re: Brees a bargain compared to Flacco if #s I'm hearing are correct...

quote:

---

So then wouldn't it be better for teams to give as little guaranteed money as possible?

---

Absolutely better for the team. Not so much for the player. If the player blows out his knee the 1st day of training camp and never plays again, he'll forfeit the majority of the salary in the contract. He'd get an injury settlement, though.

quote:

---

ETA think about what youre saying

The money that is guaranteed = Team has to pay the player that no matter what so cutting him would cause the cap hit

The money that is not guaranteed = Teams can cut without repercussion because the player did not hit the incentive or bonus to earn that part of the contract

---

Think about what you are saying. In monroesaintsfan's scenario, the team would take a $40 million cap hit by your logic. Have you ever even heard of a team taking a $10 million cap hit for one player? I'm guessing there has been cases where teams have cut a guy 1 or 2 years after giving them a huge signing bonus. The Titans thought about cutting Chris Johnson. Or you saying they would have been hit with like a $20 million cap hit? From what i can tell, the highest a cap hit tends to be is between 3 and 5 mil.

quote:

---

No because they spread that 40 million dollar guaranteed money over the life of the contract

---

Doesn't the team just take a one year cap hit when they release a player?

I was just reading about all this salary cap stuff. Apparently, when you cut a player, all the guaranteed money you owe is indeed the cap hit. But again, I've never heard of a team taking any huge cap hit from releasing a player.

It also says owners invest more in guaranteed money now because of the salary cap. Where I'm confused is the reason for this. I know there is a reason for all these huge guaranteed contracts now, and it's not just to help the players. These owners wouldn't be doing this if there wasn't also something in it that helped them.

quote:

---

ETA: By the way, like I said in the last post, I just read that when you release a player, the guaranteed money left on the contract automatically counts against the cap in the next year. So that would be a $40 million cap hit for that one year. It doesn't say anything about the cap hit being spread over multiple years. It specifically says that's not the case.

---

I meant that as the guaranteed money will be spread over multiple years so by the time they do want to cut him that number wont be 40 million

And the reason youve never heard of a team having that big of a cap hit for cutting someone is because teams arent going to cut someone with that big of a cap hit for that very reason.

You missed the point. It's not that I don't believe a team thought of cutting a player. It's that there is no way a team would even think about taking that big of a cap hit for one player. If they were going to take that huge hit, wouldn't it make more sense to just trade the guy? You would still take the same hit, but at least you get something really good for him. I'm sure there are many teams who would love to have Johnson, especially if you take out that guaranteed money.

quote:

---

Theres two sides to a deal. A player isnt agreeing to a non guaranteed contract unless hes a retard

Thats a big thing that they negotiate.

Prices go up in a free market with supply and demand just like real life, and QBs are in high demand, thats why the guarenteed money is going up

And if the owners decided to come together and stop the rising costs, that would be collusion

---

Well they did try to lower their costs (not colluding though, it was a negiotiation with players), and overall it's worked, the cap is $5m lower in 2013 than in 2009, when Eli Manning signed a 6 year $97m extension (bringing the total value of his contract at that point to 7 years $107m).

Which all makes this Flacco deal even more crazy. How can he earn as much as Brees. Brees won a superbowl too. And he's the biggest part of their success. And he sets records. And he's got a great reputation in his community.

quote:

---

I just read that when you release a player, the guaranteed money left on the contract automatically counts against the cap in the next year.

---

Yeah, all of the signing bonus and any roster bonus's due while the player is still with the original team are on the original team. Any guaranteed roster bonus's due after the new team takes the player becomes their responsibility unless they renegotiate his contract.

quote:

---

I meant that as the guaranteed money will be spread over multiple years so by the time they do want to cut him that number wont be 40 million


Well you and monroe are saying different things.

---

Not really. He and I are basically saying the same thing. The guaranteed money is spread out as stipulated in the contract. For instance if Smith were cut this year, some of his original bonus would still count against the cap next year(dead money) which is the last year of his existing contract.

By the way, that scenario about the Joe Blow contract was laying it out really simplistically. Most of the signing bonus is usually moved up or down in the contract years to help with the teams cap space. For example, if the team really wanted a high priced player right now, they could back load both his salary and his signing bonus to take less of a cap hit this year. The player would still get all of his bonus upfront in real money to offset a low salary for the year. I think if the contract runs after 5 years though, the rest of the guaranteed money has to be prorated.

quote:

---

See, whenever you start saying stuff like this, I get the feeling you are just disagreeing with me for the hell of it. Like if I said, "the sky is blue", you would say, "it's actually a little lighter shade of blue than what you are thinking". Not really. He and I are basically saying the same thing

---

What he said was in direct opposition of a point made earlier

This point

quote:

---

When a team trades a player, the team that signed the player to the contract is still responsible for the guaranteed money

---

Not really. Read what he said again. He used the phrase "guaranteed roster bonus". He didn't say the guaranteed money would be traded along to the other team. That would be in direct opposition to what I said. He threw in that specific little phrase, which isn't the same thing as what we were debating.

It's like this, if the Saints traded Brees right now, they would still be responsible for the $60 million guaranteed that they signed him for. Whatever guaranteed money left on that deal wouldn't go to the team he is traded to.