"Salary cap crunch"

[SErebel11]

I see a lot of people anticipating a saturated market in the next few weeks with the view that the Bengals are in great shape due to their cap situation. While that is partially true, in my opinion the vast majority of players that this is going to affect are players who are expected to sign a 1 year deal because their cap hit will be a dollar for dollar hit. Anyone signing multi year deals won't be affected as much as people think because money can be pushed back into other seasons cap.

I am going to give a couple of for instances here.

Gabe Jackson was slated to make around 9.6M dollars. His play last season should match him up to make 5-6M dollars next season and he is worthy of a multiyear deal. So, let's say the a team decides to sign him for 2 years 12 million. His cap for this season could be 4M and 8M for next if a bonus is given. 2M base and 4M bonus (signing) and base salary 6M next season.

Kevin Zeitler is slated to make 12M this season. His valuation according to some websites is around 7M for next season. He is potentially being cut because teams are having to be extremely fiscally responsible but that doesn't mean Zeitler is going to struggle to find a new home or have to take some lowball deal to find a new place to play.
He could sign a deal in the range of 3 years/21M deal which would be in line with his valuation from last seasons performance and his current age and the contract be structured in a way that the cap hit this season is not prohibitive to signing him. 2M base salary with 7M signing bonus. Then, base salary of 6M and 6M and his cap hit for this season is 4.3M.

In other words, there are a slew of teams that can afford a 4M or 4.3M dollar cap hit to upgrade at G for this season. In theory, there are 64 starting guards in the league. Having 6-7 solid options on the free agent market isn't saturating it by no means. Now, maybe only a select few teams have the space to go for the top 2 guards but there is very little prohibitive about signing one of the mid-tier guys to a smaller multi year deal.

So, while people are thinking the market is saturated. When Oakland left Jackson go, they became a suitor for a G. They could potentially move on from an overpaid player to a properly compensated player like Zeitler and save 5.6M on this seasons cap.

If Jacksonville moves on from Norwell, they could then be a suitor for Scherff or Thuney with their massive amount of cap space to spend.

[Au165]

(03-05-2021, 04:09 PM)SErebel11 Wrote: I see a lot of people anticipating a saturated market in the next few weeks with the view that the Bengals are in great shape due to their cap situation. While that is partially true, in my opinion the vast majority of players that this is going to affect are players who are expected to sign a 1 year deal because their cap hit will be a dollar for dollar hit. Anyone signing multi year deals won't be affected as much as people think because money can be pushed back into other seasons cap.

I am going to give a couple of for instances here.

Gabe Jackson was slated to make around 9.6M dollars. His play last season should match him up to make 5-6M dollars next season and he is worthy of a multiyear deal. So, let's say the a team decides to sign him for 2 years 12 million. His cap for this season could be 4M and 8M for next if a bonus is given. 2M base and 4M bonus (signing) and base salary 6M next season.

Kevin Zeitler is slated to make 12M this season. His valuation according to some websites is around 7M for next season. He is potentially being cut because teams are having to be extremely fiscally responsible but that doesn't mean Zeitler is going to struggle to find a new home or have to take some lowball deal to find a new place to play.
He could sign a deal in the range of 3 years/21M deal which would be in line with his valuation from last seasons performance and his current age and the contract be structured in a way that the cap hit this season is not prohibitive to signing him. 2M base salary with 7M signing bonus. Then, base salary of 6M and 6M and his cap hit for this season is 4.3M.

In other words, there are a slew of teams that can afford a 4M or 4.3M dollar cap hit to upgrade at G for this season. In theory, there are 64 starting guards in the league. Having 6-7 solid options on the free agent market isn't saturating it by no means. Now, maybe only a select few teams have the space to go for the top 2 guards but there is very little prohibitive about signing one of the mid-tier guys to a smaller multi year deal.

So, while people are thinking the market is saturated. When Oakland left Jackson go, they became a suitor for a G. They could potentially move on from an overpaid player to a properly compensated player like Zeitler and save 5.6M on this seasons cap.

If Jacksonville moves on from Norwell, they could then be a suitor for Scherff or Thuney with their massive amount of cap space to spend.

There is a strong belief that many players, at least good ones, will opt to go the one-year route. Those that don't however will struggle to accept some of the terms you laid out above. Usually, if you want to give out these really low bonuses you mention then you need to combo them with a large year 1 base salary as it acts as a pseudo bonus in essence. The idea guys are going to play for just over league minimum in year 1 just because they got a signing bonus that is supposed to kind of reflect the totality of the contract just isn't realistic. Now will some contenders be able to pull this off? Maybe. However, this will not be something most teams could get away with, even in a bad environment. They will instead take larger one-year deals and come back next year. 

[SErebel11]

(03-05-2021, 04:49 PM)Au165 Wrote: There is a strong belief that many players, at least good ones, will opt to go the one-year route. Those that don't however will struggle to accept some of the terms you laid out above. Usually, if you want to give out these really low bonuses you mention then you need to combo them with a large year 1 base salary as it acts as a pseudo bonus in essence. The idea guys are going to play for just over league minimum in year 1 just because they got a signing bonus that is supposed to kind of reflect the totality of the contract just isn't realistic. Now will some contenders be able to pull this off? Maybe. However, this will not be something most teams could get away with, even in a bad environment. They will instead take larger one-year deals and come back next year. 

Actually, my belief is for the mid-teir guys that you are going to sign to a 2 year or 3 year contract as structured above a team can get away with it if a huge portion of it is guaranteed money for season 2 and maybe 3 which is what would likely have to happen. Secondly, why would teams want to shell out a larger 1 year deal in a lowered salary cap season? That money goes dollar for dollar on this seasons's cap making it even more difficult to sign other players. 

[Au165]

(03-05-2021, 04:58 PM)SErebel11 Wrote: Actually, my belief is for the mid-teir guys that you are going to sign to a 2 year or 3 year contract as structured above a team can get away with it if a huge portion of it is guaranteed money for season 2 and maybe 3 which is what would likely have to happen. Secondly, why would teams want to shell out a larger 1 year deal in a lowered salary cap season? That money goes dollar for dollar on this seasons's cap making it even more difficult to sign other players. 

Teams aren't going to guarantee a bunch of the backside of these deals. You tend to prefer to pay guys 30 and up on the frontside to offset potential injuries and escalating cap figures as play declines, which is often the case for free agents (60% bust as is). As for Zeitler, Why? Zeitler will be able to get 8-9 million fully guaranteed for one year then come back next year and take a worse contract than you even proposed and walk away with more guaranteed money in the end. As for why would a team do it? Because some teams have that cap to spend and if the player says they want to go that route you are in a position to deliver. 

I'm not denying there is maneuvering that can be done, but I think you are underselling what these agents and players are looking for to an extent. Heavy cap numbers year one of deals is for a reason and it's usually because it helps both players and teams avoid bad issues down the road. You tend to see more back-heavy "friendly" deals in extensions where the two sides have a relationship and they know how each other operates.

[SErebel11]

(03-05-2021, 05:05 PM)Au165 Wrote: Teams aren't going to guarantee a bunch of the backside of these deals. You tend to prefer to pay guys 30 and up on the frontside to offset potential injuries and escalating cap figures as play declines, which is often the case for free agents (60% bust as is). As for Zeitler, Why? Zeitler will be able to get 8-9 million fully guaranteed for one year then come back next year and take a worse contract than you even proposed and walk away with more guaranteed money in the end. As for why would a team do it? Because some teams have that cap to spend and if the player says they want to go that route you are in a position to deliver. 

Well, first off, the valuation of Zeitler for next season for me is 7M dollars. Maybe it is 8 or 9M for you. Regardless, It makes sense in this market for this one year to offer more guaranteed money to a 30+ player to get him to sign a multi year deal 2-3 years at a lower cap number for this season. Not a bunch of those kind of contracts per team but a couple would be reasonable in my opinion particularly for the Bengals situation. Not many teams going to be in a position to take a 9M dollar cap hit signing a guard and be able to augment the rest of their roster. 

Using your valuation of 9M. I am suggesting a team could sign Zeitler for 3 years 27M..... 2021 structured at 1M base 9M, 2022 8.5M guaranteed, 2023 8M, 2M guaranteed or something to that effect. Puts more risk on a team but would definitely be more attractive to a player than a 1 year deal.

[TJHoushmandzadeh's Shiny Shoes]

I would look to baseball for the example of what happened with a cash squeeze.

I don't think baseball teams have been giving out longer contracts as a way of getting around temporary cash flow issues. Outside the elite players they seem to be mainly one, some two years deals. There were quite a few players non-tendered as well for financial reasons who would have ordinarily been kept on. They didn't then go and get long deals (eg Archie Bradley).

I know the economics in that sport are different but I think it gives us an idea of what a reduction in spending looks like.

[Au165]

(03-05-2021, 05:21 PM)SErebel11 Wrote: Well, first off, the valuation of Zeitler for next season for me is 7M dollars. Maybe it is 8 or 9M for you. Regardless, It makes sense in this market for this one year to offer more guaranteed money to a 30+ player to get him to sign a multi year deal 2-3 years at a lower cap number for this season. Not a bunch of those kind of contracts per team but a couple would be reasonable in my opinion particularly for the Bengals situation. Not many teams going to be in a position to take a 9M dollar cap hit signing a guard and be able to augment the rest of their roster. 

Using your valuation of 9M. I am suggesting a team could sign Zeitler for 3 years 27M..... 2021 structured at 1M base 9M, 2022 8.5M guaranteed, 2023 8M, 2M guaranteed or something to that effect. Puts more risk on a team but would definitely be more attractive to a player than a 1 year deal.

I guess we will see. I think your assumption a guy would play for the vet minimum just because he got the signing bonus that year is a bit of a reach. I also think you are crazy to think teams are going to take on so much back-loaded money, they are kind of seeing the fallout of that very thing this year. I could potentially see teams try the voidable year approach where it is basically a 3 year deal with two years voided to spread large signing bonuses out, but I get the feeling the NFL may crack down on this. 

[SErebel11]

(03-05-2021, 05:35 PM)Au165 Wrote: I guess we will see. I think your assumption a guy would play for the vet minimum just because he got the signing bonus that year is a bit of a reach. I also think you are crazy to think teams are going to take on so much back-loaded money, they are kind of seeing the fallout of that very thing this year. I could potentially see teams try the voidable year approach where it is basically a 3 year deal with two years voided to spread large signing bonuses out, but I get the feeling the NFL may crack down on this. 

Unless I am mistaking when a player restructures their deal to help the team, the player gets salary turned into bonus money and generally has enough leverage to get some more guaranteed money out of the team in some cases. I could be completely wrong but I do feel like for a team like the Bengals and other teams, it could make a lot of sense to backload a couple of midtier free agents. A guy like Zeitler is a better bet due to his history and position but I also feel like if 9M for 3 seasons is the number then that might be a bit rich. It would make more sense for a guy like Gabe Jackson if his best offers are 1yr/5-6 M to go 2 years and guarantee both with a bonus spread out. Sure there is some risk there but it isn't much different than some of these teams having to restructure multiple deals just to get under this years cap and kicking the can down the road. I would argue that this is a better way just because you would likely be closer to paying what the actual and current market value for the player is.

I think players like Jurrell Casey, Suh, etc looking for 1yr/8-10 million are the ones the will struggle the most because that is dollar to dollar cap hit for the team signing them. But again I could be incorrect.

[Whatever]

(03-05-2021, 09:31 PM)SErebel11 Wrote: Unless I am mistaking when a player restructures their deal to help the team, the player gets salary turned into bonus money and generally has enough leverage to get some more guaranteed money out of the team in some cases. I could be completely wrong but I do feel like for a team like the Bengals and other teams, it could make a lot of sense to backload a couple of midtier free agents. A guy like Zeitler is a better bet due to his history and position but I also feel like if 9M for 3 seasons is the number then that might be a bit rich. It would make more sense for a guy like Gabe Jackson if his best offers are 1yr/5-6 M to go 2 years and guarantee both with a bonus spread out. Sure there is some risk there but it isn't much different than some of these teams having to restructure multiple deals just to get under this years cap and kicking the can down the road. I would argue that this is a better way just because you would likely be closer to paying what the actual and current market value for the player is.

I think players like Jurrell Casey, Suh, etc looking for 1yr/8-10 million are the ones the will struggle the most because that is dollar to dollar cap hit for the team signing them. But again I could be incorrect.

Thing is, the NFL is closing in on another broadcasting deal which will drive the 2022 cap even higher.  Now, guys coming off their rookie deals that need that long term security will take big money multi year deals, but vets like Zeitler and Jackson who have that kind of security are going to want to hit FA when the cap inflates, which means a one year deal.  A lot of your B and C tier FA's that don't get big money multi year offers will bet on themselves and sign one year deals to try and get more money next year, too.

Another factor is there are teams that are simply crippled right now.  The Saints are like $60 mil over the cap right now.  Their only choice is to dump a ton of players and their best option is probably to trade everyone they can and stock up on draft picks and cap room for next year and tank the season for draft position.  Literally 1/4 of the league is over the cap right now.

[NATI BENGALS]

This off-season is playing out really well for us. Mainly because of the OL mentioned in the OP who are or could be on the move.

Generally we shop in the clearance isle. And the clearance isle is looking like it is about to be stocked up and offering some major deals on big name brand stuff.

[SErebel11]

(03-05-2021, 05:05 PM)Au165 Wrote: Teams aren't going to guarantee a bunch of the backside of these deals. You tend to prefer to pay guys 30 and up on the frontside to offset potential injuries and escalating cap figures as play declines, which is often the case for free agents (60% bust as is). As for Zeitler, Why? Zeitler will be able to get 8-9 million fully guaranteed for one year then come back next year and take a worse contract than you even proposed and walk away with more guaranteed money in the end. As for why would a team do it? Because some teams have that cap to spend and if the player says they want to go that route you are in a position to deliver. 

I'm not denying there is maneuvering that can be done, but I think you are underselling what these agents and players are looking for to an extent. Heavy cap numbers year one of deals is for a reason and it's usually because it helps both players and teams avoid bad issues down the road. You tend to see more back-heavy "friendly" deals in extensions where the two sides have a relationship and they know how each other operates.

Looks like the buccs and David may have done a deal kind of like I described. I will be interested in the particulars but he got most 80% guaranteed and speculation is the cap hit is bigger for next season.

[Au165]

(03-11-2021, 01:22 AM)SErebel11 Wrote: Looks like the buccs and David may have done a deal kind of like I described. I will be interested in the particulars but he got most 80% guaranteed and speculation is the cap hit is bigger for next season.

A couple of things, David's contract isn't actually what you described at all. David's deal is the new "en vogue" voided years many teams are running. It's a 5-year contract with 3 years that void immediately after the Super Bowl of his second year. Many of your deals were lower than average guaranteed money, this is an 80% guaranteed contract which is a ton on a multi-year deal. If your contention was that teams could overcome lower cap numbers by offering nearly fully guaranteed multi-year contracts then I'd more likely agree with you, that doesn't appear to be what you described though. My understanding of your first post examples was to offer multi-year below average to average market deals with 30% guaranteed and try to backload them.

[SErebel11]

(03-11-2021, 09:37 AM)Au165 Wrote: A couple of things, David's contract isn't actually what you described at all. David's deal is the new "en vogue" voided years many teams are running. It's a 5-year contract with 3 years that void immediately after the Super Bowl of his second year. Many of your deals were lower than average guaranteed money, this is an 80% guaranteed contract which is a ton on a multi-year deal. If your contention was that teams could overcome lower cap numbers by offering nearly fully guaranteed multi-year contracts then I'd more likely agree with you, that doesn't appear to be what you described though. My understanding of your first post examples was to offer multi-year below average to average market deals with 30% guaranteed and try to backload them.

I described it above: Using your valuation of 9M. I am suggesting a team could sign Zeitler for 3 years 27M..... 2021 structured at 1M base 9M, 2022 8.5M guaranteed, 2023 8M, 2M guaranteed or something to that effect. Puts more risk on a team but would definitely be more attractive to a player than a 1 year deal. 


That is 20.5M of the 26.5M. I was using the examples in the initial post to show how the Bengals cap side of it would work. I later explained to get a deal done they would have to offer a lot of guaranteed money. My main point is with these 1 year deals that people assume makes more sense that for this season with an older vet it makes more sense cap wise to sign them to a 2-3 year deal and stretch it out taking the risk of more back end money and with more guaranteed money.

[Au165]

(03-11-2021, 10:32 AM)SErebel11 Wrote: I described it above: Using your valuation of 9M. I am suggesting a team could sign Zeitler for 3 years 27M..... 2021 structured at 1M base 9M, 2022 8.5M guaranteed, 2023 8M, 2M guaranteed or something to that effect. Puts more risk on a team but would definitely be more attractive to a player than a 1 year deal. 


That is 20.5M of the 26.5M. I was using the examples in the initial post to show how the Bengals cap side of it would work. I later explained to get a deal done they would have to offer a lot of guaranteed money. My main point is with these 1 year deals that people assume makes more sense that for this season with an older vet it makes more sense cap wise to sign them to a 2-3 year deal and stretch it out taking the risk of more back end money and with more guaranteed money.

That makes more sense, I honestly was struggling to follow the format there versus how you did it in the first post. I couldn't figure out where 27 was coming from as I kept coming up with 28.5.

After seeing how many of these voidable contracts we are seeing, there may actually be a 3rd option that combines both trains of thought. Do a three year deal with two years voided. FA's can jump back in and get paid again next year in a better market and teams can get really low cap numbers this year on a down cap. I wonder if the agents try pushing for those for more of the mid-tier guys?

[SErebel11]

(03-11-2021, 11:06 AM)Au165 Wrote: That makes more sense, I honestly was struggling to follow the format there versus how you did it in the first post. I couldn't figure out where 27 was coming from as I kept coming up with 28.5.

After seeing how many of these voidable contracts we are seeing, there may actually be a 3rd option that combines both trains of thought. Do a three year deal with two years voided. FA's can jump back in and get paid again next year in a better market and teams can get really low cap numbers this year on a down cap. I wonder if the agents try pushing for those for more of the mid-tier guys?

I could see that working with older guys with significant injury history or fear of a multi year deal due to age or declining performance. 
Players like Suh, Clowney, Dunlap, Atkins would be a candidate if made free agent. Teams that want to be competitive and aren't some huge number over the cap will find ways to sign players that they want. My premise is that people that think the Bengals can just scoop up 4-5 really good players for below market prices don't understand that money can be pushed back into other years.

[Au165]

(03-11-2021, 11:20 AM)SErebel11 Wrote: I could see that working with older guys with significant injury history or fear of a multi year deal due to age or declining performance. 
Players like Suh, Clowney, Dunlap, Atkins would be a candidate if made free agent. Teams that want to be competitive and aren't some huge number over the cap will find ways to sign players that they want. My premise is that people that think the Bengals can just scoop up 4-5 really good players for below market prices don't understand that money can be pushed back into other years.

Barrett's contract ended up much more in line with what you talked about to start. So far it has been kind of hit or miss, although I am curious if Barrett also used voided years when it's said and done. 

[SErebel11]

(03-15-2021, 01:39 PM)Au165 Wrote: Barrett's contract ended up much more in line with what you talked about to start. So far it has been kind of hit or miss, although I am curious if Barrett also used voided years when it's said and done. 

Yeah, I am gonna dive in later tonight when some of these structures come out. Zietler's 7m per with a lot of guaranteed money is where I was too. Want to see how it is structured tho. I am with you though if Cincinnati sticks to their gospel of how they do contracts, they will not be very productive this off-season. I think a lot of teams will use voided years and other means to get the players that they want.