Is there really a salary cap? Part 2

[Superman]

 

There was a lot of discussion about this last year. The Rams won the SB, then spent a bunch of money. The response from a lot of people was that the salary cap isn't real, because if the Rams can manipulate the cap rules to keep their core together AND add good players, then what good is the cap? They had a cap figure of about $200m, but spent $284m in cash.

 

Fast forward to today. First, the Rams had an injury plagued season and only won five games. This would usually pay off with a high draft pick; the Rams would have owned the 6th pick, but they traded that pick to the Lions for Matt Stafford (along with their 2022 first rounder, 2021 third rounder, and Jared Goff). 

 

Then, the Rams were projected to be well over the 2023 salary cap, and to be compliant, had to make cost-saving moves. They released Leonard Floyd and Bobby Wagner -- two contributing members from their 2021 SB team. They traded Jalen Ramsey for a third rounder and a ST TE. Today, they're trading Allen Robinson -- one of the high profile players they signed in 2022 -- to the Steelers, swapping 7th round picks, and paying $10m of his $15m salary in 2023. In total, they're paying Robinson $25m over two years, for one year of service, 33 catches, and three TDs. They've easily lost 15 notable contributors from the Super Bowl team. (Sean McVay contemplated walking away because he was not sure he wanted to stick around for a multi-year rebuild.)

 

This season, including their projected draft class signings, their projected cap figure is $214m, and they are $10m under the cap. But their cash spending is only projected around $175m, so far. The discrepancy is because of the dead money from restructures, trades, and releases that they've done over the last two years to manipulate the cap.

 

And the worst part? They only have about 44 players under contract today! That means they still need 9 more active roster players, plus a practice squad. Their starting QB is pretty good when healthy, but he's coming off a weird arm injury at 35 years old, and they don't have a backup QB on the roster. They lost several other starter level players to free agency this year. And they're going to have work to do again in 2024 to field a complete roster while staying under the cap. (So after they restructure Kupp, probably, to get their 2023 roster on the field, they will have pushed some of his cap hit into 2024, when they'll have a similar cap/player problem. How long until Aaron Donald or Matt Stafford are like 'I'm done'?)

 

People mocked Jim Irsay a few weeks ago for offering the Rams as a cautionary tale, because after all, their gambles helped them win the Super Bowl. Their fans -- and most people -- would take this trade without a second thought. But two things need to be acknowledged. (1) Going "all in" does not guarantee a SB; the Rams got VERY lucky in 2021. (2) The current state of the Rams is what "consequences" looks like. They still have some good players, and a good staff. It's possible they can still compete, but they are now a shell of what they were even before they won two years ago, and they're light on draft stock to replenish their roster cheaply. (If they still had #6 this year, they'd be trading back and getting 3-4 players for the price of one.) This is full blown FALLOUT from their very aggressive moves to acquire highly paid players. This is an extreme downside to very aggressive cap management.

 

I would have just bumped the other thread, but it's archived. Just wanted to continue the discussion on this, a year later, when we've seen how things can turn out. 

[chad72]

@Superman how does the Bucs situation compare for going all in on an aging Brady and pushing money to the future? 
 

Compare that to the Bills and Chiefs, is it better to push money to the future with a younger QB with a long enough contract to spread it over? Why aren’t more QBs doing the Mahomes 10 year type deal which seems like a cheat code to gain cap flexibility every year as a well to be dipped into?

 

[Superman]

3 hours ago, chad72 said:

@Superman how does the Bucs situation compare for going all in on an aging Brady and pushing money to the future? 

 

The Bucs are pretty tight this year and next year. They have $74m in dead cap in 2023 ($35m for Brady alone), and right now they're only $3m under the cap, with the draft class accounted for. They're projected to have less than $30m cap space next year, so they'll have some work to do. But they aren't struggling to put together a complete roster. While they did some restructures in 2021, that was mostly because the cap went down for the first time in a decade, out of nowhere. And they lost some players to FA last year.

 

And they didn't trade away a bunch of first rounders, multiple years in a row. So even now, they have some flexibility that the Rams don't have. But 2024 is gonna be rough, they only have 29 players under contract next year.

 

Quote

Compare that to the Bills and Chiefs, is it better to push money to the future with a younger QB with a long enough contract to spread it over? Why aren’t more QBs doing the Mahomes 10 year type deal which seems like a cheat code to gain cap flexibility every year as a well to be dipped into?

 

There's more flexibility with the longer contracts, but the Mahomes/Allen contracts are starting to look like bad deals for the players. The Mahomes contract was always slanted toward the team, and they've done two restructures already. Allen just did his first restructure. 

 

Schefter reported the Hurts contract has relatively low cap hits for the first FOUR years, leaving about $180m to account for in the last two seasons, so it's pretty obvious they'll be doing a restructure by 2027, and that's best case scenario. He could fall apart or seriously regress before then, and there's basically nothing the Eagles can do. And Mahomes will still have FIVE years left on his contract, at a yearly average less than what today's market value is. 

 

And what's going on with the Rams (and Bucs) is only partly about the QBs.

[NewColtsFan]

FWIW:   
 

I have Sirius radio in my car and try to listen to their NFL Channel as I drive around.   I like their mid-day show where their expert is Pat Kirwin, a former NFL exec.   YES, he’s got a Wiki page.  
 

And around the Super Bowl he told this story about Mahomes and the big contract.   Said within 24 hours of the signing he had heard from several agents who said this about the contract that the average fan read as 10/$450m. 
 

That it was way WAY too team friendly.  Lopsidedly so.   That if they had a QB client and tried to get them signed to a similar deal they’d expect to get fired and struggle to ever get a QB client ever again.    The point being a deal like that happens because the team had to sell Mahomes on a vision of what Mahomes would earn,  when there might be a restructure, how that would impact both Mahomes and just as important, the Chiefs.   Mahomes had to be sold the team would pump the money back into the roster giving KC the best possible chance at a long window of opportunity.   
 

I thought it was interesting that within the NFL such a big deal was viewed as team friendly when to fans it looked like a huge win for Mahomes.  

[Superman]

6 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

FWIW:   
 

I have Sirius radio in my car and try to listen to their NFL Channel as I drive around.   I like their mid-day show where their expert is Pat Kirwin, a former NFL exec.   YES, he’s got a Wiki page.  
 

And around the Super Bowl he told this story about Mahomes and the big contract.   Said within 24 hours of the signing he had heard from several agents who said this about the contract that the average fan read as 10/$450m. 
 

That it was way WAY too team friendly.  Lopsidedly so.   That if they had a QB client and tried to get them signed to a similar deal they’d expect to get fired and struggle to ever get a QB client ever again.    The point being a deal like that happens because the team had to sell Mahomes on a vision of what Mahomes would earn,  when there might be a restructure, how that would impact both Mahomes and just as important, the Chiefs.   Mahomes had to be sold the team would pump the money back into the roster giving KC the best possible chance at a long window of opportunity.   
 

I thought it was interesting that within the NFL such a big deal was viewed as team friendly when to fans it looked like a huge win for Mahomes.  

 

Yeah, the Mahomes contract is huge in total value, but there's nothing else about it that seems like a win for Mahomes. Through the first three seasons, he's been paid just under $75m (so an average of $25m/year, at a time when the yearly average for top five QBs is between $45-50m). The staggered guarantees (and restructures) effectively ensure him $207m in the first five years, which is still a discounted rate, during a period in which he has been the league's best QB.

 

And he basically has no leverage, because he's under control through the 2031 season, when he'll be 36. So his entire prime, he's locked into a below market contract. And if the Chiefs refused to renegotiate (or honor whatever wink-wink understanding may have been implied when the contract was initially done), Mahomes would have to either hold out, or threaten to retire, to get them back to the table.

 

For some perspective, before the Colts and Andrew Luck agreed to his big contract, Jim Irsay was talking about how Luck would be paid close to half a billion dollars over the next decade. That was sometime before the 2016 season. Four years later, Mahomes (who already had an MVP and a SB ring) signed for $450m over ten years. Three years later, Mahomes is now the sixth highest paid QB in yearly average, and Lamar Jackson, Justin Herbert, and Joe Burrow are waiting in the wings.

 

So yeah, that contract might be the most team friendly QB contract of all time. Now, if the Chiefs maximize their remaining cap space and continue to win SBs, it might put Mahomes in the conversation for greatest player of all time. I think that's the vision that he'd have to be sold on to agree to this deal. And he'll still make a ton of money along the way, just not quite as much as he probably could.

[DougDew]

I think part of LARams motivation was to leverage excitement around the new stadium too.   Lots of visibility for a new era to set the tone that they are winners.  Maybe it will carry them through the lean years.

[stitches]

On 4/19/2023 at 2:09 AM, Superman said:

 

There was a lot of discussion about this last year. The Rams won the SB, then spent a bunch of money. The response from a lot of people was that the salary cap isn't real, because if the Rams can manipulate the cap rules to keep their core together AND add good players, then what good is the cap? They had a cap figure of about $200m, but spent $284m in cash.

 

Fast forward to today. First, the Rams had an injury plagued season and only won five games. This would usually pay off with a high draft pick; the Rams would have owned the 6th pick, but they traded that pick to the Lions for Matt Stafford (along with their 2022 first rounder, 2021 third rounder, and Jared Goff). 

 

Then, the Rams were projected to be well over the 2023 salary cap, and to be compliant, had to make cost-saving moves. They released Leonard Floyd and Bobby Wagner -- two contributing members from their 2021 SB team. They traded Jalen Ramsey for a third rounder and a ST TE. Today, they're trading Allen Robinson -- one of the high profile players they signed in 2022 -- to the Steelers, swapping 7th round picks, and paying $10m of his $15m salary in 2023. In total, they're paying Robinson $25m over two years, for one year of service, 33 catches, and three TDs. They've easily lost 15 notable contributors from the Super Bowl team. (Sean McVay contemplated walking away because he was not sure he wanted to stick around for a multi-year rebuild.)

 

This season, including their projected draft class signings, their projected cap figure is $214m, and they are $10m under the cap. But their cash spending is only projected around $175m, so far. The discrepancy is because of the dead money from restructures, trades, and releases that they've done over the last two years to manipulate the cap.

 

And the worst part? They only have about 44 players under contract today! That means they still need 9 more active roster players, plus a practice squad. Their starting QB is pretty good when healthy, but he's coming off a weird arm injury at 35 years old, and they don't have a backup QB on the roster. They lost several other starter level players to free agency this year. And they're going to have work to do again in 2024 to field a complete roster while staying under the cap. (So after they restructure Kupp, probably, to get their 2023 roster on the field, they will have pushed some of his cap hit into 2024, when they'll have a similar cap/player problem. How long until Aaron Donald or Matt Stafford are like 'I'm done'?)

 

People mocked Jim Irsay a few weeks ago for offering the Rams as a cautionary tale, because after all, their gambles helped them win the Super Bowl. Their fans -- and most people -- would take this trade without a second thought. But two things need to be acknowledged. (1) Going "all in" does not guarantee a SB; the Rams got VERY lucky in 2021. (2) The current state of the Rams is what "consequences" looks like. They still have some good players, and a good staff. It's possible they can still compete, but they are now a shell of what they were even before they won two years ago, and they're light on draft stock to replenish their roster cheaply. (If they still had #6 this year, they'd be trading back and getting 3-4 players for the price of one.) This is full blown FALLOUT from their very aggressive moves to acquire highly paid players. This is an extreme downside to very aggressive cap management.

 

I would have just bumped the other thread, but it's archived. Just wanted to continue the discussion on this, a year later, when we've seen how things can turn out. 

Great thread and great potential for discussion about what we want and prioritize as fans? And what do we think our owner would prioritize? 

 

I've been thinking about this lately. Do we want consistent long-term contender built sustainably that has lesser chance to win it all in any given year, but has longer uninterrupted window for contention? Or do we want to maximize the chance of winning a SB in a short period of time? I think both of those require a franchise type of QB so that's the first necessary step and requirement no matter what. 

 

IMO both have their positives, but the sustainable model appeals to me as a fan of the team. I think watching your team grow around top tier QB is very appealing. I think developing sort of affection and admiration for a lot of the players on the team and being a witnes of their growth as players over prolonged period of time, makes me root even more for their success. This is a distinct feeling than what I would have for a team built with tons of hired guns, who we pay a lot of resources for and they stay here for a few years until we cannot afford them anymore. I think if you do it well AND if you have THE GUY at QB, you can still be very competitive year in and year out(without having to have years when you have to pay for your sins of overspending). Joe Burrow answered a question earlier this off-season about how he feels about the window for contention the Bengals have right now. He said "my whole career is the window for contention". And I truly believe in that too IF you have the guy! 

 

Now the question is... can you do some version of this where you have a some homegrown talent and in order to maximize the chance of winning you sacrifice a year or two out of every 5 lets say. So... in essence:

1. Get the QB right. Nothing matters if you don't have the QB. The odds are just against you in the long-run. 

2. Build a homegrown foundation around your QB with high quality players.

3. Overspend for outside help for 3 years! 

4. Clean up the "debt" for a year or two... (no contention in those years... this is the Rams now period)

5. Try repeating the process starting from 3. 

 

So in essence if you have your franchise QB for 13-15 years you would go through 3 cycles like this - 2-3 years of super-contention then reset and payment of debts for 1-2 years. Can this be done? Would a franchise QB in his prime be content with this type of arrangement where about 25-30% of the time he won't have a competitive roster but the rest of the years he would have a stacked team. Of course this is a gross simplification of the team-building process and you can't rely on being able to build a contender on a whim, but if it was possible, would this appeal to people? 

 

I still think I kind of prefer the sustainable model over prolonged period of time purely as a fan. I would love to have a team that before even the season starts I know has the chance to be competitive in the post-season... and have this every year. Even if the chance of SB is... lets say 10% any given year while some other team that just spent tons would have 15%. 

 

What do we think Irsay would choose? Seems like he doesn't like the Rams model. 

[stitches]

Oh and on your general question... is there really a salary cap? I guess the answer is - short term - no. Mid-long-term - yes. 

[Nesjan3]

They manipulated the cap in their favor and are now are paying for it. But guess what, nobody who is a Rams fan is complaining. They won a SB. Nearly every successful team in the modern NFL is doing it in some form. Chiefs contract with Mahomes is a perfect example.

[Superman]

15 hours ago, stitches said:

I think watching your team grow around top tier QB is very appealing. I think developing sort of affection and admiration for a lot of the players on the team and being a witnes of their growth as players over prolonged period of time, makes me root even more for their success. This is a distinct feeling than what I would have for a team built with tons of hired guns, who we pay a lot of resources for and they stay here for a few years until we cannot afford them anymore. I think if you do it well AND if you have THE GUY at QB, you can still be very competitive year in and year out(without having to have years when you have to pay for your sins of overspending). Joe Burrow answered a question earlier this off-season about how he feels about the window for contention the Bengals have right now. He said "my whole career is the window for contention". And I truly believe in that too IF you have the guy! 

 

This is a good point. Every fan wants to see their team win. But as a Colts fan for the last couple decades plus, I get a measure of joy out of seeing guys who were around in the early 2000s and beyond being closely associated with the team. Having a Ring of Honor and celebrating that core of players is special, and some of them are even HOFers. I think those memories and the joy and excitement around them are a big part of being a fan.

 

Compare that with fans of the Miami Heat, who enjoyed seeing their team go to the Finals four years in a row, but they probably don't connect with LeBron James and Chris Bosh (maybe?) and Ray Allen and Shaq that strongly. Their guy is Dwayne Wade, and almost everyone else was hired guns. Udonis Haslem is probably more celebrated by Heat fans than LeBron. Or Pats fans who appreciate Kevin Faulk far more than they appreciate Corey Dillon, who was a much better player, but was only there for a short time.

 

So having a team that kind of grows together and has several years of success together, etc., has a different kind of appeal than just throwing a team together that has a short burst of success, even if the short burst results in a Super Bowl. 

 

I think the Eagles are trying to do what you're suggesting -- lock down the QB, and try to extend a short but intense window of contending, with the expectation that you're going to need to retool within a couple years. The Hurts contract apparently has low cap hits in the first four years, then explodes in the last two. They obviously want to keep this core together and try to maximize what they have now, and then they'll restructure what they need to moving forward, but their intention is to support the QB as much as possible. And that's probably what every team should do, once they're confident they have the right QB. 

 

It's just important to acknowledge that the bill always comes due, and I don't think the people who claim the cap isn't real actually pay attention to what these teams wind up doing to settle the bill. The Rams are a pretty extreme example right now. The Bucs also, and I think they kind of fly under the radar because of all the other changes they've made -- new coach, QB retired, other short term players are gone -- but they're pretty severely restricted this season also, which is why Baker Mayfield and Kyle Trask are their QBs right now, while they have a $35m cap penalty for Tom Brady.

[stitches]

Yeah, the Rams are a complete outlier in this regard. Just... look at their defensive depth chart...

 

LDE - Jonah Williams, Marquise Copeland, Earnest Brown IV, Zack Van Valkenburg

DT - Bobby Brown III

RDE - Aaron Donald, Larrell Murchison

WLB - Keir Thomas, Daniel Hardy

LILB - Ernest Jones 

RILB Christian Rozenboom, Jake Hummel 

SLB Michael Hoecht

LCB Robert Rochell, Shaun Jolly

SS Jordan Fuller Quentin Lake

FS Russ Yeast, Richard LeCounte III

RCB Cobie Durant, Derion Kendrick... 

 

This is an abomination! How many of those have you even heard the names of? Podcasts I listen to play a game where they list a bunch of Rams defenders and sneak in a couple of fake names and you have to guess who are the made up names. 

[Superman]

48 minutes ago, stitches said:

Yeah, the Rams are a complete outlier in this regard. Just... look at their defensive depth chart...

 

LDE - Jonah Williams, Marquise Copeland, Earnest Brown IV, Zack Van Valkenburg

DT - Bobby Brown III

RDE - Aaron Donald, Larrell Murchison

WLB - Keir Thomas, Daniel Hardy

LILB - Ernest Jones 

RILB Christian Rozenboom, Jake Hummel 

SLB Michael Hoecht

LCB Robert Rochell, Shaun Jolly

SS Jordan Fuller Quentin Lake

FS Russ Yeast, Richard LeCounte III

RCB Cobie Durant, Derion Kendrick... 

 

This is an abomination! How many of those have you even heard the names of? Podcasts I listen to play a game where they list a bunch of Rams defenders and sneak in a couple of fake names and you have to guess who are the made up names. 

 

It's like Aaron Donald and the cast of Jersey Boys.

[sb41champs]

Yes - there really IS a salary cap Virginia!!

 

Teams who push lots of money to the future will eventually end up in "salary cap hell".

 

Tampa Bay won their Super Bowl and will be paying for it for a couple of years.

 

LA Rams won their Super Bowl and will be paying for it for a couple of years.

 

The salary cap comes with rules and regulations and the teams that are able to successfully navigate the salary cap can maintain competitiveness for years.

 

Those who spend big - fail to remember that - eventually - the bill will come due.  

 

Kind of like Congress.....

[smittywerb]

There is a salary cap, the thing is the owners have figured out how to get past it, and the players play a big part in helping with that.

 

what they are doing is making “false money”.  They’re essentially signing these players for huge contracts, pushing “money” down the line, and giving the players big signing bonuses/guarantees to make up for it.

 

so for example, player a signs a 5 year $100 million contract.  At first, it looks like the player is getting $20mill/yr.  But when the details drop, the player gets $50 mill guaranteed and a $10 mill signing bonus.  So really it’s a 5 year $50 mill contract.  The contract is then designed to where that player will most likely get majority of that money in the first 2 years.  Then, said player gets released.  So all in all, the team probably paid that player $60–$70 mill out of the $100 mill

 

as others have said, this works in the short term but in the long term it eventually catches up because that “false money” doesn’t come off the books.  So teams like the rams and bucs are now seeing the results of this.  Not sure how the eagles are making it happen but now that hurts got his contract we will see if they follow suit.

[gspdx]

On 4/20/2023 at 7:59 AM, Nesjan3 said:

They manipulated the cap in their favor and are now are paying for it. But guess what, nobody who is a Rams fan is complaining. They won a SB. Nearly every successful team in the modern NFL is doing it in some form. Chiefs contract with Mahomes is a perfect example.

 

Maybe they aren't complaining now, but they might if the clean up takes too long.  If they can bounce back and be competitive again soon I bet they wouldn't complain.  

 

We will see.

[Nesjan3]

8 hours ago, gspdx said:

 

Maybe they aren't complaining now, but they might if the clean up takes too long.  If they can bounce back and be competitive again soon I bet they wouldn't complain.  

 

We will see.

They may because of entitlement, lack of patience, and the need to have everything right now in the newer generations of people. They definitely shouldn't though. Its incredibly hard to win championships in sports. So many NFL teams have never won a superbowl. Many more havent won one in the last 30 years. I cheer for the 3 teams. Colts football, Bluejays baseball and Oilers hockey. Ive seen one championship in my life that was won on the back of an all time great who should have had 3 or 4. I might not see another the rest of my life between 3 teams. People really should be happy they won a superbowl no matter how long it takes to recover. 

[Superman]

On 5/8/2023 at 3:25 AM, smittywerb said:

as others have said, this works in the short term but in the long term it eventually catches up because that “false money” doesn’t come off the books.

 

Terms like "false money" kind of perpetuate the myth that the salary cap isn't real. It's not false; the money is actually paid, and it eventually counts against the team's cap.
 

Quote

 

Not sure how the eagles are making it happen but now that hurts got his contract we will see if they follow suit.

 

 

The Eagles have drafted really well, multiple years in a row, and they have most of their core locked up. However, they're projected about $5m under the cap in 2024, so things will start getting tight. No doubt they'll start moving on from some of their older core in a year or two.

 

And the way they structured Hurts contract helps them keep his cap hits low for now, but it will start to catch up with them. They used staggered option bonuses in the later years of the contract, basically creating up to four voided years after the final year of the contract in 2028. So a lot of the bonus money he's scheduled to be paid will not hit the cap during the life of the contract. 

 

But assume he's a top tier QB when he's 30 and entering a contract season, then they'll have to stack a new contract with new bonuses on top of the prorated bonuses from the voided years. Their expectation is that the cap will be nearly $300m by then, and they'll kick the can again.

[4daUColts]

if mahomes is making so much less then other top tier qbs..  isn't that manipulating the cap? 

 

If I remember right tom Brady did the same thing during his time with the patriots.

 

 open question, because I don't understand caps very well.

 

 

[GoColts8818]

24 minutes ago, 4daUColts said:

if mahomes is making so much less then other top tier qbs..  isn't that manipulating the cap? 

 

If I remember right tom Brady did the same thing during his time with the patriots.

 

 open question, because I don't understand caps very well.

 

 

I remember when he signed his contract people said in a couple of years Mahomes deal would look like bargain.  

[VikingsFanInChennai]

16 hours ago, 4daUColts said:

if mahomes is making so much less then other top tier qbs..  isn't that manipulating the cap? 

 

If I remember right tom Brady did the same thing during his time with the patriots.

 

 open question, because I don't understand caps very well.

 

 

Mahomes isn't getting so much less, he's getting a tad less... Key is that someone like Lamar or Hurts might not play all of the next 10 years and even if they do, they may not be among the elite QBs all the time, While Mahomes seems to have figured out playing a lot with fewer injuries, and what more.. he's proven to win Super Bowls often so far. 

 

It's not manipulating the cap if QBs like Mahomes or Brady don't want to get paid exorbitant amount and they allow their contract to be structured in ways to allow build a strong contending roster around them. It's just team friendly, nothing wrong with that. Actually it's good to see players like that in any age. 

 

16 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

I remember when he signed his contract people said in a couple of years Mahomes deal would look like bargain.  

I think it's a bargain because team can move the cap around 10 year span and after 5 years of its duration, it would not really look like a costly contract at all. 

[Myles]

Not a bad deal for Maholmes.  If the team stays good, his endorsement deals will fill the gap. 

[Superman]

On 6/3/2023 at 11:37 AM, VikingsFanInChennai said:

Mahomes isn't getting so much less, he's getting a tad less...

 

He's getting a lot less.

 

Mahomes signed his contract prior to the 2020 season, and through the 2023 season, he will have been paid $106m, per Spotrac. And that includes $2.5m in bonuses in 2022, for MVP and AFCCG. Average of $26.5m paid per season.

 

Lamar's signing bonus is $72.5m, and his base salary in 2023 is $7.5, so he's making $80m in Year 1 of his deal, $25m more than Mahomes will make through the first four years of his contract. His first four years, he's scheduled to make $208m, and it's effectively guaranteed. Average of $52m paid per season.

 

Hurts' signing bonus is $23.3m, but he has effectively guaranteed option bonuses in each of the next three seasons, for a total of $129.5m. Plus his signing bonus and salaries, he'll be over $157m in the first four years of his contract. Average of $39.25m paid per season.

 

So through the first four years, Jackson is making double what Mahomes has made, and Hurts is making about 150%, in total cash. The difference in their yearly salaries is only about 15%, so this is not just about the market moving. It's about the incredibly team friendly structure of Mahomes' contract. Hurts' contract is team friendly, and it's not touching Mahomes' deal.

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs/patrick-mahomes-21751/

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/baltimore-ravens/lamar-jackson-25127/

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/philadelphia-eagles/jalen-hurts-47648/

[Superman]

On 6/2/2023 at 6:35 PM, 4daUColts said:

if mahomes is making so much less then other top tier qbs..  isn't that manipulating the cap? 

 

If I remember right tom Brady did the same thing during his time with the patriots.

 

 open question, because I don't understand caps very well.

 

Unless they're paying him on the side, which would be a major violation of the CBA, it's not manipulating the cap. It's just a player agreeing to a smaller/more team friendly contract than most other players at his position, and that's not against the rules.

[w87r]

43 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

He's getting a lot less.

 

Mahomes signed his contract prior to the 2020 season, and through the 2023 season, he will have been paid $106m, per Spotrac. And that includes $2.5m in bonuses in 2022, for MVP and AFCCG. Average of $26.5m paid per season.

 

Lamar's signing bonus is $72.5m, and his base salary in 2023 is $7.5, so he's making $80m in Year 1 of his deal, $25m more than Mahomes will make through the first four years of his contract. His first four years, he's scheduled to make $208m, and it's effectively guaranteed. Average of $52m paid per season.

 

Hurts' signing bonus is $23.3m, but he has effectively guaranteed option bonuses in each of the next three seasons, for a total of $129.5m. Plus his signing bonus and salaries, he'll be over $157m in the first four years of his contract. Average of $39.25m paid per season.

 

So through the first four years, Jackson is making double what Mahomes has made, and Hurts is making about 150%, in total cash. The difference in their yearly salaries is only about 15%, so this is not just about the market moving. It's about the incredibly team friendly structure of Mahomes' contract. Hurts' contract is team friendly, and it's not touching Mahomes' deal.

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs/patrick-mahomes-21751/

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/baltimore-ravens/lamar-jackson-25127/

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/philadelphia-eagles/jalen-hurts-47648/

All true

 

Only thing I will say is, it's hard to compare a contract signed 4yrs ago to a contract signed now. I understand the exercise, but a tough comparison.

 

He set the market then, and it's only increased since then. He has made substantially more over the last 3 years than Jackson and Hurts. $19m more per year($67m over span) than Jackson, and $25m more per year($75m over span) than Hurts. Rough estimate.

 

 

Really just think its tough to compare Mahomes last 3yrs + this year, to Jackson and Hurts next 3 years + this year)

 

Now over the next 3 years + this year(23-26), Mahomes is at $38,200,000 a year in new cash.

 

So not very far behind Hurts $39.25m($1.05m more/yr) but a good chunk still behind Jackson $52m($13.8 more/yr) over those 4 years. 

 

Just think that is the more appropriate comparison.

 

 

Mahomes deal was/is pretty team friendly though, no doubt.

 

Will be interesting to see what happens with a potential new reworked deal for him? Could increase his next 4 substantially, depending how it's worked, if it is.

 

 

Lamar Jackson got himself a pretty good deal for having no agent. Team might regret it in the future.

 

 

Nice work on the number breakdowns.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, w87r said:

Really just think its tough to compare Mahomes last 3yrs + this year, to Jackson and Hurts next 3 years + this year)

 

Now over the next 3 years + this year(23-26), Mahomes is at $38,200,000 a year in new cash.

 

So not very far behind Hurts $39.25m($1.05m more/yr) but a good chunk still behind Jackson $52m($13.8 more/yr) over those 4 years. 

 

Just think that is the more appropriate comparison.

 

Let me ask you this: When do we ever see a top five QB sign a contract that pays him cash that averages 59% of his total contract yearly average? Four years in, Mahomes is averaging $26.5m/year in total cash, and his yearly average is supposed to be $45m. 

 

Jackson's yearly average is $52m, and he's scheduled to make cash of $208m in the first four years, which equals $52m/year. Hurts' yearly average is $51m, and he's scheduled to make a yearly average of $39.25m, which is 77% -- which is very team friendly in terms of overall structure, at least for now. Mahomes' yearly cash is coming up way short, and it makes his contract an extreme outlier. And that's before Jackson or Hurts get restructures in two or three years, which will pump up their four year cash even more (half of Jackson's 2026 base goes guaranteed in 2025, and his 2026 cap hit is $74.5m, so an adjustment is just a matter of time).

 

And we're not talking about a guy who still has question marks or is under development. This is not Kyler Murray. By 2020, Mahomes had an MVP, a SB, and was easily the best young QB in the NFL. He was better and more accomplished than either of Jackson or Hurts is right now. Also, my assumption when he signed the contract was that, within a year or two, they'd restructure in a way that would pump up his cash; they have not. And both sides recently expressed that they don't have plans for renegotiations any time soon. And that's fine, if he's happy then I don't care. But again, extreme outlier here.

 

Just don't want people to look at the yearly average and say 'Mahomes is only slightly behind these guys,' because there's more to the story.

 

Quote

Nice work on the number breakdowns.

 

Spotrac makes it easy. 

[w87r]

46 minutes ago, Superman said:

Let me ask you this: When do we ever see a top five QB sign a contract that pays him cash that averages 59% of his total contract yearly average? Four years in, Mahomes is averaging $26.5m/year in total cash, and his yearly average is supposed to be $45m

Yes, this definitely seems extreme, I think the comparison on these % only really can be looked at between Mahomes and Hurts(18% difference) as both of those guys had the last year of their rookie contracts included, when they signed extension, and that drags down the overall percentage quite a bit 

 

Jackson was starting from a base of a franchise tag, so naturally his % will be higher.

46 minutes ago, Superman said:

And that's before Jackson or Hurts get restructures in two or three years, which will pump up their four year cash even more (half of Jackson's 2026 base goes guaranteed in 2025, and his 2026 cap hit is $74.5m, so an adjustment is just a matter of time

I don't see Hurts restructuring in first 4 years as his base salary is league minimum over that time. Nothing to restructure.

 

Jackson, I think come year 4, that is when he will restructure, imo. He may to save a little money in year 2 or 3, but that wouldn't increase his money in first 4 years. Would still be getting that money anyway, just sending some cap hits to later years. Pretty much the same with year 4, agree though. 2026 something will need to be done with that cap hit.

 

46 minutes ago, Superman said:

Also, my assumption when he signed the contract was that, within a year or two, they'd restructure in a way that would pump up his cash; they have not. And both sides recently expressed that they don't have plans for renegotiations any time soon. And that's fine, if he's happy then I don't care. But again, extreme outlier here.

That was my thoughts as well, and still might be in the cards? Maybe not this year, although I thought there was some talk of it, but Mahomes doesn't want to cripple the teams cap, so he may just roll with it? Maybe just ask for more guarantees?

 

46 minutes ago, Superman said:

Spotrac makes it easy.

Still some number crunching to do though.

[Superman]

16 minutes ago, w87r said:

Yes, this definitely seems extreme, I think the comparison on these % only really can be looked at between Mahomes and Hurts(18% difference) as both of those guys had the last year of their rookie contracts when they signed extension, and that drags down the overall percentage quite a bit 

 

Jackson was starting from a base of a franchise tag, so naturally his % will be higher.

 

Speaking of Mahomes, he had the standing to command a buy out of his 5th year option, and two tag years, to get his early cash to match or come close to what he would be paid if they didn't work out a contract. He wound up making about half of what he could have, right? This is about more than just the tag base. His contract is a huge favor to the Chiefs.

 

Quote

 

I don't see Hurts restructuring in first 4 years as his base salary is league minimum over that time. Nothing to restructure.

 

Jackson, I think come year 4, that is when he will restructure, imo. He may to save a little money in year 2 or 3, but that wouldn't increase his money in first 4 years. Would still be getting that money anyway, just sending some cap hits to later years. Pretty much the same with year 4, agree though. 2026 something will need to be done with that cap hit.

 

 

You're probably spot on about Hurts, I think I was looking at his option bonuses as roster bonuses. So there's probably nothing to restructure for him. Jackson seems like an inevitability, by 2026 at the latest, and by then he'll have made $156m. Still far outpacing Mahomes.

 

Quote

 

That was my thoughts as well, and still might be in the cards? Maybe not this year, although I thought there was some talk of it, but Mahomes doesn't want to cripple the teams cap, so he may just roll with it? Maybe just ask for more guarantees?

 

 

He already has rolling guarantees, there's not much he can ask for without basically ripping up the remaining years and getting more money. And it seems like he's fine with how things are going, which, good for him. He's taking down $40m in cash this year, he's probably the preseason favorite for MVP, and the Chiefs are currently favored in SB odds. I think he might be eyeing bigger things than earnings, and he has a reasonable shot to get where he wants to go.

[w87r]

27 minutes ago, Superman said:

Speaking of Mahomes, he had the standing to command a buy out of his 5th year option, and two tag years, to get his early cash to match or come close to what he would be paid if they didn't work out a contract. He wound up making about half of what he could have, right? This is about more than just the tag base. His contract is a huge favor to the Chiefs.

Just cause, why not. Going in blind as I go here, just want to find the answer. Lol

 

I enjoy going over these things with you.

 

2021 5th year option - $23,016,000

2022 tag - $29,703,000

2023 tag - $32,416,000

 

$85,135,000 + $3,346,508(2020 cap hit*) = $88,481,508(All guaranteed with this option)

 

Vs

 

$88,276,651(what he was paid in those 4 years) + $2,000,000 extra on the SB = $90,276,651($141,481,905 guaranteed)

 

 

*2020 cap hit might be a little higher if there was a workout or roster bonus that I can't see at the moment 

 

 

so all in all, yes he did do  the team a favor with his contract, but he also got $53 extra guaranteed at the time(granted that was past those 4 years), which definitely helped him, while actually bringing in a potential $2m more than 5th year, tag, tag option.

 

 

will also notate that the tags could of potentially been higher, if it was exclusive, but can't find those numbers, or lower because the market wasn't reset yet, if he didn't sign deal.

[w87r]

Did have 1 flaw in my post.(probably more)

 

2023 tag would of been 120%, so

 

$35,643,600

 

Instead of

 

$32,416,000

 

So yeah he made a little bit less, but took the extra guaranteed money.

[Superman]

33 minutes ago, w87r said:

Just cause, why not. Going in blind as I go here, just want to find the answer. Lol

 

I enjoy going over these things with you.

 

2021 5th year option - $23,016,000

2022 tag - $29,703,000

2023 tag - $32,416,000

 

$85,135,000 + $3,346,508(2020 cap hit*) = $88,481,508(All guaranteed with this option)

 

Vs

 

$88,276,651(what he was paid in those 4 years) + $2,000,000 extra on the SB = $90,276,651($141,481,905 guaranteed)

 

 

*2020 cap hit might be a little higher if there was a workout or roster bonus that I can't see at the moment 

 

 

so all in all, yes he did do  the team a favor with his contract, but he also got $53 extra guaranteed at the time(granted that was past those 4 years), which definitely helped him, while actually bringing in a potential $2m more than 5th year, tag, tag option.

 

 

will also notate that the tags could of potentially been higher, if it was exclusive, but can't find those numbers, or lower because the market wasn't reset yet, if he didn't sign deal.

 

You already caught the 120% adjustment, that's the only thing I was going to mention. I assumed the number would have been more like $100m total, but QB salaries have really jumped up since 2020 -- Rodgers, Wilson, Watson, etc. 

 

Still, I think he could have easily commanded $100m in the first three years, if he wanted. And that's still a bargain for the Chiefs, compared to what other QBs since him have gotten. Kyler Murray signed after Year 3, and got $108m cash flow through three years, compared to Mahomes $65m. 

[w87r]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You already caught the 120% adjustment, that's the only thing I was going to mention. I assumed the number would have been more like $100m total, but QB salaries have really jumped up since 2020 -- Rodgers, Wilson, Watson, etc. 

 

Still, I think he could have easily commanded $100m in the first three years, if he wanted. And that's still a bargain for the Chiefs, compared to what other QBs since him have gotten. Kyler Murray signed after Year 3, and got $108m cash flow through three years, compared to Mahomes $65m. 

And it very well could've(reached $100m)with an exclusive tag(s).

 

Although, probably no reason to exclusive tag him, just match the offer whatever it was. Wonder what those deals would've looked like?

[VikingsFanInChennai]

9 hours ago, Superman said:

 

He's getting a lot less.

 

Mahomes signed his contract prior to the 2020 season, and through the 2023 season, he will have been paid $106m, per Spotrac. And that includes $2.5m in bonuses in 2022, for MVP and AFCCG. Average of $26.5m paid per season.

 

Lamar's signing bonus is $72.5m, and his base salary in 2023 is $7.5, so he's making $80m in Year 1 of his deal, $25m more than Mahomes will make through the first four years of his contract. His first four years, he's scheduled to make $208m, and it's effectively guaranteed. Average of $52m paid per season.

 

Hurts' signing bonus is $23.3m, but he has effectively guaranteed option bonuses in each of the next three seasons, for a total of $129.5m. Plus his signing bonus and salaries, he'll be over $157m in the first four years of his contract. Average of $39.25m paid per season.

 

So through the first four years, Jackson is making double what Mahomes has made, and Hurts is making about 150%, in total cash. The difference in their yearly salaries is only about 15%, so this is not just about the market moving. It's about the incredibly team friendly structure of Mahomes' contract. Hurts' contract is team friendly, and it's not touching Mahomes' deal.

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs/patrick-mahomes-21751/

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/baltimore-ravens/lamar-jackson-25127/

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/philadelphia-eagles/jalen-hurts-47648/

Yeah, Chiefs seem to have lots of bonuses in the contract until 2031, the kind of contract and structure other teams wouldn't be willing to bet on most QBs, especially mobile QBs like Jackson or Hurts. Mahomes did allow Chiefs to have a team-friendly contract structure, which could be further adjusted as their journey together goes. His cap hit on the team gets up there with other top paid QBs though, and most of the light cap hit years are done.

[stitches]

Thought you guys might like this one:

 

@Superman

 

[Superman]

7 hours ago, stitches said:

Thought you guys might like this one:

 

@Superman

 

 

Yeah that was good stuff. He mentioned the Rams depth chart also.

 

He shared some insights I found interesting: the salary cap gets all the publicity but owner budgets are just as important; sometimes the delay for player contracts is about language and structure, not value; when players are "insulted" by low ball offers, it's usually justified; when teams decide to cut/trade a player, it's not always about cap space, it's more often about their view of the player's value to their team... 

 

Nothing ground breaking... the part about language and structure stood out though, because I often wonder why contracts tend to take until the last minute. It's apparently about prioritizing the minutia and reaching agreement on some of those details, payment dates, guarantee dates, etc.