Should Brady restructure (again) to free up cap?

[nantucketguy]

I don't see how we secure Welker, Talib, Volmer and then make a splash in FA, including maybe Reed. If he is to win another SB, he may need to...Thoughts?
He is $21M against the cap...

In addition Mankins and Wilfork account for $10M each...should they too?

 

[Patsrock]

Might want to check for other threads going on at the same time

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/1008480-bradys-contract.html

 

[Sciz]

I can almost guarantee that they're not getting Welker, Talib, and Vollmer no matter who restructures, much less those four plus Reed.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

I can almost guarantee that they're not getting Welker, Talib, and Vollmer no matter who restructures, much less those four plus Reed.

which is why welker and talib are most likely gone especially after hearing about talibs work ethic

 

[mgteich]

This has been discussed. But yes, over ten million of cap room can be had by restructuring the contracts of Brady and Mankins. This simply borrows from the future. But it is likely to happen.

However, I agree with other that we are most unlikely to re-sign all of the big three. One is probably most likely.

 

[voluntarysaftey]

This has been discussed. But yes, over ten million of cap room can be had by restructuring the contracts of Brady and Mankins. This simply borrows from the future. But it is likely to happen.

However, I agree with other that we are most unlikely to re-sign all of the big three. One is probably most likely.

Why would Mankins be restructured?
He'd want top dollar; and he's been injury prone -- I see no reason why the team would extend him at his current avg pay.

Brady restructuring also means paying him 18-20 million when he's 39/40 -- which wouldn't result in much cap room being pushed forward; unless he's willing to go team friendly on 5 or 10 mil per year on an extended 2 years

 

[supafly]

Why would Mankins be restructured?
He'd want top dollar; and he's been injury prone -- I see no reason why the team would extend him at his current avg pay.

In the case of Mankins, I don't think it's as much about extending him for real years as it is possibly giving him bonuses and money now to save on a lesser cap hit. I'm not as familiar with many here as to the specifics, but I think they could do that in a couple of different ways. I could be wrong of course.

Many think that Mankins may be gone after 2 more years, depending upon whether he can go back to being a dominant force or not, and even then it may still be better to save the money by allowing him to walk. I don't think they'd get themselves into any kind of major jam with any huge backloaded deals that they couldn't absorb, especially with Mankins.

Brady restructuring also means paying him 18-20 million when he's 39/40 -- which wouldn't result in much cap room being pushed forward; unless he's willing to go team friendly on 5 or 10 mil per year on an extended 2 years

I don't think there will be any chance of any kind of team friendly deals like that

One thing that pops up instantly in my mind is that Brady only has 2 yrs left on his deal as it is, and they usually extend him with a year left every time anyway, so it'd either be done this year (which would be better for cap saving purposes) or next year anyway.

Locking him up also could favor the team in the way of a more market friendly deal for those years that you speak of, as the QB market is moving forward more expensively all the time.

 

[Sciz]

Why would Mankins be restructured?
He'd want top dollar; and he's been injury prone -- I see no reason why the team would extend him at his current avg pay.

"What have you done for me lately" at it's finest. Mankins never missed any game or even practice because of injury until he tore his ACL, and all of the other problems this past season were because he played on that ACL 6 months after surgery and had to push other parts of his body more to make up for the lack of strength in his knee. When a player goes six straight seasons without missing anything due to injury and then has one injury that still affects him far less than most players, then there's no way you can call him injury prone.

 

[Snake Eyes]

"What have you done for me lately" at it's finest. Mankins never missed any game or even practice because of injury until he tore his ACL, and all of the other problems this past season were because he played on that ACL 6 months after surgery and had to push other parts of his body more to make up for the lack of strength in his knee. When a player goes six straight seasons without missing anything due to injury and then has one injury that still affects him far less than most players, then there's no way you can call him injury prone.

Contracts are heavily based on "what have you done for me lately", the rest is based on 'what will you do for me soon". If Mankins is frequently injured of late, and projects to continue that way, that's all that matters.

 

[Henroc]

brady wont restructure. he knows his salary affects more than just himself. out of respect for other qbs, if he changed his contract it would affect how much they would earn also. They wont reduce brady's contract, this is his last big payout. we all know it.

 

[Big-T]

hearing about talibs work ethic

There's a chance that's just the Patriots "leaking" that "info" to lower his market price though.

 

[Froob]

I think Vollmer is gone personally, patriots develop good offensive linemen like it's nothing. He's a very good player, just don't think we should spend that much money on the line for an injury prone player.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The question should be should Brady be restructured (again) to free up cap? It's not up to him. It's entirely up to the team. Players have no say in simple restructures. Those add nothing to the existing contract nor do they add to or subtract from the players pocket. The team simply changes the way they treat existing salary or roster bonus by "converting" it to signing bonus. That allows them to spread it out over the remaining years on the deal for cap accounting purposes. The player actually gets the money at the time of the restructure, so it's in his hand up to several months earlier and is therefore also guaranteed.

Some players may be pissed internally because they know that the more that teams do to increase their cap hit on the back end the less likely they are to be here to collect that salary (becoming the dreaded cap cut casualty).

It's quite likely they restructure Mankins though, saving $3.75M against the cap this season. The final (6th) year of his deal is currently salary only so it was set up to be restructured more than once if necessary. A simple restructure this season would only push $1.25M onto his existing final all salary only cap hit of $7M (making it $8.25M with $1.25M in dead cap if cut).

The only restructures a player has any say in are actually extensions or reductions in contract value. They aren't really restructures per say. They all just tend to get lumped into that term.

A Wilfork or Brady simple restructure this season - converting salary and in Brady's case roster bonus as well into signing bonus - poses serious problems going forward that could impact their ability to play out the existing deal because each only has 2 years remaining on their existing deal. So an amount equal to what you save this year ($3M on Wilfork and $7M on Brady) gets added on to their cap hit next year. Would make Wilfork's cap hit $14.6M in 2014 and Brady's $28.8M. Neither could be tagged in 2015 as a result because their tag would be at 120% of that number and prohibitive (roughly $17.5M and $34.5M).

It would also make it extremely hard to get any kind of extension worked out going forward because the dead cap (amortization) in that final year would make it difficult to achieve a cap friendly hit in the first year and eliminate any ability to make the remaining years remotely comfortable.

 

[ralmat55]

The question should be should Brady be restructured (again) to free up cap? It's not up to him. It's entirely up to the team. Players have no say in simple restructures. Those add nothing to the existing contract nor do they add to or subtract from the players pocket. The team simply changes the way they treat existing salary or roster bonus by "converting" it to signing bonus. That allows them to spread it out over the remaining years on the deal for cap accounting purposes. The player actually gets the money at the time of the restructure, so it's in his hand up to several months earlier and is therefore also guaranteed.

Some players may be pissed internally because they know that the more that teams do to increase their cap hit on the back end the less likely they are to be here to collect that salary (becoming the dreaded cap cut casualty).

That's why I always assumed the player had to agree to a "simple" restructure. Thank you for the information.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Brady wont restructure. he knows his salary affects more than just himself. out of respect for other qbs, if he changed his contract it would affect how much they would earn also. They wont reduce Brady's contract, this is his last big payout. we all know it.

If he were to extend out to age 40, as an example, with a low salary for the last two seasons playing at ages 39 and 40, the ripple effect is very minimal on other quarterbacks simply because of the age issue. It would only greatly affect other quarterbacks of similar stature of a similar age, not necessarily all QBs in general.

Age and expectations of age-related decline are part of the salary equation. If Wes Welker were 28, he'd be locked up already and probably get exactly whatever it is he is asking for.

He may not want to extend because of the pride issue. Face it, there is no reason on Earth why he should be making less money than Peyton Manning. When the Celtics were negotiating contracts with Bill Russell. He'd say "Find out what Wilt is making. I'll sign for $1 more, but never for $1 less". Of course back then there was no salary cap. Brady's probably tempted by similar thoughts, but with the clock ticking on his time to win, his burning desire to win, and the reality of the salary cap, he might be amenable to being locked up in a contract taking him to age 40.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The question should be should Brady be restructured (again) to free up cap? It's not up to him. It's entirely up to the team. Players have no say in simple restructures. Those add nothing to the existing contract nor do they add to or subtract from the players pocket. The team simply changes the way they treat existing salary or roster bonus by "converting" it to signing bonus. That allows them to spread it out over the remaining years on the deal for cap accounting purposes. The player actually gets the money at the time of the restructure, so it's in his hand up to several months earlier and is therefore also guaranteed.

Does the player contract or the CBA allow teams to unilaterally "re-negotiate" that way? IANAL, but my understanding is that it's a signed contract, and they can't change the terms without the player's permission.

From the CBA:

“Renegotiate” or “renegotiation” means any change in Salary or the terms under
which such Salary is earned or paid, or any change regarding the Club’s right to trade the
player, during the term of a Player Contract

That said, I can't imagine many situations where a player would refuse to have non-guaranteed money converted to guaranteed.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

If he were to extend out to age 40, as an example, with a low salary for the last two seasons playing at ages 39 and 40, the ripple effect is very minimal on other quarterbacks simply because of the age issue. It would only greatly affect other quarterbacks of similar stature of a similar age, not necessarily all QBs in general.

Age and expectations of age-related decline are part of the salary equation. If Wes Welker were 28, he'd be locked up already and probably get exactly whatever it is he is asking for.

He may not want to extend because of the pride issue. Face it, there is no reason on Earth why he should be making less money than Peyton Manning. When the Celtics were negotiating contracts with Bill Russell. He'd say "Find out what Wilt is making. I'll sign for $1 more, but never for $1 less". Of course back then there was no salary cap. Brady's probably tempted by similar thoughts, but with the clock ticking on his time to win, his burning desire to win, and the reality of the salary cap, he might be amenable to being locked up in a contract taking him to age 40.

A low salary at the back end just means increased cap hits on the front end, so not what anyone is looking for in this instance.

And as for the ripple effect, with the new rookie contract caps veteran deals are all that drive their market so no one is taking a discounted for age deal unless their back is against the wall (like Vick, and probably Palmer eventually, who is clinging to remaining a starter and figures his best shot to is with the devil he knows).

Here are the top QB contracts ranked by current average. Brady's last deal averaged $18M in new money but only $15.7M in overall average when tacked on to the remaining season on his prior deal. Doing a 3 year extension at $20M per in new money average would result in an overall average of $18M for Brady presumably to retirement (40). Keeping him in 3rd place among his peers pending whatever Flacco gets (which could drop Brady to #4). Rodgers will be up probably later this year or early next. His agent is Dunn (Welker's agent) and he will be looking to reset the bar above $20MAAV. Eli may go to 2015 because Condon hates to discount deals for remaining years. But Inconsistent Eli's into high salaries and $20M caps already in the last 3 years of his 7 year deal and the Giants are in a bit of a cap pinch so who knows. Condon will eventually be looking to reset the bar provided his client doesn't repeatedly statistically **** the bed while simultaneously failing to make the playoffs.


2013 NFL Top Average Salaries - Quarterback

 

[mgteich]

I agree with all of this. We need extensions of Wilfork and Brady, and the reason is NOT the effect on this year's cap. The issue is much more serious than ten million of cap money.

Perhaps we need to separate the issues. The team should have an agreement with Mankins and/or Mayo ready for signature whenever they need the cap money. That's $7.5M. However, they will avoid these if they can extend Brady before free agency starts. The cap effect of a Wilfork extension is not as clear, although the savings should be similar to that of a Mankins or Mayo restructure.

The question should be should Brady be restructured (again) to free up cap? It's not up to him. It's entirely up to the team. Players have no say in simple restructures. Those add nothing to the existing contract nor do they add to or subtract from the players pocket. The team simply changes the way they treat existing salary or roster bonus by "converting" it to signing bonus. That allows them to spread it out over the remaining years on the deal for cap accounting purposes. The player actually gets the money at the time of the restructure, so it's in his hand up to several months earlier and is therefore also guaranteed.

Some players may be pissed internally because they know that the more that teams do to increase their cap hit on the back end the less likely they are to be here to collect that salary (becoming the dreaded cap cut casualty).

It's quite likely they restructure Mankins though, saving $3.75M against the cap this season. The final (6th) year of his deal is currently salary only so it was set up to be restructured more than once if necessary. A simple restructure this season would only push $1.25M onto his existing final all salary only cap hit of $7M (making it $8.25M with $1.25M in dead cap if cut).

The only restructures a player has any say in are actually extensions or reductions in contract value. They aren't really restructures per say. They all just tend to get lumped into that term.

A Wilfork or Brady simple restructure this season - converting salary and in Brady's case roster bonus as well into signing bonus - poses serious problems going forward that could impact their ability to play out the existing deal because each only has 2 years remaining on their existing deal. So an amount equal to what you save this year ($3M on Wilfork and $7M on Brady) gets added on to their cap hit next year. Would make Wilfork's cap hit $14.6M in 2014 and Brady's $28.8M. Neither could be tagged in 2015 as a result because their tag would be at 120% of that number and prohibitive (roughly $17.5M and $34.5M).

It would also make it extremely hard to get any kind of extension worked out going forward because the dead cap (amortization) in that final year would make it difficult to achieve a cap friendly hit in the first year and eliminate any ability to make the remaining years remotely comfortable.

 

[BradyManny]

brady wont restructure. he knows his salary affects more than just himself. out of respect for other qbs, if he changed his contract it would affect how much they would earn also. They wont reduce brady's contract, this is his last big payout. we all know it.

I think this was his reasoning last time around - certainly.

This time around, with his career seeming much more finite, he'd probably trade life & limb for a ring - I can see him being even more team-friendly in the past with his contract.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Does the player contract or the CBA allow teams to unilaterally "re-negotiate" that way? IANAL, but my understanding is that it's a signed contract, and they can't change the terms without the player's permission.

From the CBA:


That said, I can't imagine many situations where a player would refuse to have non-guaranteed money converted to guaranteed.

Not sure if converting to fully guaranteed signing bonus and paying it up front counts as a change in terms or merely an accounting function. Team couldn't incentivize salary or change roster bonus to salary without player consent because that has the potential to alter contractual earnings. If they do have to sign off on conversion to signing bonus it's a formality after the fact as the alternative is the team may cut your ass, same as in reductions in salary restructures that you do have to sign off on. Although now that I think about it they may as the rules for recouping signing bonus did change in the new CBA to allow some recovery to be persued in cases where the player screws up or becomes unavailable due to NFI related circumstances.