cash this year in return for lowering their cap hits this year (while raising future years).
to spend cash over the cap you have to pay players a lot of cash upfront - and since the draft is slotted and you can't buy new draft picks, if you don't have core players to resign that means buying expensive (and risky) FAs.
Falcons 31st ACS
Texans 29th ACS
Bears 2nd Dead Cap
Falcons 1st Dead Cap
Texans 4th Dead Cap
See kind of an inverse relationship?
You can't spend money you don't possess. Capisce?
Falcons 31st ACS
Texans 29th ACS
Bears 2nd Dead Cap
Falcons 1st Dead Cap
Texans 4th Dead Cap
See kind of an inverse relationship?
You can't spend money you don't possess. Capisce?
Jesus I think you have a reading comprehension impairment. I am speaking of future strategy, and I am being polite and kind to you, but if you continue to act in a sarcastic manner, I'll stop being polite.
And nice job cherry picking examples, as you skipped over a number of teams that are high on both lists.
The Giants are going to spend a ton of cash this offseason.
If spending cash is the goal, the easiest way to run that up is signing Daniel Jones to a multi-agreement with 100Ms in guarantees at signing. That'll get them up there.
Quote:
Capisce?
completely unrelated to my point. We will eventually have to spend into the future as most good teams do.
Just because a dollar counts against the cap for one reason or another doesn't mean it was actually paid out as cash. It's conceivable to be against or over the cap and still have a low cash outlay for a given year.
That is to say, in the end, you get what you pay for, cap and dead money aside.
We will eventually have to spend into the future as most good teams do. [/quote]
But due to Schoen’s one year reset of the cap, we have cash to spend for 23 and 24. We can spend competitively without borrowing from future years’ cap.
The Giants are going to spend a ton of cash this offseason.
If spending cash is the goal, the easiest way to run that up is signing Daniel Jones to a multi-agreement with 100Ms in guarantees at signing. That'll get them up there.
if producer wants they can dramatically jump up the cash spending ranks both this year and next in the next few days:
extend barkley with a 25m signing/23 roster bonus
extend love with a 10-20m signing/23 roster bonus
extend lawrence with a 20-30m signing/23 roster bonus
extend williams or jackson with 30-40m signing/23 roster bonuses
if they split the bonus cash payments 50/50 this year and next they'd vault up to about 15th in cash spending.
and yeah, coup de grâce, give jones half of the 120m guaranteed murray got with half of that amount as signing bonus and that would get them to the top 10!
as much as this post is [s], the reality is the only 2 ways to increase cash spending are big extensions like above or big FA splurges like 2016 and 2021. the cash spending will go up as schoen commits to whoever "his guys" are.
It has nothing to do with rebuilding, it has to do with available cap space and most of our FA were not worth resigning. There was very little wiggle room to move cash around with the contracts we had. Martinez contract was a screw up because we restructured and cut him. We should have just cut him post June 1 without the restructure. Cant win them all.
Just saying...
Just Saying
Quote:
In comment 15895441 MOOPS said:
Quote:
Capisce?
completely unrelated to my point. We will eventually have to spend into the future as most good teams do.
It's absolutely related to your point. The more dead money you have in a current year is the less likely you actually paid cash out IN THAT YEAR for it. lot of dead money is money that didn't actually leave Mara's pocket and go to a player, rather it may have in a PRIOR year, and now just counts against the cap. That's why though every team has the same cap, they vary wildly in how much they pay out in any given year. NY Giants historically pay out LESS, on avg than other NFL teams. to the point the league has more than onceover the years has issued warnings to the Giants they have to bring up their actual cash-to-player outlays or be penalized.
Just because a dollar counts against the cap for one reason or another doesn't mean it was actually paid out as cash. It's conceivable to be against or over the cap and still have a low cash outlay for a given year.
The point is about future strategy and not about the Giants' position this season, cap, dead money or otherwise.
Just saying...
good find i was looking for the 2021 #'s but couldn't find them. notice the pats were also high bc they also spent big in FA last year.
cash over cap is meaningless without context.
Quote:
The Giants are indeed exiting a reset. Schoen has been ultra-crystal clear about that in words and actions.
The Giants are going to spend a ton of cash this offseason.
If spending cash is the goal, the easiest way to run that up is signing Daniel Jones to a multi-agreement with 100Ms in guarantees at signing. That'll get them up there.
if producer wants they can dramatically jump up the cash spending ranks both this year and next in the next few days:
extend barkley with a 25m signing/23 roster bonus
extend love with a 10-20m signing/23 roster bonus
extend lawrence with a 20-30m signing/23 roster bonus
extend williams or jackson with 30-40m signing/23 roster bonuses
if they split the bonus cash payments 50/50 this year and next they'd vault up to about 15th in cash spending.
and yeah, coup de grâce, give jones half of the 120m guaranteed murray got with half of that amount as signing bonus and that would get them to the top 10!
as much as this post is [s], the reality is the only 2 ways to increase cash spending are big extensions like above or big FA splurges like 2016 and 2021. the cash spending will go up as schoen commits to whoever "his guys" are.
Producer does not want the Giants to extend Jones and Barkley to expensive deals.
Producer does want the Giants to implement cash over cap strategies to obtain players they might not otherwise afford, and to increase their competitiveness.