To me and I've always said this, IMO JR was highly overrated 10 sacks and bad against the run isn't good production. If you're gonna be a one trick pony you better have more than 10 sacks a year.

cap hit will all be about when he signs else where and for how much for. he will probably signed cheap and that will absorb some of the hit.

Knowing that there is a huge difference between the cap number and the actual money that owners have, I still don't get after all these years why a team should take a cap hit for releasing a player. I get having to still pay them, that's not a problem for these owners. But it shouldn't count against the cap once the player is off the team.

The only reason to implement a dumb rule like that is if you think it's preventing teams from some sort of unfair advantage.

Just think about it, though... You sign players that you want, whom you can afford, so the last thing you want to do is turn around and release them. But when something like this Galette crap comes up you really don't have much of a choice. Where's the advantage? You've lost the player and you're still paying them, but yet you still have to take the cap hit for a player you don't have? Dumb.

All that aside, I definitely support the decision by the Saints.

The cap hit is required to keep teams honest under the salary cap. Dead money that is owed against the cap is money that has already been paid to the player (in a guaranteed signing bonus).

If teams could cut a player and not owe the money, then everyone would pay players huge signing bonuses, cut players midway though the contract, then never have to account for the money against the cap. So...

Exactly. That's why it's in place.


The threat of having to pay back that money is designed to encourage teams to honor long term contracts for a longer period of time.



Well the Saints really structured JR contract as a two year contract with a reasonable dead money hit with a June 1 cut after the 2nd year. Just never got to that point.

SFIAH

I appreciate you trying to clarify that, but I already know why the cap is in place. My point is the "why" doesn't make sense. I think you missed the major point of my post. I said that I get that you have to still pay them. But it shouldn't count against the team's cap if they aren't playing for you. Owners are billionaires, they can pay it, but the cap is very limited in comparison to what the owners can actually afford.

So go ahead and pay the player, but when you cut him it shouldn't count against the cap. Where is the advantage of signing a player to a bunch of money and then releasing him? He doesn't play for you anymore, so it's not like you're stealing him. And he still gets his money.

You know what they call that in other sports? Normal. Because they either don't have salary caps or allow you to pay a luxury tax to go over it, which is what a lot of teams do in other sports. This is why the cap, (specifically the NFL's version) itself, was and is a horrible idea.