Re: Abraham gonna be a skin?!?!?!?!?!?
 

Jansen has been here since 99

Re: Abraham gonna be a skin?!?!?!?!?!?
 

[QUOTE=Sociofan]5 years instead of 4? That means nothing. Do you know how many players on this team were here 5 years ago?


One.

Chris Samuels


It just means you are more likely to get hit with a sizeable bonus write-off penalty (dead cap space) somewhere inside of five years from now.[/QUOTE]

maybe you misinterpreted my post. I said nothing about players being on the team, I said for cap accounting purposes, and that extra year saves us close to 7.5mill this year that allows us to sign other players (without converting other bonuses or base salary).

Re: Abraham gonna be a skin?!?!?!?!?!?
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]in brunell'ss case it was an actual pay cut. 3 players would have had to take pay cuts to lower their cap values this year to be complaint with the 30% rule if no new cba had been signed.

the new cba eliminates the 30% rule, allows more bonus to prorated signing bonus options to be used and lets you prorate over 5 years (instead of 4).[/QUOTE]

The "no cba" world, was a very unique situation. Please note the use of the word "most" in my post.

Part of our disagreement here has to do with the definition of pay cut in the funny math world of NFL salaries and caps.

The way most agents and players see it, non-guaranteed money isn't real. The only money that is real are guaranteed $$.

One thing that is not allowed is for a player to give back bonus money that has already been paid as part of a restructure (the Lavar situation where he essentially bought his way out was different).

Re: Abraham gonna be a skin?!?!?!?!?!?
 

Dont believe it but i would lyke him to come and play 4 us

Re: Abraham gonna be a skin?!?!?!?!?!?
 

[QUOTE=mooby]really, i was under the impression that jon jansen was here as well.[/QUOTE]

My mistake. I forgot about Jansen.

Two.

My concern is that few players make it 5 years with a team anymore. So if you take a $10M signing bonus and cut the guy after 3 years (having prorated over the five), you take a $4M dead cap hit instead of $2.5 if you were forced to prorate over 4.

While effective in the short term, it just seems that it could lead to bigger salary cap issues further down the line.

I would be curious if a team is allowed to accelerate bonuses during years when they are under the cap without actually restructuring the bonuses. That would allow more flexibility within that 5 year window to avoid salary cap issues and avoid cutting players you really don't want to lose just to get under the cap.

Re: Abraham gonna be a skin?!?!?!?!?!?
 

[QUOTE=RiggoRules]The "no cba" world, was a very unique situation. Please note the use of the word "most" in my post.

Part of our disagreement here has to do with the definition of pay cut in the funny math world of NFL salaries and caps.

The way most agents and players see it, non-guaranteed money isn't real. The only money that is real are guaranteed $$.

One thing that is not allowed is for a player to give back bonus money that has already been paid as part of a restructure (the Lavar situation where he essentially bought his way out was different).[/QUOTE]

right, lavar gave up 2007 bonus money he hadn't been paid. so when he got cut, dan cut a 1.5mill check instead of a bigger one.

BUT in that no cba world, brunell did actually give back money, cause otherwise it would have been impossible for him to meet the 30% rule with a straight base salary -> SB deal and get anywhere REMOTELY close to the 1.8mill savings they claimed.

Re: Abraham gonna be a skin?!?!?!?!?!?
 

[QUOTE=Sociofan]My mistake. I forgot about Jansen.

Two.

My concern is that few players make it 5 years with a team anymore. So if you take a $10M signing bonus and cut the guy after 3 years (having prorated over the five), you take a $4M dead cap hit instead of $2.5 if you were forced to prorate over 4.

While effective in the short term, it just seems that it could lead to bigger salary cap issues further down the line.

I would be curious if a team is allowed to accelerate bonuses during years when they are under the cap without actually restructuring the bonuses. That would allow more flexibility within that 5 year window to avoid salary cap issues and avoid cutting players you really don't want to lose just to get under the cap.[/QUOTE]

i agree it's just pushing the problem back a couple years and making it worse. (but again, a new cba or new tv contracts can provide bail outs like we saw this year).

i think signing bonus money has to be equally distributed, but in past years danny has taken part of next year's base salary from a player that's going to return and turned it into a bonus. that's the easiest way to move money forward that i know of.

Re: Abraham gonna be a skin?!?!?!?!?!?
 

[QUOTE=mcalderone10]you think we are going to hold on to brunell once we don't need him because he took a pay cut for now?

i'm not thinking he's going to see his contract to the end[/QUOTE]

Restructuring a contract is not a pay cut. Brunell, Portis and Springs will get every dime of their contract unless some unforseen event happens.

Re: Abraham gonna be a skin?!?!?!?!?!?
 

The average career of an NFL player is 3 years, so I don't see any problems