Reality Check - Roster Construction

Cheesebeef

ASFN IDOL
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Posts
89,266
Reaction score
62,683
This makes no sense.

Whether it be cap or cash any money spent in 2024 is just money he's not spending in 2023.
Uh huh.

We’re already figuring out ways to eat up next year’s cap with money already spent. We’ll probably continue doing so and then extend some mid-range guys already on the team to eat even more cap space.

Bottom line… there will not be a 100 million dollar spending spree on FA. We consistently figure out the least effective way to use cap space, repeatedly figuring out how best and cheapest way to spend to get to the cap repeatedly.

And even IF we went on this wild spending spree… you’re living in fantasy land believing there would be a line out the door of great FA clamoring to come to Cardinals, likely in the midst of being a complete and utter dumpster fire for two years in a row, to say nothing of how pathetic the franchise has been historically.
 

BritCard

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

We’re already figuring out ways to eat up next year’s cap with money already spent. We’ll probably continue doing so and then extend some mid-range guys already on the team to eat even more cap space.

Bottom line… there will not be a 100 million dollar spending spree on FA. We consistently figure out the least effective way to use cap space, repeatedly figuring out how best and cheapest way to spend to get to the cap repeatedly.

And even IF we went on this wild spending spree… you’re living in fantasy land believing there would be a line out the door of great FA clamoring to come to Cardinals, likely in the midst of being a complete and utter dumpster fire for two years in a row, to say nothing of how pathetic the franchise has been historically.

No we're not. I've explained it a dozen ways how we aren't eating up next years cap and how the moves make no difference. Several times in reply to you but you obviously didn't click "unignore" on those ones.

Cap moved forward into this year (Hump, Conner) wipes itself out if we don't use it. It will just carry over and we will be no worse off. Same goes for the June 1st designations. Without both we would have $2m in useable cap space right now.

So 100% we aren't burning next years cap space and the FO aren't doing anything "inconsistent".

You're living in fantasyland if you think the team won't attract players to be good in 2024. If that was the case how would any team ever turn it around? How did the Bucs? Why are players joining the Bears this year?

Players will go where they think they will have a chance to compete. And a bunch of draft capital and cap space shows them the team has the fire power to compete.
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
38,517
Reaction score
21,559
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
No we're not. I've explained it a dozen ways how we aren't eating up next years cap and how the moves make no difference. Several times in reply to you but you obviously didn't click "unignore" on those ones.

Cap moved forward into this year (Hump, Conner) wipes itself out if we don't use it. It will just carry over and we will be no worse off. Same goes for the June 1st designations. Without both we would have $2m in useable cap space right now.

So 100% we aren't burning next years cap space and the FO aren't doing anything "inconsistent".

You're living in fantasyland if you think the team won't attract players to be good in 2024. If that was the case how would any team ever turn it around? How did the Bucs? Why are players joining the Bears this year?

Players will go where they think they will have a chance to compete. And a bunch of draft capital and cap space shows them the team has the fire power to compete.
Aside from it being a bad idea, the Cards aren't dropping a hundred mill in one offseason like that--honestly, what makes you think Bidwill would so such a thing? Cheese is right in saying that the Cards get really creative in how to use up cape space. So if they stick themselves with a ton of space, they will eat that space up in record speed while spending a lot less cash. Sadly,, it is the Bidwill and the Cardinal way.
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,332
Reaction score
37,830
Location
UK
Aside from it being a bad idea, the Cards aren't dropping a hundred mill in one offseason like that--honestly, what makes you think Bidwill would so such a thing? Cheese is right in saying that the Cards get really creative in how to use up cape space. So if they stick themselves with a ton of space, they will eat that space up in record speed while spending a lot less cash. Sadly,, it is the Bidwill and the Cardinal way.

Bidwill has nothing to do with how the cap is managed.

And nobody said they were going to spend $100m. I said myself I don't expect they will. But I can see them spending $70m and rolling $30m over again (depending where they are on spending 89% of cap space).

They won't have much choice on spending it because the 89% spend minimum is not a rolling window (at least it wasn't in the 2011 CBA and I don't see why it would change). It's a fixed four year window from 21-24 so they are up against the edge of it next year. They will have to spend a bunch of it to meet the 89% requirement. They might even front load some deals to meet it.

We could probably work it out how much they would need to spend next year once this offseason is finished.
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
38,517
Reaction score
21,559
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
Bidwill has nothing to do with how the cap is managed.

And nobody said they were going to spend $100m. I said myself I don't expect they will. But I can see them spending $70m and rolling $30m over again (depending where they are on spending 89% of cap space).

They won't have much choice on spending it because the 89% spend minimum is not a rolling window (at least it wasn't in the 2011 CBA and I don't see why it would change). It's a fixed four year window from 21-24 so they are up against the edge of it next year. They will have to spend a bunch of it to meet the 89% requirement. They might even front load some deals to meet it.

We could probably work it out how much they would need to spend next year once this offseason is finished.
Cap space does not equal cash spent, though. And if you don't think Bidwill gives the GM and FO directives on how much cash is spent, and thus how they must manage the cap, I don't know what to tell you. It's simply a sad byproduct of having a bad supposedly cash-strapped owner.
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,332
Reaction score
37,830
Location
UK
Cap space does not equal cash spent, though. And if you don't think Bidwill gives the GM and FO directives on how much cash is spent, and thus how they must manage the cap, I don't know what to tell you. It's simply a sad byproduct of having a bad supposedly cash-strapped owner.

It's nonsense though. The cash that goes towards paying players and the cap is completely separate from the cash that is required for running the show, improving the stadium, improving facilities, paying coaches etc

Half of all team profits have to go towards paying players and the team must spend at least 89% of that cash over a 4 year span (technically it's cap but cap is just how you manage the cash so ultimately the same). There's no rule on how that is managed in a single year, so it's possible Michael can borrow from Peter to pay Paul over a short period but he has to pay Peter back at some point.

It's true that Michael doesn't have lots of his own cash to loan to the team to front load cash deals. But that's not the same as being short of cash for player contracts. That's mandated by the league.

Bidwill's issues are more cash flow. It's possible than in a single year if the team has a lot on he can temporary "borrow" from the available cash to pay players but it always has to be made up.

And I think that is unlikely tbh.
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,332
Reaction score
37,830
Location
UK
you’re living in fantasy land believing there would be a line out the door of great FA clamoring to come to Cardinals, likely in the midst of being a complete and utter dumpster fire for two years in a row, to say nothing of how pathetic the franchise has been historically.

Wait...

On one hand you have been relentlessly attacking the FO for not making any big moves in FA or resigning Allen or Murphy.

And on the other were a dumpster fire that no good FA would want to join?
 

RON_IN_OC

https://www.ronevansrealty.com
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Posts
25,981
Reaction score
33,024
Location
BirdGangThing
I would rather have the 6-8 mil in additional cap space for next offseason by cutting them now.
June 1st is still a ways away...they can still wait through the draft to make decisions on them. It's possible players like Ertz and Conner, regardless of contract, can be used as trade filler...plus with Ertz still injured, they would have to come to an injury settlement with him and I'm not sure how that impacts things.

In reality, both can be kept through the draft and OTAs, to see how the roster shakes out, but still cut on May 31st...and that gives the exact same cap result as cutting today, but you exhausted all options.
 

Krangodnzr

Captain of Team Murray
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
35,674
Reaction score
32,699
Location
Orange County, CA
And yet when people are talking about matching deals, you’re among the first to say “maybe they just didn’t want to be here.”
The reality with all of these situations is that we only know what the other team offered. We don't know what the Cardinals offered.

We don't know if they offered, more, less, the same, or nothing at all.

Maybe Byron Murphy is a jerk that no one in the locker room likes. Maybe he is a cancer. We don't know.

My issue is not making corresponding moves when you lose a player. If you lose Allen and Murphy, be prepared to sign a player of near equal value.
 

kerouac9

Klowned by Keim
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
37,431
Reaction score
27,643
Location
Gilbert, AZ
Tell me how Michael Bidwill is involved in cap management...

Easy to throw stones and not say why.
Because he’s a the guy who ultimately signs the checks. He’s the one who has to come up with the capital to put into escrow.

He’s not as involved as Disner was back in the day, but a deal greater than $8 million doesn’t get signed without Michael’s being read into it at least and approval at worst.

It’s so self-evident that Michael would be involved in cap management that it almost defies having to explain it.
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
38,517
Reaction score
21,559
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
Wait...

On one hand you have been relentlessly attacking the FO for not making any big moves in FA or resigning Allen or Murphy.

And on the other were a dumpster fire that no good FA would want to join?
Again, where are you getting this nonsense. This is an argument you are projecting onto others.
 

BritCard

ASFN Icon
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Posts
21,332
Reaction score
37,830
Location
UK
Because he’s a the guy who ultimately signs the checks. He’s the one who has to come up with the capital to put into escrow.

He’s not as involved as Disner was back in the day, but a deal greater than $8 million doesn’t get signed without Michael’s being read into it at least and approval at worst.

It’s so self-evident that Michael would be involved in cap management that it almost defies having to explain it.

What in the wide wide world of sports are you talking about? You don't think Bidwill has a say in how much upfront money he is paying on contracts via bonuses?

As I said above.

The cash that goes towards paying players and the cap is completely separate from the cash that is required for running the show, improving the stadium, improving facilities, paying coaches etc

48% of all team profits have to go towards paying players and the team must spend at least 89% of that cash over a 4 year span (technically it's cap but cap is just how you manage the cash so ultimately the same). There's no rule on how that is managed in a single year, so it's possible Michael can borrow from Peter to pay Paul over a short period but he has to pay Peter back at some point.

It's true that Michael doesn't have lots of his own cash to loan to the team to front load cash deals. But that's not the same as being short of cash for player contracts. That's mandated by the league.

Bidwill's issues are more cash flow, the team will always be more limited in what they can pay in upfront cash because they don't have Walmart or Kroenke pockets but the total pool of cash available to pay players isn't restricted over any other team.

The whole "Bidwill is setting a budget and the FO are restricted by how poor/cheap he is" is literally a made up narrative.
 

kerouac9

Klowned by Keim
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
37,431
Reaction score
27,643
Location
Gilbert, AZ
As I said above.

The cash that goes towards paying players and the cap is completely separate from the cash that is required for running the show, improving the stadium, improving facilities, paying coaches etc

48% of all team profits have to go towards paying players and the team must spend at least 89% of that cash over a 4 year span (technically it's cap but cap is just how you manage the cash so ultimately the same). There's no rule on how that is managed in a single year, so it's possible Michael can borrow from Peter to pay Paul over a short period but he has to pay Peter back at some point.

It's true that Michael doesn't have lots of his own cash to loan to the team to front load cash deals. But that's not the same as being short of cash for player contracts. That's mandated by the league.

Bidwill's issues are more cash flow, the team will always be more limited in what they can pay in upfront cash because they don't have Walmart or Kroenke pockets but the total pool of cash available to pay players isn't restricted over any other team.

The whole "Bidwill is setting a budget and the FO are restricted by how poor/cheap he is" is literally a made up narrative.
How deals are structured and cash flow is literally cap management.

You proved the point you were trying to disprove. Well done.
 
Top