Potential rule discussion for the coming off season

[tino38]

I have a potential rule I would like to have discussed for this offseason. Currently we have a system in place that when you restructure a guy his contract for the current year basically cuts in half or close to it, and then that amount is added to the last year of the players contract as well as somewhere between $1-3 million added to the signing bonus. A good portion of the time the player is then cut before the dollar amount ever takes place because his skill does not match the price for that year or a team just does not have the cap space to pay the player regardless of how talented he is. I do not have an issue with that. I want that to be known. But sometimes when a team has a player that is extremely talented they do not wish to cut that player because he is valuable to the team.

I would like to propose a 2nd style of restructuring only available to players that have already had a chance to hit free agency in a previous off season and probably would need to hit a certain age?

Say Player Y was restructured in year 3 of a 5-year contract. More often than not, the team is willing to cut the player in year 5 to save the cap hit and either eat the signing bonus if there is any at all for this player in 1 year or 2 years. I would like to discuss the proposal that a team could use this “new” restructure and can turn the 2-year contract left remaining into a 3-year contract for the same amount of money left owed to the player that was already on the books. The incentive of the player would be, it’s all guaranteed.

An example of my proposal is as follows:

Current:

2 years left on contract – Year 1 $10M & Year 2 $15M with $10M left in guaranteed money to the player through signing bonus. (2 Years / $25M Salary / $10M Guaranteed)

Proposal:

3 years left on contract – Year 1, 2, & 3 $8.3M with all $25M becoming guaranteed through this “new” restructure. (3 Years / $25M Salary / $25M Guaranteed)

Thoughts?

[Knighty Knight]

Honestly, I can't see an NFL agreeing to this type of restructure. As a realist, I don't see any benefit to adding this option.

[tino38]

Honestly, I can't see an NFL agreeing to this type of restructure. As a realist, I don't see any benefit to adding this option.

Teams with high cap numbers for one player already do this. Flacco just recently was set to make nearly $60 million between this year and next but they agreed to a new contract with way more guaranteed money.

Flacco was set to make $28.55 and $31.15 million in 2016 and 2017. They redid the contract, gave him $40 million guaranteed and now he is set to count for about $22 million each of the next 3 seasons with the Ravens. The exact scenario I am proposing is already happening in the NFL!

[Strategist]

I don't like the idea of teams being able to lock up a player for another year with a restructure.

[Jared A]

We already have LTC's to extend players. We're adding a 2nd LTC (which I hate the idea of)... enough with preventing players from hitting the open market.

[Knighty Knight]

Honestly, I can't see an NFL agreeing to this type of restructure. As a realist, I don't see any benefit to adding this option.

Teams with high cap numbers for one player already do this. Flacco just recently was set to make nearly $60 million between this year and next but they agreed to a new contract with way more guaranteed money.

Flacco was set to make $28.55 and $31.15 million in 2016 and 2017. They redid the contract, gave him $40 million guaranteed and now he is set to count for about $22 million each of the next 3 seasons with the Ravens. The exact scenario I am proposing is already happening in the NFL!

But it's not the exact same senario. The Ravens extended Flacco another year giving him more money and more guaranteed money. Your scenario is $25M over 3 years, the only difference being guaranteed money. In Flacco's case 28.55+31.15 does not equal 22x3. Plus I can't ever recall a fully guaranteed multi year deal ever happening in the NFL.

[Adam K]

We already have LTC's to extend players. We're adding a 2nd LTC (which I hate the idea of)... enough with preventing players from hitting the open market.

I agree. Unlike Jared, I like the idea of adding a second LTC.

Adding a third (semi option) in the first year of having two LTCs, however, is not a good idea. IMO. One thing at a time.

[tino38]

Honestly, I can't see an NFL agreeing to this type of restructure. As a realist, I don't see any benefit to adding this option.

Teams with high cap numbers for one player already do this. Flacco just recently was set to make nearly $60 million between this year and next but they agreed to a new contract with way more guaranteed money.

Flacco was set to make $28.55 and $31.15 million in 2016 and 2017. They redid the contract, gave him $40 million guaranteed and now he is set to count for about $22 million each of the next 3 seasons with the Ravens. The exact scenario I am proposing is already happening in the NFL!

But it's not the exact same senario. The Ravens extended Flacco another year giving him more money and more guaranteed money. Your scenario is $25M over 3 years, the only difference being guaranteed money. In Flacco's case 28.55+31.15 does not equal 22x3. Plus I can't ever recall a fully guaranteed multi year deal ever happening in the NFL.

Stop telling me what the NFL has never done before. That is one of the worst excuses to never do something. The NFL does not have the trade frenzy we have, and we don't have the NFLs ability to sign players because we let more players hit free agency in our leagues than they do. The NFL is setting new precedents every contract. Flacco is now making more money than Aaron Rodgers. And I am very aware that 28.55+31.15 does not equal 66.40. That Ravens added 6 million to the deal, didn't think I needed to add that because, my fault, I assumed the 6 million was already known by everyone and didn't need more elaboration. I can understand everyone else's justification for not wanting this, but not yours Knighty Knight. Full details of Flaccos contract have not yet been fully released but he was awarded a $40 million signing bonus, biggest ever, and 66.4 million over the next 3 years versus 59.7 over the next 2. Now we haven't yet been notified just how much of the 66 million is guaranteed, but again I am assuming here, you don't give a guy a $40 million signing bonus breaking all sorts of records for an average QB unless you are all but guaranteeing he's on your roster for the next 3 years.

[Knighty Knight]

The NFL drives what we do here. We're replicating, not innovating. Is it always exact? No. But what the NFL does should ground us as we discuss potential rule changes.

I don't mind the basis for your suggestion. We can discuss whether extending a player with multiple years remaining in order to drive down cap hit by providing more guaranteed money over an additional year is a good roster tool to have. I'm actually not against it. I would support your proposition.

I guess I had an issue more so with the example used and I understand that was not your intent. Probably a bit nit picky of me. Flacco's contract details are irrelevant. They offered him an extension for more money and more guaranteed money to drive down annual cap hit over 3 years.
I am against simply offering more guaranteed money on a contract without offering more money to extend.

[whteshark]

I'm still trying to figure out what an off season is.......