Cap affect of paying as you go vs pushing out and having dead space

[bobblehead]

Bak's a pretty smart guy, and so is his agent. I'm not sure exactly who reps him, but I do know he's signed with Athletes First, which is the top agency in the NFL. And between DB and his agent, they've consistently drafted a very player-friendly contract at every negotiation, always designed to look out for his best interests and specifically protect him being left high and dry at the end of his career like so many OL end up. Just like what we see happening now.

I don't know if I'd call it "getting screwed", but we sure got the short end of the stick at this stage. Gutekunst knew what he was agreeing to, and decided it was in the team's best interests. Bakhtiari's agent had a job to do, and drove some very hard bargains because he was in a position of strength. Unfortunately, that just happens sometimes.

But at the same time, I would like to hope that David might be willing to work something out with Green Bay to help them ease the pain a bit. Even if it just means just doing something that might make it easier to trade him.

I think the deal was fair to both team and player. The problem came when Bak couldn't get healthy and they kept deciding "one more year" of waiting was the answer. Also, they were in cap hell and moving on would have been a problem because of the overall cap situation (which Tex and APB insist wasn't real). Because we were in cap hell, it would have been near impossible to cut him. That wasn't bak's fault, nor was it a bad contract. The overall situation of getting into cap hell was the problem, and the belief that he would be fine if we just give it more time.

[Patler]

Actually, it could, and likely does mean more money for Gary. He got $6.2 million 19 days earlier than he otherwise would have. Deposits into my "cash holding" account of my investment account earn 4.95% interest (if held a minimum of 5 days). Assuming Gary has something similar. just holding that $6.2 million for 19 days would yield around $15,000.

[ThunderDan]

Actually, it could, and likely does mean more money for Gary. He got $6.2 million 19 days earlier than he otherwise would have. Deposits into my "cash holding" account of my investment account earn 4.95% interest (if held a minimum of 5 days). Assuming Gary has something similar. just holding that $6.2 million for 19 days would yield around $15,000.

Or he could go to FL 19 days early and buy has year's worth of pot and get caught with it in the back of his pickup like Letroy Guion.

[sharpe1027]

Right, but my point was that the contract wasn't written that way. The salary was converted after we decided we were keeping him for another year. Since vets are guaranteed on day one of the season it only changed the accounting, not the reality.

The difference comes into play is subsequent years where if they didn't push the cap forward they might be able to trade or cut a player and not to take a huge cap hit. That can end up keeping a player a year or two longer and costing more overall.

[texaspackerbacker]

Yep, and roster bonuses are rarely guaranteed. Josh Allen is the only player I can recall seeing it where they accelerate if he's cut. Bak's deal was good at the time but Packers had to alter it to account for loading up to make a run. Nobody would care about this contract if we won it all. It's just time to move on. He's gonna get cut and that will be fine for him. Players should try to get as much as possible just as all workers should. Lifts all boats.

CMI, how is bonus money ever NOT guaranteed? It's paid. It's not gonna be given back short of some kind of very off-the-wall lawsuit. Did you mean salaries are rarely guaranteed - beyond the current year anyway?

bobblehead, Packer roster strength plus recent events, primarily the huge cap increase, strongly support what APB and I have always said. How are you still hanging on to the bogus crap that the cap is such a bogeyman?

[sharpe1027]

CMI, how is bonus money ever NOT guaranteed? It's paid. It's not gonna be given back short of some kind of very off-the-wall lawsuit. Did you mean salaries are rarely guaranteed - beyond the current year anyway?

bobblehead, Packer roster strength plus recent events, primarily the huge cap increase, strongly support what APB and I have always said. How are you still hanging on to the bogus crap that the cap is such a bogeyman?

You can cut the player before the roster bonus is due and not pay it.

[bobblehead]

CMI, how is bonus money ever NOT guaranteed? It's paid. It's not gonna be given back short of some kind of very off-the-wall lawsuit. Did you mean salaries are rarely guaranteed - beyond the current year anyway?

bobblehead, Packer roster strength plus recent events, primarily the huge cap increase, strongly support what APB and I have always said. How are you still hanging on to the bogus crap that the cap is such a bogeyman?

Because 1) David Bacteria is still a packer and b) He hasn't played any significant snaps in years. Ergo, the cap fucked us into a bad situation and we probably lost the chance to sign either our own, or other FAs because of it.

[run pMc]

Tex - not all bonuses are the same. A roster bonus is different from signing bonus. it's all in the timing.

signing bonus is at signing the contract, hence immediately payable. The roster bonus is dependent on being on the roster on date X.

[Joemailman]

Tex - not all bonuses are the same. A roster bonus is different from signing bonus. it's all in the timing.

signing bonus is at signing the contract, hence immediately payable. The roster bonus is dependent on being on the roster on date X.

So...you're saying the signing bonus is paid out when you sign the contract and the roster bonus is paid out if you're on the roster at a stipulated date?

[run pMc]

So...you're saying the signing bonus is paid out when you sign the contract and the roster bonus is paid out if you're on the roster at a stipulated date?

LOL Captain Obvious McMansplainer hacked my account.

Sometimes that's what it takes for it to be understood, appraently.

[texaspackerbacker]

Yes but (on the bonus thing), in both cases, once they're paid, there's no getting them back or undoing them - short of something like fraud or something else really weird.

[run pMc]

Yes but (on the bonus thing), in both cases, once they're paid, there's no getting them back or undoing them - short of something like fraud or something else really weird.

correct

[sharpe1027]

Yes but (on the bonus thing), in both cases, once they're paid, there's no getting them back or undoing them - short of something like fraud or something else really weird.

Yes. The difference is the roster bonus hits all in the year it's paid, so you can cut or trade the player with no acceleration of cap into that year. When you push cap into future years using signing bonuses, you end up in situations where cutting or trading a player accelerates so much cap it's not possible to cut or trade the player. You then might have to carry a worthless player on your roster for one or more years paying significantly more than if you had not pushed so much cap into future years.

[Fritz]

Yes. The difference is the roster bonus hits all in the year it's paid, so you can cut or trade the player with no acceleration of cap into that year. When you push cap into future years using signing bonuses, you end up in situations where cutting or trading a player accelerates so much cap it's not possible to cut or trade the player. You then might have to carry a worthless player on your roster for one or more years paying significantly more than if you had not pushed so much cap into future years.

So for a simplistic financial conservative like me, roster bonus = good because you're not living on credit, and signing bonuses pushed ahead = bad because then in 2026 you're paying for something that you bought in 2022 that you may not even have any more.

Simplistic, I know. But you helped me understand the concepts, so thank you.

[sharpe1027]

So for a simplistic financial conservative like me, roster bonus = good because you're not living on credit, and signing bonuses pushed ahead = bad because then in 2026 you're paying for something that you bought in 2022 that you may not even have any more.

Simplistic, I know. But you helped me understand the concepts, so thank you.

Neither is good or bad. You just have different consequences. Contrary to some arguments, it's not possible to cook the cap and never have consequences.