Bye Bye Budda

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
38,513
Reaction score
21,552
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
What's Bidwill got to do with it? They have a cap and over a 4 year period they have to spend a minimum 90% of that cap.
What's a spendthrift owner got to do with whether or not his GM is allowed to be creative with the cap and be proactive in FA or just set up a few contracts that eat up the necessary space without big outlays of cash?
 
OP
OP
BritCard

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,331
Reaction score
37,830
Location
UK
What's a spendthrift owner got to do with whether or not his GM is allowed to be creative with the cap and be proactive in FA or just set up a few contracts that eat up the necessary space without big outlays of cash?

This makes no sense. How the cash element of a contract is handled all works out the same in the end. It's either light upfront and heavy later, heavy up front and light later, or somewhere in between. In the end it's all the same.

Do the Cards have less scope for huge upfront cash than teams like the Rams or Broncos with very cash rich owners that can inject large cash loans into the franchise? For sure they do.

That's different than Mike purposefully being tight. I've never heard of losing out of a player because Bidwill wouldn't pay out upfront. Have you? In fact I'd go as far as to say Mike has absolutely no say in this and that the FO know the cash they have on hand to do contracts and it's controlled by them.

He just recently paid Kyler a whole load of money with big guarantees.
 

kerouac9

Klowned by Keim
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
37,427
Reaction score
27,637
Location
Gilbert, AZ
That's different than Mike purposefully being tight. I've never heard of losing out of a player because Bidwill wouldn't pay out upfront. Have you? In fact I'd go as far as to say Mike has absolutely no say in this and that the FO know the cash they have on hand to do contracts and it's controlled by them.
Josh Dobbs.
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
38,513
Reaction score
21,552
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
This makes no sense. How the cash element of a contract is handled all works out the same in the end. It's either light upfront and heavy later, heavy up front and light later, or somewhere in between. In the end it's all the same.

Do the Cards have less scope for huge upfront cash than teams like the Rams or Broncos with very cash rich owners that can inject large cash loans into the franchise? For sure they do.

That's different than Mike purposefully being tight. I've never heard of losing out of a player because Bidwill wouldn't pay out upfront. Have you? In fact I'd go as far as to say Mike has absolutely no say in this and that the FO know the cash they have on hand to do contracts and it's controlled by them.

He just recently paid Kyler a whole load of money with big guarantees.
No, it isn't all the same when talking about the cash element. It is altogether too easy for the owner to direct the GM to sign deals in the FA market that are all front heavy every season, so he can say "Oh man, we can only afford one or two guys because, look, our cap is used up!" rather than be creative and sign more players because you have to make more of a cash outlay. It's really not hard to understand the difference between creative cap accounting/spending more cash and purposefully burning cap space so you don't have to put out a bigger cash outlay. It's very straightforward and pretending an owner can't be cheap is disingenuous in the extremis.
 

oaken1

Stone Cold
Supporting Member
Banned from P+R
Joined
Mar 13, 2004
Posts
16,789
Reaction score
13,478
Location
Modesto, California
No, it isn't all the same when talking about the cash element. It is altogether too easy for the owner to direct the GM to sign deals in the FA market that are all front heavy every season, so he can say "Oh man, we can only afford one or two guys because, look, our cap is used up!" rather than be creative and sign more players because you have to make more of a cash outlay. It's really not hard to understand the difference between creative cap accounting/spending more cash and purposefully burning cap space so you don't have to put out a bigger cash outlay. It's very straightforward and pretending an owner can't be cheap is disingenuous in the extremis.
In the nfl... the moment a contract is signed all guaranteed money in the contract has to go into an escrow account for future use.
So, giving a guy a 10mil workout bonus as a guarantee in year 5 of his contract...saves the team zero money. Because since it's listed as a guarantee it has to be paid right now.
Evidence of owner cheapness will be seen in signing players with limited guarantees. Which we saw this year...such as Dobbs 500k guarantee that caused him to sign with Cleveland in the spring instead of here.

But a marquee player who commands 20-30mil a year usually wants half or more guaranteed... cash poor teams can circumvent that by offering inflated salaries and increased AYV ...but it hurts the cap.
 

kerouac9

Klowned by Keim
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
37,427
Reaction score
27,637
Location
Gilbert, AZ
In the nfl... the moment a contract is signed all guaranteed money in the contract has to go into an escrow account for future use.
So, giving a guy a 10mil workout bonus as a guarantee in year 5 of his contract...saves the team zero money. Because since it's listed as a guarantee it has to be paid right now.
Evidence of owner cheapness will be seen in signing players with limited guarantees. Which we saw this year...such as Dobbs 500k guarantee that caused him to sign with Cleveland in the spring instead of here.

But a marquee player who commands 20-30mil a year usually wants half or more guaranteed... cash poor teams can circumvent that by offering inflated salaries and increased AYV ...but it hurts the cap.

I'm pretty sure this is not true. It has to go into escrow when the incentive is earned until it is paid. Kyler's 2024 salary is in escrow now, because it was guaranteed last year. Kyler's 2025 salary goes into escrow this March, because that's when it's earned.

Bonuses aren't earned until they're accomplished, so I don't think they need to be held in escrow.
 
OP
OP
BritCard

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,331
Reaction score
37,830
Location
UK
No, it isn't all the same when talking about the cash element. It is altogether too easy for the owner to direct the GM to sign deals in the FA market that are all front heavy every season, so he can say "Oh man, we can only afford one or two guys because, look, our cap is used up!" rather than be creative and sign more players because you have to make more of a cash outlay. It's really not hard to understand the difference between creative cap accounting/spending more cash and purposefully burning cap space so you don't have to put out a bigger cash outlay. It's very straightforward and pretending an owner can't be cheap is disingenuous in the extremis.

You're confusing cap and cash. How you structure cap and cash are in no way related.

If anything we spent the last 10 years being extremely back heavy on deals while trying to "Get creative".

We'll still be paying $5m for JJ Watt next year.
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
38,513
Reaction score
21,552
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
You're confusing cap and cash. How you structure cap and cash are in no way related.

If anything we spent the last 10 years being extremely back heavy on deals while trying to "Get creative".

We'll still be paying $5m for JJ Watt next year.
I am not. But that's okay. You're not going to admit Bidwill can be creative to be cheap. I get that.
 

Krangodnzr

Captain of Team Murray
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
35,674
Reaction score
32,699
Location
Orange County, CA
The funny part about all of this conversation is that the team can't keep cap money as profits. It's literally against the CBA.
 

ASUCHRIS

ONE HEART BEAT!!!
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Posts
15,537
Reaction score
12,414
Let me start off by saying Budda is a great guy. Everyone likes Budda and the way he plays, his whole attitude and what he brings to the locker room etc etc. Top pro.

But...

Did anyone watch the game yesterday and think Budda stood out? Did you think he made an impact that was considerably higher than whatever bums we have had in there recently? Was the defense particularly better?

But most importantly do you think what he contributes is worth $18.5m next year? Because that's his cap hit. A trade would save us $14.6m. That's a lot of money that can go towards a position that will have much greater impact.

That's all of Courtland Sutton or Jerry Jeudy in a trade or most of Tee Higgins or Hollywood Brown or Mike Evans. It's 75% of a very good DT or Edge FA or trade target. It's most of a good cornerback. It's all and more of Saquon Barkley or Josh Jacobs.

This roster isn't in a position to be paying that kind of money to a safety. Especially one that isn't a ball hawk or turnover machine, just because he's a good guy to have around.
Bump bump bump. Same show every week. I hear announcers talk about how he's one of the best safeties in football. It's crazy, he has been effectively invisible the whole season.
 

juza76

ASFN Icon
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Posts
13,748
Reaction score
9,511
Location
milan-italy
Oof, Budda got burned badly on the one play to Kittle.
I liked one play where he was lined up in the line of scrimmage ready to blitz then he dropped in coverage and deflected a pass to kittle
Thompson for the second time this year, watched a receiver made the diving catch and then zero effort to touch him avoiding the touchdown
 

PACardsFan

ASFN Icon
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
10,028
Reaction score
11,539
Location
York, PA
Oof, Budda got burned badly on the one play to Kittle.
One of the weirdest plays I’ve ever seen. Is that on Budda or the defensive call? I guess Budda thought that Kittle was going to chip him? And when he didn’t and released instead, Budda was like oh $hit?? Once he committed to the LOS, he should have just gone after Purdy. Either way, that was a 3rd & 11 blunder of mass proportions.
 
Top