- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: tAthletic Early Power Rankings: Saints come in at #28
Posted on 2/18/24 at 9:20 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 2/18/24 at 9:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Because they were still in cap hell in 2023.
Correct. Meaning they HAD to restructure Kupp’s bad contract. To create space, etc. the SAME thing the Saints do. Literally.
quote:
In 2024 they're under the cap. We are $80M+ over the cap.
2024 offseason HAS NOT even started yet moron.
quote:
They would take a $17.2M hit on their cap
Wrong. They would take a 47$million dead cap hit if they cut Kupp in 2024. It would save them 17million in cap space, but theyre not likely to accrues $47million in dead cap to get $17million in cap space.
quote:quote:
I thought we were discussing if he was cut?
No you didnt pussy, youre just wrong and embarrassed.
quote:
You are actually confusing the 2
Says the idiot who said cutting Kupp would cause a “$17.2M hit on their cap”
You literally said the Rams could cut Kupp in 2024 and take a “17.2 million cap hit.” LOL.
No moron, they could cut Kupp and SAVE $17.2 million. Then they would rack up $47 million in dead cap. And then there wouldnt be a cap hit at all. But they would be stuck with enormous dead cap.
They’re stuck with Kupp dumbfrick.
quote:
No. It would create $17M in additional hits to their cap (in 2024), due to the large dead money remaining. That's what the red number in parentheses means.
Wrong. The red number in parentheses is the cap savings if he was cut. What the frick mother fricker you are completely retarded.
Now shut the frick up pussy Karen!
This post was edited on 2/18/24 at 9:22 am
Posted on 2/18/24 at 9:27 am to paulbeasy
quote:
Correct. Meaning they HAD to restructure Kupp’s bad contract.
Last year. Now they're good.
We are not good.
quote:
To create space, etc. the SAME thing the Saints do.
But we are still wary over the cap. No matter how much you want to avoid this by claiming we can't predict the future, the 2024 cap is not going to increase by $50-80M.
quote:
2024 offseason HAS NOT even started yet moron.
quote:
They would take a 47$million dead cap hit i
Yes, but this would be offset by other obligations they would not have to pay, like his base salary, roster bonuses, etc. That's why the net impact would be $17.2M added to their cap.
quote:
It would save them 17million in cap space, but theyre not likely to accrues $47million in dead cap to get $17million in cap space.
I really think you're having problems.
"Dead cap" is just the pro-ration from previously-given bonuses. It is not an independent variable in calculating cap impact. You combine this pro-ration with other factors (salary, roster bonuses, and other single-season impacts) to calculate the player's cap impact on any given year.
Cutting a player accelerates any pro-ration, but it also eliminates the other factors. That's why you have to look to the net impact on the cap.
In 2024, cutting Kupp would still have a $17.2M impact on their cap
In 2025, cutting Kupp would create $17M in additional cap space
quote:
You literally said the Rams could cut Kupp in 2024 and take a “17.2 million cap hit.” LOL.
That's what the red numbers in parentheses indicate. If OTC is wrong, then laugh at them, not me. I cited my work.
quote:
, they could cut Kupp and SAVE $17.2 million. Then they would rack up $47 million in dead cap.
Yup. You have no idea how this works.
Those numbers on the right on OTC do the calculations for you. The number on the left is the dead cap and the number on the right is the net cap impact. When the number on the right is in parentheses, it's positive (costs you money). When it's not in parentheses, it's negative (you save money)
quote:
The red number in parentheses is the cap savings if he was cut.
No it's the net impact.
Being in parentheses indicates that it would add that number.
See how in 2025 it's not in parentheses? That means if they cut him, the net impact saves them $12.5M on their 2025 cap.
Posted on 2/18/24 at 10:15 am to SlowFlowPro
Changing your tune now arent? Clearly youve been correctted and are now backtracking.
Your exact words:
Now your trying to backtrack and say the opposite:
LOL wow. Buddy is confused and still trying to fake it.
Incorrect. This is some of the trashest posting Ive seen from you.
2024 cap hit is clearly $29 million, $47million in dead money if cut, and cap savings of $17million.
2025 is clearly also a $29 million cap hit, with 17million in dead if cut, and a savings of 12 million.
So Kupp could be cut no earlier than 2025. Obviously.
See the image moron?
Very clearly its you who doesnt get how this works.
Now shut the frick up pussy Karen!
Your exact words:
Now your trying to backtrack and say the opposite:
LOL wow. Buddy is confused and still trying to fake it.
quote:
No it's the net impact. Being in parentheses indicates that it would add that number. See how in 2025 it's not in parentheses? That means if they cut him, the net impact saves them $12.5M on their 2025 cap.
Incorrect. This is some of the trashest posting Ive seen from you.
2024 cap hit is clearly $29 million, $47million in dead money if cut, and cap savings of $17million.
2025 is clearly also a $29 million cap hit, with 17million in dead if cut, and a savings of 12 million.
So Kupp could be cut no earlier than 2025. Obviously.
See the image moron?
quote:
Yup. You have no idea how this works.
Very clearly its you who doesnt get how this works.
Now shut the frick up pussy Karen!
This post was edited on 2/18/24 at 10:20 am
Posted on 2/18/24 at 10:23 am to paulbeasy
quote:
Changing your tune now arent?
No
quote:
Your exact words:
Stand true
quote:
2024 cap hit is clearly $29 million, $47million in dead money if cut, and cap savings of $17million.
2025 is clearly also a $29 million cap hit, with 17million in dead if cut, and a savings of 12 million.
Completely wrong
Posted on 2/18/24 at 10:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm not even that critical for 2021. We tried, it was clear our window was over,
It was worth Payton taking a shot with Winston he had a monster year in 2019 if you cut back on his ints. When Payton left it was time to bite the bullet
Posted on 2/18/24 at 11:04 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
It was worth Payton taking a shot with Winston he had a monster year in 2019 if you cut back on his ints.
Yeah and it didn't work out. That's fine.
I mean EVEN 2022, just to see if injuries from 2021 were an outlier...ehh
But 2023? Inexcusable. Signing a QB to a market-level contract was insanity. Pure and simple.
Posted on 2/18/24 at 11:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
2024 cap hit is clearly $29 million, $47million in dead money if cut, and cap savings of $17million. 2025 is clearly also a $29 million cap hit, with 17million in dead if cut, and a savings of 12 million.
quote:
Completely wrong
Playing pretend in lala land still I see. Youre a fricking clown.
Whether theyre in a neg or positive those are the numbers idiot. The cap savings stays the same either way.
And like I said they will not cut Kupp and get a 47$million dead cap hit. Post June cut in 2024 is still $29million in deadcap.
2025 is their year to move on.
Similar to the Saints getting stuck with MT 13.
Now tell me how is the cap savings a different number on the yet to be determined 2024 cap no? Whether a postive or negative? You cant. Its the same number either way.
And Rams are saddled with that bad contract until 2025.
They literally have no reason to take on $47million in dead cap by cutting Kupp in 2024 to save 17$million in cap space that they dont need right now. (Theyre saving $17million if cut whether in pos/neg pussy)
Thus, 2025, etc.
Annddd the 2024 offseason hasnt even started yet and 2024 cap hasnt been set.
Now shut the frick up pussy Karen!!
This post was edited on 2/18/24 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 2/18/24 at 2:50 pm to Weekend Warrior79
When you factor in our stupid owner and GM, that drops us 5 spots.
Posted on 2/19/24 at 5:18 am to paulbeasy
No one wants to read that big wall of text, man
Posted on 2/19/24 at 8:41 am to paulbeasy
quote:
Whether theyre in a neg or positive those are the numbers idiot.
You don't understand how the numbers interact with each other and the net result
quote:
. The cap savings stays the same either way.
Not all cuts result in savings, so how is this statement true?
Sometimes a cut adds money to your cap, decreasing cap space. This is the opposite of "savings"
Posted on 2/19/24 at 8:49 am to SlowFlowPro
What are we even arguing about in this thread?
What has a better chance of happening?
a) The saints being worse next year
b) the saints being better
(Its a, easily)
What has a better chance of happening?
a) The saints being worse next year
b) the saints being better
(Its a, easily)
Posted on 2/19/24 at 8:56 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
(Its a, easily)
I agree. This is at least in part due to our cap situation.
Restructuring Carr is bad, but I fear we're going to have to do a Cam-style restructure/extension with at least one of Mathieu/Maye/Davis. The only one still productive is Davis, and it's unlikely he can keep it up much longer. Being forced to keep them beyond their expiration date (like we are with Cam) is just terrible. Prevents improvement.
There are plenty of talent issues, though.
Somehow, after years of investing top-3 round picks, our OL and DL need a lot of talent injections.
We're possibly losing our 2 best players, and #3 is a RB who will be 29 when the season starts.
We have a QB with intelligence issues who has shown a history of taking a long time to learn new playbooks, about to learn a new playbook that's supposed to be one of the more complex ones in the NFL. The last time he had to do this (last year in LV), it was such a disaster the team shut down their QB1.
This post was edited on 2/19/24 at 8:58 am
Posted on 2/19/24 at 9:31 am to SlowFlowPro
I actually have some glimmers of hope over the O staff coming together...
But it just seems like maybe they get better in a lot of areas on O, but just regress as a whole.
The schedule is MUCH tougher.
The overall talent level, I don't see a way for it to majorly improve, do you?
But it just seems like maybe they get better in a lot of areas on O, but just regress as a whole.
The schedule is MUCH tougher.
The overall talent level, I don't see a way for it to majorly improve, do you?
Posted on 2/19/24 at 9:53 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
The overall talent level, I don't see a way for it to majorly improve, do you?
We have another 2017 draft
Posted on 2/19/24 at 1:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
Here’s a perfect example of everything wrong with the Saints salary cap management. Taysom Hill has a bigger cap number next year than CMac AND Kelce
If a part time gimmick is costing you more on the cap than the top RB and top TE in the league you cannot expect more than mediocrity.
Warning if you read this thread apparently a lot of cap analysts are “pussy Karen’s”
LINK
If a part time gimmick is costing you more on the cap than the top RB and top TE in the league you cannot expect more than mediocrity.
Warning if you read this thread apparently a lot of cap analysts are “pussy Karen’s”
LINK
This post was edited on 2/19/24 at 7:21 pm
Posted on 2/19/24 at 2:07 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Taysom Hill has a bigger cap number next year than CMac AND Kelce
Loomis entering this thread:
This post was edited on 2/19/24 at 2:08 pm
Posted on 2/19/24 at 6:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You don't understand how the numbers interact with each other and the net result
Reading all of this shows the opposite. You def seem confused.
quote:
Not all cuts result in savings, so how is this statement true? Sometimes a cut adds money to your cap, decreasing cap space. This is the opposite of "savings"
Semantics. The cap saving is the no going back to the team if a cut occurs. How that affects their salary cap is irrelevant. Its the same no either way, applied differently based upon circumstances.
Thats why the column says “cap savings.”
Posted on 2/19/24 at 6:14 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Warning if you read this thread apparently a lot of cap analysts are “pussy Karen’s”
Indeed.
Posted on 2/19/24 at 6:21 pm to P bean
quote:
Semantics.
Saying a number is bigger or smaller is not "Semantics"
quote:
The cap saving is the no going back to the team if a cut occurs.
That depends on the variables in play.
If we cut James Hurst, we clear $4.3M in cap (after eating the $2.3M in dead cap/pro-rated acceleration). That is a cap savings.
If we cut Taysom Hill, we lose $1.1M (after eating $16.9M in dead cap/pro-rated acceleration). That is a cap loss.
Whether the number is positive or negative on our cap has a big impact on our cap, being $80M+ over the cap.
With a team like the Rams, they can absorb a cap loss (like cutting Kupp) and still be under the cap.
quote:
Thats why the column says “cap savings.”
Do you understand the concept of negative numbers?
If your "savings" is negative, then it is, in fact, the opposite of savings (or a loss).
Posted on 2/19/24 at 6:23 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Taysom Hill has a bigger cap number next year than CMac AND Kelce
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News