re: tAthletic Early Power Rankings: Saints come in at #28

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.

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

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.

When you factor in our stupid owner and GM, that drops us 5 spots.

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"

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)

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?

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

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.”

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).