Help me understand Houston's cap maneuvers today (1 Viewer)

[Team ROFLCOPTERS]

I was under the impression that what Houston did in restructuring Andre Johnson's contract in order to re-up Cushing today to be cap circumvention. In order to fit Cushing's new contract under the cap they restructured Johnson's 10.5 per year deal to 5 million this year +5.5 million in signing bonuses. I was under the impression that steps were in place to avoid these deals now days. With the new CBA I thought that there was no cap savings. 10.5 million is 10.5 cap no matter how you slice it now days. You should be able to wiggle by no more than 10% from what I thought.

I know there are a lot of assumptions and false understandings on my part but last year the league made it very clear these restructures were not allowed and Dallas and Washington were hit pretty hard by the NFL for taking part in them. If anyone smarter than me can explain what the specifics that too place today I'd be very appreciative. I like to be on top of these things.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I was under the impression that what Houston did in restructuring Andre Johnson's contract in order to re-up Cushing today to be cap circumvention. In order to fit Cushing's new contract under the cap they restructured Johnson's 10.5 per year deal to 5 million this year +5.5 million in signing bonuses. I was under the impression that steps were in place to avoid these deals now days. With the new CBA I thought that there was no cap savings. 10.5 million is 10.5 cap no matter how you slice it now days. You should be able to wiggle by no more than 10% from what I thought.

I know there are a lot of assumptions and false understandings on my part but last year the league made it very clear these restructures were not allowed and Dallas and Washington were hit pretty hard by the NFL for taking part in them. If anyone smarter than me can explain what the specifics that too place today I'd be very appreciative. I like to be on top of these things.

Using signing bonus to spread cap hit is perfectly acceptable still. That's what Dallas did with Tony Romo. Oakland did it with Carson Palmer a couple of times, too, iirc. It's not the smartest of strategies, because eventually the player declines in effectiveness and you're left paying a cap charge for a guy who's no longer playing on the team. In the most extreme example, abusing contracts like these are the reason why Oakland has $50 million (!!!) in dead cap space on the books this year. So, legal, but not necessarily smart.

Dallas and Washington were hit, not because they used this particular contract structure, but because they used this particular contract structure to shift outstanding cap liabilities into the uncapped year, which was explicitly against the rules. Basically, in the one year where there was no cap, they were restructuring contracts to increase cap hits during that uncapped season and decrease them during future seasons, after the cap was back in place. They were penalized by the loss of cap space commensurate to the amount they tried to sneak off the books.

Edit: Denver doesn't typically use signing bonus chicanery to shift cap charges onto future seasons, but one contract they gave out this season is a great example of the practice. They signed Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie to a "two year deal" that explicitly states in the contract that the deal voids after the superbowl. So it's a "two year deal" where the second year literally does not exist. Denver created that automatically-voiding second year just so they could shift a little bit of DRC's signing bonus onto next year's cap, leaving them a bit more space to fit in another couple of veterans this offseason. The signing bonus gets pro-rated, half of it counts this year, and then after the superbowl the contract will automatically void and the second half of the signing bonus will immediately accelerate onto next year's cap.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I was under the impression that what Houston did in restructuring Andre Johnson's contract in order to re-up Cushing today to be cap circumvention. In order to fit Cushing's new contract under the cap they restructured Johnson's 10.5 per year deal to 5 million this year +5.5 million in signing bonuses. I was under the impression that steps were in place to avoid these deals now days. With the new CBA I thought that there was no cap savings. 10.5 million is 10.5 cap no matter how you slice it now days. You should be able to wiggle by no more than 10% from what I thought.

I know there are a lot of assumptions and false understandings on my part but last year the league made it very clear these restructures were not allowed and Dallas and Washington were hit pretty hard by the NFL for taking part in them. If anyone smarter than me can explain what the specifics that too place today I'd be very appreciative. I like to be on top of these things.

this has basically zero to do with dallas and washington

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I was under the impression that what Houston did in restructuring Andre Johnson's contract in order to re-up Cushing today to be cap circumvention. In order to fit Cushing's new contract under the cap they restructured Johnson's 10.5 per year deal to 5 million this year +5.5 million in signing bonuses. I was under the impression that steps were in place to avoid these deals now days. With the new CBA I thought that there was no cap savings. 10.5 million is 10.5 cap no matter how you slice it now days. You should be able to wiggle by no more than 10% from what I thought.

I know there are a lot of assumptions and false understandings on my part but last year the league made it very clear these restructures were not allowed and Dallas and Washington were hit pretty hard by the NFL for taking part in them. If anyone smarter than me can explain what the specifics that too place today I'd be very appreciative. I like to be on top of these things.

Using signing bonus to spread cap hit is perfectly acceptable still. That's what Dallas did with Tony Romo. Oakland did it with Carson Palmer a couple of times, too, iirc. It's not the smartest of strategies, because eventually the player declines in effectiveness and you're left paying a cap charge for a guy who's no longer playing on the team. In the most extreme example, abusing contracts like these are the reason why Oakland has $50 million (!!!) in dead cap space on the books this year. So, legal, but not necessarily smart.

this is really terrible analysis, and very misleading.

you basically just cited a terribly run franchise to form some kind of opinion about a widespread practice.

how about when the patriots do it -- smart or stupid?

I'd label the practice as smart, in general, but that probably wouldn't be the best description, as it's simply common sense.

as your roster ages, and these contracts play themselves out, older vets with bigger contracts tend to fall by the wayside, being replaced by younger players on cheap rookie deals, so it becomes much easier to live with these extended cap hits IF managed correctly.

 

[bengalbuck]

I was under the impression that what Houston did in restructuring Andre Johnson's contract in order to re-up Cushing today to be cap circumvention. In order to fit Cushing's new contract under the cap they restructured Johnson's 10.5 per year deal to 5 million this year +5.5 million in signing bonuses. I was under the impression that steps were in place to avoid these deals now days. With the new CBA I thought that there was no cap savings. 10.5 million is 10.5 cap no matter how you slice it now days. You should be able to wiggle by no more than 10% from what I thought.

I know there are a lot of assumptions and false understandings on my part but last year the league made it very clear these restructures were not allowed and Dallas and Washington were hit pretty hard by the NFL for taking part in them. If anyone smarter than me can explain what the specifics that too place today I'd be very appreciative. I like to be on top of these things.

Using signing bonus to spread cap hit is perfectly acceptable still. That's what Dallas did with Tony Romo. Oakland did it with Carson Palmer a couple of times, too, iirc. It's not the smartest of strategies, because eventually the player declines in effectiveness and you're left paying a cap charge for a guy who's no longer playing on the team. In the most extreme example, abusing contracts like these are the reason why Oakland has $50 million (!!!) in dead cap space on the books this year. So, legal, but not necessarily smart.

this is really terrible analysis, and very misleading.

you basically just cited a terribly run franchise to form some kind of opinion about a widespread practice.

how about when the patriots do it -- smart or stupid?

I'd label the practice as smart, in general, but that probably wouldn't be the best description, as it's simply common sense.

as your roster ages, and these contracts play themselves out, older vets with bigger contracts tend to fall by the wayside, being replaced by younger players on cheap rookie deals, so it becomes much easier to live with these extended cap hits IF managed correctly.

It isn't always smart or always stupid. It is basically borrowing against future cap years as you shift money that is basically being paid for current talent onto future years when it is "dead money." You may be able to have a $140M type of team this year despite the $120M cap. But in some future year you may have to have a $110M team despite the $130M cap.

If you are Denver and have a 37 Peyton Manning, then taking this type of win now approach makes a ton of sense. Some other teams with less realistic chances of competing may be smarter to "take their medicine" now and avoid future pain like Oakland and the Steelers are currently facing.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I was under the impression that what Houston did in restructuring Andre Johnson's contract in order to re-up Cushing today to be cap circumvention. In order to fit Cushing's new contract under the cap they restructured Johnson's 10.5 per year deal to 5 million this year +5.5 million in signing bonuses. I was under the impression that steps were in place to avoid these deals now days. With the new CBA I thought that there was no cap savings. 10.5 million is 10.5 cap no matter how you slice it now days. You should be able to wiggle by no more than 10% from what I thought.

I know there are a lot of assumptions and false understandings on my part but last year the league made it very clear these restructures were not allowed and Dallas and Washington were hit pretty hard by the NFL for taking part in them. If anyone smarter than me can explain what the specifics that too place today I'd be very appreciative. I like to be on top of these things.

Using signing bonus to spread cap hit is perfectly acceptable still. That's what Dallas did with Tony Romo. Oakland did it with Carson Palmer a couple of times, too, iirc. It's not the smartest of strategies, because eventually the player declines in effectiveness and you're left paying a cap charge for a guy who's no longer playing on the team. In the most extreme example, abusing contracts like these are the reason why Oakland has $50 million (!!!) in dead cap space on the books this year. So, legal, but not necessarily smart.

this is really terrible analysis, and very misleading.

you basically just cited a terribly run franchise to form some kind of opinion about a widespread practice.

how about when the patriots do it -- smart or stupid?

I'd label the practice as smart, in general, but that probably wouldn't be the best description, as it's simply common sense.

as your roster ages, and these contracts play themselves out, older vets with bigger contracts tend to fall by the wayside, being replaced by younger players on cheap rookie deals, so it becomes much easier to live with these extended cap hits IF managed correctly.

It isn't always smart or always stupid. It is basically borrowing against future cap years as you shift money that is basically being paid for current talent onto future years when it is "dead money." You may be able to have a $140M type of team this year despite the $120M cap. But in some future year you may have to have a $110M team despite the $130M cap.

If you are Denver and have a 37 Peyton Manning, then taking this type of win now approach makes a ton of sense. Some other teams with less realistic chances of competing may be smarter to "take their medicine" now and avoid future pain like Oakland and the Steelers are currently facing.

it's not dead money if the guy's still playing.

you think andre johnson will be playing next year?

 

[Man of Zen]

Besides, even for Oakland, it may look bad now, but fans will be able to remember that 8-8 glory year in 2011 for ages to come.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I was under the impression that what Houston did in restructuring Andre Johnson's contract in order to re-up Cushing today to be cap circumvention. In order to fit Cushing's new contract under the cap they restructured Johnson's 10.5 per year deal to 5 million this year +5.5 million in signing bonuses. I was under the impression that steps were in place to avoid these deals now days. With the new CBA I thought that there was no cap savings. 10.5 million is 10.5 cap no matter how you slice it now days. You should be able to wiggle by no more than 10% from what I thought.

I know there are a lot of assumptions and false understandings on my part but last year the league made it very clear these restructures were not allowed and Dallas and Washington were hit pretty hard by the NFL for taking part in them. If anyone smarter than me can explain what the specifics that too place today I'd be very appreciative. I like to be on top of these things.

Using signing bonus to spread cap hit is perfectly acceptable still. That's what Dallas did with Tony Romo. Oakland did it with Carson Palmer a couple of times, too, iirc. It's not the smartest of strategies, because eventually the player declines in effectiveness and you're left paying a cap charge for a guy who's no longer playing on the team. In the most extreme example, abusing contracts like these are the reason why Oakland has $50 million (!!!) in dead cap space on the books this year. So, legal, but not necessarily smart.

this is really terrible analysis, and very misleading.

you basically just cited a terribly run franchise to form some kind of opinion about a widespread practice.

how about when the patriots do it -- smart or stupid?

I'd label the practice as smart, in general, but that probably wouldn't be the best description, as it's simply common sense.

as your roster ages, and these contracts play themselves out, older vets with bigger contracts tend to fall by the wayside, being replaced by younger players on cheap rookie deals, so it becomes much easier to live with these extended cap hits IF managed correctly.

It isn't always smart or always stupid. It is basically borrowing against future cap years as you shift money that is basically being paid for current talent onto future years when it is "dead money." You may be able to have a $140M type of team this year despite the $120M cap. But in some future year you may have to have a $110M team despite the $130M cap.

If you are Denver and have a 37 Peyton Manning, then taking this type of win now approach makes a ton of sense. Some other teams with less realistic chances of competing may be smarter to "take their medicine" now and avoid future pain like Oakland and the Steelers are currently facing.

It's robbing Peter to pay Paul. It worked better in the mid-2000s because the salary cap was rising so quickly, but now that the cap has flattened, it's a very dangerous strategy. It's not going to hurt you if you do a little bit here and there, but relying on it in any substantive way pretty much guarantees your team will crash at some point. Maybe that crash can be worth it if you manage to cobble together a championship, first, but I can't think of a single time it's actually resulted in a championship yet.

You mention Denver as the type of team that could really benefit from the tactic. I'd say it's pretty damning that Denver has worked so hard to avoid these types of contracts despite being exactly the type of team who theoretically has the most to gain from them. Outside of the DRC contract I mentioned, there's very little dead money on Denver's cap. Most of its contracts are structured like Manning's deal, minimizing or even foregoing a signing bonus in favor of a series of roster bonuses, keeping each season's cap hit confined solely to that season. Clady's deal is the same way. When Denver re-ups with Demaryius and Von, I suspect they'll get the same type of deal, too.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I was under the impression that what Houston did in restructuring Andre Johnson's contract in order to re-up Cushing today to be cap circumvention. In order to fit Cushing's new contract under the cap they restructured Johnson's 10.5 per year deal to 5 million this year +5.5 million in signing bonuses. I was under the impression that steps were in place to avoid these deals now days. With the new CBA I thought that there was no cap savings. 10.5 million is 10.5 cap no matter how you slice it now days. You should be able to wiggle by no more than 10% from what I thought.

I know there are a lot of assumptions and false understandings on my part but last year the league made it very clear these restructures were not allowed and Dallas and Washington were hit pretty hard by the NFL for taking part in them. If anyone smarter than me can explain what the specifics that too place today I'd be very appreciative. I like to be on top of these things.

Using signing bonus to spread cap hit is perfectly acceptable still. That's what Dallas did with Tony Romo. Oakland did it with Carson Palmer a couple of times, too, iirc. It's not the smartest of strategies, because eventually the player declines in effectiveness and you're left paying a cap charge for a guy who's no longer playing on the team. In the most extreme example, abusing contracts like these are the reason why Oakland has $50 million (!!!) in dead cap space on the books this year. So, legal, but not necessarily smart.

this is really terrible analysis, and very misleading.

you basically just cited a terribly run franchise to form some kind of opinion about a widespread practice.

how about when the patriots do it -- smart or stupid?

I'd label the practice as smart, in general, but that probably wouldn't be the best description, as it's simply common sense.

as your roster ages, and these contracts play themselves out, older vets with bigger contracts tend to fall by the wayside, being replaced by younger players on cheap rookie deals, so it becomes much easier to live with these extended cap hits IF managed correctly.

It isn't always smart or always stupid. It is basically borrowing against future cap years as you shift money that is basically being paid for current talent onto future years when it is "dead money." You may be able to have a $140M type of team this year despite the $120M cap. But in some future year you may have to have a $110M team despite the $130M cap.

If you are Denver and have a 37 Peyton Manning, then taking this type of win now approach makes a ton of sense. Some other teams with less realistic chances of competing may be smarter to "take their medicine" now and avoid future pain like Oakland and the Steelers are currently facing.

it's not dead money if the guy's still playing.

you think andre johnson will be playing next year?

It's still dead money. If I sign Andre Johnson to a 2-year, $20 million deal, and I give him a $1m salary and $9m signing bonus in year one and a $10m salary in year 2, then I'm paying him $10 million in each season, but his cap hit on my franchise is $5.5m in the first year and $14.5m in the second. Play around with these contract structures too much and you can eventually get to a point where a player's contract holds your entire franchise hostage. Then you're forced to either overpay him in his twilight years, or cut him early and accelerate all those delayed cap hits.

Like I said, it's robbing Peter to pay Paul. Andre Johnson's restructure is pretty small potatoes, just $2-3m being pushed off to the future, so it's not like it's going to cripple the Texans. If a franchise just needs a little bit of room to make a move, it's not going to kill them, but eventually the bills always come due.

 

[Team ROFLCOPTERS]

I was under the impression that what Houston did in restructuring Andre Johnson's contract in order to re-up Cushing today to be cap circumvention. In order to fit Cushing's new contract under the cap they restructured Johnson's 10.5 per year deal to 5 million this year +5.5 million in signing bonuses. I was under the impression that steps were in place to avoid these deals now days. With the new CBA I thought that there was no cap savings. 10.5 million is 10.5 cap no matter how you slice it now days. You should be able to wiggle by no more than 10% from what I thought.

I know there are a lot of assumptions and false understandings on my part but last year the league made it very clear these restructures were not allowed and Dallas and Washington were hit pretty hard by the NFL for taking part in them. If anyone smarter than me can explain what the specifics that too place today I'd be very appreciative. I like to be on top of these things.

Using signing bonus to spread cap hit is perfectly acceptable still. That's what Dallas did with Tony Romo. Oakland did it with Carson Palmer a couple of times, too, iirc. It's not the smartest of strategies, because eventually the player declines in effectiveness and you're left paying a cap charge for a guy who's no longer playing on the team. In the most extreme example, abusing contracts like these are the reason why Oakland has $50 million (!!!) in dead cap space on the books this year. So, legal, but not necessarily smart.

Dallas and Washington were hit, not because they used this particular contract structure, but because they used this particular contract structure to shift outstanding cap liabilities into the uncapped year, which was explicitly against the rules. Basically, in the one year where there was no cap, they were restructuring contracts to increase cap hits during that uncapped season and decrease them during future seasons, after the cap was back in place. They were penalized by the loss of cap space commensurate to the amount they tried to sneak off the books.

Edit: Denver doesn't typically use signing bonus chicanery to shift cap charges onto future seasons, but one contract they gave out this season is a great example of the practice. They signed Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie to a "two year deal" that explicitly states in the contract that the deal voids after the superbowl. So it's a "two year deal" where the second year literally does not exist. Denver created that automatically-voiding second year just so they could shift a little bit of DRC's signing bonus onto next year's cap, leaving them a bit more space to fit in another couple of veterans this offseason. The signing bonus gets pro-rated, half of it counts this year, and then after the superbowl the contract will automatically void and the second half of the signing bonus will immediately accelerate onto next year's cap.

I can't believe I forgot about the uncapped year aspect. That's what threw me off. thanks for the dialogue.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I was under the impression that what Houston did in restructuring Andre Johnson's contract in order to re-up Cushing today to be cap circumvention. In order to fit Cushing's new contract under the cap they restructured Johnson's 10.5 per year deal to 5 million this year +5.5 million in signing bonuses. I was under the impression that steps were in place to avoid these deals now days. With the new CBA I thought that there was no cap savings. 10.5 million is 10.5 cap no matter how you slice it now days. You should be able to wiggle by no more than 10% from what I thought.

I know there are a lot of assumptions and false understandings on my part but last year the league made it very clear these restructures were not allowed and Dallas and Washington were hit pretty hard by the NFL for taking part in them. If anyone smarter than me can explain what the specifics that too place today I'd be very appreciative. I like to be on top of these things.

Using signing bonus to spread cap hit is perfectly acceptable still. That's what Dallas did with Tony Romo. Oakland did it with Carson Palmer a couple of times, too, iirc. It's not the smartest of strategies, because eventually the player declines in effectiveness and you're left paying a cap charge for a guy who's no longer playing on the team. In the most extreme example, abusing contracts like these are the reason why Oakland has $50 million (!!!) in dead cap space on the books this year. So, legal, but not necessarily smart.

this is really terrible analysis, and very misleading.

you basically just cited a terribly run franchise to form some kind of opinion about a widespread practice.

how about when the patriots do it -- smart or stupid?

I'd label the practice as smart, in general, but that probably wouldn't be the best description, as it's simply common sense.

as your roster ages, and these contracts play themselves out, older vets with bigger contracts tend to fall by the wayside, being replaced by younger players on cheap rookie deals, so it becomes much easier to live with these extended cap hits IF managed correctly.

It isn't always smart or always stupid. It is basically borrowing against future cap years as you shift money that is basically being paid for current talent onto future years when it is "dead money." You may be able to have a $140M type of team this year despite the $120M cap. But in some future year you may have to have a $110M team despite the $130M cap.

If you are Denver and have a 37 Peyton Manning, then taking this type of win now approach makes a ton of sense. Some other teams with less realistic chances of competing may be smarter to "take their medicine" now and avoid future pain like Oakland and the Steelers are currently facing.

it's not dead money if the guy's still playing.

you think andre johnson will be playing next year?

It's still dead money. If I sign Andre Johnson to a 2-year, $20 million deal, and I give him a $1m salary and $9m signing bonus in year one and a $10m salary in year 2, then I'm paying him $10 million in each season, but his cap hit on my franchise is $5.5m in the first year and $14.5m in the second. Play around with these contract structures too much and you can eventually get to a point where a player's contract holds your entire franchise hostage. Then you're forced to either overpay him in his twilight years, or cut him early and accelerate all those delayed cap hits.

Like I said, it's robbing Peter to pay Paul. Andre Johnson's restructure is pretty small potatoes, just $2-3m being pushed off to the future, so it's not like it's going to cripple the Texans. If a franchise just needs a little bit of room to make a move, it's not going to kill them, but eventually the bills always come due.

incorrect

btw, are you that same guy that used to have the elephant av?

 

[Bri]

I was under the impression (like the OP) that in the middle of the contract you could no longer say hey he got a different signing bonus, it was 10 not 1 million. This always seemed a bit much and I thought the NFL squashed that.

Guys like Andre Johnson can be scary for teams. I appreciate rewarding a long time team star with a sweet deal, but when these salary cap "gurus" start messing with these huge figures, it almost always bites them. Clearly I don't know when it will, but it wouldn't be unusual for Andre to be retired and count 5 mil against the cap the first year he's not playing.

The cap increases each year seem extremely favorable as we don't have half as many contract squabbles as we used to. I think this is just poor managements by the Texans. Who doesn't love Cushing and want him to continue to be there? This didn't come as a surprise.

 

[jeeb]

I was under the impression that what Houston did in restructuring Andre Johnson's contract in order to re-up Cushing today to be cap circumvention. In order to fit Cushing's new contract under the cap they restructured Johnson's 10.5 per year deal to 5 million this year +5.5 million in signing bonuses. I was under the impression that steps were in place to avoid these deals now days. With the new CBA I thought that there was no cap savings. 10.5 million is 10.5 cap no matter how you slice it now days. You should be able to wiggle by no more than 10% from what I thought.

I know there are a lot of assumptions and false understandings on my part but last year the league made it very clear these restructures were not allowed and Dallas and Washington were hit pretty hard by the NFL for taking part in them. If anyone smarter than me can explain what the specifics that too place today I'd be very appreciative. I like to be on top of these things.

Using signing bonus to spread cap hit is perfectly acceptable still. That's what Dallas did with Tony Romo. Oakland did it with Carson Palmer a couple of times, too, iirc. It's not the smartest of strategies, because eventually the player declines in effectiveness and you're left paying a cap charge for a guy who's no longer playing on the team. In the most extreme example, abusing contracts like these are the reason why Oakland has $50 million (!!!) in dead cap space on the books this year. So, legal, but not necessarily smart.

Dallas and Washington were hit, not because they used this particular contract structure, but because they used this particular contract structure to shift outstanding cap liabilities into the uncapped year, which was explicitly against the rules. Basically, in the one year where there was no cap, they were restructuring contracts to increase cap hits during that uncapped season and decrease them during future seasons, after the cap was back in place. They were penalized by the loss of cap space commensurate to the amount they tried to sneak off the books.

Edit: Denver doesn't typically use signing bonus chicanery to shift cap charges onto future seasons, but one contract they gave out this season is a great example of the practice. They signed Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie to a "two year deal" that explicitly states in the contract that the deal voids after the superbowl. So it's a "two year deal" where the second year literally does not exist. Denver created that automatically-voiding second year just so they could shift a little bit of DRC's signing bonus onto next year's cap, leaving them a bit more space to fit in another couple of veterans this offseason. The signing bonus gets pro-rated, half of it counts this year, and then after the superbowl the contract will automatically void and the second half of the signing bonus will immediately accelerate onto next year's cap.

It is impossible to explicitly violate unwritten, non-formal, unofficial rules.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I was under the impression (like the OP) that in the middle of the contract you could no longer say hey he got a different signing bonus, it was 10 not 1 million. This always seemed a bit much and I thought the NFL squashed that.

Guys like Andre Johnson can be scary for teams. I appreciate rewarding a long time team star with a sweet deal, but when these salary cap "gurus" start messing with these huge figures, it almost always bites them. Clearly I don't know when it will, but it wouldn't be unusual for Andre to be retired and count 5 mil against the cap the first year he's not playing.

The cap increases each year seem extremely favorable as we don't have half as many contract squabbles as we used to. I think this is just poor managements by the Texans. Who doesn't love Cushing and want him to continue to be there? This didn't come as a surprise.

nobody does this or has ever done this.

 

[Smack Tripper]

As a giants fan, I wish they would have done more This year to load up for a bowl at home. As a fan, we have two Eli bowls in the bank, I would have been ok with 3-4 down seasons to seriously contend for one at home.

 

[Bri]

I was under the impression (like the OP) that in the middle of the contract you could no longer say hey he got a different signing bonus, it was 10 not 1 million. This always seemed a bit much and I thought the NFL squashed that.

Guys like Andre Johnson can be scary for teams. I appreciate rewarding a long time team star with a sweet deal, but when these salary cap "gurus" start messing with these huge figures, it almost always bites them. Clearly I don't know when it will, but it wouldn't be unusual for Andre to be retired and count 5 mil against the cap the first year he's not playing.

The cap increases each year seem extremely favorable as we don't have half as many contract squabbles as we used to. I think this is just poor managements by the Texans. Who doesn't love Cushing and want him to continue to be there? This didn't come as a surprise.

nobody does this or has ever done this.

2012 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/08/andre-johnson-dez-bryant-restructure-their-contracts/

OP has 2013 with 10.5 becoming 5 or 5.5 as a signing bonus.

In 2010 he signed a new deal and (I think) got a 13 mil signing bonus.

In 2007 he signed an 8 year deal which was reworked in 2010 but he signed a signing bonus then too.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I was under the impression (like the OP) that in the middle of the contract you could no longer say hey he got a different signing bonus, it was 10 not 1 million. This always seemed a bit much and I thought the NFL squashed that.

Guys like Andre Johnson can be scary for teams. I appreciate rewarding a long time team star with a sweet deal, but when these salary cap "gurus" start messing with these huge figures, it almost always bites them. Clearly I don't know when it will, but it wouldn't be unusual for Andre to be retired and count 5 mil against the cap the first year he's not playing.

The cap increases each year seem extremely favorable as we don't have half as many contract squabbles as we used to. I think this is just poor managements by the Texans. Who doesn't love Cushing and want him to continue to be there? This didn't come as a surprise.

nobody does this or has ever done this.

2012 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/08/andre-johnson-dez-bryant-restructure-their-contracts/

OP has 2013 with 10.5 becoming 5 or 5.5 as a signing bonus.

In 2010 he signed a new deal and (I think) got a 13 mil signing bonus.

In 2007 he signed an 8 year deal which was reworked in 2010 but he signed a signing bonus then too.

and none of his deals are described by the bolded from your posting.

 

[GregR]

I was under the impression (like the OP) that in the middle of the contract you could no longer say hey he got a different signing bonus, it was 10 not 1 million. This always seemed a bit much and I thought the NFL squashed that.

Guys like Andre Johnson can be scary for teams. I appreciate rewarding a long time team star with a sweet deal, but when these salary cap "gurus" start messing with these huge figures, it almost always bites them. Clearly I don't know when it will, but it wouldn't be unusual for Andre to be retired and count 5 mil against the cap the first year he's not playing.

The cap increases each year seem extremely favorable as we don't have half as many contract squabbles as we used to. I think this is just poor managements by the Texans. Who doesn't love Cushing and want him to continue to be there? This didn't come as a surprise.

nobody does this or has ever done this.

2012 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/08/andre-johnson-dez-bryant-restructure-their-contracts/

OP has 2013 with 10.5 becoming 5 or 5.5 as a signing bonus.

In 2010 he signed a new deal and (I think) got a 13 mil signing bonus.

In 2007 he signed an 8 year deal which was reworked in 2010 but he signed a signing bonus then too.

and none of his deals are described by the bolded from your posting.

His wording might not have been precise but I'd say the gist of what he likely meant was correct. They aren't saying "he got a different signing bonus", true. They are taking what had been salary and instead paying it as a signing bonus. The end result in question being the same.

 

[FF Ninja]

I was under the impression that what Houston did in restructuring Andre Johnson's contract in order to re-up Cushing today to be cap circumvention. In order to fit Cushing's new contract under the cap they restructured Johnson's 10.5 per year deal to 5 million this year +5.5 million in signing bonuses. I was under the impression that steps were in place to avoid these deals now days. With the new CBA I thought that there was no cap savings. 10.5 million is 10.5 cap no matter how you slice it now days. You should be able to wiggle by no more than 10% from what I thought.

I know there are a lot of assumptions and false understandings on my part but last year the league made it very clear these restructures were not allowed and Dallas and Washington were hit pretty hard by the NFL for taking part in them. If anyone smarter than me can explain what the specifics that too place today I'd be very appreciative. I like to be on top of these things.

Using signing bonus to spread cap hit is perfectly acceptable still. That's what Dallas did with Tony Romo. Oakland did it with Carson Palmer a couple of times, too, iirc. It's not the smartest of strategies, because eventually the player declines in effectiveness and you're left paying a cap charge for a guy who's no longer playing on the team. In the most extreme example, abusing contracts like these are the reason why Oakland has $50 million (!!!) in dead cap space on the books this year. So, legal, but not necessarily smart.

Dallas and Washington were hit, not because they used this particular contract structure, but because they used this particular contract structure to shift outstanding cap liabilities into the uncapped year, which was explicitly against the rules. Basically, in the one year where there was no cap, they were restructuring contracts to increase cap hits during that uncapped season and decrease them during future seasons, after the cap was back in place. They were penalized by the loss of cap space commensurate to the amount they tried to sneak off the books.

Edit: Denver doesn't typically use signing bonus chicanery to shift cap charges onto future seasons, but one contract they gave out this season is a great example of the practice. They signed Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie to a "two year deal" that explicitly states in the contract that the deal voids after the superbowl. So it's a "two year deal" where the second year literally does not exist. Denver created that automatically-voiding second year just so they could shift a little bit of DRC's signing bonus onto next year's cap, leaving them a bit more space to fit in another couple of veterans this offseason. The signing bonus gets pro-rated, half of it counts this year, and then after the superbowl the contract will automatically void and the second half of the signing bonus will immediately accelerate onto next year's cap.

It is impossible to explicitly violate unwritten, non-formal, unofficial rules.

Ha! I was just about to ask about this. I was shocked by the events twice during that uncapped fiasco. I was initially shocked more teams weren't smart enough to utilize the uncapped year. Then I was shocked that Goodell penalized teams for violating absolutely nothing. I don't recall there being any rule against it, yet they got penalized. I'm no Washington or Dallas fan, but I thought that was totally f***ed up that they got hit for that. If the NFL didn't want teams doing that then the NFL shouldn't have allowed that situation to arise. Alas they figured other things were more important but still wanted to regulate. The NFL wanted to have it's cake and eat it, too. And they did. B@$tards.

 

[GregR]

One other comment. The salary cap being flat is sort of an artificial thing.

In the last CBA, the players agreed to a smaller slice of the revenue pie, though calculated a bit different in their favor (less chance the owners could 'hide' revenue). And they also got more benefits as part of the CBA, which came out of the same slice as their salary, leaving less for salary.

The net effect is that the $123m cap dropped to $113m. The players union didn't want to live with the impact of that, of veterans being cut because the cap dropped. So they borrowed money from future years (i.e. now) to keep the cap around $120m.

So we can say the cap is flat. Though the reality is the money available per year is climbing same as it always had. It dropped to $113m because of the CBA restructuring, but has steadily grown to where it is possible to have a $122m cap for the next year or two and still have supplied money that raised those past $113m and other caps also up to $120m. So there should be a point in the not too distant future where we start seeing the cap increasing again, and I would expect it will be a big jump once that borrowing against the years is completely gone. Because it has been increasing all along, just the players funneled those increases into past years to smooth it out.

The NFL said it was going to be essentially flat through 2015. That part surprises me a little bit that it isn't already climbing again even when accounting for the money shifted to past years. But I'd think if that is correct, 2016 will see a jump at least. Unless the owners are cooking the books, that is.

 

[GregR]

...Ha! I was just about to ask about this. I was shocked by the events twice during that uncapped fiasco. I was initially shocked more teams weren't smart enough to utilize the uncapped year. Then I was shocked that Goodell penalized teams for violating absolutely nothing. I don't recall there being any rule against it, yet they got penalized. I'm no Washington or Dallas fan, but I thought that was totally f***ed up that they got hit for that. If the NFL didn't want teams doing that then the NFL shouldn't have allowed that situation to arise. Alas they figured other things were more important but still wanted to regulate. The NFL wanted to have it's cake and eat it, too. And they did. B@$tards.

More teams didn't do it because the owners, including Dallas and Washington, got together and (allegedly) agreed to collude in violation of the previous CBA.

This wasn't a case of league authority going renegade. This was a case of (alleged) thieves making (alleged) agreements with other (alleged) thieves, then going back on the agreement for additional benefits. And thinking they could get away with it because the other thieves wouldn't be willing to let the original collusion see the light of day. But they were willing when the opportunity presented itself. It's like the Mafia policing its rogue members.

Only people who were innocent in it was the players who were the victims. Until they then agreed to throw under the bus the thieves who broke rank, in exchange for the transferring of cap dollars from future years to the present, at which point I don't think I have much sympathy for any of them.

 

[Adam Harstad]

incorrect

btw, are you that same guy that used to have the elephant av?

Restructuring base salary into signing bonus for the purpose of pro-rating it over the life of the contract means you're paying next year for services rendered this year. In terms of cap impact, Houston basically said to Andre Johnson "we're getting $10 million worth of services out of you, but we're only going to pay $7.5 million this year and we'll pay the other $2.5 million next year, whether you're with the team or not". It's Wimpy Economics- I'll gladly pay in 2014 for a touchdown catch today.

And yes, I'm the same guy.

 

[Adam Harstad]

It is impossible to explicitly violate unwritten, non-formal, unofficial rules.

I thought there was some sort of league-wide memo cautioning teams against attempts to take advantage of the uncapped year, but I'm probably misremembering the situation.

Either way, whether it was spelled out or not, the entire thing was nonsense. The owners were trying to have their cake and eat it, too, and they deserved to have their butts hauled into court over it.

 

[GregR]

It is impossible to explicitly violate unwritten, non-formal, unofficial rules.

I thought there was some sort of league-wide memo cautioning teams against attempts to take advantage of the uncapped year, but I'm probably misremembering the situation.

Either way, whether it was spelled out or not, the entire thing was nonsense. The owners were trying to have their cake and eat it, too, and they deserved to have their butts hauled into court over it.

IIRC, it was reported that it was at a meeting where all the capos... I mean, owners... were present and laid down the groundwork for the collusion.

I often side with the owners in a lot of these NFL labor issues because I don't think the players in general are under-compensated. There was a time their union made things just, but now I think they are just greedy more often than not. I tend to think unions in conditions where employees already have it good tend to screw over their own business more than they look out for what is fair. A perfect example being the foot dragging on PED testing which is generally for collective good of both the players and the industry.

But this was definitely one situation I'd have loved to see the players stick it to the owners. The owners deserved it. But the players signed that right away. I do wonder how that whole situation will affect the next CBA when it comes time to discuss the standard clause exonerating for any previous collusion.

 

[Adam Harstad]

It is impossible to explicitly violate unwritten, non-formal, unofficial rules.

I thought there was some sort of league-wide memo cautioning teams against attempts to take advantage of the uncapped year, but I'm probably misremembering the situation.

Either way, whether it was spelled out or not, the entire thing was nonsense. The owners were trying to have their cake and eat it, too, and they deserved to have their butts hauled into court over it.

IIRC, it was reported that it was at a meeting where all the capos... I mean, owners... were present and laid down the groundwork for the collusion.

I often side with the owners in a lot of these NFL labor issues because I don't think the players in general are under-compensated. There was a time their union made things just, but now I think they are just greedy more often than not. I tend to think unions in conditions where employees already have it good tend to screw over their own business more than they look out for what is fair. A perfect example being the foot dragging on PED testing which is generally for collective good of both the players and the industry.

But this was definitely one situation I'd have loved to see the players stick it to the owners. The owners deserved it. But the players signed that right away. I do wonder how that whole situation will affect the next CBA when it comes time to discuss the standard clause exonerating for any previous collusion.

I also am not a huge fan of the players' union and its (strictly rational) tendency to sell future and former players down the river in all negotiations. I think the NFLPA is shortsighted, and do agree that they're more likely to upset the apple cart than solve any injustices (especially, as you mentioned, with respect to PEDs).

With that said, as much as I dislike the players' union, I tend to dislike the owners even more. I think this instance of collusion was hardly an isolated incident- that it's more the rule than the exception. I also think the owners lie constantly about their finances, take the American taxpayers for a ride, and I think the public-subsidized stadium deals are some of the most ridiculously egregious cash grabs out there, only made worse when an owner takes the team hostage by issuing thinly-veiled threats to relocate. I think the owners and their mouthpiece Goodell have only been paying lip service to player safety for years, and I think they got off extremely easy in the concussion lawsuits. Also, I think the NCAA is one of the most morally indefensible institutions still surviving in this country, and I therefore hate the owners for colluding to keep the NCAA in power as an unpaid minor league feeder system.

The NFLPA might be an unsympathetic figure, but not nearly as unsympathetic as the owners' cartel. In most disputes, I tend to view them as the lesser of the two evils. Still, it's a good thing I love football so much, because as you can tell, I'm not that fond of any of the bodies associated with it.