Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Kelly contract restructure


w87r
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, cbear said:

Can someone explain why at the initial signing wouldn't you put more money into a signing bonus instead of waiting till later? Is there some rule prohibiting that?

 

 

 

Depends on your roster structure. If you're cash heavy, when doing long terms deals, spend more early. Once you have draft success, you're not as cash heavy and need to re-sign/extend guys...  And with the cap being stale, our money just kinda ran out.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EastStreet said:

We'd still be 1.5M short of enough cap space to take Ertz.

And then you have to ask what we'd be giving them. They have our likely 1st already, plus the 6 for Pryor/7th

WR might be our deepest unit right now aside from RB.

And we just picked up Coutee.

 

I know boss, I was being facetious 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

Depends on your roster structure. If you're cash heavy, when doing long terms deals, spend more early. Once you have draft success, you're not as cash heavy and need to re-sign/extend guys...  And with the cap being stale, our money just kinda ran out.

So a signing bonus would all count in the first year? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cbear said:

So a signing bonus would all count in the first year? 

I don’t believe so.   I believe it typically is amortized over the life of the contract.   So you get a $10 mill SB on your new 4-year contract,  it’s going to count $2.5 mill each of the 4-years. 
 

That’s my understanding.

 

The two best at this are @Superman and @w87r     They can confirm (or not) my comments and expand on them if need be. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I don’t believe so.   I believe it typically is amortized over the life of the contract.   So you get a $10 mill SB on your new 4-year contract,  it’s going to count $2.5 mill each of the 4-years. 
 

That’s my understanding.

 

The two best at this are @Superman and @w87r     They can confirm (or not) my comments and expand on them if need be. 

 

You nailed it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, cbear said:

So a signing bonus would all count in the first year? 

SBs or dead cap in general can be structured over the life of the contract.

 

Take a look at Wentz's contract, and you'll see is SB was over 2 years, plus he had option bonus, plus some salary guaranteed. All of that is considered dead cap.

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/indianapolis-colts/carson-wentz-18950/

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EastStreet said:

IMO, no need to carry 4 with our utilization. We went 2 TE less than 30% last year, and that counts Burton (who is more a big/bully slot than TE), and was the second TE most of the time.

 

Add in we have WRs that block really really well, and have huge WRs in general now.

 

In short, just no need.

I figured we would be using more two TE sets this year with Wentz, but I guess I was wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zoltan said:

I figured we would be using more two TE sets this year with Wentz, but I guess I was wrong

We might, but ask yourself why a team uses 2 TE sets. Typically it's either blocking, or two get "bigs" in mismatch situations. 

You can do that with WRs if they are good blockers or they are "bigs" themselves.

 

So if you need blocking, does it matter if it's Doyel or Pascal (who is a great blocker). If you're trying to get size mismatches, does it really matter much if it's Doyel at 6-6 or Strachan at 6-5

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, EastStreet said:

We might, but ask yourself why a team uses 2 TE sets. Typically it's either blocking, or two get "bigs" in mismatch situations. 

You can do that with WRs if they are good blockers or they are "bigs" themselves.

 

So if you need blocking, does it matter if it's Doyel or Pascal (who is a great blocker). If you're trying to get size mismatches, does it really matter much if it's Doyel at 6-6 or Strachan at 6-5

Please don’t make Jack Doyle relation to Gregg Doyel   

Cracking Up Lol GIF by Originals

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

We might, but ask yourself why a team uses 2 TE sets. Typically it's either blocking, or two get "bigs" in mismatch situations. 

You can do that with WRs if they are good blockers or they are "bigs" themselves.

 

So if you need blocking, does it matter if it's Doyel or Pascal (who is a great blocker). If you're trying to get size mismatches, does it really matter much if it's Doyel at 6-6 or Strachan at 6-5

I get what you’re  saying but I think it does make a difference depending on your game plan and how you want to manipulate the defense in front of you. When you add the power running and setting up play action passes. I may be wrong and it is totally possible that I am, but I am obviously wrong on what I thought our offense is gonna look like.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, cbear said:

 

I guess that brings me back to my original question. Why not give a bigger signing bonus initially rather than wait till later (like with Kelly). 

If you have the cash, then yes. 

I'm a big fan of front loading contracts, and less guarantees later in the life of contracts.

But when you do that, you can handcuff yourself in the present (doing other things).

2 minutes ago, Zoltan said:

I get what you’re  saying but I think it does make a difference depending on your game plan and how you want to manipulate the defense in front of you. When you add the power running and setting up play action passes. I may be wrong and it is totally possible that I am, but I am obviously wrong on what I thought our offense is gonna look like.  

I think more in terms of actuals, than the labels (TE vs WR). 

For instance, Granson is listed as a TE... But he's less a TE and more bully slot. Strachan and Pittman are probably closer to a prototypical TE than Granson.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I don’t believe so.   I believe it typically is amortized over the life of the contract.   So you get a $10 mill SB on your new 4-year contract,  it’s going to count $2.5 mill each of the 4-years. 
 

That’s my understanding.

 

The two best at this are @Superman and @w87r     They can confirm (or not) my comments and expand on them if need be. 

Yep as Superman said, you nailed it.

 

 

Only thing that I will add is the SB can only be stretched out over a 5yr period.

 

So as an example, Leonard's 5 year extension(6yrs total) has his signing bonus spread over first 5 years. No SB money in year 6 of deal.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, cbear said:

 

I guess that brings me back to my original question. Why not give a bigger signing bonus initially rather than wait till later (like with Kelly). 

I will touch on 2 pts here.

 

As far as SB question. No, signing bonus doesn't all count against first year cap. However, the player does receive all the money up front. It is just spread over length of contract up to 5 years for cap counting purposes.

 

As to original question:

The way Ballard structured that deal was purposeful. I touched on it earlier in a post. It gave the team more flexibility with his contract. It allowed the team to see how his neck healed while keeping future cap ramifications to a minimal.

 

 

Now the time has come, I take it Ballard feels good about the injury so doesn't mind pushing guaranteed money into the future. Even more so with the tight cap has brought eceryone, post Covid season #1, free up some in spending cash.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

If you have the cash, then yes. 

I'm a big fan of front loading contracts, and less guarantees later in the life of contracts.

But when you do that, you can handcuff yourself in the present (doing other things).

I think more in terms of actuals, than the labels (TE vs WR). 

For instance, Granson is listed as a TE... But he's less a TE and more bully slot. Strachan and Pittman are probably closer to a prototypical TE than Granson.

 

So I think I got it. When we Co vett a contract year into a signing bonus, though the player gets all that money now, you can amortize it for the remainder of the contract. So you save cap space now, but it hurts you later. So ideally, you really don't want to do a lot of this restructuring because you are pushing a lot of money down the line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, cbear said:

 

I guess that brings me back to my original question. Why not give a bigger signing bonus initially rather than wait till later (like with Kelly). 

 

It depends on how you want to manage your team's cap. If you use a large signing bonus, you can reduce the cap hits in early years, but it will be higher in later years, because you're backloading salary. It will also result in large cap penalties if a player is cut/traded later on. This is basically borrowing cap space from future years, and it's a very common contract structure in the NFL.

 

The Colts want to keep their cash paid and cap hits fairly close to each other. That prevents large cap penalties in future years, and it allows the team to keep a player's cap hits relatively even over the life of the contract. So as the cap goes up each year, you always have cap space. 

 

Outside of Smith and Leonard, almost every veteran contract the Colts did featured little to no signing bonuses, but still had big cash payments in the first two years, with relatively even cap hits over the life of the contract. Buckner signed a huge deal, and got a lot of money in the first two years, but had no signing bonus. And until Kelly, I can't remember another restructure converting salary to bonus, to create cap space. 

 

I think they'll use a mix of contract structures moving forward, but I don't see a lot of restructures in the future. This was probably a one-off.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, w87r said:

Even more so with the tight cap has brought post Covid season #1, free up some in spending cash.

 

Yeah, that's the other things I didn't mention earlier. No one anticipated the cap going down in 2021. Everyone probably expected it to be around $215m this season, with a big jump in 2022. Then Covid happened.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, cbear said:

 

So I think I got it. When we Co vett a contract year into a signing bonus, though the player gets all that money now, you can amortize it for the remainder of the contract. So you save cap space now, but it hurts you later. So ideally, you really don't want to do a lot of this restructuring because you are pushing a lot of money down the line. 

Yup. But it might not hurt so much later if the cap goes up. 

It's a shell game to be honest. A lot of teams push and push and push money. Sometimes they crash, and have to have roster fire sales, and go into a rebuilding phase.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, cbear said:

 

So I think I got it. When we Co vett a contract year into a signing bonus, though the player gets all that money now, you can amortize it for the remainder of the contract. So you save cap space now, but it hurts you later. So ideally, you really don't want to do a lot of this restructuring because you are pushing a lot of money down the line. 

 

200w.gif?cid=82a1493behl2xzll70v0vaektw9

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, cbear said:

 

So I think I got it. When we Co vett a contract year into a signing bonus, though the player gets all that money now, you can amortize it for the remainder of the contract. So you save cap space now, but it hurts you later. So ideally, you really don't want to do a lot of this restructuring because you are pushing a lot of money down the line. 

Big Brother Ditto GIF by Big Brother After Dark @Superman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, EastStreet said:

Yup. But it might not hurt so much later if the cap goes up. 

It's a shell game to be honest. A lot of teams push and push and push money. Sometimes they crash, and have to have roster fire sales, and go into a rebuilding phase.

 

Yeah, in fact every team that pushes money eventually has to pull back. If you have a good QB, you can still go to the playoffs, but your roster quality takes a dip for a couple years while you cut costs and develop young guys.

 

While I appreciate the disciplined approach, and think it's smart, it has to be coupled with a run of good drafts. But even when you hit at a high rate, the problem is that other teams are willing to push and go for it, adding a bunch of backloaded contracts, knowing that in two or three years they'll have to retool. But there's a cycle, and 15 teams operating that way are in different stages, but every season there's a team like the Pats in 2021 who are willing to backload and add a bunch of FAs in one offseason. Or the Bucs, who have already hit pay dirt, and want to try to keep it going, without really caring about what happens in 2023 because their QB is almost 50, so they'll push money to keep their team together.

 

And in the meantime, the Colts are  just steadily building each year, never have real cap issues, but there's always a more aggressive team that you're competing with.

 

So I wonder if the Colts will ever say 'we're close, we want to make a push this year, and even though it might cost us three years from now we're going to take a shot right now.' I don't expect it to happen, especially not if we aren't fully confident in the QB situation. But if Wentz looks great in 2021, I would say 2022 would be a good opportunity to swing for the fences. Not holding my breath...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Yeah, in fact every team that pushes money eventually has to pull back. If you have a good QB, you can still go to the playoffs, but your roster quality takes a dip for a couple years while you cut costs and develop young guys.

 

While I appreciate the disciplined approach, and think it's smart, it has to be coupled with a run of good drafts. But even when you hit at a high rate, the problem is that other teams are willing to push and go for it, adding a bunch of backloaded contracts, knowing that in two or three years they'll have to retool. But there's a cycle, and 15 teams operating that way are in different stages, but every season there's a team like the Pats in 2021 who are willing to backload and add a bunch of FAs in one offseason. Or the Bucs, who have already hit pay dirt, and want to try to keep it going, without really caring about what happens in 2023 because their QB is almost 50, so they'll push money to keep their team together.

 

And in the meantime, the Colts are  just steadily building each year, never have real cap issues, but there's always a more aggressive team that you're competing with.

 

So I wonder if the Colts will ever say 'we're close, we want to make a push this year, and even though it might cost us three years from now we're going to take a shot right now.' I don't expect it to happen, especially not if we aren't fully confident in the QB situation. But if Wentz looks great in 2021, I would say 2022 would be a good opportunity to swing for the fences. Not holding my breath...

 

Frankly, I think most GMs/Teams try to do the same. Build well through the draft, get a good QB, then once some pieces are in place, they go all-in spending wise. We're in the beginning of phase 2 lol. Hopefully Wentz is the right piece. If he's the real deal, I can see the Colts being less conservative next year, or the year after.

 

To your point about the Bucs, when your peaking, push all the chips in and try to last. You have to pay the piper some day. They'll have to pay when Brady is gone. Haven't looked at their situation, but assume they also have a lot of short term stuff, so maybe it's not all that bad post Brady.

 

Overall, not surprised we started playing a bit of the shell game given the extensions we had hitting us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, richard pallo said:

I think the timing of this restructure signals something is definitely afoot.  No reason to do Q or Hines now.  My best guess is Ertz.  We already did the one trade with them that might have opened the door for conversations to start again.  We claimed that TE and released him right away.  Seems they are looking to upgrade there.  Ertz had a great camp too.  Might have been enough for them to try and get him for Wentz.  We could always restructure Buckner too no? 

They are obviously trading for chachere lol

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

Frankly, I think most GMs/Teams try to do the same. Build well through the draft, get a good QB, then once some pieces are in place, they go all-in spending wise. We're in the beginning of phase 2 lol. Hopefully Wentz is the right piece. If he's the real deal, I can see the Colts being less conservative next year, or the year after.

 

To your point about the Bucs, when your peaking, push all the chips in and try to last. You have to pay the piper some day. They'll have to pay when Brady is gone. Haven't looked at their situation, but assume they also have a lot of short term stuff, so maybe it's not all that bad post Brady.

 

Overall, not surprised we started playing a bit of the shell game given the extensions we had hitting us.

 

The Bucs pushed a lot of money into the future for older players, like Suh (who's 34 and injured), Barrett (28, but had a major outlier season), David (31), Gronk (32, already retired once)... Jensen is a FA, Godwin is on the tag, Evans goes way up in 2022... This is their core, and it's not gonna last long. So not just from a cap standpoint, but also just adding talent. They have a roster that wasn't winning before 2020, and their best players are over the hill and probably have to be replaced soon, if not for talent, then for cap reasons. 

 

And this is not a model franchise. Their GM has some draft hits, but hadn't succeeded in building a good team in seven years. Even their first year with Arians (who I think is a little overrated by some) wasn't impressive. They went all in on Brady, but the idea that they can sustain their standing for a significant period of time isn't something I believe in. Even last year, they were the 6th seed, and got a lot of breaks in the playoffs. None of this matters because they won the SB, but are they a team that can retool on the fly and sustain their success? I'm thinking they're not. 

 

And you're right, a lot of teams push in. Most of them fail. Many of them don't have the QB they think they have (Rams). 

 

I don't really see Ballard as a 'go all in' kind of guy. I think he'll make measured moves, and his big swings are reserved for guys he views as foundational -- Buckner, Wentz, etc. If not for the shrinking cap, I doubt they would have structured the Leonard/Smith deals the way they did. Next offseason might be interesting.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EastStreet said:

IDK. Hines and Pascal are a lot less important to me than LT and RG. RBs are fungible these days, and Pascal might end up being the 4th or 5th WR.

 

Rhodes, or really the potential hole at CB1 is the most important to me on D. Lot's of shuffle at DE could happen.

 

Left tackle I would agree with, RG I am more indifferent with the knowledge of the rest of our line. I much rather find one in the draft (If not Pinter, Fries type on roster) than spend on RG with the knowledge that nonsense, RK, will help him a lot. 

 

Hines, is certainly a bigger piece as the change back as the catch back, I can't remember who, but someone said they are happy they got Hines as they regretted not getting Darren Sproles (or undervaluing him As I think Reich maybe when he was with Chargers.)

 

Pascal, I still hope they can sign him to modest deal due to consistent and hard nose blocker.

 

CB1 and all are going to be interesting.

 

2 hours ago, cbear said:

 

I would have concerns if he's injury prone, but I don't think that's the case with Hines? 

This year in training camp (Preseason) was the first time he has ever missed a practice or a game. Hopefully he can continue to be that guy

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PuntersArePeopleToo said:

 

Left tackle I would agree with, RG I am more indifferent with the knowledge of the rest of our line. I much rather find one in the draft (If not Pinter, Fries type on roster) than spend on RG with the knowledge that nonsense, RK, will help him a lot. 

I'd prefer Pinter develop, but I think he might be destined to be the G/C swing depth guy.

Glow has been fantastic run blocking, which is one of the reasons our right side has been so successful. While RG is likely the least important OL spot, I don't want a downgrade. Glow won't be expensive IMO, so prefer to have him back if possible. I've said for a long time, he's one of the best weak links. I think Reed or Pryor would be the guys to take over if he's not back.

8 minutes ago, PuntersArePeopleToo said:

 

Hines, is certainly a bigger piece as the change back as the catch back, I can't remember who, but someone said they are happy they got Hines as they regretted not getting Darren Sproles (or undervaluing him As I think Reich maybe when he was with Chargers.)

I love Hines. His value was huge in past years. JT being so good at catching the ball last year probably drives Hines' value a bit down. I want to keep him, but not willing to pay a kings ransom. There are a ton of APBs available every year in the mid rounds.

I'd love to see Hines get some time lining up at slot this year. That would increase his value to the team IMO.

8 minutes ago, PuntersArePeopleToo said:

 

Pascal, I still hope they can sign him to modest deal due to consistent and hard nose blocker.

Love him too and want to keep him. Not sure I agree with his market value of 8M though.

8 minutes ago, PuntersArePeopleToo said:

 

CB1 and all are going to be interesting.

 

CB1 is my biggest 2022 worry... I'm really not worried though lol.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The Bucs pushed a lot of money into the future for older players, like Suh (who's 34 and injured), Barrett (28, but had a major outlier season), David (31), Gronk (32, already retired once)... Jensen is a FA, Godwin is on the tag, Evans goes way up in 2022... This is their core, and it's not gonna last long. So not just from a cap standpoint, but also just adding talent. They have a roster that wasn't winning before 2020, and their best players are over the hill and probably have to be replaced soon, if not for talent, then for cap reasons. 

 

And this is not a model franchise. Their GM has some draft hits, but hadn't succeeded in building a good team in seven years. Even their first year with Arians (who I think is a little overrated by some) wasn't impressive. They went all in on Brady, but the idea that they can sustain their standing for a significant period of time isn't something I believe in. Even last year, they were the 6th seed, and got a lot of breaks in the playoffs. None of this matters because they won the SB, but are they a team that can retool on the fly and sustain their success? I'm thinking they're not. 

 

And you're right, a lot of teams push in. Most of them fail. Many of them don't have the QB they think they have (Rams). 

 

I don't really see Ballard as a 'go all in' kind of guy. I think he'll make measured moves, and his big swings are reserved for guys he views as foundational -- Buckner, Wentz, etc. If not for the shrinking cap, I doubt they would have structured the Leonard/Smith deals the way they did. Next offseason might be interesting.

 

I've got mixed feelings on the Bucs. I do think they've had good drafts recently. I remember several articles giving them good grades and regrades. I agree in Arians being overrated. I do like his offensive mind, but I question his constant risk-it biscuit. Brady came in and calmed that down IMO. Good symbiotic relationship IMO. 

 

I'm sure they'll bust in a few years. But honestly, they likely don't care. They will be in SB contention this year and maybe next. I understand they were a 6th seed, but they peaked at the right time. Aside from NO losses, their 3 losses were to KC, LAR, and atCHI, and were by 3 or less points. That's not all that bad when you're breaking in a new QB who came from a very different scheme. Their D will be good again this year too.

 

And perhaps not a model..... but they just won a SB... which is every team's goal.

 

All that said,,,, I hope TB (both Tampa Bay and Tom Brady) crash and burn this year lol....  Can't wait to play them.

 

I'm not saying Ballard will go full tilt like some others, but I can see him being less conservative on some toys if we're really close. Like Ertz for example.. If we were a player away, he'd find a way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Ballard: "You're never one player away."

 

I get your sentiment. Just think it would have to be really obvious that the team is *close* for Ballard to take that approach.

 

Ballardisms are all fun and good, but..... Logically speaking, one player, two players, three players..... there's always some threshold. How that is quantified is a larger debate.

 

Tampa Bay one could say, was one player away..... But yes, there's always multiple things every year that push a team to rise or fall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cbear said:

 

I guess that brings me back to my original question. Why not give a bigger signing bonus initially rather than wait till later (like with Kelly). 


This is more about this year. Doing it at the beginning wouldn’t have had the same impact. But I am guessing they weren’t planning to do this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

I'd prefer Pinter develop, but I think he might be destined to be the G/C swing depth guy.

Glow has been fantastic run blocking, which is one of the reasons our right side has been so successful. While RG is likely the least important OL spot, I don't want a downgrade. Glow won't be expensive IMO, so prefer to have him back if possible. I've said for a long time, he's one of the best weak links. I think Reed or Pryor would be the guys to take over if he's not back.

I love Hines. His value was huge in past years. JT being so good at catching the ball last year probably drives Hines' value a bit down. I want to keep him, but not willing to pay a kings ransom. There are a ton of APBs available every year in the mid rounds.

I'd love to see Hines get some time lining up at slot this year. That would increase his value to the team IMO.

Love him too and want to keep him. Not sure I agree with his market value of 8M though.

CB1 is my biggest 2022 worry... I'm really not worried though lol.. 

Ballard hit the jackpot in FA with Rhodes as CB1.  I can see him doing it again.  I believe there will be a lot of CB’s hitting the market next year.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, richard pallo said:

Ballard hit the jackpot in FA with Rhodes as CB1.  I can see him doing it again.  I believe there will be a lot of CB’s hitting the market next year.

 

Yup. Rhodes I think was a good scheme fit and more or less rejuvenated him. Also, nice moderate price tag.

 

Not sure if I'd expect that to happen a lot though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

It depends on how you want to manage your team's cap. If you use a large signing bonus, you can reduce the cap hits in early years, but it will be higher in later years, because you're backloading salary. It will also result in large cap penalties if a player is cut/traded later on. This is basically borrowing cap space from future years, and it's a very common contract structure in the NFL.

 

The Colts want to keep their cash paid and cap hits fairly close to each other. That prevents large cap penalties in future years, and it allows the team to keep a player's cap hits relatively even over the life of the contract. So as the cap goes up each year, you always have cap space. 

 

Outside of Smith and Leonard, almost every veteran contract the Colts did featured little to no signing bonuses, but still had big cash payments in the first two years, with relatively even cap hits over the life of the contract. Buckner signed a huge deal, and got a lot of money in the first two years, but had no signing bonus. And until Kelly, I can't remember another restructure converting salary to bonus, to create cap space. 

 

I think they'll use a mix of contract structures moving forward, but I don't see a lot of restructures in the future. This was probably a one-off.

 

Do you know the difference between guaranteeing a roster bonus and guaranteeing a salary ? Looking at Buckner's deal , he had 2 roster bonuses. One for 11 million in 2020 and another for 16 million in 2021. Both were guaranteed. I'm curious to know if there would be any difference in just putting that roster bonus into his salary ? For instance .. this year his salary is 1 mill and the roster bonus is 16 million. Maybe it benefits the player as it would somewhat restrict the team's ability to trade him ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

Do you know the difference between guaranteeing a roster bonus and guaranteeing a salary ? Looking at Buckner's deal , he had 2 roster bonuses. One for 11 million in 2020 and another for 16 million in 2021. Both were guaranteed. I'm curious to know if there would be any difference in just putting that roster bonus into his salary ? For instance .. this year his salary is 1 mill and the roster bonus is 16 million. Maybe it benefits the player as it would somewhat restrict the team's ability to trade him ?

Those roster bonuses were essentially a replacement for a big signing bonus.

 

 

Also if that $16m this year was salary, Buckner would have to get that in weekly checks. With the roster bonus he gets it all on a certain date. Benefits the player because he gets his money quicker.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...