I Hate Dead Cap Money

*general counsel* · #1 (**permalink**) -28-01-2006

General view on looking at our roster. The thing i hate the most is dead cap money. In evaluating whether to keep a particular player, or whether to sign a free agent for a certain amount of money, i always look first at both the initial cap hit and the liklihood of dead cap money down the road.

Its one thing to say we need a better tight end than manu or a better linebacker than claiborne. Its another thing to say i want to pay money (ie take a cap hit) to get rid of them.

Sometimes you need to cut your losses and take the cap hit. sometimes you dont have a choice (ie turley with the injury). But within a broad range and at the margain, you have to look at the dead money a particular roster move will create since it impacts your ability to upgrade your team.

Think about it this way. if you play marbles, and everyone starts with 100 marbles, everyone has the same chance to win. If one player starts with 80 marbles, one with 90 marbles and one with 100 marbles, who has the best chance to win? The more dead money you have, the less marbles you are going to start the game with cap wise.

I bet if you find a stat on teams with the lowest cap dead money, you will find a correlation with success. Teams that refuse to be extorted and are most careful about not overpaying non core players are more likely to win.

Take wistrom. Excellent ram, did great things for the team. But if you paid him based on what he did in the past, you would have been very sorry cap wise. In wistroms case, the money isnt dead in the sense he is still on the seahawks roster, but he has hardly justified what they paid for him.

Also a point on faulk. If he retires, we take a cap hit. All the more reason to want him back. Can you imagine having less money to pay guys on defense just so faulk can NOT be on the team?

Food for thought.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

*Rambos* · #2 (**permalink**) -28-01-2006

GC nice post, what are your thoughts on rebuilding the defense. Should we do it primarily through draft or FA?

*general counsel* · #3 (**permalink**) -28-01-2006

Its a combination of draft, a key free agent or two and one of the most undermentioned elements, which is developing the talent we already have. I believe the immediate key to the defense is resigning pickett, getting kennedy, bartell and hargrove to the next level, and getting back a healthy travis fischer, butler and claiborne. Without even changing the personnel, think about how much we can improve just with what is on the roster. The other point is that the strength of our team is offense. If we score more tds in the red zone and more points overall, it will take a LOT of heat off the defense.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

*Rambos* · #4 (**permalink**) -28-01-2006

I guess thats is why I would not mind adding Vernon Davis, TE, Maryland. He would help in the red zone. He is going to be a playmaker from day one.

We can add a LB or DB in the second and third round or address it through FA

*ramsbruce* · #5 (**permalink**) -29-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by general counsel

If we score more tds in the red zone and more points overall, it will take a LOT of heat off the defense.

Hey I know someone who said that here. LOL

*chiguy* · #6 (**permalink**) -29-01-2006

I generally agree, but anyone here think the Seahawks are griping about signing our DEs?

*general counsel* · #7 (**permalink**) -29-01-2006

Bryce fisher was a steal money wise. i have no idea why other teams didnt pursue him more aggressively. they badly overpaid for wistrom

ramming speed to all

general counsel

*chiguy* · #8 (**permalink**) -29-01-2006

Wistrom has been more productive in his career than Pickett.

*general counsel* · #9 (**permalink**) -29-01-2006

But the issue when you pay someone with a new contract is what are they going to do in the FUTURE, rather than the past. wistrom certainly hasnt been more productive than pickett over the last two years. Not sure if that was your point. Wistrom had a very productive career, but i dont think you can say that he has been a dominant player for the seahawks at all. He missed a full season and while still productive, certainly didnt produce at an elite level this year. Pickett is 26 and his position is a lot less dependent on speed than the defensive end spot.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

*OldRamsfan* · #10 (**permalink**) -29-01-2006

Way to go "GC" on the post , I agree with your last post the issue that you mentioned is on the money ... We would be hard set to find a Defensive linemen like pickett
... And I honestly feel with the new changes in RAMS park , We have a great opportunity to step up and become a much better D next year (It will depend on the new leadership and the ability to motivate an keep them motivated

*chiguy* · #11 (**permalink**) -30-01-2006

Of course you're paying for the future. Tell me, what's the single best predictor of future performance?

*general counsel* · #12 (**permalink**) -30-01-2006

The best predictor of future performance is most recent past performance of course and i understand your point. However, the future performance i am referring to is over the length of a contract and how that affects the cap. The best predictor of how someone will do next year is how he did this year, IF and its a big IF, his health is comporable and the other circumstances around him are comparable. Age is another factor since with experience and maturity, players often improve.

I appreciate in this situation a negative is that pickett wont be in a contract year. If they players around him get better, that should be a positive. In wistroms case, paying him for one year would have been one thing (even though his performance had dropped off), but paying over a multiyear period and taking the risk of the cap acceleration didnt make sense for the kind of money the hawks paid him.

One other point. Performance three years ago is not a good predictor of future performance and that is one thing that in my opinion often trips people up. Injury aside, even two years ago is tricky in the nfl given the rate of physical deterioration in a lot of these guys. The trick is how you evaluate performance, it cant be a matter of pure statistics.

In general, i agree 100% with you on past performance predicting the future. Our disagreement pertains a lot more to the quality of picketts past performance.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

*chiguy* · #13 (**permalink**) -30-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by general counsel

Our disagreement pertains a lot more to the quality of picketts past performance.

I was just ribbing you. Plus, I think our disagreement is more fine than that -- I don't weigh this past year as heavily as you do. Its my training in statistics and my skepticism about contract year players.

*psycho9985* · #14 (**permalink**) -30-01-2006

Dead Money is what really Grindes my Gears with the cap era.If they would end it? I could live with this cap crap a little better.

*Fat Pang* · #15 (**permalink**) -31-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by psycho9985

Dead Money is what really Grindes my Gears with the cap era.If they would end it? I could live with this cap crap a little better.

I agree with you psycho. Unfortunately 'Dead money' is what provides the incentive to get it right in the first place and not overpay in the way we did for Manu.

He hadn't done anything and still hasn't to justify that price tag. He may well come good however and provide that kind of value.

Just as an aside, 'past performance is no indicator of future performance' is the cardinal rule in financial markets and it applies especially well here too.

I know it's (the cap) a pain, but I can think of a couple of leagues in the UK who are desperately in need of a cap. Everytime the debate crops up in the UK, some GM from an NFL team goes on the media in the UK to explain it's nuances and benefits. It's become more pertinent since that leprechaun from Tampa bought Man Utd.