Reality Check - Roster Construction

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,332
Reaction score
37,830
Location
UK
A base salary restructure for BUDDA adds $6m to the 2023 available Cap.

A base salary restructure for ERTZ adds $4m to the 2023 available Cap.

A base salary restructure for CONNER adds $2.7m to the 2023 available Cap.

A base salary restructure for HUMPHRIES adds $3m to the 2023 available Cap.

A base salary restructure for DHOP adds $9m to the 2023 available Cap.

To what aim? Why are we trying to add to the 2023 salary cap at the expense of the 2024 salary cap when we already have $17m unused and next year is a right off? We want cap space in 2024.
 
Last edited:

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,332
Reaction score
37,830
Location
UK
So now everything has to fit into your personal definition of a tear down/rebuild? You said there was no way to clear the cap this year. I showed you how. Now you are saying that they needed to take up nearly 4 million in cap room for Prater because rookie kickers suck? You are just moving the goal posts once again.

Also, two weeks ago you were constantly trying to tell people that cutting a player pre June 1 doesn't accelerate their dead cap hits into the current year. Last week you claimed that Bidwill has nothing to do with the cap. Now you are arguing that you can't restructure Budda because he doesn't have any guaranteed money left? You do realize that restructuring means converting salary to guarantees to spread out the cap hit, right?

Maybe it's time to admit that you are not the resident board capologist and stop trying to correct people all the time.

No, nothing has to fit my PERSONAL definition of a rebuild. Just a sensible definition of a rebuild.

Just listing a load of things we could do that make no sense because they have no net gain isn't some miracle list that proves we aren't rebuilding. It's just a list of things that make no sense.

I'm not arguing that we can't restructure Budda. I'm asking why would we? He only has this year and next year left on his deal. Any restructure would just borrow money from next year into this year when we already have $17m free. A restructure that brings some of his cap hit from next year into this year also makes no sense because that money will just roll over anyway.

Maybe just try to understand what I wrote next time?
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,332
Reaction score
37,830
Location
UK
Not saying, 'Do it!'

Subtract the draft class and in-season contingency, and there's little, if anything, left of the $17m.

$17m is with the draft class deducted. We have $25m, minus $8m for the draft.

Although that's a few days out of date now. I think it's more like $22.5 now so $14.5m free.
 

QuebecCard

ASFN Addict
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Posts
5,255
Reaction score
7,489
Location
North of the 49th.
$17m is with the draft class deducted. We have $25m, minus $8m for the draft.

Although that's a few days out of date now. I think it's more like $22.5 now so $14.5m free.
OK...

Given your calculation, we are closer today to $12m available minus contingency. (Spotrac)
 

Dayman

ASFN Addict
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Posts
5,958
Reaction score
7,257
Location
Portland, Oregon
No, nothing has to fit my PERSONAL definition of a rebuild. Just a sensible definition of a rebuild.

Just listing a load of things we could do that make no sense because they have no net gain isn't some miracle list that proves we aren't rebuilding. It's just a list of things that make no sense.

I'm not arguing that we can't restructure Budda. I'm asking why would we? He only has this year and next year left on his deal. Any restructure would just borrow money from next year into this year when we already have $17m free. A restructure that brings some of his cap hit from next year into this year also makes no sense because that money will just roll over anyway.

Maybe just try to understand what I wrote next time?
Did I miss the part where the NFL defined what goes into a "sensible rebuild"? Or would that be your personal definition of sensible?

You must be registered for see images attach
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,332
Reaction score
37,830
Location
UK
OK...

Given your calculation, we are closer today to $12m available minus contingency. (Spotrac)

I find OTC generally more accurate but yeah it's somewhere in that range between $12 and $14.5. I doubt the draft pool ends up at $8m either as I expect we will be trading all over the place.
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,332
Reaction score
37,830
Location
UK
Did I miss the part where the NFL defined what goes into a "sensible rebuild"? Or would that be your personal definition of sensible?

You must be registered for see images attach

How did I move the goalposts exactly? My original reply to you said your list wasn't sensible by using the word "nonsense". I then repeated it using the actual word sensible. Both times I said it wasn't sensible. The goalposts stayed exactly where they were.

In regards to "Did I miss the part where the NFL defined what goes into a sensible rebuild?". Do you really need a definition of what sensible means? In this case it means that the things you suggest must demonstrate a net benefit to the team, most likely in future cap space which is the whole point of "tearing it down".

You said "If the FO really wanted to tear this thing down and tank this year, they could have" and listed off a bunch of things that make no sense and in no way disprove a lack of rebuilding. In fact many of them are exactly what you do in a rebuild. Sign guys to 2 year deals that can be at least good depth when you come out of the other side of next season.

But by all means explain how restructuring Budda, cutting Fotu or not resigning Zeke Turner for vet min is indeed sensible.
 

Dayman

ASFN Addict
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Posts
5,958
Reaction score
7,257
Location
Portland, Oregon
How did I move the goalposts exactly? My original reply to you said your list wasn't sensible by using the word "nonsense". I then repeated it using the actual word sensible. Both times I said it wasn't sensible. The goalposts stayed exactly where they were.

In regards to "Did I miss the part where the NFL defined what goes into a sensible rebuild?". Do you really need a definition of what sensible means? In this case it means that the things you suggest must demonstrate a net benefit to the team, most likely in future cap space which is the whole point of "tearing it down".

You said "If the FO really wanted to tear this thing down and tank this year, they could have" and listed off a bunch of things that make no sense and in no way disprove a lack of rebuilding. In fact many of them are exactly what you do in a rebuild. Sign guys to 2 year deals that can be at least good depth when you come out of the other side of next season.

But by all means explain how restructuring Budda, cutting Fotu or not resigning Zeke Turner for vet min is indeed sensible.
This was never about the most sensible way to rebuild the team. It was your perpetual insistence that there was no way to cut Conner and Ertz while not designating Hudson and Watt as post June 1st cuts, which could have been done with the moves I listed. One of which is restructuring Budda to defer some of his cap hit to next year in order to absorb the aforementioned moves this year.

You must be registered for see images attach
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,332
Reaction score
37,830
Location
UK
This was never about the most sensible way to rebuild the team. It was your perpetual insistence that there was no way to cut Conner and Ertz while not designating Hudson and Watt as post June 1st cuts, which could have been done with the moves I listed. One of which is restructuring Budda to defer some of his cap hit to next year in order to absorb the aforementioned moves this year.

You must be registered for see images attach

None of the moves make any difference.

Cutting Conner and Ertz loses us money this year AND next year. It's a net loss of around 300k. So why do it? What sensible reason is there to lose 2 good experienced players, replace them with vet min scrubs that are far worse, and be 300k worse off in the process?

The June 1st designations make absolute no difference to anything. We either use the space this year we gained (without them we would have about $5m useable cap space) or we don't use them and they wipe themselves out when the money rolls over.

Your GIF is apt. You tried, but you missed.
 

JohnnyCakes

Alpha Male
Joined
Oct 28, 2020
Posts
3,740
Reaction score
2,819
Location
Phoenix
Nope, just someone with a job and a family and friends and a life who gets too deep into stupid arguments about the cardinals with people that often have zero impact on my life and I realize it before I throw good time after bad.

Also, the board is full of taking shots at women today.
You have over 54,000 posts. You cant be that busy...
 

Dayman

ASFN Addict
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Posts
5,958
Reaction score
7,257
Location
Portland, Oregon
None of the moves make any difference.

Cutting Conner and Ertz loses us money this year AND next year. It's a net loss of around 300k. So why do it? What sensible reason is there to lose 2 good experienced players, replace them with vet min scrubs that are far worse, and be 300k worse off in the process?

The June 1st designations make absolute no difference to anything. We either use the space this year we gained (without them we would have about $5m useable cap space) or we don't use them and they wipe themselves out when the money rolls over.

Your GIF is apt. You tried, but you missed.
Your original point was that these moves couldn't be done this year. They, in fact, can, and I showed you how.


You must be registered for see images attach
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,332
Reaction score
37,830
Location
UK
Your original point was that these moves couldn't be done this year. They, in fact, can, and I showed you how.


You must be registered for see images attach

Nope.

My original post and all my posts were that they were completely pointless to do which is why they weren't being done.
 

Dayman

ASFN Addict
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Posts
5,958
Reaction score
7,257
Location
Portland, Oregon
No mate. This isn't an opinion. Some things are, in fact most things on here are. This isn't.

Without Watt and Hudson's June 1st designations and Humps restructure we would have $2m in useable cap space. We currently have 62 players. Therefore they were needed and if we don't need them they roll over and cancel themselves out. So again, it's nonsensical.

These are facts. Not opinions.

The opinion that we are "not tearing it down right" is wrong if this is the basis for that opinion.

Nope.

My original post and all my posts were that they were completely pointless to do which is why they weren't being done.
Sure thing, dude!

You must be registered for see images attach
 

Zeno

Ancient
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Posts
15,547
Reaction score
5,330
Location
Fort Myers
None of the moves make any difference.

Cutting Conner and Ertz loses us money this year AND next year. It's a net loss of around 300k. So why do it? What sensible reason is there to lose 2 good experienced players, replace them with vet min scrubs that are far worse, and be 300k worse off in the process?

The June 1st designations make absolute no difference to anything. We either use the space this year we gained (without them we would have about $5m useable cap space) or we don't use them and they wipe themselves out when the money rolls over.

Your GIF is apt. You tried, but you missed.

Explain how cutting Ertz and Conner loses us money in 2024. Both OTC and SportTrac say there is no dead cap in 2024 unless we designate them Post June 1st cuts. You keep saying their contracts are different but I can’t remember an NFL contract working like that. The problem with an early cut/trade has always been accelerating guaranteed money to the year they are cut.
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,332
Reaction score
37,830
Location
UK
Explain how cutting Ertz and Conner loses us money in 2024. Both OTC and SportTrac say there is no dead cap in 2024 unless we designate them Post June 1st cuts. You keep saying their contracts are different but I can’t remember an NFL contract working like that. The problem with an early cut/trade has always been accelerating guaranteed money to the year they are cut.

I haven't said their contract's are different. Not sure where you get that from.

So cutting them accelerates $6.7m of dead money from next year into this year and would cause $8.7m of dead cap in 2023. Money we don't have by the way as explained above. We have between $12m and $14.5m in cap space at the moment and only 62 players.

So anyway, it moves $6.7m off next years books onto this year. But you also have to pay a couple of vet min scrubs to replace them this year at just over a mil each. So the actual cost is $8.7m.

If you just keep the two experience players for a year and let the cap space you haven't wasted with dead money roll over it only costs you $8m next year to move on. Hopefully by which time McBride is ready to step up and a rookie RB we draft this year can replace Conner (or Ingram). And you filled two roster spots with capable starters and leaders as a bonus.

The only sensible way out this year that clears cap space is to trade Ertz when he is healthy but that's likely at the deadline.
 

ASUCHRIS

ONE HEART BEAT!!!
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Posts
15,537
Reaction score
12,417
I haven't said their contract's are different. Not sure where you get that from.

So cutting them accelerates $6.7m of dead money from next year into this year and would cause $8.7m of dead cap in 2023. Money we don't have by the way as explained above. We have between $12m and $14.5m in cap space at the moment and only 62 players.

So anyway, it moves $6.7m off next years books onto this year. But you also have to pay a couple of vet min scrubs to replace them this year at just over a mil each. So the actual cost is $8.7m.

If you just keep the two experience players for a year and let the cap space you haven't wasted with dead money roll over it only costs you $8m next year to move on. Hopefully by which time McBride is ready to step up and a rookie RB we draft this year can replace Conner (or Ingram). And you filled two roster spots with capable starters and leaders as a bonus.

The only sensible way out this year that clears cap space is to trade Ertz when he is healthy but that's likely at the deadline.
So they CAN move Ertz and Conner and save money next year by putting it on the cap this year. Thanks for clearing that up!
 

Krangodnzr

Captain of Team Murray
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
35,674
Reaction score
32,702
Location
Orange County, CA
So they CAN move Ertz and Conner and save money next year by putting it on the cap this year. Thanks for clearing that up!
Right, but he does have a point: the Cardinals don't actually have much space this year and you have to sign players to replace them....so it's actually kind of pointless which is why it's not gonna happen.

One thing that some people are missing in this equation is that the Cardinals do have to field a team this year. Conner is a flawed contract, sure, but he's not a terrible player. Ertz still has some value as well. Just let it play out naturally and they will both be gone likely in 2024.
 
Top