Question about Guaranteed Contracts....

[NewColtsFan]

So, Luck has a fully guaranteed contract.

So does RG3. So does Cam Newton. And last year's number two, Von MIller of Denver.

Otherwise, I don't find any other so-called fully guaranteed contracts. Not saying there aren't more, I just haven't found any.

So, the question becomes, is there now new language in the new CBA about who can or can't get it?

If not, is it just up to the team and the player in negotiations to decide this?

Can any first round pick get a fully guaranteed deal? Can a non-first round pick?

Just asking here and hoping someone might now...

My thanks in advance for your thoughts...

[dw49]

So, Luck has a fully guaranteed contract.

So does RG3. So does Cam Newton. And last year's number two, Von MIller of Denver.

Otherwise, I don't find any other so-called fully guaranteed contracts. Not saying there aren't more, I just haven't found any.

So, the question becomes, is there now new language in the new CBA about who can or can't get it?

If not, is it just up to the team and the player in negotiations to decide this?

Can any first round pick get a fully guaranteed deal? Can a non-first round pick?

Just asking here and hoping someone might now...

My thanks in advance for your thoughts...

It's between the team and the agent. I'm sure the CBA agreement would not dictate who can , must or can't have a guaranteed contract

[Smonroe]

It's between the team and the agent. I'm sure the CBA agreement would not dictate who can , must or can't have a guaranteed contract

I believe you're correct. The CBA is available for review, I remember looking through it during the Manning decision but don't remember seeing any restrictions on guaranteed money. I'm sure everyone wants it, but few get it.

[Superman]

My understanding is that any guaranteed money is fully negotiable, both for rookies and veteran players. In the case of rookies, precedent had been set before the new CBA to provide pretty sizable guarantees for top draft picks. The most notable case of this is Sam Bradford's $50 million guaranteed, which was a record for any NFL player, not just rookies.

The new CBA limited the length and total value of rookie contracts, depending on draft position. It didn't determine how much could be guaranteed. But with the total value of the contracts at the top of the draft being about one third of what they had gotten to be (Bradford signed for $76 million -- plus $10 million in incentives; Luck's contract is $22 million), and less than half of what the guaranteed money had been, there didn't stand to be very much argument against fully guaranteeing these contracts for top draftees. The new CBA drastically lessened the risk for the team, even with fully guaranteed contracts for rookies.

However, there's a breakpoint that was established last year for first rounders, and this is what held up Anthony Castonzo's contract. Teams weren't fully guaranteeing the fourth year for players selected in the second half of the first round; Nate Solder, picked #17, is only 50% guaranteed in Year 4. However, Adrian Clayborn, selected #20, is fully guaranteed in Year 4. So while the precedents were set for the most part, they're still kind of blurry. For instance, this year's 20th pick, Kendall Wright, is still unsigned, probably because of a disagreement over the guarantee of Year 4's salary. I'm curious how that one will be resolved. Shea McClellin, this year's 19th pick, is only partially guaranteed in Year 4. The Bucs folded on Clayborn last year, but I don't know that Titans are going to fold on Wright. Maybe they do now that Kenny Britt has picked up a DUI.

As it pertains to veteran contracts, I'm not aware of any significant long-term contract that is fully guaranteed. Even Drew Brees' contract, reported to include an NFL record $60 million guaranteed, is not $60 million guaranteed. If the Saints cut him before Week 1, it's $37 million guaranteed. It's not likely that he'll be cut before Year 4, so they report the contract as guaranteed for $60 million, but by that rationale, he's not likely to ever be cut, so we can call it guaranteed for $100 million if we want. When it comes to actual guaranteed money, it's $37 million.

That doesn't mean there's any restriction on guaranteed money; I don't believe there is. And I think the fully guaranteed rookie contracts are going to have an impact on the amount of guaranteed money for veteran free agents. Not really meaningful for the top level free agents, who are going to get big guaranteed money anyways. Nor is it relevant to the lower level free agents who get short-term, low money contracts with small signing bonuses (Tom Zbikowski got three years, $5.5 million, $1 million signing bonus). But for those mid to upper tier players, I think the percentage of guaranteed money is rising and will continue to do so.

[FireJimCaldwell]

As others have said, it is between the team and the player/agent. I believe the majority if not all of last season's top 10 draft picks received 4 year fully guaranteed deals.

I have seen reports that the contract Irsay was wanting to give Manning last year was 5 years 100 million with all of it guaranteed. Personally, I wish Manning would have signed it, but Manning insisted on giving the Colts the option bonus out clause in case his health didn't return.

Agents/Players want as high of a % as they can get of a contract guaranteed.

The NBA & MLB offer guaranteed contracts and I feel that is the direction the NFL is headed. It's dangerous territory and unless they incorporate some form of Lloyd's of London insurance on such deals you will see a lot of players getting paid for services that they aren't providing.

It would be expensive but the player/team should split the premiums on such policies and if and when a player is forced to retire due to an injury, he would still be paid and the team should be able to recover that salary cap space, but you would still have issues come up. Using Peyton as an example. Irsay clearly wanted him to retire, and if that 5/100 contract was fully guaranteed and had an insurance policy backing it, maybe he would have, but there could easily be a dispute between player/team on whether or not he can/should play. Of course you would have the opposite occur of where a player gets an injury and wishes to retire and collect full payment from the policy.

The future of NFL contracts will be interesting to say the least.

[dw49]

I'm reading that Tannyhill and the Fins are in a real stalemate over this. According to reports , both sides are digging in pretty deep.

[Superman]

I'm reading that Tannyhill and the Fins are in a real stalemate over this. According to reports , both sides are digging in pretty deep.

Anything Tannehill does that keeps him out of camp is a mistake. Could cost him the starting job at the beginning of the year.

[NewColtsFan]

I'm reading that Tannyhill and the Fins are in a real stalemate over this. According to reports , both sides are digging in pretty deep.

I'm also beginning to wonder if the Fins playing hardball on this is a sign they think the guy could flame out. Otherwise, why be difficult with your future 'franchise' QB you have so much invested in??

Doesn't make sense to me. If you believe in him, the off-set doesn't matter. But if you don't............

Hey, I'm just sayin....

[Superman]

I'm also beginning to wonder if the Fins playing hardball on this is a sign they think the guy could flame out. Otherwise, why be difficult with your future 'franchise' QB you have so much invested in??

Doesn't make sense to me. If you believe in him, the off-set doesn't matter. But if you don't............

Hey, I'm just sayin....

The flip side of that coin is that, if the player believes in himself, the off-set doesn't matter. If Ryan Tannehill is released from the Dolphins before Year 4, that means he's not very good.

[dw49]

I think the Dolphins probably feel he is a bit of a gamble as he's only played he position a little more than a year. I think Tannyhill was drafted in that spot more on potential than anything else. Thus they have a pretty good case for the off set language. Also the other two guys were drafted one and two.

[Superman]

I think the Dolphins probably feel he is a bit of a gamble as he's only played he position a little more than a year. I think Tannyhill was drafted in that spot more on potential than anything else. Thus they have a pretty good case for the off set language. Also the other two guys were drafted one and two.

They really don't have any case for the off-set language, as the precedent has been clearly set. It's not really relevant how concerned the team is about the player's long-term future; that concern should have prevented them from drafting him 8th. Now that they decided that he was worthy of that draft position, they are going to have to compensate him accordingly. I'd be shocked if his contract includes off-set language.

[dw49]

They really don't have any case for the off-set language, as the precedent has been clearly set. It's not really relevant how concerned the team is about the player's long-term future; that concern should have prevented them from drafting him 8th. Now that they decided that he was worthy of that draft position, they are going to have to compensate him accordingly. I'd be shocked if his contract includes off-set language.

I did some research and found the Locker's contract last year was fuly guaranteed. So you are right . He was the 8th pick in last year's draft . Is that the precedent you were speaking of ... cause it means a whole lot more then the Luck and Griffin deals.

[FireJimCaldwell]

I did some research and found the Locker's contract last year was fuly guaranteed. So you are right . He was the 8th pick in last year's draft . Is that the precedent you were speaking of ... cause it means a whole lot more then the Luck and Griffin deals.

I'm fairly certain that none of the contracts last year contained offset language. I"m also fairly certain that each of the contracts for the top 10 are fully guaranteed for the 4 years.

Based on the fully guaranteed contract players are going to be paid for 4 years whether they exceed their projected levels, or fail to meet those expectations.

Using Locker as example, if he unexpectedly starts to struggle. The Titans are likely going to keep him even if he was atrocious because they are on the hook for his contract since it is fully guaranteed. If it contained offset language and They felt the need to release him after this year and say his hometown team of Seattle came calling and wanted to sign him to a 3 year deal at the minimum with a 1,000,000 signing bonus. Here is how that would look.

Part 2 continued.

[FireJimCaldwell]

Part 2

The Titans would like to pay as little as possible for a player no longer on their roster.

So the offset language is a key tool for the team to attempt to save some money if the prospect doesn't work out.

I don't anticipate Locker struggling, but wanted to use a top 10 pick as an example.

Using Robert Mathis as an example.

His contract isn't fully guaranteed.

To my knowledge he doesn't have any guarantees built in to the contract so if the 3-4 doesn't treat him well, then Colts could escape the contract with only the acceleration of the signing bonus dollars that have already been paid, but let's say have yet to be counted for accounting purposes.

If that contract was full guaranteed then obviously there are issues if he isn't up to par in the 3-4.

While Mathis' contract is nothing to sneeze at, it doesn't begin to approach the 5 year 100 million dollar contract that Drew Brees just signed.

[Superman]

The NBA has buy-outs for contracts. The money still hits the cap the same way, but a team can buy-out a contract for a player for less than the remaining due, and the player becomes a free agent. Could these fully guaranteed rookie contracts give way to potential buy-outs later in the contract? For instance, Locker struggles this season, the Titans bury him on the depth chart and draft another quarterback in the first round. He would rather go somewhere else than rot on the bench, and they would rather not pay him the remaining $3.6 million he's due. So they work out a buy-out for $1.8 million, Locker is released, the Titans are free of the contract (but still have pro-rated bonus on the cap like normal).

The lack of off-set language in these contracts probably means nothing like this happens, but if the player was motivated enough, it could. I guess maybe a trade is more likely. But could it?

Another question: If a player is flat-out released, does the guaranteed salary count against the cap the same as the pro-rated bonus?

[FireJimCaldwell]

The NBA has buy-outs for contracts. The money still hits the cap the same way, but a team can buy-out a contract for a player for less than the remaining due, and the player becomes a free agent. Could these fully guaranteed rookie contracts give way to potential buy-outs later in the contract? For instance, Locker struggles this season, the Titans bury him on the depth chart and draft another quarterback in the first round. He would rather go somewhere else than rot on the bench, and they would rather not pay him the remaining $3.6 million he's due. So they work out a buy-out for $1.8 million, Locker is released, the Titans are free of the contract (but still have pro-rated bonus on the cap like normal).

The lack of off-set language in these contracts probably means nothing like this happens, but if the player was motivated enough, it could. I guess maybe a trade is more likely. But could it?

Another question: If a player is flat-out released, does the guaranteed salary count against the cap the same as the pro-rated bonus?

The safe answer is most anything negotiable. Since we or I used Seattle as an example, if they wanted to facilitate a trade and sent Tennessee 2 million to go as a credit against the cap and a 4th rounder, then the NFL would have to have a very good reason to deny it. I'm not 100% certain it would work that way, or wouldn't.

Now if a player wanted to give $ back to be moved, then that would count as a credit, but I'm not 100% sure about whether or not a team could package $ as part of the deal to treat it as a buy-out, or offsetting the first teams salary cap.

In my opinion the guaranteed dollars would accelerate against the cap the same way a signing bonus would depending on when a player is released, but there really isn't a precedence to that in this new CBA, so it's just an opinion at this point.

[dw49]

They really don't have any case for the off-set language, as the precedent has been clearly set. It's not really relevant how concerned the team is about the player's long-term future; that concern should have prevented them from drafting him 8th. Now that they decided that he was worthy of that draft position, they are going to have to compensate him accordingly. I'd be shocked if his contract includes off-set language.

Early word was the Dolphins did get some off set language in. Not sure if anything significant or not.

[Superman]

Early word was the Dolphins did get some off set language in. Not sure if anything significant or not.

Indeed.

From Rotoworld:

Tannehill was seeking a fully guaranteed deal, but ESPN's Adam Schefter reports the Dolphins were able to include offset language. In exchange for allowing the team to keep the language in, Tannehill received $110,000 over his slotted pick pay. Tannehill will immediately report to camp and compete with Matt Moore and David Garrard for the starting quarterback job. Even if Tannehill loses out, we'd expect him to start games at some point this year. Jul 28 - 7:47 PM

I don't know how the bolded works, because I was under the impression that the figures were set in stone based on the cap. Perhaps there's a provision in the CBA that allows the team to include extra compensation, but if not, then this seems strange.

[dw49]

Indeed.

From Rotoworld:

I don't know how the bolded works, because I was under the impression that the figures were set in stone based on the cap. Perhaps there's a provision in the CBA that allows the team to include extra compensation, but if not, then this seems strange.

I dont think anyone will understand everythung about what you can and cannot do regarding an NFL contract. Seems strange that Tannyhill had to buckle in when the there seemed to be a precedent that the top 10 guys don't have off set language. But evidently that "precedent " is not that strong as even the Colts tried to include it in Luck's contract.

[Superman]

I dont think anyone will understand everythung about what you can and cannot do regarding an NFL contract. Seems strange that Tannyhill had to buckle in when the there seemed to be a precedent that the top 10 guys don't have off set language. But evidently that "precedent " is not that strong as even the Colts tried to include it in Luck's contract.

The contracts done last year were tricky, because they were all done so fast. New system, new rules, zero precedent. I think I read that none of the first rounders had offset language last season. Might be confusing myself now, but the point is that last year's signings weren't really that strong of a precedent. Especially not individually.

I really think the players are making out with this no off-set thing. This idea of double- dipping is completely foreign to the NFL (happens in basketball and baseball). Same thing for guaranteed contracts. I get why the owners are fighting so hard against these guarantees and trying to get off-sets. And even though I think there's a solid precedent for the players at this point, I side with the owners. I think they'll continue to fight for off-set language for a number of years. If a player gets cut after Year 3, that's a significant amount of money. And I'm sure there will be some owners to win this staring contest from time to time. Even if there's a weird concession like this extra $110k.

Just had a thought: I wonder if the extra money is just a portion of the signing bonus...

In Tannehill's case, there was no benefit to holding out longer, because there's a position battle in Miami right now. Maybe for a receiver or a corner or something, where there's a rotation. But at quarterback, the team picks one guy. And as a rookie, he's already behind the competition. He needs as many reps as possible. If he can produce on the field, the off-set issue becomes irrelevant. It's not very often a quarterback picked in the top ten gets cut in the first four years anyways.