I read the article, but I'm not sure it makes much sense. Basically the theory was that Z. Smith has a very high cap number (28m) and no guarantees in 2022, so he'll be cut. The first two things are true, but I'm not sure they necessitate the third thing. Especially considering his dead money number would be about over 12m.
You could write the same article, but instead of "likely to be cut" say "likely to be extended", as that would provide similar cap relief. Though if he stinks it up in 2022, yeah, they might eat that dead money and cut him to free up the 16m or so in cap space.
Originally Posted by: earthquake
Great freaking point about the extension!
And no it doesn't make sense ... and this is a great example of why people whom don't understand accounting really need to stop following the cap and start following the cap flow, because cap and dead money confuse the hell out of people and they want to make decisions based on sunk costs!
Sunk cost are cost are payments that you already paid and have no control over and have absolutely no effect in your future, so it's extremely stupid to make judgement calls on your future based in something that doesn't effect the future.
Z. got his money early, that raises his cap... but that increase in cap is 100% dead money! And dead money is dead because it's a sunk cost!
BUT instead of learning about accounting, sunk cost, dead money, blah blah blah... I strongly suggest people just to follow the cash flow... it's so much simpler and straight forward.
Just google the players name and put in "Spotrac" it will bring up their contract in Spotrac and scroll to the right and see the column that says "yearly cash"
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/zadarius-smith-16848/ And it says $15.75 million... the only question is... is Z. Smith worth that price? Yes or no? Because that's what they would save by releasing/trading him.
The fact that his cap hit is more, is completely irrelevant because the difference is just dead cap/sunk cost... which is money he's already earned in prior years, it just has not yet been accounted for.