Possible cap casualties in 2017

[Deleted member 6794]

Um......dead cap is terrible. I'd rather pay them that money and get something, then pay them and receive nothing. Paying money for no services is the most asinine thing ever. Especially when they're starters on your roster, example: Shields.

While teams obviously prefer to prevent dead money the cap savings when releasing a player is the most important factor in deciding about the viability of such a move. If it´s possible to find an adequate replacement for less money than the cap space saved by cutting a veteran it should be considered the logical decision.

Just wanted to make the point that it's a case-by-case basis. Still taking Starks, there's no logical reason to cut him as the differential is well under a mil.

The Packers cutting Starks after next season would result in the team saving $3 million towards the cap. I guess it´s possible to find a similar backup running back for that kind of money.

 

[Half Empty]

Totally agree. See post #123.

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

Gunter? He makes spare change in NFL terms, so if he doesn't make the 2017 team it won't be for cap reasons. Based on what I saw out of him last year I'm optimistic he'll be around for awhile but of course it depends on his development this year and what else and who else we see added at the position between now and then.

You misunderstood my point. My point was if the rookies, Gunter included continued to get better Shields is very expendable in 2017.

 

[adambr2]

Um......dead cap is terrible. I'd rather pay them that money and get something, then pay them and receive nothing. Paying money for no services is the most asinine thing ever. Especially when they're starters on your roster, example: Shields.

That's not how it works, really, you're not paying them money for no services. That money is already spent. In most cases the dead cap hit is from a prorated signing bonus. It's not like you juse owe a player X amount of dollars and can choose to just keep him or cut him for the same amount.

Let's say James Jones had a huge year a few years ago and had earned a 3 year 30M contract with a 15M signing bonus. Like most deals it would be back loaded with say a 6M base salary this year and a 11M total cap hit and 5M in dead cap if cut.

You're really saying it would be better to keep Jones around for the 11M this year than cut at a 5M waste in this example?

Dead money is obviously bad, but paying even more for a player without value to avoid the dead money is even worse.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You misunderstood my point. My point was if the rookies, Gunter included continued to get better Shields is very expendable in 2017.

Shields is the Packers best cornerback so he´s for sure not very expandable. The front office will have to decide if he´s worth a cap hit of more than $12 million in 2017 though.

 

[Half Empty]

Shields is the Packers best cornerback so he´s for sure not very expandable. The front office will have to decide if he´s worth a cap hit of more than $12 million in 2017 though.

Lacy seemed to be the perfect example of an expandable player last year. Sorry, just couldn't help it.

 

[HardRightEdge]

As with most, it's a matter of degree. Taking your example, next year Starks is a $3.75 mil cap hit with a $.75 mil dead cap liability. Do you think maybe they could cut him and replace his production with someone else for $3 mil? I do.

Well, if you wanted a back in the draft who can run, catch and block in week 1 who could replace Starks' 1,000 yds. from scrimmage last season, you'd need to make a day 1 or day 2 pick, if you could find that guy at all. Who would you have not drafted instead? Even then, these college backs you might count on as a runner usually take a year or two to get up to snuff in catching or blocking. Then there's the question of whether that guy would immediately take to the blocking scheme.

Looking at FAs, who would you prefer at a lower price who can run, catch and block, can be relied upon to be productive in this system given the need for Lacy insurance, is coming off an injury-free 1,000 yards-from-scrimmage season, and could be limited to a 2 year contract? Good luck.

There may be a slight premium in this contract given the Lacy insurance factor in 3 dimensions: conditioning, performance and free agency.

Of course, it is axiomatic in the league that backs are done by age 30. This arises from the fact that early-career-high- mileage bell cows typically go into decline in their second contract if not before. Starks is a low mileage guy where the touches have been spread out. He looked just as strong, quick and fast last season as he did in 2010.

Speaking of 2010, there's something else about Starks to consider that you won't get with most FA backs...he proved himself to be a money player in the Super Bowl run.

It's no coincidence that Starks' deal overlaps exactly Lacy's FA season, which will likely be a big issue regardless of what Lacy does in 2016. If his conditioning relapses, you won't want to bring him back. If he returns to form how much can he be trusted with a substantial second contract? It's the rule rather the exception that guys who struggle with conditioning early in their careers, getting by on "genetics" as his trainer put it, struggle with it throughout their careers.

So think about this:

If Lacy is not resigned, the Packers will go day 2 in the 2017 draft for a running back. That guy will likely need work in getting up to snuff with his catching and blocking. Maybe he even struggles adapting to the blocking scheme, with the Packers left without the 2-down back they thought they drafted. Maybe he's even an outright bust like Alex Green (3rd. round) or a semi-bust like Brandon Jackson (2nd. round) who was never more than a 3rd. down back.

Starks has demonstrated he can be productive as a #1, even if it hasn't been for a full season. Then again, this fact is the reason he has low mileage, which makes him a "younger" player than his birth date indicates.

So, Starks isn't being paid a 1 year insurance premium, it's for 2 years. The price goes up. I find it a price worth paying when weighing all the considerations.

 

[PikeBadger]

Yes, good points HRE. I agree that Starks hasn't lost any speed and strength and has really matured nicely as a player. The fact that he's on a reasonable contract through 17 really allows mgmt time to assess options regarding Lacy and future replacements.

 

[Half Empty]

Starks was the example because that's who was mentioned by the poster to whom I was replying about the value of a player over dead money. The point was supposed to be that this year, with minimal dead cap, it would have been untenable to cut him, but that next year would be open to discussion. I like Starks, but I think they could find a one-year stopgap for $3 mil, which is what they'd be looking for, in free agency. Can't say who that would be, as I know very little about other teams' players. Put someone else's name in the mix, and I'd be happy to offer an opinion on whether or not it'd be reasonable to cut him because of dead cap.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Starks was the example because that's who was mentioned by the poster to whom I was replying about the value of a player over dead money. The point was supposed to be that this year, with minimal dead cap, it would have been untenable to cut him, but that next year would be open to discussion. I like Starks, but I think they could find a one-year stopgap for $3 mil, which is what they'd be looking for, in free agency. Can't say who that would be, as I know very little about other teams' players. Put someone else's name in the mix, and I'd be happy to offer an opinion on whether or not it'd be reasonable to cut him because of dead cap.

You don't know who it might be available, but you're certain he'll be out there. And you want me to do the research to present names for your approval for your counterfactual? I think I'll pass.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Well, if you wanted a back in the draft who can run, catch and block in week 1 who could replace Starks' 1,000 yds. from scrimmage last season, you'd need to make a day 1 or day 2 pick, if you could find that guy at all. Who would you have not drafted instead? Even then, these college backs you might count on as a runner usually take a year or two to get up to snuff in catching or blocking. Then there's the question of whether that guy would immediately take to the blocking scheme.

Looking at FAs, who would you prefer at a lower price who can run, catch and block, can be relied upon to be productive in this system given the need for Lacy insurance, is coming off an injury-free 1,000 yards-from-scrimmage season, and could be limited to a 2 year contract? Good luck.

There may be a slight premium in this contract given the Lacy insurance factor in 3 dimensions: conditioning, performance and free agency.

Of course, it is axiomatic in the league that backs are done by age 30. This arises from the fact that early-career-high- mileage bell cows typically go into decline in their second contract if not before. Starks is a low mileage guy where the touches have been spread out. He looked just as strong, quick and fast last season as he did in 2010.

Speaking of 2010, there's something else about Starks to consider that you won't get with most FA backs...he proved himself to be a money player in the Super Bowl run.

It's no coincidence that Starks' deal overlaps exactly Lacy's FA season, which will likely be a big issue regardless of what Lacy does in 2016. If his conditioning relapses, you won't want to bring him back. If he returns to form how much can he be trusted with a substantial second contract? It's the rule rather the exception that guys who struggle with conditioning early in their careers, getting by on "genetics" as his trainer put it, struggle with it throughout their careers.

So think about this:

If Lacy is not resigned, the Packers will go day 2 in the 2017 draft for a running back. That guy will likely need work in getting up to snuff with his catching and blocking. Maybe he even struggles adapting to the blocking scheme, with the Packers left without the 2-down back they thought they drafted. Maybe he's even an outright bust like Alex Green (3rd. round) or a semi-bust like Brandon Jackson (2nd. round) who was never more than a 3rd. down back.

Starks has demonstrated he can be productive as a #1, even if it hasn't been for a full season. Then again, this fact is the reason he has low mileage, which makes him a "younger" player than his birth date indicates.

So, Starks isn't being paid a 1 year insurance premium, it's for 2 years. The price goes up. I find it a price worth paying when weighing all the considerations.

You make a lot of reasonable points but I still believe Starks is overpaid.

Starks was the example because that's who was mentioned by the poster to whom I was replying about the value of a player over dead money. The point was supposed to be that this year, with minimal dead cap, it would have been untenable to cut him, but that next year would be open to discussion.

The Packers re-signed Starks to a two year contract this offseason so it would for sure be untebable to cut him in 2016.

 

[HardRightEdge]

You make a lot of reasonable points but I still believe Starks is overpaid.

An insurance premium represents an overpayment if one never has a need to file a claim. If one does have such a claim....

 

[HardRightEdge]

The Packers re-signed Starks to a two year contract this offseason so it would for sure be untenable to cut him in 2016.[/QUOTE]
As I'm sure you know, Starks is not secure for 2016 by virtue of the 2 year contract. He's secure by virtue of the guarantees.

Perry has a one year deal, and he's equally secure for 2016. Both players have a $1.5 mil dead cap for 2016.

 

[Half Empty]

The Packers re-signed Starks to a two year contract this offseason so it would for sure be untebable to cut him in 2016.

True. IF the discussion had been about retaining Starks, per se, instead of using his numbers as an example of dead cap, there wouldn't even have been a post.

Replace "Starks" with "Player X" and see how that works.

 

[HardRightEdge]

True. IF the discussion had been about retaining Starks, per se, instead of using his numbers as an example of dead cap, there wouldn't even have been a post.

Replace "Starks" with "Player X" and see how that works.

Or to put a finer point on it, this discussion is one instance of scrounging around for cap space to sign more free agents in 2017. Starks would yield $3 mil in cap savings while resulting in a $750,000 dead cap hit, so he becomes a candidate for the exit door.

The discussion is highly speculative. If Starks suffers an injury of some consequence or simply hits a wall, that amount of dead cap will be moot, just as Hawk's $1.6 mil in dead cap or Brad Jones $1 mil in dead cap was no impediment to their release. When those guys were at $3 mil+ dead cap it was a different story.

In the end, whether Starks plays under this contract in 2017 will depend on his performance in 2016. If he stays healthy and makes a contribution similar to 2015, expect him to be back. If that scenario is coupled with Lacy not being resigned, which is a distinct possibility, you can be assured Starks will be back splitting time with a draftee.

$3 mil in cap savings isn't going to solve any one particular FA situation, and certainly not the substantial potential losses in the aggregate. That has to be addressed with this 2016 draft class and the one to come, or it will not be solved.

In any case, the Starks contract has an out with manageable dead cap in year 2. It's a hedged risk. But trying to ascertain whether they should or they shouldn't until you see what happens in 2016 is somewhat fruitless.

This situation really isn't any different that guessing which FAs will be contract worthy. We can guess, but oh how the landscape can change based on what we see on the field or on IR in 2016.

Packer management doesn't have to guess either. The 2011 CBA changed that with the introduction of cap carryover. And the best extensions proffered in recent years were the ones not accepted...$10 mil per year for Jennings and $8 mil per year of Raji. There's a cautionary lesson to be learned in jumping the gun.

The closest I can come to a projection is that Bakhtiari will be over-priced for average performance in the free market if he doesn't suffer a significant injury. It's not like he's going to progress; he's not a perceptibly different player now than he was when he first stepped on the field. I expressed this thought before the draft; Spriggs goes some ways in confirming it. But I digress. Even so, if Spriggs fall flat and Bulaga goes down for the count, the Packers will overpay Bakhtiari in a "who else ya got" other than who can get in one draft scenario.

As for the others? It's just wait and see, and there's not a whole lot of incentive for Packer management to do otherwise.

We could discuss possible discounts in an early signing of one of those FA as largely a illusion, but that would be a second digression. And there's not much current cap space to manage it.

In short, the Starks situation is little different from the FAs given the dead cap is not prohibitive. 2016 will tell the tale.