Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Let's talk about restructuring player contracts!


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#21 LinvilleGorge

LinvilleGorge

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,631
  • Reputation: 3,216
HUDDLER

Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:25 PM

There's no possible way for Beason to restructure his contract to have a cap hit of less than $4M + veteran minimum base salary. The bonus has already been paid. It's hitting the salary cap. No way around it. IMO, the sweet spot for both parties is a $2M base. That would make his cap hit the same this year as it would be if we cut him and spread the hit over two years and it's a higher base than he'd likely find on the open market given is injury issues. He wouldn't be a hot commodity. Good deal for both sides.

#22 Kevin Greene

Kevin Greene

    I Don't Want To Get Off On A Rant Here But....

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,911
  • Reputation: 4,239
HUDDLER

Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:36 PM

There's no possible way for Beason to restructure his contract to have a cap hit of less than $4M + veteran minimum base salary. The bonus has already been paid. It's hitting the salary cap. No way around it. IMO, the sweet spot for both parties is a $2M base. That would make his cap hit the same this year as it would be if we cut him and spread the hit over two years and it's a higher base than he'd likely find on the open market given is injury issues. He wouldn't be a hot commodity. Good deal for both sides.



If he can get on and stay on the field.

#23 LinvilleGorge

LinvilleGorge

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,631
  • Reputation: 3,216
HUDDLER

Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:53 PM

It's a good deal because there's no realistic way to get his cap hit under $6M. His agent knows that the Panthers are taking a $6M cap hit no matter what. We cut him and spread the hit over 2 years, $6M cap hit this year and $6M next year. Renegotiating his contract to put him at a $2M base + the $4M signing bonus is probably as good as we're gonna do. That would basically be giving us Jon Beason free from a cap standpoint. If we cut him, the lowest he'd cost us is $6M on the cap, so if we can keep him for a $6M hit or not much more than $6M, then there's really no downside to it.

From Beason's perspective, he's unlikely to get $2M from any team on the open market, so it's a good deal from his angle too.

#24 cookinbrak

cookinbrak

    tastes like chicken...

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,648
  • Reputation: 770
HUDDLER

Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:58 PM

If I was the GM....and I have no idea if it would even be possible....I'd call a meeting, and explain the cap situation. Then tell everybody that, for the good of the team, there were gonna be 10-12 % cuts across the board. If you wanna see growth, give a little back. Then see where everyone stood.

#25 Marguide

Marguide

    South of the Border

  • Joined: 13-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,748
  • Reputation: 2,344
HUDDLER

Posted 22 January 2013 - 12:00 AM

There's no possible way for Beason to restructure his contract to have a cap hit of less than $4M + veteran minimum base salary. The bonus has already been paid. It's hitting the salary cap. No way around it. IMO, the sweet spot for both parties is a $2M base. That would make his cap hit the same this year as it would be if we cut him and spread the hit over two years and it's a higher base than he'd likely find on the open market given is injury issues. He wouldn't be a hot commodity. Good deal for both sides.


I agree that we would need to make it something very modest as you suggest. If irc though, he still has $3+ million in guaranteed salary due this year, so they'd have to roll that into the deal.

Just running a few numbers, and thinking about the situation, I still think he's gone when all is said and done. Here are some reasons why:

1) No matter how we structure it, he would still be counting $6 million plus against our cap for at least the next 3 years, and that is with him getting no more than $2 million a year.
2) Jon can still collect that $3+ million without giving in, and then sell himself on the open market.
3) He is now no more than a luxury player for us. Do we really want to have that quantity of cap dollars tied up for several years on a luxury (and high risk due to injuries) player?

When everything shakes out, both parties may well decide to just cut ties post June 1.

#26 LinvilleGorge

LinvilleGorge

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,631
  • Reputation: 3,216
HUDDLER

Posted 22 January 2013 - 12:05 AM

If I was the GM....and I have no idea if it would even be possible....I'd call a meeting, and explain the cap situation. Then tell everybody that, for the good of the team, there were gonna be 10-12 % cuts across the board. If you wanna see growth, give a little back. Then see where everyone stood.


This might be the worst idea I've ever heard. Seriously. For one, the rookie contracts are set in stone. You can't touch them. Veteran minimum contracts are already bare bones. Not everyone on the team is overpaid, so why should they take a cut? Our cap problems honestly come down to just a handful of players - notably Beason, Williams, Stewart, Gamble, Gross, Godfrey, CJ, and James Anderson. The Gamble, Gross, and Anderson situations are pretty simple IMO - they either restructure or they get cut. Period. Godfrey is actually relatively cheap for one more season, then he either restructures or he's gone. The others get more complicated due to the cap implications. If everyone and their agents want to play ball, it's actually a pretty easy fix. If agents and/or players want to play hard ball, we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Hopefully players want to be here, because they're agents aren't dumb. They know the situation.

#27 FutureDynasty

FutureDynasty

    Junior Member

  • Joined: 08-March 12
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 352
  • Reputation: 198
HUDDLER

Posted 22 January 2013 - 12:06 AM

If I was the GM....and I have no idea if it would even be possible....I'd call a meeting, and explain the cap situation. Then tell everybody that, for the good of the team, there were gonna be 10-12 % cuts across the board. If you wanna see growth, give a little back. Then see where everyone stood.



how would you feel if your boss did that at your job? This is a business first and foremost these guys wouldn't stand for that,

#28 Marguide

Marguide

    South of the Border

  • Joined: 13-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,748
  • Reputation: 2,344
HUDDLER

Posted 22 January 2013 - 12:07 AM

As an aside since we're on the subject, there are conflicting reports on how unallocated cap dollars are handled for post June 1st cuts.

We all know those dollars are spread over 2 years. It is usually assumed they are divided equally, i.e. $6 million in 2013 and $6 million in 2014. However, I have seen a number of reports in the media that it is divided differently, with the original cap hit taken in the first year, and the balance in year 2. Again, using Beason as an example, the charge would be around $4 million in 2013 and $8 million in 2014.

Does anyone have a definitive reference that answers this question?

#29 LinvilleGorge

LinvilleGorge

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,631
  • Reputation: 3,216
HUDDLER

Posted 22 January 2013 - 12:08 AM

I agree that we would need to make it something very modest as you suggest. If irc though, he still has $3+ million in guaranteed salary due this year, so they'd have to roll that into the deal.

Just running a few numbers, and thinking about the situation, I still think he's gone when all is said and done. Here are some reasons why:

1) No matter how we structure it, he would still be counting $6 million plus against our cap for at least the next 3 years, and that is with him getting no more than $2 million a year.
2) Jon can still collect that $3+ million without giving in, and then sell himself on the open market.
3) He is now no more than a luxury player for us. Do we really want to have that quantity of cap dollars tied up for several years on a luxury (and high risk due to injuries) player?

When everything shakes out, both parties may well decide to just cut ties post June 1.


I think the Panthers make it work because cutting him next year gets A LOT more feasible than cutting him this year. There's a lot more savings to be had. I think it just makes sense for both sides. Beason shows he's valuable as a starting OLB and can stay healthy, then he can restructure and stay and keep the majority of his money. If he can't stay healthy, then he's gone either way. Win/win situation for both sides.

#30 LinvilleGorge

LinvilleGorge

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,631
  • Reputation: 3,216
HUDDLER

Posted 22 January 2013 - 12:09 AM

As an aside since we're on the subject, there are conflicting reports on how unallocated cap dollars are handled for post June 1st cuts.

We all know those dollars are spread over 2 years. It is usually assumed they are divided equally, i.e. $6 million in 2013 and $6 million in 2014. However, I have seen a number of reports in the media that it is divided differently, with the original cap hit taken in the first year, and the balance in year 2. Again, using Beason as an example, the charge would be around $4 million in 2013 and $8 million in 2014.

Does anyone have a definitive reference that answers this question?


I don't. I was assuming it was allocated equally, but it may not be.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users