cap space they could create if they want to - and in future years they are already set up to absorb it.
the max savings possible right now would be:
Thomas ~$10m (restructure salary to min, $ moves to future)
Lawrence ~$4m (restructure salary to min, $ moves to future)
Waller $10.5m salary + 1-2m LTBE bonuses (cut or retire or trade)
so those 3 moves could create an easy $20m in cap space right now.
in 2025 they currently project to $33m of cap room - but that is with Jones and Waller. they would save $40m by moving on from those 2, meaning they'd have $70m+ in cap space.
in 2026 they currently project to $79m of cap room - again with Jones/Waller on books. they would gain another $60m without them for $130m+.
so redistributing another $10-15m of Lawrence/Thomas in 2025/2026 will be barely noticeable.
they are in very healthy cap shape right now. would not surprise me at all if we see them add a veteran starter somewhere like safety at $3-5m after the draft. maybe even pick up a veteran via trade during the draft if a team is looking to move on from someone's salary cheaply.
the window after teams decline 5yos on players is a good buying list especially if it's a regime that hadnt drafted the player initially (like Simmons last year).
Eric in Li, spot on. The Giants are in great cap shape. The only big cap holds right now that are fixed (money paid as a bonus and cannot be moved) or guaranteed (have to be absorbed unless the player is traded) are Thomas, Lawrence, Burns, and to some extent Jones.
Minor tangent, if Thomas proves to be healthy, that contract is an absolute steal for the Giants.
Eric in Li, spot on. The Giants are in great cap shape. The only big cap holds right now that are fixed (money paid as a bonus and cannot be moved) or guaranteed (have to be absorbed unless the player is traded) are Thomas, Lawrence, Burns, and to some extent Jones.
Minor tangent, if Thomas proves to be healthy, that contract is an absolute steal for the Giants.
True of both Thomas and Dex. Thomas will probably be back end of the top 5 by next year behind Wirfs, Slater, Sewell.
Dex is only barely hanging on to the top 10 right now. They may want to try to add on an extra year or 2 with Dex next year if he keeps trending toward good health. could bring down his hits a little flatter and add on years in return for a fresh guarantee. That may even be the better way to go right now instead of a restructure.
Keep in mind that when you have a lot of long term
cap like the Giants, it doesn't much matter who you restructure. If you restructured DJ instead of Dex and then cut DJ next year you just restructure Dex at that point. Same exact result. Restructures aren't giving the player more money. They are just changing the timing. The flexibility is nearly infinite, except that eventually you have to recognize all the cash you pay out.
Teams are almost never truly cap constrained. They just reach a point where you decide it is the right year to pay the piper. The Eagles have demonstrated that you can push that point off a long time.
As an example, if coming in Schoen thought we could win the SB if we just kept Bradberry, it would have been easy to get the cap to keep him. But Schoen decided - rightly in my opinion - that the time was not right for the Giants to dip into future money to make a run. Rather he wanted to preserve future money when a run looked more likely.
RE: Keep in mind that when you have a lot of long term
cap like the Giants, it doesn't much matter who you restructure. If you restructured DJ instead of Dex and then cut DJ next year you just restructure Dex at that point. Same exact result. Restructures aren't giving the player more money. They are just changing the timing. The flexibility is nearly infinite, except that eventually you have to recognize all the cash you pay out.
Teams are almost never truly cap constrained. They just reach a point where you decide it is the right year to pay the piper. The Eagles have demonstrated that you can push that point off a long time.
As an example, if coming in Schoen thought we could win the SB if we just kept Bradberry, it would have been easy to get the cap to keep him. But Schoen decided - rightly in my opinion - that the time was not right for the Giants to dip into future money to make a run. Rather he wanted to preserve future money when a run looked more likely.
there isnt a cash paid difference, but there is an accounting difference - imo it is always better to restructure players who will be around longer than those you are moving on from sooner because you preserve more cap flexibility.
if a player is effectively dead salary getting cut the next year, then restructuring them is just a simple 1 year deferral. fine if you need it but not ideal. i believe that is why they correctly didnt want to restructure galloday. believe they called it the last resort.
restructuring a player you expect to retain longer shifts the money over more years, and over those years you have a bunch of options to redo the contract and adjust how that money gets paid out and accounted for. if you like the player and want to keep them, you are already facing the possibility of having to pay them more money to retain them longer so the accounting of a big chunk each of the next 3-5 years for Dex as an example is already baked into their plans so long as he remains healthy. or who knows maybe you trade the player. you buy yourself more time before the amount hits the cap and with more time you have more options.
The more I observe how teams manage the cap, the only hard and fast rule I see is: pay the player the right amount of cash for the years served.
I understand the logic in all of the arguments around how/why to spread the cap hits. But I've never really seen an example of a team that got in trouble because of the cap accounting.
I've only seen teams who paid too much for players, and didn't get a good return.
The more I observe how teams manage the cap, the only hard and fast rule I see is: pay the player the right amount of cash for the years served.
I understand the logic in all of the arguments around how/why to spread the cap hits. But I've never really seen an example of a team that got in trouble because of the cap accounting.
I've only seen teams who paid too much for players, and didn't get a good return.
Yup. The accounting aspect is relatively easy. The biggest parts of cap management are the price tag attached to a player, and evaluation of that player. Contract structure is important, but competent accounting isn't rocket science and isn't in rare supply.
The capologist isn't the one who fucked up the DJ contract.
Back to question as to whether it's better to restructure a player in their final year (literally or practically and create dead money), or restructure a player with contract years left (literally or practically and park that money across several future years).
In both scenarios you are taking salary from this year, and turning it into a bonus that can be divided up and spread to the future. You can divide it into 2-5 slices.
If the player is not under contract next year, all of those remaining slices accelerate. So if you divided it into 3 slices, 1 counts against this year, and 2 count against next year as dead money. If the player is under contract for the next 3 years, each of those slices fall into those years respectively.
The most important thing to remember about the cap is there are two types of cap holds 1) fluid - which is money that's not been paid and can be moved around 2) static - money that's been paid and cannot be moved out (meaning it can only accelerate up, and not be spread around).
Examples of fluid holds are future salaries and future bonuses that have not been paid. Examples of static holds are bonuses that have already been paid or salary already earned.
So let's take a scenario: Player A and Player B. You need to make 5M in cap room this year. Player A has 1 year and 10M left on his deal. Player B has 3 years and 30M left on his deal.
What you see in the numbers is you don't actually change the fluid, fixed, or overall cap hits. The only thing you do is absorb more of cap earlier, rather than later.
It's a little bit of a mental illusion that if you opt to restructure the guy with more years, that you allow yourself more flexibility to move dollars. You don't change the number of fluid dollars, you only increase the number of static dollars.
At the end of the day, depending on your POV you've either flattened the cap hit or kicked the can further than down the road.
At the end of the day, depending on your POV you've either flattened the cap hit or kicked the can further than down the road.
you've done both, and i think there are positives to both. the flatter it is the lower % of 1 year cap it is, the longer down the road that hit stays, the less % of cap it is when it hits.
for it to stay down the road it has to be a player who has cleared the bar you set above for good spend/bad - if it's a player you expect to keep for 2-3-4 more years, that is a player you made a good evaluation on, not a player you haven't, which makes kicking the can on them farther down the road less "risky" in that it may not accelerate forward as quickly. it may stay down the road.
all things equal if the price of a car was exactly the same, no inflation adjustment, but you could choose to pay it off in 1, 2, or 3 years, knowing there will be inflation, isnt the time value of money tangibly better to pay off as far out as possible?
Definitely. I think teams should always try and index the fixed money in big contracts to inflation and as a percentage of the cap. Which in effect pushes money out. Even if it means using void years, to a responsible extent.
As you might recall, I've never really believed PAYG contracts or front loaded deals were inherently better.
Slight tangent, but it would probably be easier if it teams constructed deals more back loaded from the start, and didn't play the charade. That's what the Eagles are doing with option bonuses.
Definitely. I think teams should always try and index the fixed money in big contracts to inflation and as a percentage of the cap. Which in effect pushes money out. Even if it means using void years, to a responsible extent.
As you might recall, I've never really believed PAYG contracts or front loaded deals were inherently better.
Slight tangent, but it would probably be easier if it teams constructed deals more back loaded from the start, and didn't play the charade. That's what the Eagles are doing with option bonuses.
im the opposite. id do payg or close to it. you always have the option to punt money forward with a restructure, and if you wait until the moment you need to do it then you hedge your risk.
the problem isn't backloading, it's that the NFL truly stands for not for long. Things turn quickly like Bradberry in PHI.
mahomes, allen, burrow, herbert - backload away.
same with dex, at this point he's close to as reliable as it gets.
very very few players are reliable like that though. almost any position player on a 2nd contract can expire at any time. way way too many times for my comfort are teams trying to get out of contracts even 1 later. Waller and Golladay just the most recent examples.
Giants Re-Structure Dexter Lawrence; Jihad Ward and Parris Campbell Depart - ( New Window )
They only did part, so it can be restructured further for another $4M if needed.
Not sure they want to do that. They don't need the money right now either.
Re-structuring is a tool, but you'd rather not push too much money down the road. What if Dexter tears his ACL?
the max savings possible right now would be:
Thomas ~$10m (restructure salary to min, $ moves to future)
Lawrence ~$4m (restructure salary to min, $ moves to future)
Waller $10.5m salary + 1-2m LTBE bonuses (cut or retire or trade)
so those 3 moves could create an easy $20m in cap space right now.
in 2025 they currently project to $33m of cap room - but that is with Jones and Waller. they would save $40m by moving on from those 2, meaning they'd have $70m+ in cap space.
in 2026 they currently project to $79m of cap room - again with Jones/Waller on books. they would gain another $60m without them for $130m+.
so redistributing another $10-15m of Lawrence/Thomas in 2025/2026 will be barely noticeable.
they are in very healthy cap shape right now. would not surprise me at all if we see them add a veteran starter somewhere like safety at $3-5m after the draft. maybe even pick up a veteran via trade during the draft if a team is looking to move on from someone's salary cheaply.
the window after teams decline 5yos on players is a good buying list especially if it's a regime that hadnt drafted the player initially (like Simmons last year).
Minor tangent, if Thomas proves to be healthy, that contract is an absolute steal for the Giants.
Minor tangent, if Thomas proves to be healthy, that contract is an absolute steal for the Giants.
True of both Thomas and Dex. Thomas will probably be back end of the top 5 by next year behind Wirfs, Slater, Sewell.
Dex is only barely hanging on to the top 10 right now. They may want to try to add on an extra year or 2 with Dex next year if he keeps trending toward good health. could bring down his hits a little flatter and add on years in return for a fresh guarantee. That may even be the better way to go right now instead of a restructure.
Teams are almost never truly cap constrained. They just reach a point where you decide it is the right year to pay the piper. The Eagles have demonstrated that you can push that point off a long time.
As an example, if coming in Schoen thought we could win the SB if we just kept Bradberry, it would have been easy to get the cap to keep him. But Schoen decided - rightly in my opinion - that the time was not right for the Giants to dip into future money to make a run. Rather he wanted to preserve future money when a run looked more likely.
Teams are almost never truly cap constrained. They just reach a point where you decide it is the right year to pay the piper. The Eagles have demonstrated that you can push that point off a long time.
As an example, if coming in Schoen thought we could win the SB if we just kept Bradberry, it would have been easy to get the cap to keep him. But Schoen decided - rightly in my opinion - that the time was not right for the Giants to dip into future money to make a run. Rather he wanted to preserve future money when a run looked more likely.
there isnt a cash paid difference, but there is an accounting difference - imo it is always better to restructure players who will be around longer than those you are moving on from sooner because you preserve more cap flexibility.
if a player is effectively dead salary getting cut the next year, then restructuring them is just a simple 1 year deferral. fine if you need it but not ideal. i believe that is why they correctly didnt want to restructure galloday. believe they called it the last resort.
restructuring a player you expect to retain longer shifts the money over more years, and over those years you have a bunch of options to redo the contract and adjust how that money gets paid out and accounted for. if you like the player and want to keep them, you are already facing the possibility of having to pay them more money to retain them longer so the accounting of a big chunk each of the next 3-5 years for Dex as an example is already baked into their plans so long as he remains healthy. or who knows maybe you trade the player. you buy yourself more time before the amount hits the cap and with more time you have more options.
I understand the logic in all of the arguments around how/why to spread the cap hits. But I've never really seen an example of a team that got in trouble because of the cap accounting.
I've only seen teams who paid too much for players, and didn't get a good return.
I understand the logic in all of the arguments around how/why to spread the cap hits. But I've never really seen an example of a team that got in trouble because of the cap accounting.
I've only seen teams who paid too much for players, and didn't get a good return.
Yup. The accounting aspect is relatively easy. The biggest parts of cap management are the price tag attached to a player, and evaluation of that player. Contract structure is important, but competent accounting isn't rocket science and isn't in rare supply.
The capologist isn't the one who fucked up the DJ contract.
In both scenarios you are taking salary from this year, and turning it into a bonus that can be divided up and spread to the future. You can divide it into 2-5 slices.
If the player is not under contract next year, all of those remaining slices accelerate. So if you divided it into 3 slices, 1 counts against this year, and 2 count against next year as dead money. If the player is under contract for the next 3 years, each of those slices fall into those years respectively.
The most important thing to remember about the cap is there are two types of cap holds 1) fluid - which is money that's not been paid and can be moved around 2) static - money that's been paid and cannot be moved out (meaning it can only accelerate up, and not be spread around).
Examples of fluid holds are future salaries and future bonuses that have not been paid. Examples of static holds are bonuses that have already been paid or salary already earned.
So let's take a scenario: Player A and Player B. You need to make 5M in cap room this year. Player A has 1 year and 10M left on his deal. Player B has 3 years and 30M left on his deal.
What you see in the numbers is you don't actually change the fluid, fixed, or overall cap hits. The only thing you do is absorb more of cap earlier, rather than later.
It's a little bit of a mental illusion that if you opt to restructure the guy with more years, that you allow yourself more flexibility to move dollars. You don't change the number of fluid dollars, you only increase the number of static dollars.
At the end of the day, depending on your POV you've either flattened the cap hit or kicked the can further than down the road.
At the end of the day, depending on your POV you've either flattened the cap hit or kicked the can further than down the road.
you've done both, and i think there are positives to both. the flatter it is the lower % of 1 year cap it is, the longer down the road that hit stays, the less % of cap it is when it hits.
for it to stay down the road it has to be a player who has cleared the bar you set above for good spend/bad - if it's a player you expect to keep for 2-3-4 more years, that is a player you made a good evaluation on, not a player you haven't, which makes kicking the can on them farther down the road less "risky" in that it may not accelerate forward as quickly. it may stay down the road.
all things equal if the price of a car was exactly the same, no inflation adjustment, but you could choose to pay it off in 1, 2, or 3 years, knowing there will be inflation, isnt the time value of money tangibly better to pay off as far out as possible?
As you might recall, I've never really believed PAYG contracts or front loaded deals were inherently better.
Slight tangent, but it would probably be easier if it teams constructed deals more back loaded from the start, and didn't play the charade. That's what the Eagles are doing with option bonuses.
As you might recall, I've never really believed PAYG contracts or front loaded deals were inherently better.
Slight tangent, but it would probably be easier if it teams constructed deals more back loaded from the start, and didn't play the charade. That's what the Eagles are doing with option bonuses.
im the opposite. id do payg or close to it. you always have the option to punt money forward with a restructure, and if you wait until the moment you need to do it then you hedge your risk.
the problem isn't backloading, it's that the NFL truly stands for not for long. Things turn quickly like Bradberry in PHI.
mahomes, allen, burrow, herbert - backload away.
same with dex, at this point he's close to as reliable as it gets.
very very few players are reliable like that though. almost any position player on a 2nd contract can expire at any time. way way too many times for my comfort are teams trying to get out of contracts even 1 later. Waller and Golladay just the most recent examples.