Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

The Saints are using dummy years in contracts to flush cap hits?


Ja  Rhule
 Share

Recommended Posts

So that’s how the Saints dodge cap numbers?  They push all hit to dummy years and let player go with no impact?  How does that even work?
 

Saints restructured DT David Onyemata's and OT James Hurst's contracts, saving $7 million against the cap. 

New Orleans' long march toward cap space continues. Onyemata is scheduled to be a free agent in 2023, so this move likely sent bonus money into dummy years, almost ensuring the Saints will be doing this same dance with someone else next March. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ja Rhule said:

So that’s how the Saints dodge cap numbers?  They push all hit to dummy years and let player go with no impact?  How does that even work?
 

Saints restructured DT David Onyemata's and OT James Hurst's contracts, saving $7 million against the cap. 

New Orleans' long march toward cap space continues. Onyemata is scheduled to be a free agent in 2023, so this move likely sent bonus money into dummy years, almost ensuring the Saints will be doing this same dance with someone else next March. 

Those voidable years still become dead money, they just allow room in the current year. So even when the dead money starts to hit you just do this for the other contracts on the team to ''create'' more space. 

The cap essentially goes up EVERY year, and the NFL isn't ending anytime soon, so with those factors in mind, you could as we have seen with them do this EVERY year. 

  • Pie 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

The Saints have been expert cap manipulators for years. We do the same poo, they're just a lot better at it than we are.

Are they really? Quite subpar results considering they’ve had a HoF QB and HC combo for 15 years... Bailed out by an incredible all time draft in 2017 which made them relevant again but still nothing to show for it since then.

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
    • Bro I don't mind debating you, but did you really have to write all that to get your point across.   This isn't Madden. If you have the #1 pick you literally control your own destiny. If nobody wants to trade which I have a hard time believing they won't then you obviously take the best QB.   I think we will have suitors. If that's Madden then so be it.
×
×
  • Create New...