We CAN make the cap room to sign Peppers - Unsubstantianted Claim

[solman]

It says that because 2009 is capped and 2010 is uncapped any offseason roster bonuses beyond 2009 will be treated like a signing bonus.

The OP has yet to fail to include that fact into his calculation. Brady is due a $3 million roster bonus in 2010. Any restructure of his deal would cause that to be amortized in 2009.

I envision Brady's new contract replacing his old one. The $3M roster bonus in 2010 will be gone, and therefore not need to be accounted for. Hopefully that is clear from my recent posts.

 

[Shockt327]

I think the option bonus may be in the wrong year. I believe it is paid in 2010 and prorated from then. i don't have time to look it up before I go.

Nope. I just accidentally labeled the 'Discretionary Signing Bonus' as an 'Option Bonus.' Little mix up on my part, but the numbers are still the same.

Using the blog you posted I'll further break it down:

*Note - I've already prorated the $20 mil Discretionary Signing Bonus on the right.

*In red are the years that Haynesworth will not see

If 2010 is uncapped the option bonus is paid outright I believe:

If CBA is extended (and 2010 is capped) the option bonus is converted to a prorated signing bonus:

 

[solman]

Quotes like this make me feel people are not paying attention. HE WANTS OUT OF CAROLINA. They have offered him, a huge, huge contract. And he wants to play OLB in a 3-4. He's not stupid enough to think he should get a DE franchise number for an OLB position.

I agree. He wants out of Carolina. But how much is he willing to pay for his freedom? His agent could easily argue that $7M/year could end up costing him $30M or $40M.

Is Peppers willing to pay that much money to get out of Carolina one year early?

I'd be pretty surprised if he was.

 

[solman]

We CAN make the cap room to sign Peppers

Who added the word unsubstantiated to the thread title?

I have provided precise numbers to substantiate the claim.

Is there some information about why this isn't possible that hasn't shown up in the thread yet?

If so, shouldn't it be posted there?

 

[Brettlax3434]

Re: We CAN make the cap room to sign Peppers

wasnt this just a thread?

 

[Shockt327]

I agree. He wants out of Carolina. But how much is he willing to pay for his freedom? His agent could easily argue that $7M/year could end up costing him $30M or $40M.

Is Peppers willing to pay that much money to get out of Carolina one year early?

I'd be pretty surprised if he was.

How?

The outrageously overpaid Haynesworth (/hyperbole) is only getting 47 mil over 4 years because of the 20 mil option bonus. Aside from that he's only averaging about 7 mil per year.

I don't see why NE can't sign him to the same type of contract - sans pointlessly the backloaded 3 years.

I don't see where you get 30-40 mil. I also think you are overestimating Peppers value.

 

[Miguel]

I obviously agree with point #1. Its the point of this thread. I'd like to know why the title was changed to unsubstantiated when there seems to be agreement on the title point "We CAN make the cap room to sign Peppers"

With respect to point #2:

If there is no cap in 2010 and Dan Snyder, Robert Kraft and Jerry Jones start acting like the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets, then this is, IMNSHO, a very good idea.

If there is no cap in 2010 and people act reasonably, it is a moderately bad idea. It will improve the talent we put on the field, but have serious negative business consequences, amongst them an increased likelihood of serious trouble negotiating a new CBA.

If there is a cap in 2010, it is a very bad idea.

I changed the title because any plan that presumes paying Brady $100,000,000 in 2010 is simply not realistic. The last time Brady had an option bonus in his contract he protected himself by having future salaries increased and guaranteed if the Pats did not pick up the option. How would he agree to less now???

I will change the title to Possible but not Plausible.

 

[Miguel]

Re: We CAN make the cap room to sign Peppers

Who added the word unsubstantiated to the thread title?

I did. Look at your first post.

"We can free up an extra $9M if we restructure/extend Brady, Light and Faulk so that their cap hit in 2009 is $1M each. We could use huge guaranteed options due in 2010 for each to make them whole."

You have admitted that there is not possible to make their 2009 cap hits $1 million. You have yet to show the Pats can free an extra $9 million. I am just holding you to your words.

 

[eom]

INSIDE THE CAP with J.I. Halsell

J.I. Halsell has 4 seasons worth of NFL Salary Cap and Player Contract experience. For 2 seasons, he was the Salary Cap Analyst for the Washington Redskins, where he played a role in every player contract negotiation to occur during that period. Prior to his stint with the Redskins, he worked for 2 years for the NFL's labor relations department, the Management Council.

here is a link that was taken from a link in this thread --- it's the source for the haynesworth contract, and I thought was pretty interesting reading.
it's got analysis from a very informed source on top of just the #'s.

also, just to clarify a few things --- and this is just based off stuff I've read from this board, so I don't want to mislead anybody into thinking I'm any kind of informed source:

I think what people here are talking about is that the pats and carolina are NOT talking about a peppers trade because he hasn't signed that 17m franchise tag everybody refers to.
however, his agent can talk to the pats about possible contracts all he wants.
the agent then pitches an idea to carolina that they should cut a deal w/the pats whereby carolina REMOVES the tag for a 2nd round pick, allowing him to become a fa and sign a contract already waiting in his mailbox.
failing that, the agent cuts a deal w/the pats and simply pitches the same deal to carolina, getting him signed and then traded to new england that same day.
basically, the pats don't need to clear 17m --- just the space required as if he were a fa, which is still substantial, but also substantially more likely.

carolina is apparently currently right at the cap, so they are highly motivated to do SOMETHING to alleviate this, and peppers apparently won't sign a deal w/them.

the confusion about the haynesworth deal, and I haven't finished reading the link above, I think comes from the semantics of it.
they seem to use a 2010 bonus to circumvent 2009 cap hits, and they 'guarantee' it by guaranteeing the situation and not the money.
meaning they actually agree to two different but equal bonuses that cover two mutually exclusive situations, so neither bonus is guaranteed, but he's guaranteed of getting one of them.

anyway, that's how it was explained to me elsewhere, although I've been getting very confused.

it seems the big question is how much would peppers really take, when he's due 17m and stands to cut a new deal in an uncapped year, and could the pats even come up w/a 'paltry' 7m, if that's what it came down to?

also, a note about the brady restructure.
I believe solman was just using 100m as a number for illustration, but in that particular illustration, while we dodge '09 wouldn't we be getting bent over in 2011+ on that cap hit?
and as miguel has mentioned, what if 2010 ends up capped under a new cba?

 

[Grizzafted]

Why would the Pats, let alone any team, give up anything to sign an UFA??

Well that's the sticking point here, and I'm not sure anyone has the knowledge of contract law to really answer this question definitively. At least, nobody to my knowledge on the board so far has said, "no you can't do this," and one thing I think we all know about BB is he's willing to find the limits of the law in any given situation. If not push right past them.

So, in this case, there is smoke. Presumably there is also fire. Seeing as the Patriots could not take on a franchised Peppers under any scenario whatsover, this leads me to believe that they are being creative.

The sticking point is, as you say, the exposure of the Pats to being double crossed. I can't see why it would be illegal for the Pats and the Panthers to work out a deal where the 34th pick goes to them in exchange for their withdrawal of the Peppers tag. But they presumably wouldn't do it unless they have a deal in principle with Peppers, where he is somehow obligated to sign with the Pats for a specific amount in the event that his tag is withdrawn.

The question is whether that's legal, and whether the Panthers could then turn around and claim the rights to two first round picks, or whether Peppers could somehow wait until he is released by Carolina and then decide to start a bidding war, and completely flake on his agreement with the Pats. Would it be legal for Pats and Peppers to work out an in principle deal that is conditional on the release of the franchise tag? If someone can answer that it would be great. I think part of the question revolves around how much BB trusts Peppers, and what their relationship is.

I'm of the mind that this trade is still a very real possibility, and that if it does happen it will be within this scenario.

 

[Shockt327]

INSIDE THE CAP with J.I. Halsell

J.I. Halsell has 4 seasons worth of NFL Salary Cap and Player Contract experience. For 2 seasons, he was the Salary Cap Analyst for the Washington Redskins, where he played a role in every player contract negotiation to occur during that period. Prior to his stint with the Redskins, he worked for 2 years for the NFL's labor relations department, the Management Council.

here is a link that was taken from a link in this thread --- it's the source for the haynesworth contract, and I thought was pretty interesting reading.
it's got analysis from a very informed source on top of just the #'s.

also, just to clarify a few things --- and this is just based off stuff I've read from this board, so I don't want to mislead anybody into thinking I'm any kind of informed source:

I think what people here are talking about is that the pats and carolina are NOT talking about a peppers trade because he hasn't signed that 17m franchise tag everybody refers to.
however, his agent can talk to the pats about possible contracts all he wants.
the agent then pitches an idea to carolina that they should cut a deal w/the pats whereby carolina REMOVES the tag for a 2nd round pick, allowing him to become a fa and sign a contract already waiting in his mailbox.
failing that, the agent cuts a deal w/the pats and simply pitches the same deal to carolina, getting him signed and then traded to new england that same day.
basically, the pats don't need to clear 17m --- just the space required as if he were a fa, which is still substantial, but also substantially more likely.

carolina is apparently currently right at the cap, so they are highly motivated to do SOMETHING to alleviate this, and peppers apparently won't sign a deal w/them.

the confusion about the haynesworth deal, and I haven't finished reading the link above, I think comes from the semantics of it.
they seem to use a 2010 bonus to circumvent 2009 cap hits, and they 'guarantee' it by guaranteeing the situation and not the money.
meaning they actually agree to two different but equal bonuses that cover two mutually exclusive situations, so neither bonus is guaranteed, but he's guaranteed of getting one of them.

anyway, that's how it was explained to me elsewhere, although I've been getting very confused.

it seems the big question is how much would peppers really take, when he's due 17m and stands to cut a new deal in an uncapped year, and could the pats even come up w/a 'paltry' 7m, if that's what it came down to?

also, a note about the brady restructure.
I believe solmon was just using 100m as a number for illustration, but in that particular illustration, while we dodge '09 wouldn't we be getting bent over in 2011+ on that cap hit?
and as miguel has mentioned, what if 2010 ends up capped under a new cba?

1) What I put in bold is illegal. Your second senario is accurate. That's what happened in the Jared Allen trade to Minnesota.

2) The $21 mil Option Bonus on the Haynesworth contract is indeed confusing. I know it is guaranteed. So either way Haynesworth gets that money. What's so confusing is wether or not it can be paid all at once in 2010 or wether or not is must be prorated over 5 years. That seemingly minor detail has a huge ramifications in the event of an uncapped year.

3) You also bring up a good point. There is no way solmon's scenario is plausible cause if a new CBA is reached - and it is possible - than that $100 mil payout in 2010 would crush the Patriots financially.

 

[Shockt327]

Well that's the sticking point here, and I'm not sure anyone has the knowledge of contract law to really answer this question definitively. At least, nobody to my knowledge on the board so far has said, "no you can't do this," and one thing I think we all know about BB is he's willing to find the limits of the law in any given situation. If not push right past them.

So, in this case, there is smoke. Presumably there is also fire. Seeing as the Patriots could not take on a franchised Peppers under any scenario whatsover, this leads me to believe that they are being creative.

The sticking point is, as you say, the exposure of the Pats to being double crossed. I can't see why it would be illegal for the Pats and the Panthers to work out a deal where the 34th pick goes to them in exchange for their withdrawal of the Peppers tag. But they presumably wouldn't do it unless they have a deal in principle with Peppers, where he is somehow obligated to sign with the Pats for a specific amount in the event that his tag is withdrawn.

The question is whether that's legal, and whether the Panthers could then turn around and claim the rights to two first round picks, or whether Peppers could somehow wait until he is released by Carolina and then decide to start a bidding war, and completely flake on his agreement with the Pats. Would it be legal for Pats and Peppers to work out an in principle deal that is conditional on the release of the franchise tag? If someone can answer that it would be great. I think part of the question revolves around how much BB trusts Peppers, and what their relationship is.

I'm of the mind that this trade is still a very real possibility, and that if it does happen it will be within this scenario.

A) It isn't legal. You can only trade for personnel.

B) It isn't necessary.

The Pats would simply negotiate an acceptable contract with Peppers. Then Carolina and NE would agree on compensation (probably the #34). Then Carolina would sign him to that agreed upon contract and trade him to the Pats.

 

[Grizzafted]

For my part, to summarize, I think what's going on is clear.

Everything is in place but Peppers has been faced with the consequence of his wanting to convert to OLB with a contending team like the Patriots. He will have to take much, much less money than he would if he was playing for the $$$. Probably in the vicinity of 5 or 6 million this year -- instead of the 17 million bonanza he's due to get from the Panthers, followed by some obscene contract exactly one year from now with the team of his choosing. I mean, you gotta figure, right....he's going to look at that and say, I'm going to take the cash and look at the market next year. He's not going to walk away from his season this year with roughly 3 million after taxes, a guy with that kind of stature.

 

[Shockt327]

For my part, to summarize, I think what's going on is clear.

Everything is in place but Peppers has been faced with the consequence of his wanting to convert to OLB with a contending team like the Patriots. He will have to take much, much less money than he would if he was playing for the $$$. Probably in the vicinity of 5 or 6 million this year -- instead of the 17 million bonanza he's due to get from the Panthers. I mean, you gotta figure, right....he's going to look at that and say, I'm going to take the cash and look at the market next year. He's not going to walk away from his season this year with roughly 3 million after taxes, a guy with that kind of stature.

:ugh:

People are too hung up on the $17 million. Look, if he signs a contract - even one at roughly 7-8 mil per year - he'll get much more in guaranteed money. See my breakdown of the Haynesworth deal. Also, he'll be covered in case of an injury.

This is why no player wants to be tagged despite the outrageous one-year money. A) If you get hurt you are screwed. B) You get more guaranteed money under a real contract.

If players actually thought they stood to benefit by being tagged. We'd see far less holdouts because of it.

 

[eom]

ok, then let me ask you this --- and the numbers are just for conversation, and I welcome corrections on the legalities of it..........

let's say peppers is willing to give up the 17m next year for fat 'guaranteed' money on a team he supposedly wants to play for, since he seems to want out of carolina for whatever reason.
is it in the realm of possibility that he takes one dollar salary in '09, + 10m signing bonus, + some fat (let's say 30m) faux guaranteed option bonus in 2010?
with the faux part meaning it's actually comprised of 2 nonguaranteed bonuses covering mutually exclusive situations.
oh, and we'll call it a 4 yr deal.

assuming I didn't screw something up in there, and I probably did, is this just giving the player too much leverage in up front monies?

 

[solman]

How?

The outrageously overpaid Haynesworth (/hyperbole) is only getting 47 mil over 4 years because of the 20 mil option bonus. Aside from that he's only averaging about 7 mil per year.

I don't see why NE can't sign him to the same type of contract - sans pointlessly the backloaded 3 years.

I don't see where you get 30-40 mil. I also think you are overestimating Peppers value.

First, recognize that its his agent's job to make the argument that he shouldn't walk away from money.

Even you disagree about an agents proper role, we should at least be able to agree that the agent is compensated as if it is his job to maximize the expected value of a player's earnings.

That said, let me make the agent's case based on a seven year deal at $7/year.

If Peppers takes the money, he gets $17M, plus whatever the market gives him (in an uncapped year) for the next six.

If he signs a $7M/year deal, he gets $49M.

For him to be losing $40M, the six year deal would have to pay (49+40-17)/6 = $12M/year.

Dwight Freeney signed a deal for $12M/year when the salary cap was $109M when he was looking at his first franchise tag for $8.64 million (I took that from an online report that may have been wrong because the tag may have been exclusive)

Peppers (who I think is a better player) would probably be signing a deal in an uncapped year (one year after the cap rose to $127) unconstrained by the Franchise tag.

Do I think he could get a lot more than $12M/year? Hell yeah.


We can quibble about guaranteed money (which is important, but which complicates the discussion without making anything clearer) and the risk of injury, but my point is that any deal which values Peppers at $7M/year is massively underpaying him. It is absolutely his agent's job to keep him from doing this.

Giving a discount to the Patriots is a reasonable and smart thing to do. But it should be a modest discount, not a blue light special.

 

[solman]

I will change the title to Possible but not Plausible.

I think that's quite fair.

Still, while I agree that my simplistic version of those contracts is implausible, I think you could apply those same mechanics to drafting an agreement which is also plausible (but decidedly more complicated).

If I actually thought this deal was going to happen, I might be inclined to argue the point

 

[solman]

Re: We CAN make the cap room to sign Peppers

I did. Look at your first post.

"We can free up an extra $9M if we restructure/extend Brady, Light and Faulk so that their cap hit in 2009 is $1M each. We could use huge guaranteed options due in 2010 for each to make them whole."

You have admitted that there is not possible to make their 2009 cap hits $1 million. You have yet to show the Pats can free an extra $9 million. I am just holding you to your words.

An imprecision on my part. I was treating the cap space allocated to amortized bonuses (not to mention the $3M already paid to Brady this year) as gone already (which it sort of is).

I meant $1M in addition to the amounts that we can't do anything about.

 

[Shockt327]

ok, then let me ask you this --- and the numbers are just for conversation, and I welcome corrections on the legalities of it..........

let's say peppers is willing to give up the 17m next year for fat 'guaranteed' money on a team he supposedly wants to play for, since he seems to want out of carolina for whatever reason.
is it in the realm of possibility that he takes one dollar salary in '09, + 10m signing bonus, + some fat (let's say 30m) faux guaranteed option bonus in 2010?
with the faux part meaning it's actually comprised of 2 nonguaranteed bonuses covering mutually exclusive situations.
oh, and we'll call it a 4 yr deal.

This deal doesn't make sense. You are basing this off of your erroneous understanding of the Haynesworth deal.

Under this contract:
A) The 30% rule would only allow his salary to raise by .30 cents during all of the following years. So I really don't see why you'd bring that up. If Peppers wants to cash in he's want to have a high base salary in 2009. This is also more beneficial to NE in 2009 too. High base salary means a higher ceiling in an uncapped 2010 and beyond.

B) Signing bonuses are prorated. So a 10 mil bonus over 4 years would be $2.5 mil per year. Thus making Peppers cap figure $2.5 mil and one cent for 2009 . (Thus making the deal actually a one-year deal).

C) All option bonuses are guaranteed once the player reaches the option year and both parties agree to stay. Because the Redskins guaranteed the first 3 years of Haynesworth's deal - and the option bonus is paid out on year two - the option bonus is guaranteed.

D) There is no such thing as "two option bonuses in one that aren't mutually exclusive" or whatever. You are confusing Haynesworth's guaranteed $21 mil option bonus - which kicks in during 2010 - with a 20 million dollar Discretionary Signing Bonus that doesn't kick in till 2013. The Discretionary Signing Bonus isn't guaranteed money, won't be paid to Haynesworth, and is little more than Monopoly money. Those are two separate bonuses. They aren't two-in-one.

E) The biggest question is whether or not Option Bonuses can be a lump sum or have to be prorated over the remainder of the contract.

assuming I didn't screw something up in there, and I probably did, is this just giving the player too much leverage in up front monies?

No. You are letting the Pats get Peppers at 2.5 mil (and one cent) for 2009 -- where he'd then be cut before the big money kicks in. Essentially making it a one year deal. So Peppers would have been better off sitting out for 17 mil and being a FA again.

 

[solman]

also, a note about the brady restructure.
I believe solman was just using 100m as a number for illustration, but in that particular illustration, while we dodge '09 wouldn't we be getting bent over in 2011+ on that cap hit?
and as miguel has mentioned, what if 2010 ends up capped under a new cba?

If 2010 is uncapped, we could choose to restructure a portion of the deal (in 2010) as a roster bonus. I say this based on my belief that the 30% rule is enforced on a prospective basis, not a retrospective basis, but see how this could be argued. This would allow us to reduce the cap hit in 2011 and beyond. But we wouldn't be able to recover this money if Brady retired or hit a pedestrian while driving under the influence.

I can also think of a couple of more complicated methods of achieving the same result without implicating the 30% rule. But these would involve mechanisms that have not, to my knowledge, been used previously in the NFL (There was no reason to). The Haynesworth option seems safe precisely because it has been used many times before. Any novel device being used for the first time naturally runs the risk of being challenged by the league on grounds that may be difficult to anticipate.

In the event of a new CBA before 2010, this definitely puts the hurt on us. None of the deals would individually be a back breaker. But the combined effect of all of them would put us in a very tight spot.