| Dan and Nick are joined by PFF Brad, one of the most well-versed salary cap analysts in the business, to discuss the Giants’ current and future salary cap situation. They also dive into the salary cap situations of other teams in the NFC East. Finally, they answer questions from the listeners pertaining to the salary cap. In this show, Brad provides a deep dive that breaks down the Daniel Jones and Dexter Lawrence contracts, what to do about the Saquon Barkley contract situation and how the Eagles have been manipulating the cap. Specifically, he breaks down the potential pitfalls and risk involved in how the Eagles structured Jalen Hurts’ contract. Plus, a lot more good nuggets on the cap! |
The Rams went all in because they were new (again) in their market and wanted to stake a claim. They literally sacrificed the future for a present. Their gamble paid off, but now they're going to pay the price for it (I'd love to see the NGYG run up the core on McVay's $hitty squad, but I doubt that happens since Dabes and he are friendly). It's not the best way to build a team, and certainly not one that I'd want the Giants to use. I think the Giants' window will truly open up in two years, once Philly's begins to narrow. Schoen's front office is a good one. We're fortunate to have his group here.
I wonder why the Cowboys don't do this. Jerry is old and it's been almost 30 years.....
they are, but it's a loop hole that's there and will continue to be exploited. Say what you want about Howie Roseman, but he's put together one helluva front office. They EXCEL at manipulating the cap and have mastered the draft compensation formula.
Except the Rams actually won it. The Eagles had a better team last year, they were loaded. They still have a very good team but age is really catching up to them. Remember when the Giants OL fell off a cliff after our Superbowl?
Lane Johnson is 33
Kelce is 36
On D
Brandon Graham is 35
Fletcher Cox is 33
Bradberry is 30
Slay is 32
Its a pretty old team in general that are going to have Cap issues. I think Kelce will be owed money till he is 65 lol.
What's the risk of using void years in a contract?
Quote:
years are BS. They shouldn't be allowed.
they are, but it's a loop hole that's there and will continue to be exploited. Say what you want about Howie Roseman, but he's put together one helluva front office. They EXCEL at manipulating the cap and have mastered the draft compensation formula.
Teams have been achieving the same thing since the dawn of the salary cap.
Void years are no different than the bogus years at the end of contracts teams have used to take advantage of the bonus amortization schedule.
At least the void year is more transparent for the player.
So put bloated salaries there instead, spike and skew the AAV on contracts, give agents more headlines (and more power), and you'll be rid of void years, replaced with something worse. The players aren't going to want cheap salaries in place of the voids, because the team will keep the player at a cheap price; so the only thing they'll accept in place of the void years is a prohibitively high salary that forces the team to either negotiate or release - same net effect as a void year for cap manipulation purposes.
The other alternative if you get rid of void years is that you might see signing bonuses decrease substantially (but guaranteed money won't), which would result in more guaranteed salaries, which teams would then convert to bonus in later years, and tack on extensions that may or may not actually play out. Which basically is the same as a void year, but it shifts the cap benefit to a later year, whereas the current system tends to have the most cap-favorable scenario in the first year of a multi-year contract (there are some exceptions, but not many). You're just rearranging deck chairs with this solution.
As long as the cap allows for bonus amortization, there will be some mechanism employed by teams that will function the same way as a void year. You could eliminate the void, but it wouldn't eliminate the practice of parking dead money into the future unless you get rid of amortization.
Quote:
You go all in for a super bowl. You are down for a few years and then re load. I do not think that is how JS and Daboll want to build the team.
Except the Rams actually won it. The Eagles had a better team last year, they were loaded. They still have a very good team but age is really catching up to them. Remember when the Giants OL fell off a cliff after our Superbowl?
Lane Johnson is 33
Kelce is 36
On D
Brandon Graham is 35
Fletcher Cox is 33
Bradberry is 30
Slay is 32
Its a pretty old team in general that are going to have Cap issues. I think Kelce will be owed money till he is 65 lol.
You know what though? They will STILL kicks the Giants' @$$es twice again this year.
But that is probably the last year that will be the case. We are in year 2 of the rebuild and a lot of progress has been made. Year 3 is probably the year they become true contenders.
Quote:
years are BS. They shouldn't be allowed.
So put bloated salaries there instead, spike and skew the AAV on contracts, give agents more headlines (and more power), and you'll be rid of void years, replaced with something worse. The players aren't going to want cheap salaries in place of the voids, because the team will keep the player at a cheap price; so the only thing they'll accept in place of the void years is a prohibitively high salary that forces the team to either negotiate or release - same net effect as a void year for cap manipulation purposes.
The other alternative if you get rid of void years is that you might see signing bonuses decrease substantially (but guaranteed money won't), which would result in more guaranteed salaries, which teams would then convert to bonus in later years, and tack on extensions that may or may not actually play out. Which basically is the same as a void year, but it shifts the cap benefit to a later year, whereas the current system tends to have the most cap-favorable scenario in the first year of a multi-year contract (there are some exceptions, but not many). You're just rearranging deck chairs with this solution.
As long as the cap allows for bonus amortization, there will be some mechanism employed by teams that will function the same way as a void year. You could eliminate the void, but it wouldn't eliminate the practice of parking dead money into the future unless you get rid of amortization.
With respect, blah, blah, blah
It's an accounting trick to get around the salary cap. We all know it is. You can pretend otherwise.
I strongly believe fans care way too much when their team account for playing players, when fans should actually be worrying about how much they're paying their players.
Leonard Williams is a perfect example. The Giants decided Williams was probably worth $63M for three years of service. And it looks like the Giants will pay him exactly that $63M for three years of service.
Now it turns out about 6M of that will be accounted for in 2024. Does that make it a bad contract for Williams? Would it be better contract if all of that was accounted for in 2023?
The answer lies in the fact you can borrow a responsible amount of money from next year, every year penalty and consequence free.
So long as you pay the player the right amount of money, when it's booked simply doesn't matter.
I strongly believe fans care way too much when their team account for playing players, when fans should actually be worrying about how much they're paying their players.
Leonard Williams is a perfect example. The Giants decided Williams was probably worth $63M for three years of service. And it looks like the Giants will pay him exactly that $63M for three years of service.
Now it turns out about 6M of that will be accounted for in 2024. Does that make it a bad contract for Williams? Would it be better contract if all of that was accounted for in 2023?
The answer lies in the fact you can borrow a responsible amount of money from next year, every year penalty and consequence free.
So long as you pay the player the right amount of money, when it's booked simply doesn't matter.
Other teams - including the Giants - have to use void years now in order to keep up with others such as the Eagles. It's why we're starting to see the Giants use them.
But that doesn't make it right. Creating fictional contract years in order to spread out the bonus money?
Hell, why not create contracts with 10 void years?
Just get rid of the cap if you are going to play games like this.
The former approach of adding bogus years to the end of the contract was no less phony than a void year. This just levels the playing field between the team and the players.
Paying the players lumps sums today, and giving the teams the flexibility on where to book on the balance sheet is vital to the players agreeing to a salary cap.
Quote:
years are BS. They shouldn't be allowed.
What's the risk of using void years in a contract?
You are spending tomorrow's money today. When you do it as aggressively as the Eagles have done you can run into real problems. They have void years on multiple players for multiple years. If Kelce and Johnson retire after this year that will accelerate something like $100MM of cap hit. If Hurts flops and they want to move on that is another $100MM of cap hit. So an unlikely but certainly possible situation could leave them with $200MM of cap hit. For three players. Who aren't playing. While that exact situation is probably not going to happen they are going to face these cap hits with Kelce, Johnshon, Slay, Bradberry, Goddert, etc. in the next couple of years. If Hurts flops or gets hurt they are dead in the water. Even if he is healthy they will need to continue to push money forward.
The other thing that may not be obvious is that structuring comp this way means the owners are paying a lot more salary out. Not a big deal to all owners but for the family owned franchise that is a big difference.
The former approach of adding bogus years to the end of the contract was no less phony than a void year. This just levels the playing field between the team and the players.
Paying the players lumps sums today, and giving the teams the flexibility on where to book on the balance sheet is vital to the players agreeing to a salary cap.
See, I think there is a difference in making up fake contract years to spread the cap. Spreading the bonus over real contract years? No problem. Over non-existent years? Problem.
Again, why not make contracts with 10 void years?
Quote:
Teams have used the 5 year amortization schedule to spread the cap hit from bonuses since (nearly) the dawn of the cap.
The former approach of adding bogus years to the end of the contract was no less phony than a void year. This just levels the playing field between the team and the players.
Paying the players lumps sums today, and giving the teams the flexibility on where to book on the balance sheet is vital to the players agreeing to a salary cap.
See, I think there is a difference in making up fake contract years to spread the cap. Spreading the bonus over real contract years? No problem. Over non-existent years? Problem.
Again, why not make contracts with 10 void years?
Because you can only amortize the bonus over five years no matter what.
And Christian is right - there is no difference between a void year and a "real contract year" that includes a bogus non-guaranteed salary. All non-guaranteed salaries are fundamentally void years. The cap implications and timing just make some more voidable than others.
If you want the bonus to only be spread over "real" contract years, then that requires fully guaranteed contracts. As long as there is a possibility for a salary to be non-guaranteed, the void year exists in some form or another. The only question is whether teams explicitly declare the void years or just nod and wink with a phony non-guaranteed year (or two) at the tail end of the deal.
You're a savvy enough fan that you shouldn't be bothered by being able to see the strings at the puppet show - I'm not sure why it would bother you to see a void year attached to a contract but it wouldn't bother you just as much to see a balloon year salary on the back end of a contract that you absolutely know the team is never going to pay but they're using that extra year for amortization anyway.
I understand what you are saying and nothing is going to change.
But the BS games are annoying. And they annoy the average fan. Hence the endless, "how are (blank) still under the cap" questions.
As OTC expert said, the void year concept only came into play during COVID. Now its here to stay. Just more games. My sense now is owners do it this way rather than increase the cap as much as they can because they want agents and players to think their hands are tied more than they really are.
Yes, but the percentage vis a vis revenues could be increased. My sense is the NFLPA isn't overly effective in representing player interests, at least not when it comes to contracts.
I get it...I'm pissing into the wind with this complaint. I just don't like the concept of creating fake contract years.
Again, why not make contracts with 10 void years?
The CBA only allows for bonuses to be spread across 5 seasons. So the maximum number of void years would be 4 or less.
But in reality, it's actually only 1 year.
When a player is no longer under contract, all remaining unaccounted for bonus dollars or guaranteed money accelerates immediately to that year.
When a team uses void years they get to push money out 1 year after the contract ends.
Quote:
i dont think nfl owners care how their team's contracts are being managed until their fo makes enough mistakes that they are likely getting fired any way. every financial system has gimmicks. mlb, nba, nhl each do. i personally think void years are a weird fad that will go out of style bc some team that overuses them is going to get burned. let's just say a prayer it's eagles.
Yes, but the percentage vis a vis revenues could be increased. My sense is the NFLPA isn't overly effective in representing player interests, at least not when it comes to contracts.
I get it...I'm pissing into the wind with this complaint. I just don't like the concept of creating fake contract years.
the revenue share is the entire CBA negotiation so i dont think this is a symptom of owner cost control. i think it's just a fad that's gotten more popular because the shelf life of coaches has compressed so they don't care about the cap in 3 years as much as they used to since odds are most won't be there in year 3 to deal with it if things dont work out.
Quote:
Again, why not make contracts with 10 void years?
The CBA only allows for bonuses to be spread across 5 seasons. So the maximum number of void years would be 4 or less.
But in reality, it's actually only 1 year.
When a player is no longer under contract, all remaining unaccounted for bonus dollars or guaranteed money accelerates immediately to that year.
When a team uses void years they get to push money out 1 year after the contract ends.
I saw that posted above.
But let's change it.
Let's make it 10.
Why not? If you're going to play games, keep it going.
If the two sides want to stretch out bonuses to be amortized over 10 years, why not?
I'm not sure the average fan is pining for the day the team's balance sheet is simplified.
Which goes back to my first point. The only thing that matters is if the team pays the right amount of dollars for the years served. Everything else is just a spreadsheet exercise.
Long-tenured finance guy with a solid reputation in a company that places a high value on loyalty. You would EXPECT an interview for the GM job as a simple courtesy.
YMMV.
Long-tenured finance guy with a solid reputation in a company that places a high value on loyalty. You would EXPECT an interview for the GM job as a simple courtesy.
YMMV.
While you may be right that the venom that was directed toward Abrams may have been undeserved, so too was the praise heaped upon him as though he was some sort of cap savant. If Abrams was the master capologist that some fans suggested over the years, he'd still be managing the Giants' cap. He was relieved of those duties.
Kevin Abrams may not have ever been a cap liability, but he's also never represented any sort of competitive advantage as a front office executive. He's just sort of there.
Add a dumpster fire of a GM in Gettleman to go along with too many executives that are just sort of there, and you get yourself a laughingstock of an NFL team. Thank God for Joe Schoen.
Quote:
...an unsolicited compliment. I always thought the venom for Abrams here was totally uncalled for and lengthened the list of people who showed us they just don't get it.
Long-tenured finance guy with a solid reputation in a company that places a high value on loyalty. You would EXPECT an interview for the GM job as a simple courtesy.
YMMV.
While you may be right that the venom that was directed toward Abrams may have been undeserved, so too was the praise heaped upon him as though he was some sort of cap savant. If Abrams was the master capologist that some fans suggested over the years, he'd still be managing the Giants' cap. He was relieved of those duties.
Kevin Abrams may not have ever been a cap liability, but he's also never represented any sort of competitive advantage as a front office executive. He's just sort of there.
Add a dumpster fire of a GM in Gettleman to go along with too many executives that are just sort of there, and you get yourself a laughingstock of an NFL team. Thank God for Joe Schoen.
Never heard a single subject matter expert say he was a leader in the field or a savant. Feel free to cite a specific example like Brad paying him a compliment for being good at it this week.
A compliment which, by the way, tells me he's probably not 'just there'.
You're on the list, congrats.
Good point above about the owners being willing to pay out more money up front.
Classic example was the Solder signing. LT was a huge need created by a horrible pick by Reese who was saying he still believed in him in 2017.
Pay the right players, draft well, fill in with smart lower level signings and the team will be in good shape imv.
Quote:
In comment 16117544 Racer said:
Quote:
...an unsolicited compliment. I always thought the venom for Abrams here was totally uncalled for and lengthened the list of people who showed us they just don't get it.
Long-tenured finance guy with a solid reputation in a company that places a high value on loyalty. You would EXPECT an interview for the GM job as a simple courtesy.
YMMV.
While you may be right that the venom that was directed toward Abrams may have been undeserved, so too was the praise heaped upon him as though he was some sort of cap savant. If Abrams was the master capologist that some fans suggested over the years, he'd still be managing the Giants' cap. He was relieved of those duties.
Kevin Abrams may not have ever been a cap liability, but he's also never represented any sort of competitive advantage as a front office executive. He's just sort of there.
Add a dumpster fire of a GM in Gettleman to go along with too many executives that are just sort of there, and you get yourself a laughingstock of an NFL team. Thank God for Joe Schoen.
Never heard a single subject matter expert say he was a leader in the field or a savant. Feel free to cite a specific example like Brad paying him a compliment for being good at it this week.
A compliment which, by the way, tells me he's probably not 'just there'.
You're on the list, congrats.
In case it wasn't clear, I was referring to fans who lauded Abrams with praise, right here on BBI.
I couldn't give two spare fucks about your list, Dollar Store Joe McCarthy. You couldn't be more irrelevant to me if you tried.
When Schoen stepped in and saw the agreements handed out to Kenny Golladay and Logan Ryan, I'm pretty sure that's all he needed to see to end that arrangement.
Quote:
In comment 16117582 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 16117544 Racer said:
Quote:
...an unsolicited compliment. I always thought the venom for Abrams here was totally uncalled for and lengthened the list of people who showed us they just don't get it.
Long-tenured finance guy with a solid reputation in a company that places a high value on loyalty. You would EXPECT an interview for the GM job as a simple courtesy.
YMMV.
While you may be right that the venom that was directed toward Abrams may have been undeserved, so too was the praise heaped upon him as though he was some sort of cap savant. If Abrams was the master capologist that some fans suggested over the years, he'd still be managing the Giants' cap. He was relieved of those duties.
Kevin Abrams may not have ever been a cap liability, but he's also never represented any sort of competitive advantage as a front office executive. He's just sort of there.
Add a dumpster fire of a GM in Gettleman to go along with too many executives that are just sort of there, and you get yourself a laughingstock of an NFL team. Thank God for Joe Schoen.
Never heard a single subject matter expert say he was a leader in the field or a savant. Feel free to cite a specific example like Brad paying him a compliment for being good at it this week.
A compliment which, by the way, tells me he's probably not 'just there'.
You're on the list, congrats.
In case it wasn't clear, I was referring to fans who lauded Abrams with praise, right here on BBI.
I couldn't give two spare fucks about your list, Dollar Store Joe McCarthy. You couldn't be more irrelevant to me if you tried.
You're on the way from bronze to silver status, nice.