According OTC, the Giants have $6.5 million in dead money because of voidable years on three UFAs:
Adoree' Jackson ... $3 million in dead money
A'Shawn Robinson ... $2.1 million in dead money
Tyrod Taylor ... $1.4 million in dead money
When you factor in the dead money hits for Leonard Williams ($10.6 million), Mark Glowinkski ($1.5 million), and various other small hits, the Giants have $19 million in dead money this year.
As long as you are prepared to account for it down the road, why would you not do it?? You need to sign guys and stay competitive. This is a year to year league with tons of parity.
You kick the can, the cap increases, the dead money per year does not increase, and you continue to restructure deals as you go.
I don't like $19 million in cap space being wasted when it could be be spent on players.
That's a lot of cap space.
This is an earnest question not intended to be patronizing, but you understand those figures just represent dollars already paid to players?
Is your view those players made too much money or would have just preferred the accounting stayed in the years they were on the roster?
Quote:
Eric, is your issue with dead money in general or void years that create dead money?
I don't like $19 million in cap space being wasted when it could be be spent on players.
That's a lot of cap space.
I don't like it either but the agreement for it seems to be if they don't spend future dollars today they won't be able to be competitive enough with their offers to sign guys they want in FA.
Personally I hate that approach, but then again the Giants aren't close to winning anything.
https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space - ( New Window )
Of course. So would your preference have been they paid those players less money, or would your preference had been to account for it when they were on the roster?
Every team uses void years. It would be a disadvantage not to.
I view dead cap space like I do credit card interest... just a waste.
I view dead cap space like I do credit card interest... just a waste.
If the Giants were a contender, pushing the can down the road would make more sense. Get your financial house in order now when you are down.
It's actually the complete opposite, you are deferring $ interest free and creating more spending cash now.
The dead money does not increase year over year but the cap space and subsequent cash for the team does.
It's actually the complete opposite, you are deferring $ interest free and creating more spending cash now.
The dead money does not increase year over year but the cap space and subsequent cash for the team does.
I understand what you are saying, and maybe that's a bad analogy, but my point remains, the Giants ARE being affected by the dead money THIS YEAR. The $19 million loss is REAL.
For instance it would have been better for the Giants to find a way for A'shawn Robinson to have a 5M cap hit last year? And if not, either paid him less or not sign him?
Quote:
My preference is keep voidable contracts to a minimum. Schoen did a good job of cleaning up the cap in 2022, but he screwed the pooch with the Daniel Jones contract. They spent on Burns and the OL and now they are up against the cap again, having to already re-structure Lawrence.
I view dead cap space like I do credit card interest... just a waste.
If the Giants were a contender, pushing the can down the road would make more sense. Get your financial house in order now when you are down.
AMMMEEENNNN brother
But you are pointing out the real problem.
They always think they are about to turn the corner and are ready for the upswing. And all the decisions they make follow that.
Just blow it up and build the right way, from the ground up scouting, players, front office, etc
They exist as a way to smooth out cap decisions, functioning as someone said earlier as interest free loan against future cap. It is why the Eagles were able to spend roughly twice as much on their roster last year as we did. It is also why when a team says they have no cap room it is usually just GM BS. There is almost always cap room. You just have to decide whether you want to borrow to spend it. Good or bad idea systemically? I don't like it but it is where we are at.
If you want a defense of the Giants' use of it, well that is pretty simple. They have made very little use of it. Assuming the rules don't change that will change at some point in the future. The sensible path is to decide when you have a window and then spend.
For instance it would have been better for the Giants to find a way for A'shawn Robinson to have a 5M cap hit last year? And if not, either paid him less or not sign him?
Yes. But this gets back to them overrating their chances in 2023. I think they felt they were going to be far better. I just hope moving forward there aren't a lot of voidable years. I understand it needs to be done, but it does come at a cost.
Obviously, a team as bad as the Giants have been shouldn't be doing this.
For NFL payrolls, unlike personal borrowing, there is no interest hit, plus the cap keeps increasing. Like the nation, NFL teams basically print money, so spending dollars today, earmarked for the future, makes sense.
The fact is, every contract is not going to be a winner. Every team strives for perfect player evaluation and performance but it is not possible.
Dead money is the price you pay for roster flexibility in a league where player performance is always fluctuating and the cap is always increasing.
Should not be sweating $19mm in dead cap in '24 -- that is business as usual in today's NFL.
Quote:
viewing dead cap space as equivalent to credit card interest is the straight up wrong way to view it.
It's actually the complete opposite, you are deferring $ interest free and creating more spending cash now.
The dead money does not increase year over year but the cap space and subsequent cash for the team does.
I understand what you are saying, and maybe that's a bad analogy, but my point remains, the Giants ARE being affected by the dead money THIS YEAR. The $19 million loss is REAL.
Is it affecting them this year? Because with the same or similar maneuvers they can restructure excellent players like AT and DL to create room. There are two sides to this. You can't say you approve of one without the other. We get to make the cap hit of these great players manageable. Itcis unfortunate that we can't do the same with the QB
Sign your players to extensions the year before to create space that year which you roll over to the following year. We extended AT and Dex lowering their hits by 7.6 mill.
The giants rolled over 6.2 Million from 23 to the 24 cap. That helps to offset the dead money against the cap.
If they didn't redo LW to improve the return on his trade they would have been would have been covered for the dead money the self imposed.
This is also why they should end up restructuring AT even if they don't need the money to spend on FA. His salary is guaranteed anyway so converting to a bonus and creating 14.8 mil in space this year can carry over to offset 22 mill in dead money from cutting Jones.
There are of course dozens of other factors to consider when mapping out cap strategies, but future dead cap can be used wisely.
What's to defend -- it's a technique
a team like the Eagles does it regularly and has been able to stack their roster by spreading salary into void years -- you all marvel at them doing it.
The Giants haven't terribly over used it.
In an era when the cap is projected to sky rocket, the out years become much more palatable because there is far more money projected in the next five to ten years.
The cap is projected to be in the mid 300 millions before the current tv contract is completed.
I see it differently -- Credit card companies give you void years to encourage borrowing -
Now, should it be banned as a way to by-pass the current cap? I think yes.
all dead money is the salary cap version of buying something but paying for part of it on a future cap, signing bonuses and void years included. that is how a player can sign a 5 year/158m contract today yet only count 7m against the cap in 2024 like Chris Jones.
no gm has a gun to their head, they can pay for it up front if they choose to. or not spend at all. or use their future cap space to pay off something they want right now.
in the end it doesnt matter in the sense that every $1 paid to a player will count against the salary cap $1, the timing of when it hits is the only thing that flexible (with gimmicks like void years, restructures, etc).
as long as such a big chunk of contracts are non-guaranteed (which is probably forever) the system will remain excessively complicated.
Also cap space is fungible. You can do more aggressive restructures and basically get to the same place.
Quote:
Eric, is your issue with dead money in general or void years that create dead money?
It was used on a player. The cap hit was deferred.
I don't like $19 million in cap space being wasted when it could be be spent on players.
That's a lot of cap space.
when players get signing bonuses or restructures, as EVERY single NFL team does, that is to spread the cap hit over the life of the contract instead of 1 year. If they get cut before the end of that contract there is dead money from the money already bonused to the player but spread to the future. void years simply "extend" the life of the contract. a june 1 cut similarly spreads the dead money over 2 years instead of 1. void years can do that ahead of time while the player is still under contract - like jalen hurts (or ashawn last year).
as far as jalen hurts, below is a screenshot of his running cash totals that the eagles are paying him in real life as opposed to the cap accounting. whatever cap games they play to keep his cap hits artificially low, if he were to get cut or traded the eagles would carry on their cap the amount they paid him up until that time. there is no way to pay less or more to a player than whatever hits on the cap. so by the end of next year (2025) that will be 102m. and by the end of 2026 that will be 153m.
because of the guarantees cutting him 1 year from now would carry 107m in dead money (daniel jones will only cost 22m in dead money next year by contrast even though they both extended last offseason). the contract the eagles gave hurts (void years included) was far less hedged than the contract the giants gave jones.
Majority of teams have $20+ in dead money, several teams are over $30 million, Vikings and Chargers at the top with over $50 million
Giants currently have $0 dead money 2025 and beyond (will obviously change when the dump Jones)
Majority of teams have $20+ in dead money, several teams are over $30 million, Vikings and Chargers at the top with over $50 million
Giants currently have $0 dead money 2025 and beyond (will obviously change when the dump Jones)
right every team has dead money.
if you cut a rookie before the end of their contract even on day 3 like elerson smith that's a few hundred k.
if you give a signing bonuses to a few UDFA in a few months and they don't make the roster as most dont, that's 50-100k * however many you signed. nobody is going to stop signing or drafting players they like just because they are afraid of dead money even if the odds are against day 3 picks/udfas.
if you churn the practice squad and active roster for injuries 10x that can add up to a few million.
i forget how much it cost exactly but i think the kicker injuries last year added like 500k to the giants cap that then needed to clear elsewhere by moving foward to this year.
they intentionally put void years on williams, jackson, tyrod but the dead money they are currently eating from glowinski is because they had to cut him early bc he sucked.
as much as it sucks to carry $10m for williams, isn't it better to have had him and gotten a 2nd round pick out of it?
The other important thing to remember is a little abstract, but crucial -- there is a way where dead money never truly catches up to a team. When the league folds, there won't be a balance of dead money the team has to do something with. Dead money is just the accounting charges leftover from dollars paid to players who are no longer on the team.
Let's say the league goes out of business after 2028, the dead money for 2029 just goes away. There's no consequences.
If you keep a healthy ratio where say 90% of your cap charges each year are for players on the team, there's a good argument that 10% of your cap each year should be allocated to paying off old debt.
The reason is simply inflation. Remember that the cap is an accounting tool. As time goes on the value of any dollar accounted for a percentage of the cap goes down. Because the cap virtually always goes up.
So let's contemplate a sample scenario with a player. The GM and agent determined the player is worth 10M a year, and agree to a 2 year contract worth 20M. And in this scenario the agent doesn't care how you do it, but the 20M in cash just has to be paid over the next 2 years.
If I spread the cap hit over 3 years, I enjoy the benefit of inflation.
There is one overarching fundamental -- pay players the right guaranteed compensation for the right years of service. How you account for that can be adjusted to meet the circumstances.
So long as you don't overrun the current year with old debt to the point you can't operate, you'll be fine. The Giants holding 19M in dead money this year isn't holding them back from adding players or operating.
Unlike a credit card, there is no interest, and therefore no penalty.
Imagine in the real life if you bought a car with a 0% APR on a four year loan, and you had just negotiated your contract at work to guarantee raises each year for the next four years.
Why wouldn't you to take the terms?
Two minor things
1) The remnants of dead money from void years are from bonuses
2) I don't think the Williams money sucks, they paid 61M for 2.5 years of service + the 47th pick
I'd say the money to performance/compensation ratio worked out well for NYG.
Two minor things
1) The remnants of dead money from void years are from bonuses
2) I don't think the Williams money sucks, they paid 61M for 2.5 years of service + the 47th pick
I'd say the money to performance/compensation ratio worked out well for NYG.
i dont think i disagreed with either of those things. in a perfect world they wouldnt have had to restructure as much of williams money into this year when he isnt here, but i was long an advocate that they paid him fmv for what he produced (which became doubly true when they also got the 2nd out of him). it just would have been better to pay him as salary in the past vs having to punt $ to future but that had nothing to do with him.
Yup, I was just clarifying your likely unintentional implication a void year was anything other than a mechanism to hold a signing or restructure bonus.
I have a hard time worrying about that. They effectively borrowed money from 2024 to shore things up in 2022.
I'm certainly not like former BBIer Producer who had his head in the sand and believed you couldn't mess up the accounting. There is certainly a threshold where you've locked up some much of a year's cap that you cannot operate.
When you're talking about borrowing 10% or less from future years, that means you're getting the cash to performance ratio 90% correct in the timing, and maybe even more so in the value prediction.
@CDFBAnalysis
How much cap space does each NFL team have stored in void years? (Listed next to each team logo is their Super Bowl odds)
But the Eagles number includes the large number of dollars in option bonus money for Hurts that's sitting on a void year as a placeholder?
But the Eagles number includes the large number of dollars in option bonus money for Hurts that's sitting on a void year as a placeholder?
i assume so but im with you on option bonuses. dont think giants have used one like that so i havent paid close attention.
i think i posted this last year and it was just as staggering in terms of the dead money risk now as i remember it. this is from fitzgeralds writeup (the option bonuses are basically preplanned new signing bonuses that prorate from the option point forward over the rest of the deal/void years).
https://overthecap.com/thoughts-on-jalen-hurts-255-million-contract-with-the-eagles - ( New Window )
I've explained his option bonuses before as cascading, built-in restructures on BBI before, but I was guessing some.
Philly definitely took that Super Bowl performance and tied their fate to him.
I've explained his option bonuses before as cascading, built-in restructures on BBI before, but I was guessing some.
Philly definitely took that Super Bowl performance and tied their fate to him.
and now think about the impact of that on QB market. Tua is probably getting paid pretty close to that. his guaranteed money will probably come in between Hurts' 110m and herberts 133m (which wasnt done at the time but was obviously going to be higher than hurts' deal).
i think that was the situation they wanted to avoid with he who shall not be named last year. the downside of this year's cap hit if things went sideways was probably worth the upside of an under market contract if he'd continued progressing. that contract is well designed for a trade ahead of 2025 too. just a 30m cap hit to acquiring team + an option year.