No, they couldn't. Guaranteed salaries for 2010 and beyond will get reallocated to future cap years. Evenutally there has to be a new CBA or there will be no football, so more than likely a cap will eventually be back. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/10847836
PG, In all due respect. I was talking about signing bonuses, and un-guaranteed salaries. There is a BIG difference.
I think Wilfork is exactly the type of player this regime would pay truly big money for. We've been infatuated with Karlos Dansby for two years, but Wilfork would make a bigger impact than Dansby would.
There's also I believe a $14 million option on Bell due this year. Chances are he's the one who is gone.
Are you sourcing CBS? The numbers I have from Bleacher Report shows that he makes $12.4m in base salary over the life of the contract, with $7.6m coming in bonuses, for a total of $20m, $10m guaranteed. A $14m roster bonus is simply absurd, and I don't see how Parcells or Ireland allow that in a contract with ANYONE, especially in a deal worth $20m total. I trust Bleacher Report's numbers over CBS' numbers. A $14m bonus means that we basically signed Bell to only a 1-year extension, which is silly on its face.
Here's your post: Any signing bonus gets amortized over the length of the contract. Eventually there will be a new CBA, and if you give him $30 million over, say, 5 years, and cut him next year, the prorated portion of that signing bonus will get accelerated into that year's cap hit, meaning we would take about a $24 million dollar cap hit on it if we cut him next season. And you can't just give him a 30 million dollar salary either, as there are mechanisms in place that limit the percentage of salary increases or decreases that can occur in any one year.
True, the owners did but it did not eliminate the CBA altogether. http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80868b78&template=without-video&confirm=true If the CBA actually expires, then we wouldn't have all the FA rules to follow. The current CBA expires in March 2011 IF there is no agreement to an extention. http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d815da1d2&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true
There is no salary cap this year, so talking about players' values in terms of cap hit is meaningless. I'm referencing their salaries because, in an uncapped year, base salary is a more accurate measure of a player's financial hit to the bottom line. "Cap hit" is, at least for this year, a completely empty phrase. As for what makes me think Wilson will restructure, nothing does. But I would make a damn good argument to him that restructuring is a mutual team-player interest. I wrote this in the Club Level: So that's where I'm coming from. A few what? Teams that will spend more? I would argue most teams would be willing to overspend this year by frontloading player contracts with big money bonuses, and then having base salaries and bonuses in future years shrink considerably. As for teams that will spend less, that could wind up being a boon; any players they cut are instant targets. I think Barrett Ruud is one such guy that might be cut rather than paid, and I'd love to bring him in. We didn't "pass" on Pace. We wanted him. We made him an offer when he was here. Instead of signing, he took a flight to New York the next day. The Jets took the numbers that we had offered him, added a couple of million dollars guaranteed to the total, and threw in a promise that they wouldn't ask him to be a leader in the locker room; Pace agreed. Basically, Pace passed on us for a few more pieces of silver and less responsibility to go with it. But make no mistake, we wanted him, and we were willing to pay to get him. We will pay for a free agent if we believe he is a long term answer at the position.
I disagree. My understanding is that signing bonuses "can" be prorated for up to six years but, do not have to be. Also, with the expiration of the CBA, signing bonuses have to be accounted for within two years. I know that there is a 30% limit on salaries increasing. I was not aware that the same applied to decreasing.
Yup. I stand corrected in this instance since signing bonuses can only be prorated for 2 years past the expiration of the CBA, so even if you give out a $30 million dollar signing bonus you'll still need to prorate it for this year and 2 after that (the 6 years is a limit, not really an option for much less), so you're still going to take a $10 million dollar hit + salary for 2011 and 2012. In that case I'd imagine it'll make it difficult to give out a very big bonus since teams will be in the dark about what a salary cap will look like when they do sign a new CBA.
This has been a VG discussion on an issue which even owners seem unclear about. I do appreciate the input from you, and the other posters, trying to clarify this mess. From my limited research, I still believe that team do not "have" to prorate the signing bonuses, just an option, and can take the total hit this year.
What I'm most stoked about is that the Jets and Patriots can't go after the players we'd target. Unless, of course, the Pats let Wilfork go and somebody (hopefully us) snapped him up. Then, we could **** block any effort by the Pats to go after Dansby by signing him as well. A dream, to be sure, but a fond one.
I don't think they have a say in the matter. The NFL Management Council is the entity responsible for applying signing bonus charges to the salary cap.
The CBA does not expire until March 2011. The last year of the current CBA will be uncapped and there are some additional rules for FAs. One is that players have to accrue 6 yrs before becoming an UFA, therefore, guys like Brown, coming off their rookie contracts will become RFAs instead of UFAs. The tender rules are basically the same as in past years. The level of the tender offer will determine what level of compensation is given back to us in the event of someone else offering him a contract. Guaranteed money is guaranteed money. If a players contract specifies X amount of guaranteed money, it has to be paid if the contract is retained. They can, however, cut a guy and any guaranteed money that was on the old contract is voided. The problem with that is you lose the player then. There are also rules involving the top 8 teams that reached the playoffs this season regarding there ability to sign UFAs. Specifically, it is salary matched so they cannot sign a big contract FA unless they lose a similar player or one of their former players who are UFAs sign a big contract somewhere else...for example, if Wilfork leaves the Pats and signs a big contract, then the pats can pick up an UFA at the same level. (As usual, the CBA is again tailored to the pastsies)... The advantages are that the teams can cut guys that would have counted highly against the cap that are no longer productive (as I suspect will happen with Porter, for example). Some teams will be able to 'correct' their cap situation although most teams, after the last extension of the CBA are not nearly as tight against the cap as before. We don't seem to have a cap issue, but there might be some deadwood (cap speak only) they may want to release (Porter, Wilson, Bell, Torbor, Crowder, Smiley, Camarillo, Carey, etc. Anyone they think is not worth their contract salaries.) without the dreaded 'cap' hits as in the past. There are several other rules changes in the 'uncapped' year of the CBA. Actually the best thing for the NFL would be to reach an agreement to extend the current agreement until a new one can be hammered out. That seems unlikely to happen as the NFLPA wants the uncapped year. Both sides need to look at this with the thought of the current system, even with it's flaws has allowed the NFL and players to prosper and thrive over the life of the contracts going back to the mid-80's. Another thing that needs to be considered is the current economic situation before either side goes off half-cocked...
Guaranteed money is guaranteed money. If a players contract specifies X amount of guaranteed money, it has to be paid if the contract is retained. They can, however, cut a guy and any guaranteed money that was on the old contract is voided. The problem with that is you lose the player then. I disagree. Guaranteed money has to be paid regardless if the contract is retained. That's why they call it "guaranteed."
Earlier this season, there were several rather heated discussions about him. For the record, I agree with you.
As I understand it, usually, the only guaranteed $$$ comes in the form of bonuses. That is how teams pay big bonuses up front to get players to sign along with a "paltry salary" early and huge salries that are backloaded. Then if the player doesn't work out, they cut him and save the huge salary.
One thing we have not talked about is the minimum salary guys, who are affected more so than all of the high priced guys. No Salary cap also means no minimum. The Minimum salary is now around $300,000, and that is a lot of money for most. However, if you look at the amount of time, effort, and hard work in HS, as well as college, it is not a lot. Consider that most of these players will have a year, or a few years, to make some money for all the time they have invested Now,teams can pay whatever they want. This does not seem fair. The "stars" can take care of themselves. Who cares about the football version of a "Working Class Hero?" Opinions?
There is still a minimum individual salary but no minimum team salary. What this likely will mean is that the owners come out like fat rats. They will not have a minimum to spend and a lot of $$$ will go right back into their pockets. The Jones' and Snyders will probably still keep spending but they've done a good job proving that that does not get you championships. So, the owners likely will not have an incentive to spend more. It will be in the best interests of the players to get a new deal done before 2011 rolls around. In either case, the fan will not get a break. The owners likely will saver a bundle, but don't count on ticket prices going down.
