A uncapped year question

[jsull87]

OK seeing as we have all these starters with contracts about to come up i was just wondering this. There is an uncapped year coming up. Why not sign all these guys to deals where in that uncapped year they get paid llike they want say 20 million (this is assuming kraft can pay). Then with that contract they have been signed for say 6 years but in the following 5 years they are making a middle of the road salary. So when the deal is all don say we sign wilfork seymour mankins... even peppers for that uncapped year to 20 million each then the rest of their contract can be alot more manageable. I don't know if this is possible i was just wondering, if so why not go on an absolute spending spree that year?

 

[Pats726]

OK seeing as we have all these starters with contracts about to come up i was just wondering this. There is an uncapped year coming up. Why not sign all these guys to deals where in that uncapped year they get paid llike they want say 20 million (this is assuming kraft can pay). Then with that contract they have been signed for say 6 years but in the following 5 years they are making a middle of the road salary. So when the deal is all don say we sign wilfork seymour mankins... even peppers for that uncapped year to 20 million each then the rest of their contract can be alot more manageable. I don't know if this is possible i was just wondering, if so why not go on an absolute spending spree that year?

Just off the top of my head...what if there is NOT an uncapped year??? Are u going to wait to the last minuute to sign them??

 

[patsfan-1982]

Just off the top of my head...what if there is NOT an uncapped year??? Are u going to wait to the last minuute to sign them??

i argee the owners will try everything not to have a uncaped yer will maybe not jerry jones lol but the rest of them will

 

[friggs]

I have always wondered this, and if I am missing something I'd be glad for the info, but here it is...IF there is an uncapped year and teams (Pats and the rest) sign guys to huge contracts say for 5 years with 90% of the money in the first uncapped year what is to stop players from taking the huge first year salary and then hold out in year two or three since they will "only" be making X dollars instead of the 5X dollars they got in year one?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I have always wondered this, and if I am missing something I'd be glad for the info, but here it is...IF there is an uncapped year and teams (Pats and the rest) sign guys to huge contracts say for 5 years with 90% of the money in the first uncapped year what is to stop players from taking the huge first year salary and then hold out in year two or three since they will "only" be making X dollars instead of the 5X dollars they got in year one?

How would that be any different than the deals that many players sign today that give them most of their money upfront? For example, Welker's getting less than $2M this year—but he's already been paid about $10M.

It's only if the total amount they've been paid becomes drastically unfair that this would be likely to happen.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Just off the top of my head...what if there is NOT an uncapped year??? Are u going to wait to the last minuute to sign them??

It's essentially impossible to do a contract like the OP's in 2009, because of the rules designed to prevent teams from backloading contracts. So, it would only be possible to do that in 2010, and if 2010 were capped, no one would do it (well, maybe Al Davis. . . . ).

 

[eom]

my memory's a little vague on this, but I'm pretty sure the league fixed it so you can't do that.

I think the rule is that if the first year salary is......hmmmmm....I forget, but let's say twice as large as year 2, then it's considered a signing bonus rather than salary, and so is amortized for cap purposes.

I think the way it shakes out is you COULD hide a little bit on contracts in 2010 via frontloading, but nothing like you're thinking.

edit: oh, and the other thing is I'm not sure kraft wants to pay out 200m, especially a year before a possible work stoppage.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

my memory's a little vague on this, but I'm pretty sure the league fixed it so you can't do that.

I think the rule is that if the first year salary is......hmmmmm....I forget, but let's say twice as large as year 2, then it's considered a signing bonus rather than salary, and so is amortized for cap purposes.

But if there's no cap in 2010, what difference does that make?

 

[Ring 6]

i argee the owners will try everything not to have a uncaped yer will maybe not jerry jones lol but the rest of them will

The owners seem to feel an uncapped year is better for them.
There are a lot mor facets to an uncapped year than just that their isnt a salary cap.
The uncapped SYSTEM greatly restricts player movement. There are more tags (and we've seen how much players are against the tag) there are restrictions on signing free agents, particularly for good teams. There is no minimum cap(actually floor).
Really an uncapped system is essentially better for the owners in every way except opening up the possibility that they will be self-destructive and outbid each other for players all the way to the poor house. I recognize that baseball owners pretty much did exactly that in the past, but everyone seems to forget the NFL owners are a very organized group of 32 people who understand very clearly they are all in it together.

 

[Pats726]

The owners seem to feel an uncapped year is better for them.
There are a lot mor facets to an uncapped year than just that their isnt a salary cap.
The uncapped SYSTEM greatly restricts player movement. There are more tags (and we've seen how much players are against the tag) there are restrictions on signing free agents, particularly for good teams. There is no minimum cap(actually floor).
Really an uncapped system is essentially better for the owners in every way except opening up the possibility that they will be self-destructive and outbid each other for players all the way to the poor house. I recognize that baseball owners pretty much did exactly that in the past, but everyone seems to forget the NFL owners are a very organized group of 32 people who understand very clearly they are all in it together.

Not sure if that is teh case..I think many may THINK they can use the floor and gain a lot of profit...BUT if it is such a good thing why are the owners threatening a lockout?? IF it is so good for them..they would not be even thinking of that. I do agree uncapped year will restrict movement of players...but it also might open the door for other things.

 

[Ring 6]

Not sure if that is teh case..I think many may THINK they can use the floor and gain a lot of profit...BUT if it is such a good thing why are the owners threatening a lockout?? IF it is so good for them..they would not be even thinking of that. I do agree uncapped year will restrict movement of players...but it also might open the door for other things.

They arent locking out of the uncapped year, they are locking out when the cba expires.
Your point would make sense if they were going to lock out for the uncapped year, but they arent.
Its perfectly normal for them to choose to lock out instead of going forward with no collective bargaining agreement.

 

[eom]

But if there's no cap in 2010, what difference does that make?

it makes a difference if there was a cap AFTER 2010.

to give you an example, I think the guy's suggestion was to pay somebody 20m in salary in 2010, then 1m per year after that in the years that you anticipate another cap.

what's the difference between this and offering a guy a 20m signing bonus?

turns out there is no difference.
on a 4 year deal, that 20m first year salary is considered signing bonus and amortized over the length of the contract --- ie the back 3 years all count as 6m (5 bonus + 1 salary) against a future cap.
you don't end up 'hiding' anything.

this is just all from my poor memory, so don't take it as fact, and I welcome all corrections.
I should make that my sig.

 

[Ring 6]

it makes a difference if there was a cap AFTER 2010.

to give you an example, I think the guy's suggestion was to pay somebody 20m in salary in 2010, then 1m per year after that in the years that you anticipate another cap.

what's the difference between this and offering a guy a 20m signing bonus?

turns out there is no difference.
on a 4 year deal, that 20m first year salary is considered signing bonus and amortized over the length of the contract --- ie the back 3 years all count as 6m (5 bonus + 1 salary) against a future cap.
you don't end up 'hiding' anything.

this is just all from my poor memory, so don't take it as fact, and I welcome all corrections.
I should make that my sig.

I'm not sure of exactly what the details are but there is a rule regarding the amount you can increase salary from year to year, and its a small # like 15%.
In theory you could take Richard Seymour and give him a contract for say 5 years and 35 mill, and pay him 500k this year, and each of the other 3 years and 33million in 2010. That contract would be illegal however, because the increase from 09 to 10 is excessive.
The only way to do what is being suggested is to do it after the current contract expires, and then it loses its purpose.

 

[mgteich]

1) The amount is 30%.

2) I don't think signing a future contract (one that starts in 2010) comes under this rule.

I'm not sure of exactly what the details are but there is a rule regarding the amount you can increase salary from year to year, and its a small # like 15%.
In theory you could take Richard Seymour and give him a contract for say 5 years and 35 mill, and pay him 500k this year, and each of the other 3 years and 33million in 2010. That contract would be illegal however, because the increase from 09 to 10 is excessive.
The only way to do what is being suggested is to do it after the current contract expires, and then it loses its purpose.

 

[eom]

yeah, that's the 30% rule, and that's different than the rule I'm referring to.

 

[Ring 6]

1) The amount is 30%.

2) I don't think signing a future contract (one that starts in 2010) comes under this rule.

If you have a player under contract for 2009, I'm pretty sure you cannot sign him to a 2010 contract without making it an extension of the one in place, which would create the 30% rule violation.
Besides, why would a player sign such a future contract?
OK, Richard, here is what we want to do. Since the owners are players cannot reach an agreement there is going to be an uncapped year. So here is how we want you to help us screw the system. I want you to sign a contract TODAY that will not pay you anything until next year. You will get 30,000,000 next year, the 500k for the next 4. If you don't sign today, we cannot keep you from being a free agent in an uncapped system, and God knows how much it would cost for us to resign you. So lets do this. We give you nothing today, a guess at what your value will be in a year, and you give up your rights to free agancy, that way if we go through an uncapped year, even though your union says they will never again accept a cap, we are in great cap shape for 2011......unless we lock you out.

 

[eom]

I didn't actually read the op as suggesting we should sign them to 2010 contract's TODAY, but maybe I read it wrong.

 

[Miguel]

From the CBA:

Amounts Treated as Signing Bonuses. For purposes of determining Team Salary under the foregoing, the term “signing bonus” shall include:
(5) The difference between the Salary in the second contract year and the first contract year when Salary in the second contract year is less than half the Salary called for in the first year of such Contract;

 

[jsull87]

yeah i understand the pitfalls with the process. but to people saying y wouldn't the superstar just holdout after he gets most of his pay in year 1. well because he is still receiving millons in the next few years just not top dollar. I was just thinking why not then if there is a certain league guidline of how much salary can drop year after year do something like this. Year 1 (unapped year) 20 million, year 2 drop the full amount possible, year 3 same year 4 same e.t.c. Because if that is possible i think it could easily be done if kraft has the dough. and therefore keep some superstars while still leaving bb the ability to manipulate free agency and the draft

 

[jsull87]

If you have a player under contract for 2009, I'm pretty sure you cannot sign him to a 2010 contract without making it an extension of the one in place, which would create the 30% rule violation.
Besides, why would a player sign such a future contract?
OK, Richard, here is what we want to do. Since the owners are players cannot reach an agreement there is going to be an uncapped year. So here is how we want you to help us screw the system. I want you to sign a contract TODAY that will not pay you anything until next year. You will get 30,000,000 next year, the 500k for the next 4. If you don't sign today, we cannot keep you from being a free agent in an uncapped system, and God knows how much it would cost for us to resign you. So lets do this. We give you nothing today, a guess at what your value will be in a year, and you give up your rights to free agancy, that way if we go through an uncapped year, even though your union says they will never again accept a cap, we are in great cap shape for 2011......unless we lock you out.

Ummmm this was my entire point. in that year give richard exactly the money he wants same with wilfork mankins... even peppers. Then structure it as i have stated above. they all still get their money so they are happy and then the team gets to stay strong and get even stronger... i don't see your argument