Field Yates
@FieldYates
The Giants have restructured the contract of QB Daniel Jones, converting $8.42M of his base salary into a signing bonus and creating $6.315M in cap space, per source.
Eric -- the reason Schoen and other GMs choose to restructure contracts with more runway is to avoid the balloon payment that would happen with an expiring contract.
When salary is converted to bonus it hits in the year it's scheduled.
That a player might have other salary that can be converted to a new bonus, doesn't change the fact the first bonus hits. That's just unequivocal reality.
Next year no matter what the Giants do, they will incur a cap hit of 2.105M as part of today's restructure.
And let's say they keep converting salary to bonus, it just piles up on the schedule.
Last point, only because I have a busted rib and was up all night thinking about the salary cap = )
What you're describing is the maneuvering his net cap charge, which is all bonuses and salary. The Giants moved 2.1M from Jones's 2023 salary to a 2024 bonus.
Now literally that 2.1M bonus charge on 2024 can never move now, but practically it doesn't matter. You can convert 2.1M in 2024 salary to a 2025 bonus, and his net cap charge evens out.
That 2.1M 2024 bonus is just a packet of money on the balance sheet, and you can make corresponding moves to offset it.
This is my whole point. Imagine that 2.1M packet of money was on the Leonard Williams line in the spreadsheet instead.
The Giants could still convert 2.1M of Jones's 2024 salary to offset it, and the net impact to the Giants salary cap is exactly the same.
Once salary is converted to bonus, it's just residue. It doesn't matter whose name is attached.
i continue to not understand why you overcomplicate this
if they kick the same $6m of leonard williams money to the future instead of jones, it starts hitting next year. creating void years can defer some of it but whatever total amount of money is left to hit starts hitting.
jones (or any player with big enough base salaries) can still be restructured again. so if they need to save that same $2m they converted to bonus next year, they can do the same thing again with his deal. once a player is gone you dont have any options.
this is the exact same concept as the obvious reality that right now they have options to extend, restructure, or trade to adjust the contracts of adoree, williams, or gano this year, but not golladay. whose contract schoen declared publicly as the restructure of last resort. why do you think he felt that?
you keep dancing around this obvious reality - why do you think schoen has always restructured players with more than 1 year left under contract? why do you think he chose to restructure a jones contract he just signed 6 months ago over the 3 he restructured last year? you're a smart enough guy to figure out what's different.
Eric, I am happy to answer/re-answer all of the questions you've posed, but I want to make sure we agree on one common set of facts.
We agree that money paid as a bonus cannot be moved. For instance if a player signs a 1 year deal with 1.2M salary and 5M signing bonus for 2023, that 5M can never be moved. Do we agree on that?
Eric, I am happy to answer/re-answer all of the questions you've posed, but I want to make sure we agree on one common set of facts.
We agree that money paid as a bonus cannot be moved. For instance if a player signs a 1 year deal with 1.2M salary and 5M signing bonus for 2023, that 5M can never be moved. Do we agree on that?
it's irrelevant to the point because paid money counts the same $ for $ against the cap. if you need to save $6m this year, as the giants just did, it doesn't matter which spreadsheet column it came from and went to. gaining the space in the present is what they needed. they paid jones the same cash amount $ for $ in bonus as he was guaranteed to make in base anyway, and that cash amount will hit their cap for the same total amount, how they do it just impacts when it happens. he was the person they chose to do that with precisely because with him they maintain the ability to manipulate his cap number again in the future if they need to despite some parts of that cap number being fixed (the prorated bonus).
the entire necessity of restructures is to save money in the present. there is no other benefit. jones was one of the few guys on the roster with big enough salaries in the future that they can continue using him as a bank, which is why they chose to restructure his deal now.
they didn't choose to restructure golladay last year because they knew he'd be gone this year and the game of musical chairs stops. presumably they are making the same calculation with not restructuring jackson, williams, and gano right now.
here's 1 new question to add on to your list of answers, all else equal is it better to have the option to continue kicking the can down the road, or to not have that option? simple yes it's better, no it's not.
The Giants picked up approximately an extra $900,000 in cap space. Anyone know what transaction occurred?
at this point it doesn't really matter. in the offseason cap room is a meaningful resource that gets planned out. like apple or any other company plans out investing in an exciting new product.
in-season you are reactive mostly to things you can't control. it's compliance. like reconciling the cash register at the end of the day in a store. it's just a thing someone has to do.
Eric, I'll answer your question again (I did above, maybe you missed it). I think this is a point we both agree with BTW. I also appreciate debating, because I think there is another element you will agree with me on eventually = )
Why restructure a player with multiple years vs. only one year left on their deal?
The answer is because when you put money on void year(s), all of that money accelerates immediately to the year the contract voids.
If Schoen restructured Leonard Williams's 2023 salary (setting aide the other existing bonuses) to save 8.42M, it would look like this
Eric, I am happy to answer/re-answer all of the questions you've posed, but I want to make sure we agree on one common set of facts.
We agree that money paid as a bonus cannot be moved. For instance if a player signs a 1 year deal with 1.2M salary and 5M signing bonus for 2023, that 5M can never be moved. Do we agree on that?
it's irrelevant to the point because paid money counts the same $ for $ against the cap. if you need to save $6m this year, as the giants just did, it doesn't matter which spreadsheet column it came from and went to. gaining the space in the present is what they needed. they paid jones the same cash amount $ for $ in bonus as he was guaranteed to make in base anyway, and that cash amount will hit their cap for the same total amount, how they do it just impacts when it happens. he was the person they chose to do that with precisely because with him they maintain the ability to manipulate his cap number again in the future if they need to despite some parts of that cap number being fixed (the prorated bonus).
the entire necessity of restructures is to save money in the present. there is no other benefit. jones was one of the few guys on the roster with big enough salaries in the future that they can continue using him as a bank, which is why they chose to restructure his deal now.
they didn't choose to restructure golladay last year because they knew he'd be gone this year and the game of musical chairs stops. presumably they are making the same calculation with not restructuring jackson, williams, and gano right now.
here's 1 new question to add on to your list of answers, all else equal is it better to have the option to continue kicking the can down the road, or to not have that option? simple yes it's better, no it's not.
You can keep repeating the bold portion, but it's not accurate.
The Giants chose DJ because there were more years to spread the amortization across, not because there is any incremental flexibility gained by manipulating the same contract repeatedly.
The guys you're ruling out as alternatives are being avoided not because the Giants want to end the game of musical chairs. In fact, it's quite the contrary: the Giants are, by choosing to restructure DJ's brand new contract, making an intentional effort to spread the game of musical chairs out as long as possible. The alternatives you list would all end sooner, by design.
So restructuring DJ means that 75% of the restructured money becomes cap space this year. Restructuring LW (without adding new void years) means that 50% of the restructured money becomes cap space this year. The Giants would have to shift 50% more salary to bonus on LW's contract to achieve the same 2023 cap space outcome, and doing so results in 3x as much 2024 cap space being depleted because there isn't a ledger entry for 2025 or 2026 to which it can be amortized.
But that has nothing to do with being able to manipulate the money a second (or third) time. Restructures don't move bonus to bonus. Once the salary has been moved to bonus (to open up space), it's done. And once that salary is paid, it's also done. I'm surprised this is even a matter of debate.
Once salary is converted to bonus, in Eric's words it hits.
That Jones has other remaining salary that can be converted to bonus at a future time, has no actual bearing on the previous salary that was converted to a bonus.
Eric, to answer you question re: kicking cans. It's simply just a different can.
Once salary is converted to bonus, in Eric's words it hits.
That Jones has other remaining salary that can be converted to bonus at a future time, has no actual bearing on the previous salary that was converted to a bonus.
Eric, to answer you question re: kicking cans. It's simply just a different can.
Got it...makes sense. Discussion was worth reading. Live and learn
Eric, I'll answer your question again (I did above, maybe you missed it). I think this is a point we both agree with BTW. I also appreciate debating, because I think there is another element you will agree with me on eventually = )
Why restructure a player with multiple years vs. only one year left on their deal?
The answer is because when you put money on void year(s), all of that money accelerates immediately to the year the contract voids.
If Schoen restructured Leonard Williams's 2023 salary (setting aide the other existing bonuses) to save 8.42M, it would look like this
The cap charge for 2023 would be 9.6, and the cap charge for 2024 be 8.24M, accelerated to 2024 as dead money.
So the short answer is he can spread the impact across 4 years with Jones and only 2 years with Williams.
Do we agree on that?
do we agree that restructuring contracts about to expire accelerates all of the negatives i've listed ad nauseum every time this has come up? obviously yes?
am i crazy or is this post that i am replying to an example of an actual, literal, tangible, honest to goodness difference in who got restructured and who didn't?
I have no problem admitting I have overlooked the amortization schedule as a plus side to restructuring a deal with more remaining years when we've debated this in the past. That is a true upside.
My initial point in this debate has always been if the dollars the same, it doesn't matter whose name you put the bonus under. And I stand by that.
I think a likely real world hypothetical illustrates this: Say the Giants need to borrow an additional 2M from next year, and two options are:
1) Move 2M more of Jones's 2023 salary to a 2024 bonus
2) Move 2M of Leonard Williams's 2023 salary to his 2024 void year
That 2M is locked forever against 2024 cap, and can never be moved. Whether it's dead and in the Williams column or live and in the Jones column, it makes no difference. It's 2M less on the Giants 2024 cap. The Giants get no additional flexibility by putting it under Jones's name.
Putting those dollars under the Williams column doesn't preclude the Giants from kicking the Jones can later if they so choose.
You can keep repeating the bold portion, but it's not accurate.
The Giants chose DJ because there were more years to spread the amortization across, not because there is any incremental flexibility gained by manipulating the same contract repeatedly.
The guys you're ruling out as alternatives are being avoided not because the Giants want to end the game of musical chairs. In fact, it's quite the contrary: the Giants are, by choosing to restructure DJ's brand new contract, making an intentional effort to spread the game of musical chairs out as long as possible. The alternatives you list would all end sooner, by design.
So restructuring DJ means that 75% of the restructured money becomes cap space this year. Restructuring LW (without adding new void years) means that 50% of the restructured money becomes cap space this year. The Giants would have to shift 50% more salary to bonus on LW's contract to achieve the same 2023 cap space outcome, and doing so results in 3x as much 2024 cap space being depleted because there isn't a ledger entry for 2025 or 2026 to which it can be amortized.
But that has nothing to do with being able to manipulate the money a second (or third) time. Restructures don't move bonus to bonus. Once the salary has been moved to bonus (to open up space), it's done. And once that salary is paid, it's also done. I'm surprised this is even a matter of debate.
holy hell this entire tomato/tomato argument is grade A gaslighting but the part i bolded is particularly rich. it's been a long time since i took the SATs but:
the Giants are, by choosing to restructure DJ's brand new contract, making an intentional effort to spread the game of musical chairs out as long as possible. The alternatives you list would all end sooner, by design
I have no problem admitting I have overlooked the amortization schedule as a plus side to restructuring a deal with more remaining years when we've debated this in the past. That is a true upside.
My initial point in this debate has always been if the dollars the same, it doesn't matter whose name you put the bonus under. And I stand by that.
paid signing bonus amortizing over years is it's defining quality so how was that not obvious? that is literally the main feature that makes signing bonuses different on the cap than just guaranteeing a higher base.
the entire purpose of a restructure is literally shifting money from the present salary to an amortization schedule. you really didn't consider that a contract with 1 year left as opposed to multiple years left changes that schedule?
you can keep trying to shoehorn that you stand by the premise of #'s next to names but as long as those names have different contracts there are going to be differences, and inactive contracts that end the game of musical chairs sooner create fewer options even if the outcomes can be manipulated similarly.
RE: I don't think you know what gaslighting means.
Eric, what I neglected to fully appreciate is that even though void years can provide the same amortization length, when the contract voids the acceleration is on one year.
That's literally the only benefit.
There is no further benefit in terms of kicking cans. Those bonuses are inextricably tied to the year they are assigned. I suspect this is a fact you neglected to consider and are being too stubborn to just admit.
Restructuring Jones vs. Williams for instance providing a single benefit: stretching the money over 4 years instead of 2. That's it.
RE: RE: I don't think you know what gaslighting means.
I still don't think you understand the actual definition of gaslighting. It's different from disagreeing.
But sure, keep telling us how the Giants can keep reworking the same contract repeatedly without acknowledging that they can't rework the reworked portion once it's been converted to bonus. I'm sure if you say it often enough someone might believe that it's true. It won't be me, or anyone else who has a basic grasp of the cap, but maybe someone will buy it.
Madden has provided a clear way to have plenty of money to spend within the salary cap:
Any player making a ton of money you just re-assign them to a position that gets paid peanuts like kicker or punter. Once you re-assign their position they will now take into account their position in regard to their contract. Once you secure a deal for that new position, just re-assign them back to their old position and boom, problem solved!
Madden has provided a clear way to have plenty of money to spend within the salary cap:
Any player making a ton of money you just re-assign them to a position that gets paid peanuts like kicker or punter. Once you re-assign their position they will now take into account their position in regard to their contract. Once you secure a deal for that new position, just re-assign them back to their old position and boom, problem solved!
upvote
Be sure to let Schoen know....thanks
RE: There is going to be a quiz on DJ’s contract restructure tomorrow
Eric, what I neglected to fully appreciate is that even though void years can provide the same amortization length, when the contract voids the acceleration is on one year.
That's literally the only benefit.
There is no further benefit in terms of kicking cans. Those bonuses are inextricably tied to the year they are assigned. I suspect this is a fact you neglected to consider and are being too stubborn to just admit.
Restructuring Jones vs. Williams for instance providing a single benefit: stretching the money over 4 years instead of 2. That's it.
i dont know how many different ways i can say that i believe there is more to it than just the low hanging fruit of amortization schedule. i have posted in this thread and others examples of other organizations using this same maneuver, and i cant think of any real or hypothetical where restructuring a contract that is active longer isnt preferable to one that will become inactive for a team that's not rebuilding/resetting. is there any you can think of that comes out better than equivalent? even in the equivalent scenarios i can point out negatives like void years and june 1 designations, which in my view are last resort contract features for good reason (and that's not a novel view, schoen has said the same publicly numerous times).
if anyone could predict which players will be worth keeping for sure next year then the cap wouldnt be nearly as big of a deal as it is. active players preserve more options than inactive ones. im not saying this would be a good practice, but in theory if they wanted to they could have told leonard williams pre-week 1 he needed to take some kind of reasonable extension. do you think leonard williams was going to find $18m from someone else right now? it may seem unlikely but if he had a terrible camp, got pushed around like henry mondeaux, and ryder anderson had the same kind of camp as jordon riley, then all of a sudden things that scenario isn't so far fetched. that's basically what happened with martinez/calitro last year (though different just bc he was making league minimum).
different example - jones gets hurt, the season goes south. obvious move to shop rental veterans in a lost season. wouldn't you prefer to have kept the door open to saving a bunch of $ if you can move a veteran to a team with cap room? in all likelihood that becomes a negotiation and you will pay down some of it, but your hands arent tied by the $ you already fronted to a rental as opposed to a player who will remain here next year and beyond.
RE: RE: RE: I don't think you know what gaslighting means.
I still don't think you understand the actual definition of gaslighting. It's different from disagreeing.
But sure, keep telling us how the Giants can keep reworking the same contract repeatedly without acknowledging that they can't rework the reworked portion once it's been converted to bonus. I'm sure if you say it often enough someone might believe that it's true. It won't be me, or anyone else who has a basic grasp of the cap, but maybe someone will buy it.
you jumped into a discussion to literally argue my same position back to me like i hadn't already said it a half dozen times.
go ahead and tell me how your musical chairs observation differed from mine? except that i said it first.
Madden has provided a clear way to have plenty of money to spend within the salary cap:
Any player making a ton of money you just re-assign them to a position that gets paid peanuts like kicker or punter. Once you re-assign their position they will now take into account their position in regard to their contract. Once you secure a deal for that new position, just re-assign them back to their old position and boom, problem solved!
upvote
Be sure to let Schoen know....thanks
I was just kidding silly, like a GM of a professional sports team would really value something that happens on a video game. C'mon man!
RE: RE: I don't think you know what gaslighting means.
I still don't think you understand the actual definition of gaslighting. It's different from disagreeing.
But sure, keep telling us how the Giants can keep reworking the same contract repeatedly without acknowledging that they can't rework the reworked portion once it's been converted to bonus. I'm sure if you say it often enough someone might believe that it's true. It won't be me, or anyone else who has a basic grasp of the cap, but maybe someone will buy it.
you jumped into a discussion to literally argue my same position back to me like i hadn't already said it a half dozen times.
go ahead and tell me how your musical chairs observation differed from mine? except that i said it first.
Here's how it's different, at least in the way that I'm reading it:
You seem to be suggesting that Schoen is motivated by wanting the musical chairs to reach their conclusion on schedule, and therefore avoids restructuring contracts that are on the verge of expiration simply out of an aversion to DEAD MONEY.
I am saying that Schoen's only motivation in using LIVE contracts for restructuring, rather than soon-to-be dead contracts for that same restructuring is simply the number of years remaining across which he can still amortize the salary-to-bonus shift.
It has nothing to do with the money being "live" or "dead." It has nothing to do with the categorically false suggestion that you made earlier in this thread that money that has already been restructured could somehow be restructured again by virtue of the player still being under contract. It is simply a matter of Schoen spreading the amortization as broadly as he can across multiple years. If we fast forward to 2025 and DJ has not yet been extended, I'm suggesting that I think Schoen would avoid manipulating his contract with only one year remaining even if he absolutely intends to extend DJ anyway.
It's not about ending the game of musical chairs, which is how I interpreted your position. It's about extending the game as long as possible, IMO, whenever the game becomes necessary.
If my interpretation of your position is incorrect, I apologize, but you seemed pretty firm in your view that there was a material difference between the restructured money being living or dead, beyond just the number of amortized years.
RE: RE: RE: I don't think you know what gaslighting means.
I still don't think you understand the actual definition of gaslighting. It's different from disagreeing.
But sure, keep telling us how the Giants can keep reworking the same contract repeatedly without acknowledging that they can't rework the reworked portion once it's been converted to bonus. I'm sure if you say it often enough someone might believe that it's true. It won't be me, or anyone else who has a basic grasp of the cap, but maybe someone will buy it.
you jumped into a discussion to literally argue my same position back to me like i hadn't already said it a half dozen times.
go ahead and tell me how your musical chairs observation differed from mine? except that i said it first.
Here's how it's different, at least in the way that I'm reading it:
You seem to be suggesting that Schoen is motivated by wanting the musical chairs to reach their conclusion on schedule, and therefore avoids restructuring contracts that are on the verge of expiration simply out of an aversion to DEAD MONEY.
I am saying that Schoen's only motivation in using LIVE contracts for restructuring, rather than soon-to-be dead contracts for that same restructuring is simply the number of years remaining across which he can still amortize the salary-to-bonus shift.
It has nothing to do with the money being "live" or "dead." It has nothing to do with the categorically false suggestion that you made earlier in this thread that money that has already been restructured could somehow be restructured again by virtue of the player still being under contract. It is simply a matter of Schoen spreading the amortization as broadly as he can across multiple years. If we fast forward to 2025 and DJ has not yet been extended, I'm suggesting that I think Schoen would avoid manipulating his contract with only one year remaining even if he absolutely intends to extend DJ anyway.
It's not about ending the game of musical chairs, which is how I interpreted your position. It's about extending the game as long as possible, IMO, whenever the game becomes necessary.
If my interpretation of your position is incorrect, I apologize, but you seemed pretty firm in your view that there was a material difference between the restructured money being living or dead, beyond just the number of amortized years.
your interpretation of my position was incorrect.
1. i never said bonus money could be undone, only that the impact of it could be by proxy if a player has a high base to draw down from in the future year. if the jones restructure added 2m to his cap hit next year, they can restructure him again next year draw down that +2m to whatever they need next year. that is what cannot be done once a player departs. there is no double dip.
2. reread my initial post bc the bold is exactly what my position was (which is what i alleged you restated back to me). they didn't restructure golladay last year because that would have ended the game of musical chairs sooner than williams, jackson, gano. that decision allowed them to consider extending williams, jackson, or gano this year to create more room. or trading them. or cutting them if they stunk. nothing would have erased the extra cap hit but they kicked the can down the road 1 more year before extra dead money hit. the same is true now except that's why they chose to restructure jones instead of williams, jackson or gano. with jones they kick the can to next year, and should they decide to restructure him again with a double dip they can just keep on kicking it.
delaying the dead hits are why i disagreed with christian that the names don't matter if it's all the same money. you buy more time to make different decisions in the future as circumstances change.
It certainly came across to me that the very nature of the money being "dead" (or more appropriately, the money being attached to a name of a player no longer on the Giants roster) was the specific scenario that Schoen was avoiding. And it also came across to me that you were suggesting that because a player remained under contract, a restructure this year could be further restructured again during the remainder of the contract. But as you clarified, that's obviously not the case. Only the salary portions remain malleable, and that's a new restructure each time.
I do realize that most of this argument has been semantic anyway, but I maintain that there were a few posts in this thread where it definitely seemed that you were suggesting that future restructures might inform current restructures, when we know that's false. The reality is that DJ is carrying enough 2024 salary that his contract is going to be squeezed again next year. So if Schoen had so chosen, he could have restructured Gano, Adoree, or Williams this year and still used DJ's 2024 number to rebalance the cap anyway.
And in that way, Christian is right to suggest that it's often irrelevant to get too hung up on which player gets restructured once the cycle of annual restructuring is underway.
I say all this with the caveat that I was once the most outspoken poster here with regard to avoiding dead money. In fact, I'm pretty sure I wrote several rants about the wastefulness of Alex Tanney's guaranteed money, for example (though I still think that was fucking dumb). But I have come to realize that a clean salary cap balance sheet is actually an inefficient one, and any team that isn't spending implicitly-inflated future dollars to boost their current-year cap scenario is basically leaving opportunity on the table.
Eric, thanks for clarifying your comments on repacking bonus money. That was throwing me.
To your other examples, I agree there are reasons you wouldn't want to offer big bonus money to a player you might trade, but that's true whether they are on their first or last year of a contract and requires a level of clairvoyance that stretches the bounds in my view.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but my view has always been about why the name attached to the bonus is immaterial to the cap.
I still stand by my view, other than the length of the amortization schedule, whether the name is Williams or Jones on the bonus -- the Giants have all the same weapons in their cap arsenal.
If the bonus is on the Williams line item, the Giants can still maneuver Jones's money in the exact same way.
And since we all agree the original bonus is locked in place, the schedule of where it's booked is the only difference.
i appreciate that GD - just to bring this full circle
I do realize that most of this argument has been semantic anyway, but I maintain that there were a few posts in this thread where it definitely seemed that you were suggesting that future restructures might inform current restructures, when we know that's false. The reality is that DJ is carrying enough 2024 salary that his contract is going to be squeezed again next year. So if Schoen had so chosen, he could have restructured Gano, Adoree, or Williams this year and still used DJ's 2024 number to rebalance the cap anyway.
And in that way, Christian is right to suggest that it's often irrelevant to get too hung up on which player gets restructured once the cycle of annual restructuring is underway.
I say all this with the caveat that I was once the most outspoken poster here with regard to avoiding dead money. In fact, I'm pretty sure I wrote several rants about the wastefulness of Alex Tanney's guaranteed money, for example (though I still think that was fucking dumb). But I have come to realize that a clean salary cap balance sheet is actually an inefficient one, and any team that isn't spending implicitly-inflated future dollars to boost their current-year cap scenario is basically leaving opportunity on the table.
the common thread i see with schoen's choices is restructuring players most likely to still be around. Yes the numbers could be manipulated equivalently the other way, but i have a hard time finding any benefit to restructuring one of the other guys.
it's the NFL so who knows what happens even in the next month of games, but if there were vegas odds on which player of those restructure candidates is still a giant, jones' odds would be prohibitively higher than the others - which gives him the longest runway for musical chairs and makes him the best candidate.
if the bottom fell out for whatever reason trading jackson or williams would be a legitimate consideration, just like trading DRC was a consideration in 2017 a year removed from the 11 wins.
if those guys play great extending them in-season and using the opportunity to lower their bases and make room for a pickup via trade may also be legitimate consideration. everyone enters walk years with unknown futures.
To your other examples, I agree there are reasons you wouldn't want to offer big bonus money to a player you might trade, but that's true whether they are on their first or last year of a contract and requires a level of clairvoyance that stretches the bounds in my view.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but my view has always been about why the name attached to the bonus is immaterial to the cap.
it's a lot easier to foresee trading a rental veteran closing in on 30 compared to a guy they just extended to a record setting deal. we can stamp a 'didn't sign him to trade him' on this observation, but the probability of trading jones before this year's trade deadline (which pre-restructure would have been something like 30m+ negative cap space) is close to lightning strike on the day you win powerball territory.
to trade a williams or jackson they may need to pay down some of the cap number depending on the acquiring team's cap, but if they end up in that position and do it they would likely get compensated for it w/ draft picks in excess of whatever comp pick projected as opposed to doing it for nothing.
Pretty sure it was you who used Dallas as a example of how they create space with players like Smith and Martin. Continued performance and health were a key from what I recall.
Schoen was asked about Williams after the season by the beats. Said something like he "still plays at a high level WHEN healthy".
Never heard such words about Jones and agree with most of your thoughts on this thread as well.
Christian, brush up on that math and get the year correct. 2007 is the wrong one. Details and fundamentals.
to trade a williams or jackson they may need to pay down some of the cap number depending on the acquiring team's cap, but if they end up in that position and do it they would likely get compensated for it w/ draft picks in excess of whatever comp pick projected as opposed to doing it for nothing.
I'm not sure where you're going with the probability of trading Jones so I don't how to answer that.
With the benefit of hindsight, we do know how things developed.
The Giants wanted to create $6.315M in cap savings. If they had chosen Williams as a conduit, his 2023 salary would have dropped to about 8M for 2023. That would have made him very tradable. But more importantly trading him would have been a net positive to the Giants cap.
In this instance choosing to restructure Williams:
1) Benefits the Giants by draft picks required, and the cap space saved
2) Keeps the powder on Jones's salary dry, and it can utilized for future cap maneuvers
I'm not sure how this is an argument against restructuring Williams vs. Jones?
to trade a williams or jackson they may need to pay down some of the cap number depending on the acquiring team's cap, but if they end up in that position and do it they would likely get compensated for it w/ draft picks in excess of whatever comp pick projected as opposed to doing it for nothing.
I'm not sure where you're going with the probability of trading Jones so I don't how to answer that.
With the benefit of hindsight, we do know how things developed.
The Giants wanted to create $6.315M in cap savings. If they had chosen Williams as a conduit, his 2023 salary would have dropped to about 8M for 2023. That would have made him very tradable. But more importantly trading him would have been a net positive to the Giants cap.
In this instance choosing to restructure Williams:
1) Benefits the Giants by draft picks required, and the cap space saved
2) Keeps the powder on Jones's salary dry, and it can utilized for future cap maneuvers
I'm not sure how this is an argument against restructuring Williams vs. Jones?
by the deadline there could be 2 or 3 contenders with almost enough space to absorb williams remaining salary. ideally 1 of them would be interested.
if not as i said you can pay down williams enough to make him tradable to whatever team most wants him, but you aren't guessing ahead of time, you only pay down as much as you have to. or if they want you to pay down more of his salary it costs them more draft picks.
nobody wants to have to sell and id be surprised if they end up in that position but the whole point is keep options open.
RE: RE: RE: RE: I don't think you know what gaslighting means.
There’s gaslighting in this thread. Just not where you pointed towards.
hey look it's googs - the gangs all here!
if i have time later ill try to think of a way to use ron dayne to contextualize this for you.
Hey look, you seem to miss several things! Just like you missed that the best NFL prospect running back or WR in a draft may not be the one that wins the college award.
id be surprised if they end up in that position but the whole point is keep options open.
OK I get it. So the downside is in the event you decide to trade Williams and you restructured him, you might eat more of his salary than otherwise necessary.
I can buy that as an edge reason in favor of restructuring Jones.
Christian, brush up on that math and get the year correct. 2007 is the wrong one. Details and fundamentals.
Hey sunshine. This is feeling very personnel. I've been waiting for the outcome of my assumptions all day, and nothing happened. I'm disappointed!
I have said making assumptions in the game of football and most things in life often does not end well. I have told you that before. Preparation and Execution are good. Coaches and any good leader I have been around don't make assumptions. You consistently make assumptions.
Not sure how you came to the conclusion I was threatening you. Actually it does make sense.......to me at least.
Aw Eeyore, I've never made any assumptions about you! There's no need. Who you are is on full display every single time you start smashing the keyboard. Chief among the many, many things you are is transparent old chap.
I'm glad we've cleared this up. I'd hate nothing more than for this to get personnel. I hate getting human resources involved in stuff like this.
Aw Eeyore, I've never made any assumptions about you! There's no need. Who you are is on full display every single time you start smashing the keyboard. Chief among the many, many things you are is transparent old chap.
I'm glad we've cleared this up. I'd hate nothing more than for this to get personnel. I hate getting human resources involved in stuff like this.
You just made my point. Again. I never said the assumptions were about me. You assumed it was.
You seem to be short-circuiting again. Time to recharge that the clock upstairs of yours and get some rest.
Aw Eeyore, I've never made any assumptions about you! There's no need. Who you are is on full display every single time you start smashing the keyboard. Chief among the many, many things you are is transparent old chap.
I'm glad we've cleared this up. I'd hate nothing more than for this to get personnel. I hate getting human resources involved in stuff like this.
You just made my point. Again. I never said the assumptions were about me. You assumed it was.
You seem to be short-circuiting again. Time to recharge that the clock upstairs of yours and get some rest.
Darn. Well I guess you're playing chess and I'm just playing bingo. [Insert mind blown emoji].
Good night old pal. Give me a shout tomorrow so we can do it again.
Just one more thing, can you tell me what that outcome I might not like is? Can you do that for a friend pretty please?
It has nothing to do with rolling money.
That a player might have other salary that can be converted to a new bonus, doesn't change the fact the first bonus hits. That's just unequivocal reality.
Next year no matter what the Giants do, they will incur a cap hit of 2.105M as part of today's restructure.
And let's say they keep converting salary to bonus, it just piles up on the schedule.
What you're describing is the maneuvering his net cap charge, which is all bonuses and salary. The Giants moved 2.1M from Jones's 2023 salary to a 2024 bonus.
Now literally that 2.1M bonus charge on 2024 can never move now, but practically it doesn't matter. You can convert 2.1M in 2024 salary to a 2025 bonus, and his net cap charge evens out.
That 2.1M 2024 bonus is just a packet of money on the balance sheet, and you can make corresponding moves to offset it.
This is my whole point. Imagine that 2.1M packet of money was on the Leonard Williams line in the spreadsheet instead.
The Giants could still convert 2.1M of Jones's 2024 salary to offset it, and the net impact to the Giants salary cap is exactly the same.
Once salary is converted to bonus, it's just residue. It doesn't matter whose name is attached.
jones (or any player with big enough base salaries) can still be restructured again. so if they need to save that same $2m they converted to bonus next year, they can do the same thing again with his deal. once a player is gone you dont have any options.
this is the exact same concept as the obvious reality that right now they have options to extend, restructure, or trade to adjust the contracts of adoree, williams, or gano this year, but not golladay. whose contract schoen declared publicly as the restructure of last resort. why do you think he felt that?
you keep dancing around this obvious reality - why do you think schoen has always restructured players with more than 1 year left under contract? why do you think he chose to restructure a jones contract he just signed 6 months ago over the 3 he restructured last year? you're a smart enough guy to figure out what's different.
We agree that money paid as a bonus cannot be moved. For instance if a player signs a 1 year deal with 1.2M salary and 5M signing bonus for 2023, that 5M can never be moved. Do we agree on that?
We agree that money paid as a bonus cannot be moved. For instance if a player signs a 1 year deal with 1.2M salary and 5M signing bonus for 2023, that 5M can never be moved. Do we agree on that?
it's irrelevant to the point because paid money counts the same $ for $ against the cap. if you need to save $6m this year, as the giants just did, it doesn't matter which spreadsheet column it came from and went to. gaining the space in the present is what they needed. they paid jones the same cash amount $ for $ in bonus as he was guaranteed to make in base anyway, and that cash amount will hit their cap for the same total amount, how they do it just impacts when it happens. he was the person they chose to do that with precisely because with him they maintain the ability to manipulate his cap number again in the future if they need to despite some parts of that cap number being fixed (the prorated bonus).
the entire necessity of restructures is to save money in the present. there is no other benefit. jones was one of the few guys on the roster with big enough salaries in the future that they can continue using him as a bank, which is why they chose to restructure his deal now.
they didn't choose to restructure golladay last year because they knew he'd be gone this year and the game of musical chairs stops. presumably they are making the same calculation with not restructuring jackson, williams, and gano right now.
here's 1 new question to add on to your list of answers, all else equal is it better to have the option to continue kicking the can down the road, or to not have that option? simple yes it's better, no it's not.
at this point it doesn't really matter. in the offseason cap room is a meaningful resource that gets planned out. like apple or any other company plans out investing in an exciting new product.
in-season you are reactive mostly to things you can't control. it's compliance. like reconciling the cash register at the end of the day in a store. it's just a thing someone has to do.
Why restructure a player with multiple years vs. only one year left on their deal?
The answer is because when you put money on void year(s), all of that money accelerates immediately to the year the contract voids.
If Schoen restructured Leonard Williams's 2023 salary (setting aide the other existing bonuses) to save 8.42M, it would look like this
2023 (Real) 7.9M Salary | 1.68 Bonus
2024 (Void) 1.68 Bonus
2025 (Void) 1.68 Bonus
2026 (Void) 1.68 Bonus
2027 (Void) 1.68 Bonus
2028 (Void) 1.68 Bonus
The cap charge for 2023 would be 9.6, and the cap charge for 2024 be 8.24M, accelerated to 2024 as dead money.
So the short answer is he can spread the impact across 4 years with Jones and only 2 years with Williams.
Do we agree on that?
Transactions page says Jack Anderson waived from IR with injury settlement. He was holding $940K cap number I think. That could be part of it.
Quote:
Eric, I am happy to answer/re-answer all of the questions you've posed, but I want to make sure we agree on one common set of facts.
We agree that money paid as a bonus cannot be moved. For instance if a player signs a 1 year deal with 1.2M salary and 5M signing bonus for 2023, that 5M can never be moved. Do we agree on that?
it's irrelevant to the point because paid money counts the same $ for $ against the cap. if you need to save $6m this year, as the giants just did, it doesn't matter which spreadsheet column it came from and went to. gaining the space in the present is what they needed. they paid jones the same cash amount $ for $ in bonus as he was guaranteed to make in base anyway, and that cash amount will hit their cap for the same total amount, how they do it just impacts when it happens. he was the person they chose to do that with precisely because with him they maintain the ability to manipulate his cap number again in the future if they need to despite some parts of that cap number being fixed (the prorated bonus).
the entire necessity of restructures is to save money in the present. there is no other benefit. jones was one of the few guys on the roster with big enough salaries in the future that they can continue using him as a bank, which is why they chose to restructure his deal now.
they didn't choose to restructure golladay last year because they knew he'd be gone this year and the game of musical chairs stops. presumably they are making the same calculation with not restructuring jackson, williams, and gano right now.
here's 1 new question to add on to your list of answers, all else equal is it better to have the option to continue kicking the can down the road, or to not have that option? simple yes it's better, no it's not.
You can keep repeating the bold portion, but it's not accurate.
The Giants chose DJ because there were more years to spread the amortization across, not because there is any incremental flexibility gained by manipulating the same contract repeatedly.
The guys you're ruling out as alternatives are being avoided not because the Giants want to end the game of musical chairs. In fact, it's quite the contrary: the Giants are, by choosing to restructure DJ's brand new contract, making an intentional effort to spread the game of musical chairs out as long as possible. The alternatives you list would all end sooner, by design.
So restructuring DJ means that 75% of the restructured money becomes cap space this year. Restructuring LW (without adding new void years) means that 50% of the restructured money becomes cap space this year. The Giants would have to shift 50% more salary to bonus on LW's contract to achieve the same 2023 cap space outcome, and doing so results in 3x as much 2024 cap space being depleted because there isn't a ledger entry for 2025 or 2026 to which it can be amortized.
But that has nothing to do with being able to manipulate the money a second (or third) time. Restructures don't move bonus to bonus. Once the salary has been moved to bonus (to open up space), it's done. And once that salary is paid, it's also done. I'm surprised this is even a matter of debate.
Once salary is converted to bonus, in Eric's words it hits.
That Jones has other remaining salary that can be converted to bonus at a future time, has no actual bearing on the previous salary that was converted to a bonus.
Eric, to answer you question re: kicking cans. It's simply just a different can.
Once salary is converted to bonus, in Eric's words it hits.
That Jones has other remaining salary that can be converted to bonus at a future time, has no actual bearing on the previous salary that was converted to a bonus.
Eric, to answer you question re: kicking cans. It's simply just a different can.
Got it...makes sense. Discussion was worth reading. Live and learn
Why restructure a player with multiple years vs. only one year left on their deal?
The answer is because when you put money on void year(s), all of that money accelerates immediately to the year the contract voids.
If Schoen restructured Leonard Williams's 2023 salary (setting aide the other existing bonuses) to save 8.42M, it would look like this
2023 (Real) 7.9M Salary | 1.68 Bonus
2024 (Void) 1.68 Bonus
2025 (Void) 1.68 Bonus
2026 (Void) 1.68 Bonus
2027 (Void) 1.68 Bonus
2028 (Void) 1.68 Bonus
The cap charge for 2023 would be 9.6, and the cap charge for 2024 be 8.24M, accelerated to 2024 as dead money.
So the short answer is he can spread the impact across 4 years with Jones and only 2 years with Williams.
Do we agree on that?
do we agree that restructuring contracts about to expire accelerates all of the negatives i've listed ad nauseum every time this has come up? obviously yes?
am i crazy or is this post that i am replying to an example of an actual, literal, tangible, honest to goodness difference in who got restructured and who didn't?
In comment 16192145 christian said:
It's just moving dollars from one column to the next in a spreadsheet.
There's literally no difference what player it is.
My initial point in this debate has always been if the dollars the same, it doesn't matter whose name you put the bonus under. And I stand by that.
I think a likely real world hypothetical illustrates this: Say the Giants need to borrow an additional 2M from next year, and two options are:
1) Move 2M more of Jones's 2023 salary to a 2024 bonus
2) Move 2M of Leonard Williams's 2023 salary to his 2024 void year
That 2M is locked forever against 2024 cap, and can never be moved. Whether it's dead and in the Williams column or live and in the Jones column, it makes no difference. It's 2M less on the Giants 2024 cap. The Giants get no additional flexibility by putting it under Jones's name.
Putting those dollars under the Williams column doesn't preclude the Giants from kicking the Jones can later if they so choose.
As I acknowledged in crystal clear terms yesterday on this thread, the upside I overlooked is stretching the amortization schedule.
The point I 100% disagree with you on, and GD did a good job of summarizing, is that you can somehow kick a bonus you've already paid down the road.
As I acknowledged in crystal clear terms yesterday on this thread, the upside I overlooked is stretching the amortization schedule.
The point I 100% disagree with you on, and GD did a good job of summarizing, is that you can somehow kick a bonus you've already paid down the road.
Thanks, I got that. Only difference is "$2 mill" with Jones is spread over the remaning (4?) years vs 1 yr for LW...
In practical contract terms it would be spread over 4 years for Jones, or 2 years for Williams.
Remember Williams is in under contract for 2023, and has void year in 2024.
You can keep repeating the bold portion, but it's not accurate.
The Giants chose DJ because there were more years to spread the amortization across, not because there is any incremental flexibility gained by manipulating the same contract repeatedly.
The guys you're ruling out as alternatives are being avoided not because the Giants want to end the game of musical chairs. In fact, it's quite the contrary: the Giants are, by choosing to restructure DJ's brand new contract, making an intentional effort to spread the game of musical chairs out as long as possible. The alternatives you list would all end sooner, by design.
So restructuring DJ means that 75% of the restructured money becomes cap space this year. Restructuring LW (without adding new void years) means that 50% of the restructured money becomes cap space this year. The Giants would have to shift 50% more salary to bonus on LW's contract to achieve the same 2023 cap space outcome, and doing so results in 3x as much 2024 cap space being depleted because there isn't a ledger entry for 2025 or 2026 to which it can be amortized.
But that has nothing to do with being able to manipulate the money a second (or third) time. Restructures don't move bonus to bonus. Once the salary has been moved to bonus (to open up space), it's done. And once that salary is paid, it's also done. I'm surprised this is even a matter of debate.
holy hell this entire tomato/tomato argument is grade A gaslighting but the part i bolded is particularly rich. it's been a long time since i took the SATs but:
In comment 16192716 Gatorade Dunk said:
sounds an awful lot like my exact argument:
In comment 16192665 Eric on Li said:
they didn't choose to restructure golladay last year because they knew he'd be gone this year and the game of musical chairs stops.
you literally recited the exact same analogy i used (musical chairs) and suggested the giants operated with the exact same motive I did.
My initial point in this debate has always been if the dollars the same, it doesn't matter whose name you put the bonus under. And I stand by that.
paid signing bonus amortizing over years is it's defining quality so how was that not obvious? that is literally the main feature that makes signing bonuses different on the cap than just guaranteeing a higher base.
the entire purpose of a restructure is literally shifting money from the present salary to an amortization schedule. you really didn't consider that a contract with 1 year left as opposed to multiple years left changes that schedule?
you can keep trying to shoehorn that you stand by the premise of #'s next to names but as long as those names have different contracts there are going to be differences, and inactive contracts that end the game of musical chairs sooner create fewer options even if the outcomes can be manipulated similarly.
i think ed mason nailed it.
That's literally the only benefit.
There is no further benefit in terms of kicking cans. Those bonuses are inextricably tied to the year they are assigned. I suspect this is a fact you neglected to consider and are being too stubborn to just admit.
Restructuring Jones vs. Williams for instance providing a single benefit: stretching the money over 4 years instead of 2. That's it.
Quote:
TBC on "musical chairs."
i think ed mason nailed it.
Cool, Urban Dictionary.
I still don't think you understand the actual definition of gaslighting. It's different from disagreeing.
But sure, keep telling us how the Giants can keep reworking the same contract repeatedly without acknowledging that they can't rework the reworked portion once it's been converted to bonus. I'm sure if you say it often enough someone might believe that it's true. It won't be me, or anyone else who has a basic grasp of the cap, but maybe someone will buy it.
We've all agreed one benefit is spreading the bonus over 4 years vs. 2.
What's another one?
Any player making a ton of money you just re-assign them to a position that gets paid peanuts like kicker or punter. Once you re-assign their position they will now take into account their position in regard to their contract. Once you secure a deal for that new position, just re-assign them back to their old position and boom, problem solved!
upvote
Any player making a ton of money you just re-assign them to a position that gets paid peanuts like kicker or punter. Once you re-assign their position they will now take into account their position in regard to their contract. Once you secure a deal for that new position, just re-assign them back to their old position and boom, problem solved!
upvote
Be sure to let Schoen know....thanks
This is a red herring - there are no void years in DJ's contract!
That's literally the only benefit.
There is no further benefit in terms of kicking cans. Those bonuses are inextricably tied to the year they are assigned. I suspect this is a fact you neglected to consider and are being too stubborn to just admit.
Restructuring Jones vs. Williams for instance providing a single benefit: stretching the money over 4 years instead of 2. That's it.
i dont know how many different ways i can say that i believe there is more to it than just the low hanging fruit of amortization schedule. i have posted in this thread and others examples of other organizations using this same maneuver, and i cant think of any real or hypothetical where restructuring a contract that is active longer isnt preferable to one that will become inactive for a team that's not rebuilding/resetting. is there any you can think of that comes out better than equivalent? even in the equivalent scenarios i can point out negatives like void years and june 1 designations, which in my view are last resort contract features for good reason (and that's not a novel view, schoen has said the same publicly numerous times).
if anyone could predict which players will be worth keeping for sure next year then the cap wouldnt be nearly as big of a deal as it is. active players preserve more options than inactive ones. im not saying this would be a good practice, but in theory if they wanted to they could have told leonard williams pre-week 1 he needed to take some kind of reasonable extension. do you think leonard williams was going to find $18m from someone else right now? it may seem unlikely but if he had a terrible camp, got pushed around like henry mondeaux, and ryder anderson had the same kind of camp as jordon riley, then all of a sudden things that scenario isn't so far fetched. that's basically what happened with martinez/calitro last year (though different just bc he was making league minimum).
different example - jones gets hurt, the season goes south. obvious move to shop rental veterans in a lost season. wouldn't you prefer to have kept the door open to saving a bunch of $ if you can move a veteran to a team with cap room? in all likelihood that becomes a negotiation and you will pay down some of it, but your hands arent tied by the $ you already fronted to a rental as opposed to a player who will remain here next year and beyond.
Quote:
In comment 16192798 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
TBC on "musical chairs."
i think ed mason nailed it.
Cool, Urban Dictionary.
I still don't think you understand the actual definition of gaslighting. It's different from disagreeing.
But sure, keep telling us how the Giants can keep reworking the same contract repeatedly without acknowledging that they can't rework the reworked portion once it's been converted to bonus. I'm sure if you say it often enough someone might believe that it's true. It won't be me, or anyone else who has a basic grasp of the cap, but maybe someone will buy it.
you jumped into a discussion to literally argue my same position back to me like i hadn't already said it a half dozen times.
go ahead and tell me how your musical chairs observation differed from mine? except that i said it first.
Quote:
Madden has provided a clear way to have plenty of money to spend within the salary cap:
Any player making a ton of money you just re-assign them to a position that gets paid peanuts like kicker or punter. Once you re-assign their position they will now take into account their position in regard to their contract. Once you secure a deal for that new position, just re-assign them back to their old position and boom, problem solved!
upvote
Be sure to let Schoen know....thanks
I was just kidding silly, like a GM of a professional sports team would really value something that happens on a video game. C'mon man!
Quote:
TBC on "musical chairs."
i think ed mason nailed it.
There’s gaslighting in this thread. Just not where you pointed towards.
Quote:
In comment 16192805 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
In comment 16192798 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
TBC on "musical chairs."
i think ed mason nailed it.
Cool, Urban Dictionary.
I still don't think you understand the actual definition of gaslighting. It's different from disagreeing.
But sure, keep telling us how the Giants can keep reworking the same contract repeatedly without acknowledging that they can't rework the reworked portion once it's been converted to bonus. I'm sure if you say it often enough someone might believe that it's true. It won't be me, or anyone else who has a basic grasp of the cap, but maybe someone will buy it.
you jumped into a discussion to literally argue my same position back to me like i hadn't already said it a half dozen times.
go ahead and tell me how your musical chairs observation differed from mine? except that i said it first.
Here's how it's different, at least in the way that I'm reading it:
You seem to be suggesting that Schoen is motivated by wanting the musical chairs to reach their conclusion on schedule, and therefore avoids restructuring contracts that are on the verge of expiration simply out of an aversion to DEAD MONEY.
I am saying that Schoen's only motivation in using LIVE contracts for restructuring, rather than soon-to-be dead contracts for that same restructuring is simply the number of years remaining across which he can still amortize the salary-to-bonus shift.
It has nothing to do with the money being "live" or "dead." It has nothing to do with the categorically false suggestion that you made earlier in this thread that money that has already been restructured could somehow be restructured again by virtue of the player still being under contract. It is simply a matter of Schoen spreading the amortization as broadly as he can across multiple years. If we fast forward to 2025 and DJ has not yet been extended, I'm suggesting that I think Schoen would avoid manipulating his contract with only one year remaining even if he absolutely intends to extend DJ anyway.
It's not about ending the game of musical chairs, which is how I interpreted your position. It's about extending the game as long as possible, IMO, whenever the game becomes necessary.
If my interpretation of your position is incorrect, I apologize, but you seemed pretty firm in your view that there was a material difference between the restructured money being living or dead, beyond just the number of amortized years.
Quote:
In comment 16192798 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
TBC on "musical chairs."
i think ed mason nailed it.
There’s gaslighting in this thread. Just not where you pointed towards.
hey look it's googs - the gangs all here!
if i have time later ill try to think of a way to use ron dayne to contextualize this for you.
Quote:
In comment 16192854 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 16192805 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
In comment 16192798 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
TBC on "musical chairs."
i think ed mason nailed it.
Cool, Urban Dictionary.
I still don't think you understand the actual definition of gaslighting. It's different from disagreeing.
But sure, keep telling us how the Giants can keep reworking the same contract repeatedly without acknowledging that they can't rework the reworked portion once it's been converted to bonus. I'm sure if you say it often enough someone might believe that it's true. It won't be me, or anyone else who has a basic grasp of the cap, but maybe someone will buy it.
you jumped into a discussion to literally argue my same position back to me like i hadn't already said it a half dozen times.
go ahead and tell me how your musical chairs observation differed from mine? except that i said it first.
Here's how it's different, at least in the way that I'm reading it:
You seem to be suggesting that Schoen is motivated by wanting the musical chairs to reach their conclusion on schedule, and therefore avoids restructuring contracts that are on the verge of expiration simply out of an aversion to DEAD MONEY.
I am saying that Schoen's only motivation in using LIVE contracts for restructuring, rather than soon-to-be dead contracts for that same restructuring is simply the number of years remaining across which he can still amortize the salary-to-bonus shift.
It has nothing to do with the money being "live" or "dead." It has nothing to do with the categorically false suggestion that you made earlier in this thread that money that has already been restructured could somehow be restructured again by virtue of the player still being under contract. It is simply a matter of Schoen spreading the amortization as broadly as he can across multiple years. If we fast forward to 2025 and DJ has not yet been extended, I'm suggesting that I think Schoen would avoid manipulating his contract with only one year remaining even if he absolutely intends to extend DJ anyway.
It's not about ending the game of musical chairs, which is how I interpreted your position. It's about extending the game as long as possible, IMO, whenever the game becomes necessary.
If my interpretation of your position is incorrect, I apologize, but you seemed pretty firm in your view that there was a material difference between the restructured money being living or dead, beyond just the number of amortized years.
your interpretation of my position was incorrect.
1. i never said bonus money could be undone, only that the impact of it could be by proxy if a player has a high base to draw down from in the future year. if the jones restructure added 2m to his cap hit next year, they can restructure him again next year draw down that +2m to whatever they need next year. that is what cannot be done once a player departs. there is no double dip.
2. reread my initial post bc the bold is exactly what my position was (which is what i alleged you restated back to me). they didn't restructure golladay last year because that would have ended the game of musical chairs sooner than williams, jackson, gano. that decision allowed them to consider extending williams, jackson, or gano this year to create more room. or trading them. or cutting them if they stunk. nothing would have erased the extra cap hit but they kicked the can down the road 1 more year before extra dead money hit. the same is true now except that's why they chose to restructure jones instead of williams, jackson or gano. with jones they kick the can to next year, and should they decide to restructure him again with a double dip they can just keep on kicking it.
delaying the dead hits are why i disagreed with christian that the names don't matter if it's all the same money. you buy more time to make different decisions in the future as circumstances change.
It certainly came across to me that the very nature of the money being "dead" (or more appropriately, the money being attached to a name of a player no longer on the Giants roster) was the specific scenario that Schoen was avoiding. And it also came across to me that you were suggesting that because a player remained under contract, a restructure this year could be further restructured again during the remainder of the contract. But as you clarified, that's obviously not the case. Only the salary portions remain malleable, and that's a new restructure each time.
I do realize that most of this argument has been semantic anyway, but I maintain that there were a few posts in this thread where it definitely seemed that you were suggesting that future restructures might inform current restructures, when we know that's false. The reality is that DJ is carrying enough 2024 salary that his contract is going to be squeezed again next year. So if Schoen had so chosen, he could have restructured Gano, Adoree, or Williams this year and still used DJ's 2024 number to rebalance the cap anyway.
And in that way, Christian is right to suggest that it's often irrelevant to get too hung up on which player gets restructured once the cycle of annual restructuring is underway.
I say all this with the caveat that I was once the most outspoken poster here with regard to avoiding dead money. In fact, I'm pretty sure I wrote several rants about the wastefulness of Alex Tanney's guaranteed money, for example (though I still think that was fucking dumb). But I have come to realize that a clean salary cap balance sheet is actually an inefficient one, and any team that isn't spending implicitly-inflated future dollars to boost their current-year cap scenario is basically leaving opportunity on the table.
To your other examples, I agree there are reasons you wouldn't want to offer big bonus money to a player you might trade, but that's true whether they are on their first or last year of a contract and requires a level of clairvoyance that stretches the bounds in my view.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but my view has always been about why the name attached to the bonus is immaterial to the cap.
I still stand by my view, other than the length of the amortization schedule, whether the name is Williams or Jones on the bonus -- the Giants have all the same weapons in their cap arsenal.
If the bonus is on the Williams line item, the Giants can still maneuver Jones's money in the exact same way.
And since we all agree the original bonus is locked in place, the schedule of where it's booked is the only difference.
I do realize that most of this argument has been semantic anyway, but I maintain that there were a few posts in this thread where it definitely seemed that you were suggesting that future restructures might inform current restructures, when we know that's false. The reality is that DJ is carrying enough 2024 salary that his contract is going to be squeezed again next year. So if Schoen had so chosen, he could have restructured Gano, Adoree, or Williams this year and still used DJ's 2024 number to rebalance the cap anyway.
And in that way, Christian is right to suggest that it's often irrelevant to get too hung up on which player gets restructured once the cycle of annual restructuring is underway.
I say all this with the caveat that I was once the most outspoken poster here with regard to avoiding dead money. In fact, I'm pretty sure I wrote several rants about the wastefulness of Alex Tanney's guaranteed money, for example (though I still think that was fucking dumb). But I have come to realize that a clean salary cap balance sheet is actually an inefficient one, and any team that isn't spending implicitly-inflated future dollars to boost their current-year cap scenario is basically leaving opportunity on the table.
the common thread i see with schoen's choices is restructuring players most likely to still be around. Yes the numbers could be manipulated equivalently the other way, but i have a hard time finding any benefit to restructuring one of the other guys.
it's the NFL so who knows what happens even in the next month of games, but if there were vegas odds on which player of those restructure candidates is still a giant, jones' odds would be prohibitively higher than the others - which gives him the longest runway for musical chairs and makes him the best candidate.
if the bottom fell out for whatever reason trading jackson or williams would be a legitimate consideration, just like trading DRC was a consideration in 2017 a year removed from the 11 wins.
if those guys play great extending them in-season and using the opportunity to lower their bases and make room for a pickup via trade may also be legitimate consideration. everyone enters walk years with unknown futures.
To your other examples, I agree there are reasons you wouldn't want to offer big bonus money to a player you might trade, but that's true whether they are on their first or last year of a contract and requires a level of clairvoyance that stretches the bounds in my view.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but my view has always been about why the name attached to the bonus is immaterial to the cap.
it's a lot easier to foresee trading a rental veteran closing in on 30 compared to a guy they just extended to a record setting deal. we can stamp a 'didn't sign him to trade him' on this observation, but the probability of trading jones before this year's trade deadline (which pre-restructure would have been something like 30m+ negative cap space) is close to lightning strike on the day you win powerball territory.
to trade a williams or jackson they may need to pay down some of the cap number depending on the acquiring team's cap, but if they end up in that position and do it they would likely get compensated for it w/ draft picks in excess of whatever comp pick projected as opposed to doing it for nothing.
Schoen was asked about Williams after the season by the beats. Said something like he "still plays at a high level WHEN healthy".
Never heard such words about Jones and agree with most of your thoughts on this thread as well.
Christian, brush up on that math and get the year correct. 2007 is the wrong one. Details and fundamentals.
I'm not sure where you're going with the probability of trading Jones so I don't how to answer that.
With the benefit of hindsight, we do know how things developed.
The Giants wanted to create $6.315M in cap savings. If they had chosen Williams as a conduit, his 2023 salary would have dropped to about 8M for 2023. That would have made him very tradable. But more importantly trading him would have been a net positive to the Giants cap.
In this instance choosing to restructure Williams:
1) Benefits the Giants by draft picks required, and the cap space saved
2) Keeps the powder on Jones's salary dry, and it can utilized for future cap maneuvers
I'm not sure how this is an argument against restructuring Williams vs. Jones?
Hey sunshine. This is feeling very personnel. I've been waiting for the outcome of my assumptions all day, and nothing happened. I'm disappointed!
Quote:
to trade a williams or jackson they may need to pay down some of the cap number depending on the acquiring team's cap, but if they end up in that position and do it they would likely get compensated for it w/ draft picks in excess of whatever comp pick projected as opposed to doing it for nothing.
I'm not sure where you're going with the probability of trading Jones so I don't how to answer that.
With the benefit of hindsight, we do know how things developed.
The Giants wanted to create $6.315M in cap savings. If they had chosen Williams as a conduit, his 2023 salary would have dropped to about 8M for 2023. That would have made him very tradable. But more importantly trading him would have been a net positive to the Giants cap.
In this instance choosing to restructure Williams:
1) Benefits the Giants by draft picks required, and the cap space saved
2) Keeps the powder on Jones's salary dry, and it can utilized for future cap maneuvers
I'm not sure how this is an argument against restructuring Williams vs. Jones?
by the deadline there could be 2 or 3 contenders with almost enough space to absorb williams remaining salary. ideally 1 of them would be interested.
if not as i said you can pay down williams enough to make him tradable to whatever team most wants him, but you aren't guessing ahead of time, you only pay down as much as you have to. or if they want you to pay down more of his salary it costs them more draft picks.
nobody wants to have to sell and id be surprised if they end up in that position but the whole point is keep options open.
Quote:
In comment 16192805 Eric on Li said:
Quote:
In comment 16192798 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
TBC on "musical chairs."
i think ed mason nailed it.
There’s gaslighting in this thread. Just not where you pointed towards.
hey look it's googs - the gangs all here!
if i have time later ill try to think of a way to use ron dayne to contextualize this for you.
Hey look, you seem to miss several things! Just like you missed that the best NFL prospect running back or WR in a draft may not be the one that wins the college award.
OK I get it. So the downside is in the event you decide to trade Williams and you restructured him, you might eat more of his salary than otherwise necessary.
I can buy that as an edge reason in favor of restructuring Jones.
Quote:
Christian, brush up on that math and get the year correct. 2007 is the wrong one. Details and fundamentals.
Hey sunshine. This is feeling very personnel. I've been waiting for the outcome of my assumptions all day, and nothing happened. I'm disappointed!
I have said making assumptions in the game of football and most things in life often does not end well. I have told you that before. Preparation and Execution are good. Coaches and any good leader I have been around don't make assumptions. You consistently make assumptions.
Not sure how you came to the conclusion I was threatening you. Actually it does make sense.......to me at least.
I'm glad we've cleared this up. I'd hate nothing more than for this to get personnel. I hate getting human resources involved in stuff like this.
I'm glad we've cleared this up. I'd hate nothing more than for this to get personnel. I hate getting human resources involved in stuff like this.
You just made my point. Again. I never said the assumptions were about me. You assumed it was.
You seem to be short-circuiting again. Time to recharge that the clock upstairs of yours and get some rest.
Quote:
Aw Eeyore, I've never made any assumptions about you! There's no need. Who you are is on full display every single time you start smashing the keyboard. Chief among the many, many things you are is transparent old chap.
I'm glad we've cleared this up. I'd hate nothing more than for this to get personnel. I hate getting human resources involved in stuff like this.
You just made my point. Again. I never said the assumptions were about me. You assumed it was.
You seem to be short-circuiting again. Time to recharge that the clock upstairs of yours and get some rest.
Darn. Well I guess you're playing chess and I'm just playing bingo. [Insert mind blown emoji].
Good night old pal. Give me a shout tomorrow so we can do it again.
Just one more thing, can you tell me what that outcome I might not like is? Can you do that for a friend pretty please?