03-12-2025, 12:34 PM
(03-12-2025, 12:19 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: but the flip side, Tee gets hurt again, we probably saved $$ in long run by not signing him, Chase is the tough one, but for Bengals trade off is the guarantee $$, if they don't over pay there and a players gets hurt badly, you don;t have dead weight of paying a player that can't play... seems two sides to the coin here. As for Burrow, he mentioned restructure but ive heard nothing else from Burrow on it.. so maybe it was just a pressure move, unless i missed something factual on negotiations.
If I understand correctly, restructuring Burrow's contract really comes down to The Family making an offer, because it means giving more cash upfront. Generally, it is done by converting salary into a signing bonus, and a signing bonus is prorated over the length of the contract. Burrow would not lose by restructuring. The Family, however, would need to convert some of the salary into a signing bonus.
If you heard nothing else from Burrow, it is probably because he needs The Family to make the first move. Burrow let them know that he would be willing to do the restructuring to help with the cap.
Edit: Based on what Luvnit2 identified below (Buffalo Bills' example), there is another way to add cap that does not involve an overly burdensome upfront signing bonus. That is to add voidable years to the end of the contract, that is, years on which the player will never play but which one can spread out the salary and signing bonus. I am adding this now for completeness. As Luvnit2 states, the view that a team (read "Bengals") does not have enough money upfront to create more cap space is ingenuous, since one can use voidable years in creating the cap space. This method is seemingly becoming more popular among teams. And it is done with the idea that since the salary cap is likely to increase year by year, a dollar at the end of the contract will be less costly than a dollar now.
