Based on everything I can cobble together, this makes sense. I believe inclusive of the base salary cap, what they rolled over from 2023, and the credits they earned from Jones missing his incentives, the Giants salary cap in 2024 is ~260M.
So for 53 active players, dead money obligations, IR, and the estimate for the full-year practice squad I think OTC per usual is spot on.
I imagine they'll restructure as needed. They have plenty options.
But hats off to Schoen, you look up and down that cost/benefit ratio and there are very few ugly deals on the roster. There's the one we all gnash our teeth over, but otherwise it's a pretty clean sheet.
Doesn’t seem like they are getting a very good return on investment.
The Giants will NOT be signing or trading for anyone with a decent salary this season but, assuming we move from Jones next offseason, we will have a ton of space.
Doesn’t seem like they are getting a very good return on investment.
Honestly, minus the Jones deal the money is locked up with many "stars" of the team under contract- Lawrence, Burns, Thomas, Bobby O then controlled costs= Nabers, Hyatt, WDR, Thibs, Banks..
Even with Jones in 2025 we have space available.
as schoen has done as habit, they are currently carrying only as much operating room as they need but have multiple piggy banks they can crack into as they go to create whatever room they need with a negative interest rate (h/t metnut).
if their DBs get lit up by jefferson/addison week 1 id imagine some of this will be cracked into swiftly to add an akhello witherspoon type. id have done it already and waived hawkins to PS.
The cap position each year holds any number of assets -- from old, paid for assets (dead money), fixed assets (amortized bonuses for current players, minimum salaries), and dynamic assets (any salary beyond the minimum, roster, and performances bonuses).
If you look at the Giants roster, who are the players who are on a bad deal?
The NFLPA report reflects official submissions, but OTC does a great job of calculating in near real time. The time of the year where stuff gets weird was earlier this week. OTC has cleared most of the scramble.
Doesn’t seem like they are getting a very good return on investment.
they are choosing to pay players more in the present to keep more flexibility in the future.
even WITH JONES - and the rest of their expensive players already extended, look how much cap space they have in the future. this is before they cut anyone in offseason to save money, and with way underestimated cap increases.
if they move on from Jones after this year, those numbers go even higher.
they also have nobody of consequence hitting FA next year. thibs is basically the only important extension eligible player. maybe wandale if he plays well enough.
The answer is that being up against the cap and always having money are two completely different concepts.
if they move on from Jones after this year, those numbers go even higher.
they also have nobody of consequence hitting FA next year. thibs is basically the only important extension eligible player. maybe wandale if he plays well enough.
And not for nothing, because the tide rises all boats, but the base salary cap will be significantly higher than 260M next year. Fitzgerald has acknowledged that he's using his old estimate there, and won't recalibrate until later.
Exactly.
The only "up against" number to really track is the amount of dynamic assets on the ledger. If you have assets that can be moved, you're fine.
Philly………………..13M
Dallas…………………9M
We don't draft well enough.
Quote:
if they move on from Jones after this year, those numbers go even higher.
they also have nobody of consequence hitting FA next year. thibs is basically the only important extension eligible player. maybe wandale if he plays well enough.
And not for nothing, because the tide rises all boats, but the base salary cap will be significantly higher than 260M next year. Fitzgerald has acknowledged that he's using his old estimate there, and won't recalibrate until later.
thats why i said underestimated increases. his 2026 projection may be low even for 2025.
there are things it's easy to knock schoen for but his future planning isnt one of them. even with deals people complain as too expensive for both burns/jones they have plenty of room to operate. if jones somehow had his same 2022 season as dak/purdy extend for nearly 20m more per year in AAV, plus others like tua/lawrence are +15m, they would have a real advantage and 2 more drafts to shop for the next "maye".
my biggest current criticism of schoen is that he should have been MORE aggressive spending money this past offseason. a 2025 third for Sneed still stands out to me as a move that should have been done. A 27 year old all pro DB with position flex at both corner and slot who has made countless winning plays in back to back super bowls would have really given this defense a chance to be an elite unit. and he basically only got a 2 year guarantee covering his A27 and A28 seasons.
as schoen has done as habit, they are currently carrying only as much operating room as they need but have multiple piggy banks they can crack into as they go to create whatever room they need with a negative interest rate (h/t metnut).
if their DBs get lit up by jefferson/addison week 1 id imagine some of this will be cracked into swiftly to add an akhello witherspoon type. id have done it already and waived hawkins to PS.
Great post. At the time, I didn't care for the Jalen Mills signing, nor did I understand it. Still don't. And to think we are carrying dead money because of it and we didn't even get the benefit of him practicing with the team and helping us improve... Gah.
Quote:
that had these small chunks of guaranteed money to back roster players. some of this will be offset by practice squad payments and future elevations, some paid by other teams, but for now this is where it gets carried.
as schoen has done as habit, they are currently carrying only as much operating room as they need but have multiple piggy banks they can crack into as they go to create whatever room they need with a negative interest rate (h/t metnut).
if their DBs get lit up by jefferson/addison week 1 id imagine some of this will be cracked into swiftly to add an akhello witherspoon type. id have done it already and waived hawkins to PS.
Great post. At the time, I didn't care for the Jalen Mills signing, nor did I understand it. Still don't. And to think we are carrying dead money because of it and we didn't even get the benefit of him practicing with the team and helping us improve... Gah.
i understood in that it was a minimum deal and he had played a lot of different secondary positions. they had no veteran depth so he was kind of a swiss army knife depth player.
i understand a lot less how they have ended up here where they have no veteran DBs anywhere. Mills probably has more career starts than this whole secondary combined. Pinnock leads the way and he only has 20 something starts in his career.
they are putting a lot of eggs in the young dbs stepping up basket.
That has nothing to with the cap.
You'll notice most of teams above the Giants have paid their QB. When/if the Giants cut Jones that number goes down by 80M.
You'll also notice who is 2nd to last, and why they aren't tripping about signing their good players.
Suddenly our salary cap moving forward looks incredibly healthy. Like envious to other teams healthy.
If he sucks again. They move on from him. And our cap is okay. But then moving forward after next season, our cap would look incredible.
I don’t see anything to complain about with how they’ve managed the cap IMO.
Suddenly our salary cap moving forward looks incredibly healthy. Like envious to other teams healthy.
If he sucks again. They move on from him. And our cap is okay. But then moving forward after next season, our cap would look incredible.
I don’t see anything to complain about with how they’ve managed the cap IMO.
this is exactly right. wont stop anyone from complaining but it's correct.
the detroit lions example that gets thrown around a lot is a good one. if the coaching staff can get that kind of tough minded consistent effort and if this roster can perform in the trenches the way sewell, decker, hutchinson, etc do there is a foundation of a .500+ team that's can then be on the lookout for a QB/skill players to get it over the top. i dont think the joint practices with them are a coincidence, they're probably the gold standard of how to build a roster and a culture right now.
You'll notice most of teams above the Giants have paid their QB. When/if the Giants cut Jones that number goes down by 80M.
You'll also notice who is 2nd to last, and why they aren't tripping about signing their good players.
unless the 2 remaining players they need to extend want out for some reason, they will be back. and i cant recall any big time dallas player who wanted out. both will likely top their positions.
i think dak is taking a needless risk to not get something done before this season though i suppose it could be dallas being stupid in not using the leverage they have aggressively. probably wont make a difference either way in the end. he may be holding out for a difference that's more than the sum of whatever he's paying to insure himself this year making it essentially risk free on his end.
Philly………………..13M
Dallas…………………9M
However Dallas has HUGE contracts coming up and if they don't get them done here things will be VERY ugly next offseason.
The more likely outcome is they keep the band largely together and upgrade at head coach if they don't win a championship this year.
The thing with Dak is he's earned 200M in his career. This isn't a Trevor Lawrence extension situation where the guy has booked 7X less.
Team Dak knows short of a catastrophic shoulder injury, he's chasing in next offseason at an unparalleled number. In an open market 60M is not out of the question.
The way to circumvent the CAP limitations, is to spread out payments as long as possible.
The Eagles for example have guaranteed commitments that go out (8) years.
Eagles contract commitments
2027 - $209,000,000
2028 - $160,000,000
2029 - $240,000,000
2030 - $53,000,000
Total -$662,000,000
Giant's contract commitments
2027 - $102,000,000
2028 - $55,700,000
2029 - $22,900,000
2030 - $0
Total - $108,900,000
The Eagles are committed to spending $554,000,000 more than the Giants thru 2030.
These contracts push the CAP constraints out.
The Eagles avoid the consequences of the CAP by offering a new contract to players before the prorated costs kick in.
If you look at the Eagle contracts almost all of the base salary is at the league minimum.
So you ask why don't other teams follow suit?
It is all about spending real money vs. spreading out payments. The Eagles spend almost twice as much money as other teams every year.
Most teams work within financial guidelines that will prohibit this spending.
The Eagles ownership has no problem in spending to win.
There are also some theoretical hard payroll:balance sheet parameters. For instance each year you must have enough cap space to account for the minimum salaries due each player on your roster. So for instance you can't hold 200M in dead money, unless you don't intend to field a team.
I don't like the term manipulate, because that implies the intention of the cap is to hold payroll each year. And by design that's not true. One of the cornerstones of the collectively bargained cap is to allow teams to pay players today, and account for it later.
That some teams are willing to pay more cash today, and account for big line items later is a cashflow exercise. Not a cap exercise.
You can roll line items in perpetuity.
These are the cash obligations teams have made through 2029 ranked most to least. Not all of these will be paid mind you, but this is what they've signed up for today.
The more likely outcome is they keep the band largely together and upgrade at head coach if they don't win a championship this year.
The thing with Dak is he's earned 200M in his career. This isn't a Trevor Lawrence extension situation where the guy has booked 7X less.
Team Dak knows short of a catastrophic shoulder injury, he's chasing in next offseason at an unparalleled number. In an open market 60M is not out of the question.
he's got $34m due this year. he could probably guarantee some number above $200m tomorrow and hit the 2nd ever $300m contract behind mahomes.
if it's me, who cares if the AAV is 56m or 58m or 60m? ill take the $200m+ guaranteed > $34m gtd before i have to take another hit or another step on my surgically repaired ankle. only thing that would possibly change the equation is insurance.
The way to circumvent the CAP limitations, is to spread out payments as long as possible.
The Eagles for example have guaranteed commitments that go out (8) years.
Eagles contract commitments
2027 - $209,000,000
2028 - $160,000,000
2029 - $240,000,000
2030 - $53,000,000
Total -$662,000,000
Giant's contract commitments
2027 - $102,000,000
2028 - $55,700,000
2029 - $22,900,000
2030 - $0
Total - $108,900,000
The Eagles are committed to spending $554,000,000 more than the Giants thru 2030.
These contracts push the CAP constraints out.
The Eagles avoid the consequences of the CAP by offering a new contract to players before the prorated costs kick in.
If you look at the Eagle contracts almost all of the base salary is at the league minimum.
So you ask why don't other teams follow suit?
It is all about spending real money vs. spreading out payments. The Eagles spend almost twice as much money as other teams every year.
Most teams work within financial guidelines that will prohibit this spending.
The Eagles ownership has no problem in spending to win.
Your approach strikes me as using OTC cap numbers in a misleading way.
For example, the Eagles are not "spreading out payments" such that they are committed to spending $240M in 2029, as your post would suggest.
christian's schedule indicates that the Eagles only have a cash commitment of $2.6M for 2029.
As example, OTC shows a $35M cap number for DeVontae Smith for 2029, but that's not payments.
Smith is actually scheduled to get $68M in cash over the next four years, through 2027, and the Eagles can then get out with $4M in dead cap. Very reasonable both in numbers and payment scheduling. Spotrac shows this clearly.
It also strikes me that you are using total contract money rather than genuinely guaranteed money. Otherwise, as an example, I don't see how your $240M in supposedly guaranteed money for 2029 would correspond to OTC's total cap number for Philly for that year, since that figure has to include money not now fully guaranteed.
all of their maneuvering allows them to spend more now, and pay it off later.
the reason more teams dont do that is not because they are all cheap, but rather because spending more money is usually just as often (or more often?) a bad thing. it is very easy to waste money on players that makes it harder to operate in the future. the eagles are confident in their spending and i suppose they have shown good reason to be.
james bradberry is a pretty good case study. the giants had him but didnt want to pay him more for more years or kick his money to a future year. philly was willing to do both so he's an eagle. as an eagle he's both helped them win and shown why paying him as much as they did was risky. most teams dont win more of those risks than they lose but howie roseman mostly has.
all of their maneuvering allows them to spend more now, and pay it off later.
If you're actually spending more now, you don't have to pay it off later because you already have.
And if you're suggesting the Eagles are committing now and paying later, I'm not agreeing with that. Players want their money now, or at least on the same schedule as players on other teams. And they get it.
Quote:
all of their maneuvering allows them to spend more now, and pay it off later.
If you're actually spending more now, you don't have to pay it off later because you already have.
And if you're suggesting the Eagles are committing now and paying later, I'm not agreeing with that. Players want their money now, or at least on the same schedule as players on other teams. And they get it.
im talking about the cap.
their players receive cash over the life of their active contracts not too differently from other teams.
they account for a bigger chunk of that money in the future - after those players are no longer active on their roster via void years - more than any other team. this is 6 months old but you will get the point.
i dont think they pay the players more cash up front than other teams (which would be upfront signing bonus), but because they punt more cap hit to the future they are able to carry more currently active expensive players than other teams. when the void years hit that trend will reverse.
im talking about the cap.
their players receive cash over the life of their active contracts not too differently from other teams.
they account for a bigger chunk of that money in the future - after those players are no longer active on their roster via void years - more than any other team. this is 6 months old but you will get the point.
i dont think they pay the players more cash up front than other teams (which would be upfront signing bonus), but because they punt more cap hit to the future they are able to carry more currently active expensive players than other teams. when the void years hit that trend will reverse.
I agree with this.
And it's the Not For Long, and all those theoretical void years accelerate whenever a player is no longer an Eagle, for whatever reason.
We now have several.
On top of that neither Thibs or Neal hit big-yet...
And most of us were overjoyed when we selected those 2.
My hope is we don't begin 2-6 or something,because there will be calls for heads to roll....and I want to stay the course.
In the abstract, good asset management each year would be a workable split between:
1) Salary/incentives - dynamic money that can be moved if needed
2) Paid bonuses to players on the roster - fixed money that can't be moved that effectively paid down current salary
3) Dead money to players not on the roster - fixed money that can't be moved that effectively paid down previous salaries
One small note on the Eagles, they are carrying 57M in dead money this year, and I wouldn't be surprised if their math models account for 25% each year of the balance sheet to be dead money.
In the abstract, good asset management each year would be a workable split between:
1) Salary/incentives - dynamic money that can be moved if needed
2) Paid bonuses to players on the roster - fixed money that can't be moved that effectively paid down current salary
3) Dead money to players not on the roster - fixed money that can't be moved that effectively paid down previous salaries
One small note on the Eagles, they are carrying 57M in dead money this year, and I wouldn't be surprised if their math models account for 25% each year of the balance sheet to be dead money.
Are you advocating for the use of Dead Money but a FO?
If so which teams do it best?
Oh and why do you feel this way?
If you look at the Philly dead money over the last four years:
- 2021 63.7M dead money
- 2022 64.5M dead money
- 2023 63.9M dead money
- 2024 56.8M dead money
- 2025 TBD
I bet if you look at the cash expended over that period of time Philly spent near the top of the league.
I'm making this up, just as an illustrative point, but say the collective cap was 750M and the Eagles spent 810M, that's an advantage right?
And if you budget each year for a dead money, which is really just borrowing from the future at negative interest, you're ahead of the game.
If you look at the Philly dead money over the last four years:
- 2021 63.7M dead money
- 2022 64.5M dead money
- 2023 63.9M dead money
- 2024 56.8M dead money
- 2025 TBD
I bet if you look at the cash expended over that period of time Philly spent near the top of the league.
I'm making this up, just as an illustrative point, but say the collective cap was 750M and the Eagles spent 810M, that's an advantage right?
And if you budget each year for a dead money, which is really just borrowing from the future at negative interest, you're ahead of the game.
I get the idea in principle but the example isn't concrete enough for me.to conceptualize
To be continued
so if the eagles group crashes it wont be bc of their spending as much as it will be because picks like jurgens couldnt replace kelce, and jordan davis cant replace cox, and all the guys they picked in the secondary this year cant fill the voids of slay, bradberry, cgj etc as they all get older.
if you are an nfl gm who has a good track in the draft and job security there's limited downside bc if it crashes badly it's probably someone else who cleans up the mess anyway, in roseman's case it seems like he figures in for a penny in for a pound so he just keeps doubling/tripling down on his core group.
To be continued
Here's the long format response. It's important to remember the purpose of any amortized bonus, which is to get more cash on the field today, than the upper limit of today's salary cap. The best way to illustrate it is a thought exercise where the cap is 100M and doesn't go up and the league ends in 5 years (more on both of those topics later).
Pay As You Go Vs. Borrowing on a Schedule
In a pure Pay as You Go scenario, meaning you don't borrow any money from the future, the maximum cash on the field is the yearly cap * years. In this case it would be 500M. You have complete control and predictably each year.
If you borrow on a schedule you can get as much on the field as you're willing to schedule. As you can see, if you schedule things consistently, you can achieve a predictable trajectory where you are always ahead of the cap.
In the real world, when you borrow money, there will come a time when it's due. But teams aren't really borrowing money, just slots on a balance sheet. You can do this in perpetuity. If the NFL folds, you don't really owe anyone money.
When Things Might Become Due
There are two scenarios where things become "due."
1) If the salary cap goes down, your predictable schedule gets interrupted. This has happened one time in the cap era -- the post-Covid year, because the salary cap is based on revenue. The real practical impact of this would be borrowing more money from the future, or spending less that year.
The real-world reality, is the cap goes up virtually each year. So a team can index their borrowing from future years' increases. Meaning borrow the same percentage from the future, and spend more real cash today.
2) And this is the heart of the question -- if for some reason the amortized schedule of bonuses gets accelerated
Accelerated Bonuses
When a team amortizes a bonus, either at signing, through a restructure, or an option -- they break apart the cash sum between 2-5 equal parts. That equal part is attached to cap year on the schedule. It cannot be moved out, only moved up.
Take a traditional 10M signing bonus on 5-year contract. The team cuts the player a 10M check, and the cap charge is 2M for each of the five years on the contract. If the player is cut, retires, or is traded what ever is left accelerates in one of two ways:
A) A Pre-June 1 transaction means the whole balance left counts towards this year
B) A Post-June 1 transaction means this year's portion hits this year, and the remainder hits next year
When a team uses void years, what they're really doing is pre-planning to "cut" the player. 10M signing bonus, 3 real years, 2 void years. The team cuts the player a 10M check, and the cap charge is 2M for each of the five years on the contract.
Now that player can certainly be cut, retire, or be traded before the end of three years. But by acknowledging the player won't be there the final two years, you get the benefit of the spread, and a nominal amount of predictability. You're just being real that part of the balance sheet this year is allocated to paying down bonuses to players who aren't on the team any longer. And this one of the prices. you pay for getting to utilize more cash each year.
Conclusion
If I were managing a team's cash output and salary cap balance sheet, I would have 2 goals:
1) Put as much cash to work as possible each year
2) Do as much as I could to keep a predictable schedule on the balance sheet of money I've already spent, money I can spend. I wouldn't worry so much about the name on the spreadsheet, but I'd go into each year expecting for example 20% of my balance sheet is paying down bonuses for players who aren't here, 20% is spent paying down bonuses for players who are here, and 60% is money I can move around.
Quote:
I get the idea in principle but the example isn't concrete enough for me.to conceptualize
To be continued
Here's the long format response. It's important to remember the purpose of any amortized bonus, which is to get more cash on the field today, than the upper limit of today's salary cap. The best way to illustrate it is a thought exercise where the cap is 100M and doesn't go up and the league ends in 5 years (more on both of those topics later).
Pay As You Go Vs. Borrowing on a Schedule
In a pure Pay as You Go scenario, meaning you don't borrow any money from the future, the maximum cash on the field is the yearly cap * years. In this case it would be 500M. You have complete control and predictably each year.
If you borrow on a schedule you can get as much on the field as you're willing to schedule. As you can see, if you schedule things consistently, you can achieve a predictable trajectory where you are always ahead of the cap.
In the real world, when you borrow money, there will come a time when it's due. But teams aren't really borrowing money, just slots on a balance sheet. You can do this in perpetuity. If the NFL folds, you don't really owe anyone money.
When Things Might Become Due
There are two scenarios where things become "due."
1) If the salary cap goes down, your predictable schedule gets interrupted. This has happened one time in the cap era -- the post-Covid year, because the salary cap is based on revenue. The real practical impact of this would be borrowing more money from the future, or spending less that year.
The real-world reality, is the cap goes up virtually each year. So a team can index their borrowing from future years' increases. Meaning borrow the same percentage from the future, and spend more real cash today.
2) And this is the heart of the question -- if for some reason the amortized schedule of bonuses gets accelerated
Accelerated Bonuses
When a team amortizes a bonus, either at signing, through a restructure, or an option -- they break apart the cash sum between 2-5 equal parts. That equal part is attached to cap year on the schedule. It cannot be moved out, only moved up.
Take a traditional 10M signing bonus on 5-year contract. The team cuts the player a 10M check, and the cap charge is 2M for each of the five years on the contract. If the player is cut, retires, or is traded what ever is left accelerates in one of two ways:
A) A Pre-June 1 transaction means the whole balance left counts towards this year
B) A Post-June 1 transaction means this year's portion hits this year, and the remainder hits next year
When a team uses void years, what they're really doing is pre-planning to "cut" the player. 10M signing bonus, 3 real years, 2 void years. The team cuts the player a 10M check, and the cap charge is 2M for each of the five years on the contract.
Now that player can certainly be cut, retire, or be traded before the end of three years. But by acknowledging the player won't be there the final two years, you get the benefit of the spread, and a nominal amount of predictability. You're just being real that part of the balance sheet this year is allocated to paying down bonuses to players who aren't on the team any longer. And this one of the prices. you pay for getting to utilize more cash each year.
Conclusion
If I were managing a team's cash output and salary cap balance sheet, I would have 2 goals:
1) Put as much cash to work as possible each year
2) Do as much as I could to keep a predictable schedule on the balance sheet of money I've already spent, money I can spend. I wouldn't worry so much about the name on the spreadsheet, but I'd go into each year expecting for example 20% of my balance sheet is paying down bonuses for players who aren't here, 20% is spent paying down bonuses for players who are here, and 60% is money I can move a
round.
Been busy with my son all and am just getting to this..
Interesting shit here
Betting that the Cap will increase going forward seems like a damn good bet..
Just out of curiosity what did you notice when the cap went down post covid?
I guess the GMs league wide have enough information and spread sheets to map out the % of typical 5 yr contracts that end in 3 yrs or what ever...and they can create an algorithm to figure out how to calculate the correct allocation
Good stuff!!
That the cap will almost always go up is a nice to have, but not the only advantage. When the cap goes up, that dollar you paid the player today and accounted for next year is a smaller percentage of the cap. 1 dollar of the 2024 cap is 1/255th. Next year say it's 1/270th.
NFL teams have lost on the bet that the cap will be equal to or greater in the future than when they paid a bonus on a schedule exactly one time.
As far as calculations and predictions, great point. Teams know how much money is fixed on their balance sheet, and then can predict how much might accelerate and become fixed.
If I signed a guy to a contract with 1 real year, and four void years to spread out the bonus -- I know 4/5ths of the bonus will accelerate automatically. So I can account for that. Same as if I sign a guy to a 5 year deal, with 5 real years. But I know he's a health risk. In that situation I'd not guarantee any salary in the later years, and anticipate I might cut him sooner, and the bonus will accelerate.
I'm certain teams have a number for each year called "potentially accelerated money." That's every dollar paid on a bonus or future guarantee that could come due in the worst case. Like every player with a bonus or future guarantee got cut today.
And then I imagine there is a number of "likely to be accelerated" which is what it implies.
A smart team budgets for that number. And the bigger you're willing to make that number, the more cash you're able to spend above the salary cap in any given time.