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.
There's so much anxiety spent by fans conflating the cap for a financial measurement, when it's simply an accounting measurement.
Daniel Jones will not make a single more cent and he won't cost a single more cent against the cap over the lifetime of this contract.
But he's going to have a 53M cap hit next year and I guarantee that causes someone to have the vapors.
Jones has a 45 million cap hit next year before this restructure. Doesn’t the bonus get prorated over the life of the contract? I don’t think Jones cap hit will be 54 million next year.
There's so much anxiety spent by fans conflating the cap for a financial measurement, when it's simply an accounting measurement.
Daniel Jones will not make a single more cent and he won't cost a single more cent against the cap over the lifetime of this contract.
But he's going to have a 53M cap hit next year and I guarantee that causes someone to have the vapors.
Eh, just something to talk about while waiting for the season to start - I think the hit next year will be about $47 mill with the restructure - not a big deal.
There would now be $22.2M dead money if the Giants want out after 2024 (was $18M pre-restructure)
And to be clear, this restructure is to give them enough room to operate this season (P-squad elevations, IR costs, etc). Not expecting some big trade/signing as a result.
Get used to Jones restructures. He has a $35.5M base salary in 2024. Unless this season is a catastrophe and moving on after 2024 is a real possibility, they’ll surely restructure next offseason, with the potential to create as much as ~$22M in cap space.
Dan Duggan
@DDuggan21
·
1m
One more note on restructures: They’re strictly for cap purposes. The Giants have “automatic conversions” clauses in their contracts, so they can restructure whoever/whenever they want. The player doesn’t get the restructure amount in a lump sum, it’s paid weekly thru the season.
has now adjusted their website to include the Daniel Jones restructure (attached).
The have also removed vet Tyre Phillips from the PS cost and replaced him with Jaylon Thomas's rookie PS salary.
It appears that this site has now recorded the exact Giants situation and shows that they are UNDER the CAP by $826,164.
That's enough for Thursday's League deadline requirement, but not quite enough to get through this season.
Yesterday I suggested that the Giants could make another move.
Graham Gano becomes a free agent in February at the age of 36. He is a valuable team captain who will have earned over $40 million lifetime at season's end.
No Giants fan wants to see Gano leave. He has been reasonable in his prior negotiations and I think we could all agree as fans that we would like to see his time as a Giant extended a few more years. Link - ( New Window )
I thought after year 2 Jones contract wasn’t guaranteed. Does that mean the restructure goes to next year or does it also go to the unguaranteed years? Thanks
I thought after year 2 Jones contract wasn’t guaranteed. Does that mean the restructure goes to next year or does it also go to the unguaranteed years? Thanks
Applies to the full life of the contract spread evenly. It comes due if he is released before the end of the contract.
restructuring jones was 1 of 3 options and the best one
though it is another $6.3m they may as well have bonused barkley to achieve the same cap result and keep him in the fold for 1 more year after this one. running tally on money that could have secured extra years from barkley now equals $16.5m with the possibility of getting to 17.5m if he hits incentives.
The more the roster and accounting plays out, the more I'm convinced there were additional differences between where Team Barkley and Schoen ended negotiations.
The reports were all stated in broad terms like dollar amounts and guarantees. But I suspect some of the guarantees the Giants offered were softer and only conveyed if Barkley was on the roster in a 3rd year.
If the two parties were as close as reported on the money and structure, it seems strangely stubborn on Schoen's part.
The more the roster and accounting plays out, the more I'm convinced there were additional differences between where Team Barkley and Schoen ended negotiations.
The reports were all stated in broad terms like dollar amounts and guarantees. But I suspect some of the guarantees the Giants offered were softer and only conveyed if Barkley was on the roster in a 3rd year.
If the two parties were as close as reported on the money and structure, it seems strangely stubborn on Schoen's part.
Or it is just a simple as Schoen has a dollar number(and years) on every player and position and just will not go past it.
Yup Glowinski's cap hit seems too high in relation to his performance. But that's also why they don't want to push too much of his money to next year, he's got a low dead cap hit for 2024 if they are able to upgrade and want to cut him
Could also move some of Waller's money to next year's cap I think?
The only difference is the 100% make believe emotional fallacy that it's somehow better to have players on the roster when they are also on the accounting sheet.
And as Schoen and every other GM in the league exhibits, it simply doesn't matter.
The only difference is the 100% make believe emotional fallacy that it's somehow better to have players on the roster when they are also on the accounting sheet.
And as Schoen and every other GM in the league exhibits, it simply doesn't matter.
this is wrong, it is not just an emotional fallacy.
jones has an active contract they can (and probably will) manipulate next year. and maybe the year after. and maybe the year after that. by choosing his deal to manipulate now, they preserve the right to mitigate the money they just moved to next year to the following year, or the following year, or the following year.
you can call it dead money or cap charge or whatever you want to call it, but it can keep moving with an active player. it cannot if it's a terminated contract.
The only difference is the 100% make believe emotional fallacy that it's somehow better to have players on the roster when they are also on the accounting sheet.
And as Schoen and every other GM in the league exhibits, it simply doesn't matter.
this is wrong, it is not just an emotional fallacy.
jones has an active contract they can (and probably will) manipulate next year. and maybe the year after. and maybe the year after that. by choosing his deal to manipulate now, they preserve the right to mitigate the money they just moved to next year to the following year, or the following year, or the following year.
you can call it dead money or cap charge or whatever you want to call it, but it can keep moving with an active player. it cannot if it's a terminated contract.
christian, Eric is more correct on this. While ultimately the money does not matter as it will be paid out eventually, by having it be moved to an active player who will likely be still on the team gives then a chance to make further changes or even incorporate it into a new contract - just more flexible.
It is a small, but important difference.
The only difference is the 100% make believe emotional fallacy that it's somehow better to have players on the roster when they are also on the accounting sheet.
And as Schoen and every other GM in the league exhibits, it simply doesn't matter.
this is wrong, it is not just an emotional fallacy.
jones has an active contract they can (and probably will) manipulate next year. and maybe the year after. and maybe the year after that. by choosing his deal to manipulate now, they preserve the right to mitigate the money they just moved to next year to the following year, or the following year, or the following year.
you can call it dead money or cap charge or whatever you want to call it, but it can keep moving with an active player. it cannot if it's a terminated contract.
What you're describing is simply the value of having deals where you have enough salary to convert it to bonus, and save on the cap in the current year. Both Jones and Williams have that on 2023.
Once that salary is converted to bonus, that packet of dollars is locked into the year it's earmarked on the amortization schedule. The only way it can ever move is if the contract is terminated, then it can accelerate.
The Giants could have done that with Williams or Jones this year. Choosing to do so with Jones has 2 practical differences:
1) They amortized over 4 years instead of 2 with Williams, which lowers the yearly impact
2) But conversely they locked 8M of Jones's future flexibility in place
If flexibility and maneuverability is part of the purpose, they should have just did it with Williams and preserved that powder on Jones's contract when they might need it in the future.
christian, Eric is more correct on this. While ultimately the money does not matter as it will be paid out eventually, by having it be moved to an active player who will likely be still on the team gives then a chance to make further changes or even incorporate it into a new contract - just more flexible.
It is a small, but important difference.
That's not actually the case.
The salary that was converted to a bonus today is paid, and locked to a year on the amortization schedule.
The only way it will not count against those years is if Jones is cut.
It can never be moved out incorporated in another contract.
I'm happy to concede the upside of restructuring Jones allowed for a longer schedule, and lowered the yearly cap impact.
And just for clarity, the Giants could amortize Williams with up to 4 void years. This would lower the cap charge in 2023, but the remainder would all accelerate in a lump sum to 2024.
christian, Eric is more correct on this. While ultimately the money does not matter as it will be paid out eventually, by having it be moved to an active player who will likely be still on the team gives then a chance to make further changes or even incorporate it into a new contract - just more flexible.
It is a small, but important difference.
That's not actually the case.
The salary that was converted to a bonus today is paid, and locked to a year on the amortization schedule.
The only way it will not count against those years is if Jones is cut.
It can never be moved out incorporated in another contract.
I'm happy to concede the upside of restructuring Jones allowed for a longer schedule, and lowered the yearly cap impact.
I actually see both points of view. So the question is does the player / agent have to agree to a contract restructuring or can the team do this without consent ?
The only way it will not count against those years is if Jones is cut...I'm happy to concede the upside of restructuring Jones allowed for a longer schedule, and lowered the yearly cap impact.
Well isn't that the whole fucking point of why it makes a difference who you restructure?
The only way it will not count against those years is if Jones is cut...I'm happy to concede the upside of restructuring Jones allowed for a longer schedule, and lowered the yearly cap impact.
Well isn't that the whole fucking point of why it makes a difference who you restructure?
it has been with every choice of who to restructure the past 2 years.
you can call it dead money or cap charge or whatever you want to call it, but it can keep moving with an active player. it cannot if it's a terminated contract.
Eric -- this is the specific point I disagree with.
When salary is restructured from salary to a bonus, it cannot keep moving. It's locked into the year it's assigned on the amortization schedule.
The only way it can move is if the player is cut, then it accelerates up.
If your point is simply you can spread a bonus over more years if the contract is longer -- then I don't I understand what the above means. It can be spread over more time, but it certainly cannot move.
Daniel Jones will not make a single more cent and he won't cost a single more cent against the cap over the lifetime of this contract.
But he's going to have a 53M cap hit next year and I guarantee that causes someone to have the vapors.
Daniel Jones will not make a single more cent and he won't cost a single more cent against the cap over the lifetime of this contract.
But he's going to have a 53M cap hit next year and I guarantee that causes someone to have the vapors.
Jones has a 45 million cap hit next year before this restructure. Doesn’t the bonus get prorated over the life of the contract? I don’t think Jones cap hit will be 54 million next year.
Two lashings for Christian. One for getting simple math wrong, one for getting huffy puffy about others getting huffy puffy.
Daniel Jones will not make a single more cent and he won't cost a single more cent against the cap over the lifetime of this contract.
But he's going to have a 53M cap hit next year and I guarantee that causes someone to have the vapors.
Eh, just something to talk about while waiting for the season to start - I think the hit next year will be about $47 mill with the restructure - not a big deal.
@DDuggan21
·
39m
Mentioned Jones as a potential restructure repeatedly. Schoen didn’t want to touch Leo/Adoree
Jones’ new cap hits:
2023: $15.4M (was $21.8M)
2024: $47.1M
2025: $41.6M
2026: $58.6M
There would now be $22.2M dead money if the Giants want out after 2024 (was $18M pre-restructure)
And to be clear, this restructure is to give them enough room to operate this season (P-squad elevations, IR costs, etc). Not expecting some big trade/signing as a result.
Get used to Jones restructures. He has a $35.5M base salary in 2024. Unless this season is a catastrophe and moving on after 2024 is a real possibility, they’ll surely restructure next offseason, with the potential to create as much as ~$22M in cap space.
Quote:
^ Yup, you're right, I haven't finished my coffee.
Two lashings for Christian. One for getting simple math wrong, one for getting huffy puffy about others getting huffy puffy.
This is very embarrassing for you as one of the BBI's expert cap gurus. I'm thinking a self-ban may be in order.
I'm emailing Lines of Scrimmage right now... ;)
@DDuggan21
·
1m
One more note on restructures: They’re strictly for cap purposes. The Giants have “automatic conversions” clauses in their contracts, so they can restructure whoever/whenever they want. The player doesn’t get the restructure amount in a lump sum, it’s paid weekly thru the season.
They will still need more $a.
If it makes people feel better,
49rs, Ravens, Bills, Bucs, Raiders, Chiefs are all listed over the cap.
Chiefs by ove 8mil.
They better get that deal done with their DT.
This is very embarrassing for you as one of the BBI's expert cap gurus. I'm thinking a self-ban may be in order.
I'm emailing Lines of Scrimmage right now... ;)
My punishment will be listening for an hour to a slightly inaccurate recounting of Jerry Reese's draft picks from 2007 onward.
Daniel Jones will not make a single more cent and he won't cost a single more cent against the cap over the lifetime of this contract.
But he's going to have a 53M cap hit next year and I guarantee that causes someone to have the vapors.
+1
Outside cutting Leo or Adoree’, which I don’t recommend. We can cut Tyrod Taylor and create 2.75M of space. The Giants don’t want to do that either.
Schoen already said he is perfectly happy letting Leo play out the year on his existing contract, and I believe it. Adoree is in the same boat.
Adoree and Leo are pretty much the only ones with enough salary to convert to make up the difference.
The have also removed vet Tyre Phillips from the PS cost and replaced him with Jaylon Thomas's rookie PS salary.
It appears that this site has now recorded the exact Giants situation and shows that they are UNDER the CAP by $826,164.
That's enough for Thursday's League deadline requirement, but not quite enough to get through this season.
Yesterday I suggested that the Giants could make another move.
Graham Gano becomes a free agent in February at the age of 36. He is a valuable team captain who will have earned over $40 million lifetime at season's end.
No Giants fan wants to see Gano leave. He has been reasonable in his prior negotiations and I think we could all agree as fans that we would like to see his time as a Giant extended a few more years.
Link - ( New Window )
My punishment will be listening for an hour to a slightly inaccurate recounting of Jerry Reese's draft picks from 2007 onward.
LOL
Applies to the full life of the contract spread evenly. It comes due if he is released before the end of the contract.
The reports were all stated in broad terms like dollar amounts and guarantees. But I suspect some of the guarantees the Giants offered were softer and only conveyed if Barkley was on the roster in a 3rd year.
If the two parties were as close as reported on the money and structure, it seems strangely stubborn on Schoen's part.
The reports were all stated in broad terms like dollar amounts and guarantees. But I suspect some of the guarantees the Giants offered were softer and only conveyed if Barkley was on the roster in a 3rd year.
If the two parties were as close as reported on the money and structure, it seems strangely stubborn on Schoen's part.
Or it is just a simple as Schoen has a dollar number(and years) on every player and position and just will not go past it.
Yup Glowinski's cap hit seems too high in relation to his performance. But that's also why they don't want to push too much of his money to next year, he's got a low dead cap hit for 2024 if they are able to upgrade and want to cut him
Could also move some of Waller's money to next year's cap I think?
Ah forgot, thx. Guess that leaves Tyrod and Gano as prime candidates, if they don't want to touch Leo and Adoree
It's just moving dollars from one column to the next in a spreadsheet.
There's literally no difference what player it is.
It's just moving dollars from one column to the next in a spreadsheet.
There's literally no difference what player it is.
this is just as incorrect as every other time you've said it.
there is a big difference in restructuring active $ (like jones) and what will likely turn out to be inactive $ (like williams or jackson or tyrod).
they didnt just roll dice this morning and decide to restructure jones 6 months after structuring the contract the way they did in the first place.
Because there is no financial difference in moving dollars guaranteed to Jones or Williams this year on the account ledger.
And as Schoen and every other GM in the league exhibits, it simply doesn't matter.
And as Schoen and every other GM in the league exhibits, it simply doesn't matter.
this is wrong, it is not just an emotional fallacy.
jones has an active contract they can (and probably will) manipulate next year. and maybe the year after. and maybe the year after that. by choosing his deal to manipulate now, they preserve the right to mitigate the money they just moved to next year to the following year, or the following year, or the following year.
you can call it dead money or cap charge or whatever you want to call it, but it can keep moving with an active player. it cannot if it's a terminated contract.
Quote:
The only difference is the 100% make believe emotional fallacy that it's somehow better to have players on the roster when they are also on the accounting sheet.
And as Schoen and every other GM in the league exhibits, it simply doesn't matter.
this is wrong, it is not just an emotional fallacy.
jones has an active contract they can (and probably will) manipulate next year. and maybe the year after. and maybe the year after that. by choosing his deal to manipulate now, they preserve the right to mitigate the money they just moved to next year to the following year, or the following year, or the following year.
you can call it dead money or cap charge or whatever you want to call it, but it can keep moving with an active player. it cannot if it's a terminated contract.
christian, Eric is more correct on this. While ultimately the money does not matter as it will be paid out eventually, by having it be moved to an active player who will likely be still on the team gives then a chance to make further changes or even incorporate it into a new contract - just more flexible.
It is a small, but important difference.
And as Schoen and every other GM in the league exhibits, it simply doesn't matter.
this is wrong, it is not just an emotional fallacy.
jones has an active contract they can (and probably will) manipulate next year. and maybe the year after. and maybe the year after that. by choosing his deal to manipulate now, they preserve the right to mitigate the money they just moved to next year to the following year, or the following year, or the following year.
you can call it dead money or cap charge or whatever you want to call it, but it can keep moving with an active player. it cannot if it's a terminated contract.
What you're describing is simply the value of having deals where you have enough salary to convert it to bonus, and save on the cap in the current year. Both Jones and Williams have that on 2023.
Once that salary is converted to bonus, that packet of dollars is locked into the year it's earmarked on the amortization schedule. The only way it can ever move is if the contract is terminated, then it can accelerate.
The Giants could have done that with Williams or Jones this year. Choosing to do so with Jones has 2 practical differences:
1) They amortized over 4 years instead of 2 with Williams, which lowers the yearly impact
2) But conversely they locked 8M of Jones's future flexibility in place
If flexibility and maneuverability is part of the purpose, they should have just did it with Williams and preserved that powder on Jones's contract when they might need it in the future.
It is a small, but important difference.
That's not actually the case.
The salary that was converted to a bonus today is paid, and locked to a year on the amortization schedule.
The only way it will not count against those years is if Jones is cut.
It can never be moved out incorporated in another contract.
I'm happy to concede the upside of restructuring Jones allowed for a longer schedule, and lowered the yearly cap impact.
Quote:
christian, Eric is more correct on this. While ultimately the money does not matter as it will be paid out eventually, by having it be moved to an active player who will likely be still on the team gives then a chance to make further changes or even incorporate it into a new contract - just more flexible.
It is a small, but important difference.
That's not actually the case.
The salary that was converted to a bonus today is paid, and locked to a year on the amortization schedule.
The only way it will not count against those years is if Jones is cut.
It can never be moved out incorporated in another contract.
I'm happy to concede the upside of restructuring Jones allowed for a longer schedule, and lowered the yearly cap impact.
I actually see both points of view. So the question is does the player / agent have to agree to a contract restructuring or can the team do this without consent ?
It's just moving dollars from one column to the next in a spreadsheet.
There's literally no difference what player it is.
No difference in 2023, but the difference in future amortization and dead-money hits can be significant.
Quote:
I hope Schoen is smart enough to realize it really doesn't matter who he restructures.
It's just moving dollars from one column to the next in a spreadsheet.
There's literally no difference what player it is.
No difference in 2023, but the difference in future amortization and dead-money hits can be significant.
I 100% agree there is a scenario where Williams would have 2 year amortization, where at a minimum Jones has 4.
The only way it will not count against those years is if Jones is cut...I'm happy to concede the upside of restructuring Jones allowed for a longer schedule, and lowered the yearly cap impact.
Quote:
The only way it will not count against those years is if Jones is cut...I'm happy to concede the upside of restructuring Jones allowed for a longer schedule, and lowered the yearly cap impact.
Well isn't that the whole fucking point of why it makes a difference who you restructure?
it has been with every choice of who to restructure the past 2 years.
Eric -- this is the specific point I disagree with.
When salary is restructured from salary to a bonus, it cannot keep moving. It's locked into the year it's assigned on the amortization schedule.
The only way it can move is if the player is cut, then it accelerates up.
If your point is simply you can spread a bonus over more years if the contract is longer -- then I don't I understand what the above means. It can be spread over more time, but it certainly cannot move.