Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Kemo cut


Boltergeist

Recommended Posts

I don't understand all the "cap moves" when there isn't a cap.

I don't really get this either, but I've been viewing this season as if we had a cap ever since the "No tag on Peppers" debacle.

This move was expected with the D.Lewis release and all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason a lot of teams will be cutting players is because it's a great time to without the cap. The guaranteed money left on a player's contract (bonuses) won't count against your cap if you cut them this year. For example.....if you would have cut Delhomme and there was a cap then you would have had to spread that 13 million in guarantees over a course of 3 or 4 years on the cap. Now it disappears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

per Schefter twitter.

Not a big surprise there, we knew it was coming because of the bonus and the size of his original contract for this coming season. He was scheduled to make over 4 million on the season after the option was turned down.

I don't understand all the "cap moves" when there isn't a cap.

JR is part of the owners that are spending less money this season to lead by example for the rest of the league...Show smart spending habits to help out the league and the other owners.... The're going to cut as much cap in the uncapped season as possible, to lower payroll for future seasons and this season as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's too bad only a handful of people realize that we're doing this to clear the books. We very may sign back lewis or jake. People need to quit freaking out and acting like we're "rebuilding".

I don't think we'll see Kemo or Delhome back. If Jake is having a press conference tomorrow then he's probably retiring. Kemo won't be ready in time. Lewis might come back but that's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...