- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
At least we are not the Dolphins
Posted on 12/17/25 at 9:47 am
Posted on 12/17/25 at 9:47 am
4
Posted on 12/17/25 at 10:13 am to bstaceyau19
And people think the Saints are still in salary cap hell...
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 12/17/25 at 10:19 am to rt3
he'll be a 42 mill cap hit if an outright cut this year.
Posted on 12/17/25 at 10:28 am to Chad504boy
Posted on 12/17/25 at 10:53 am to rt3
quote:
#Dolphins will be unable to get out of quarterback Tua Tagovailoa's contract for a very long time.
Can easily get out of it after the 2026 season. Cutting Tua after 2026 drops his 2027 cap hit from $53.4M to $31.8M; which can also be spread to be $13.4M in 2027 & $18.4M in 2028.
They can probably do something similar this offseason, but they would have to get all Loomis on the other contracts to make it work, while already $11.6M over the cap
Posted on 12/17/25 at 11:15 am to Weekend Warrior79
I think this is where teams talk themselves into more trouble and where Loomis' way is actually good.
If they are done with Tua, then need to take the cheapest possible road out no matter how much of his contract becomes dead money. One thing about Loomis, he is willing to take big hits on dead money if it's the cheapest way out of a bad contract. Some GM's keep lame duck guys on the roster just to avoid money becoming dead and end up paying more in the long run.
If they are done with Tua, then need to take the cheapest possible road out no matter how much of his contract becomes dead money. One thing about Loomis, he is willing to take big hits on dead money if it's the cheapest way out of a bad contract. Some GM's keep lame duck guys on the roster just to avoid money becoming dead and end up paying more in the long run.
Posted on 12/17/25 at 11:17 am to rt3
i'm telling you what otc calculator says. i could care less about how schefter word salads shite.
Posted on 12/18/25 at 9:26 am to rt3
They aren't in cap hell because of that and this is the common misconception of why people think we are in cap hell constantly (literally only 1 year since at least 2006 where we were actually messed up on the cap because of Galette).
If they cut Tua and designate him post June 1st at the start of the 2026 free agency season, they lose only $11 mil cap in 2026 and gain cap every other season after (yes big dead money hits, but that money was already counting, which is another common misconception about the cap). They gain $20 mil in 2027 and $60 mil in 2028.
If they cut Tua and designate him post June 1st at the start of the 2026 free agency season, they lose only $11 mil cap in 2026 and gain cap every other season after (yes big dead money hits, but that money was already counting, which is another common misconception about the cap). They gain $20 mil in 2027 and $60 mil in 2028.
This post was edited on 12/18/25 at 9:28 am
Posted on 12/18/25 at 9:39 am to bonethug0180
quote:
If they cut Tua and designate him post June 1st at the start of the 2026 free agency season, they lose only $11 mil cap in 2026 and gain cap every other season after
I don't think they can designate him a 6/01 cut, they will have to wait until 6/01; if the plan is to cut him this year. All of his 2026 compensation is already guaranteed, including the $15M option bonus due in March. So if they cut him before 6/01 his 2026 cap hit jumps from $56.4M to $99.2M. Sure, if they designate him a post 6/01 cut, they will eventually save that $31.8M. But they have to clear it before they can cut him.
And that's on top of the $11M they are already over.
So outside of restructuring/extending a bunch of other guys, I don't think they can rip that bandaid off before 6/01
Posted on 12/18/25 at 10:00 am to bstaceyau19
His injury history alone doesn't warrant that, but I guess that's where we are with QB's.
Posted on 12/18/25 at 10:00 am to bonethug0180
quote:
lose only $11 mil cap in 2026 and gain cap every other season after
Assuming this is accurate, they still have to add a QB. The dead money is a huge drag on their ability to spend on a roster.
Posted on 12/18/25 at 10:01 am to bstaceyau19
quote:And this is what people misunderstand about dead money and why they panic when they see the numbers. The dead money does not add to the cap in ANY way. It literally just means guaranteed money the player has already earned (mostly the signing bonus, but also future FULLY guaranteed money). The reason it is "dead" is because the player is no longer there.
take big hits on dead money if it's the cheapest way out of a bad contract.
While you would like to avoid dead money hits in most cases (and there is a case in which it is intentionally planned out to spread the hit over more years) because it means a player didn't work out, it is still better to move on like you said rather than keep them around just to avoid "scary" dead money if you are truly done with them.
Posted on 12/18/25 at 12:35 pm to bonethug0180
quote:
The dead money does not add to the cap in ANY way.
Dead money is literally the amount of cap hit you are taking. In most cases it's already been paid to the player, so the only reason to track it is the effect on the cap.
Posted on 12/18/25 at 2:06 pm to holdem Tiger
quote:Yes, but it is also already counted on the cap, so it's not ADDING more money to the cap like most people think. It is literally the remainder after taking off the non paid/non guaranteed portions.
Dead money is literally the amount of cap hit you are taking
Posted on 12/18/25 at 2:33 pm to bonethug0180
Okay I see your point. But you are subtracting a very expensive player that must be replaced, without freeing up cap space to pay him.
So there's a downside to cutting even an underperforming player.
So there's a downside to cutting even an underperforming player.
Posted on 12/18/25 at 8:44 pm to bstaceyau19
Best case scenario is getting a franchise QB on a rookie contract. Having to pay for a veteran franchise QB on a huge contract is very restrictive for a team.
This post was edited on 12/18/25 at 8:45 pm
Posted on 12/19/25 at 8:22 am to bstaceyau19
To some degree, you can probably thank Derek Carr for that. Him deciding to retire, and saved the Saints some money in the process, kept NO from a much worse spot.
Posted on 12/19/25 at 8:31 am to holdem Tiger
quote:
Okay I see your point. But you are subtracting a very expensive player that must be replaced, without freeing up cap space to pay him.
So there's a downside to cutting even an underperforming player.
This is also correct. Players provide value by actually being on the roster and being able to play. Teams consider this when deciding who to cut and who not to cut but the internet cap gurus never consider this point. All they can measure is dollars and cents.
Roster building in the NFL is all about present and future value, both objective and subjective. It's not just simple mathematics.
Posted on 12/19/25 at 9:25 am to holdem Tiger
quote:Yes that is definitely the downside, still paying for a spot that you need to fill.
So there's a downside to cutting even an underperforming player.
In most cases though (if done right), that dead money was planned to be there at certain points as almost every contract is backloaded with mostly unearned money to help even out the guaranteed money. So it shouldn't be a surprise when you have these dead money hits as in most cases it was planned to have a player cheaper up front and spread the hit out.
Where you get in more trouble is if you are cutting a guy in the 1st or 2nd year (or sometimes 3rd on a 5+ year) because you aren't planning that extra year or two.
Iirc what happened with us and Galette was we paid him and then in the same year he had 3 things happen that forced our hand in cutting him.
Posted on 12/19/25 at 9:33 am to Chad504boy
I would take that they ain’t doing shite in the next 2 years anyway
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News