Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

[Basbear]

5 hours ago, panthers320 said:

49ers 2nd rounder just signed with 9million of the 10million guaranteed, He was drafterd 43rd overall.

 

4 hours ago, Icege said:

Wonder if this gets any movement on Shough's deal like @Basbear mentioned earlier.

 

Last years 43rd pick- max Melton got 7mill out of 8.8mill guaranteed. Rough number that's 79% of the contract guaranteed,  Alfred Collins got 90%......but I just looked at the numbers its only 8.3 out of 10.3. Its more like 80% is guaranteed, which is nearly the same as last years Melton's contract. It's normal from past years, glad this mess is nearly over. 

 

Honestly I'm shocked 49er got Collins to sign, others 2nd rounders have signed too. I mean for panther fan reason I hope Tyler stands firm and the goes into the season unsigned....... But this super helps Panthers with Nic at 51. Broncos signed havey at 60 2day as well, others have signed too. Mike green just signed too. 

[Basbear]

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/player/_/id/97858/mike-green

 

*no number on the guaranteed....I'm sooo sick of typing that word....

 

I just read a couple of pieces stating Collins deal is for 88% or 90%, so sportac maybe wrong with their numbers. Maybe rushed....... If its 90% that's a 10-11% increase within one year, that is a massive change if its the real number. 

Edited 20 hours ago by Basbear

[tukafan21]

2 hours ago, TD alt said:

I'm not cap expert, but I asked Google if a larger signing bonus affect an NFL cap, and here is the answer:

Yes, a larger signing bonus affects the NFL cap, but its impact is spread out. While the player receives the full bonus upfront, the team prorates it evenly over the life of the contract, up to a maximum of five years, for salary cap accounting purposes. This helps teams manage their cap space in the present by pushing some of the cap hit into future years.
 

I said "larger," but any size bonus can be applied. A player gets their money up front indeed, but the team still has to pay for it over time.

I think google is confusing signing bonus with guaranteed money.

If you get a guarantee of say $10 million, it doesn’t matter if the signing bonus is $5 or $8 million, it’s the $10 million number that affects the cap, as the signing bonus is always just a portion of the guaranteed money anyways.

And again, I’ll admit I’m not 100% sure about it, but I’m pretty sure it is the case.

[Basbear]

11 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

I think google is confusing signing bonus with guaranteed money.

If you get a guarantee of say $10 million, it doesn’t matter if the signing bonus is $5 or $8 million, it’s the $10 million number that affects the cap, as the signing bonus is always just a portion of the guaranteed money anyways.

And again, I’ll admit I’m not 100% sure about it, but I’m pretty sure it is the case.

It is all confusing and layered. SB is the cash you get very soon within weeks or in simple terms, its what you get to sign the paper work. Players and agents can agree on contract but what to "wait" to sign......teams don't like that cause you can "Carlos Boozer" yourself. In order to get that ink dry, while keeping the contract the same, portion it as a bonus to "sign" and get the funds with ________ .

 

* But Ive seen worded contracts that split the SB or a 20% to a later date. The beans counters can fill in the details about why certain dates are better and save the team money.. Theres tricks to the trade and accounting is full of them. 

 

Ugh another big layer, is SB can be used to manipulate cap and players. Ill try to give a example that makes enough sense. Believe it or not having a owner like Tepper is a cheat code for this. He has cash in hand, where as Mark Davis had problem making pay roll and had to move the team to Vegas....... Tepper can give you 100,000,000 SB right now and the team can spread out the cap hit. Another owner doesn't have or want to give the player 100,000,000 in cash, but offered the same guaranteed contract in roster bonuses fully guaranteed over the next few years........ Which one do you want??? Everyone wants the money now, not before another inflation waves hits in 2 years. So it does 'pay" to have a owner like tepper that's able to have real cash on hand, while it also works GREAT for cap help.

Heres a good video, if you can stand coked up pat and mask look-a-like AJ

 

 

[tukafan21]

9 minutes ago, Basbear said:

It is all confusing and layered. SB is the cash you get very soon within weeks or in simple terms, its what you get to sign the paper work. Players and agents can agree on contract but what to "wait" to sign......teams don't like that cause you can "Carlos Boozer" yourself. In order to get that ink dry, while keeping the contract the same, portion it as a bonus to "sign" and get the funds with ________ .

 

* But Ive seen worded contracts that split the SB or a 20% to a later date. The beans counters can fill in the details about why certain dates are better and save the team money.. Theres tricks to the trade and accounting is full of them. 

 

Ugh another big layer, is SB can be used to manipulate cap and players. Ill try to give a example that makes enough sense. Believe it or not having a owner like Tepper is a cheat code for this. He has cash in hand, where as Mark Davis had problem making pay roll and had to move the team to Vegas....... Tepper can give you 100,000,000 SB right now and the team can spread out the cap hit. Another owner doesn't have or want to give the player 100,000,000 in cash, but offered the same guaranteed contract in roster bonuses fully guaranteed over the next few years........ Which one do you want??? Everyone wants the money now, not before another inflation waves hits in 2 years. So it does 'pay" to have a owner like tepper that's able to have real cash on hand, while it also works GREAT for cap help.

Heres a good video, if you can stand coked up pat and mask look-a-like AJ

 

 

Right, so basically what I said in my first post about this last night.

Tepper needs to use that big wallet of his in one of the few ways it can be used in the NFL given the cap.  

Give Scourton a bigger signing bonus but not a fully guaranteed deal.

Everyone wins in that scenario as if Scourton is smart and hires good money people, he'll take that bigger signing bonus and use it to make more money in the end over the next 4 years than if he just had his fully guaranteed deal and a smaller signing bonus.

[TD alt]

42 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

Right, so basically what I said in my first post about this last night.

Tepper needs to use that big wallet of his in one of the few ways it can be used in the NFL given the cap.  

Give Scourton a bigger signing bonus but not a fully guaranteed deal.

Everyone wins in that scenario as if Scourton is smart and hires good money people, he'll take that bigger signing bonus and use it to make more money in the end over the next 4 years than if he just had his fully guaranteed deal and a smaller signing bonus.

From what I gather, sure it allows you more room in that you can manipulate the cap more due to smaller prorated amounts to fit salaries in, but for cap purposes, you're still on the hook for the money at the end of the day. 

 

"ChatGPT
You said:
What are the advantages for NFL teams to sign larger signing bonuses?
ChatGPT said:
NFL teams often use large signing bonuses as a strategic tool in contracts. While they cost real cash up front, they offer several advantages, especially when it comes to salary cap management, player retention, and negotiation leverage. Here's a breakdown of the benefits:

1. Salary Cap Flexibility
Signing bonuses are prorated over the life of the contract (up to 5 years) for salary cap purposes.

This allows teams to spread out the cap hit, even if the player receives the money immediately.

Example: A $20M signing bonus on a 4-year deal counts only $5M/year against the cap.

2. Attracting Top Talent
Players love signing bonuses because they're guaranteed money paid up front.

Offering a bigger signing bonus can sweeten the deal without inflating yearly salaries.

3. Front-Loading Real Cash, Not Cap
Teams with strong cash flow can pay big bonuses now while minimizing the immediate cap hit.

Useful for teams trying to build around rookie QB contracts or with flexible cash budgets.

4. Locking in Key Players
Larger bonuses make it harder for a player to be released early due to dead cap consequences.

This can create more job security for the player and roster continuity for the team.

5. Leverage in Restructures
Big signing bonuses create future cap hits via proration.

Teams can later restructure deals (e.g., convert salary to bonus) to create even more cap space.

6. Competitive Edge
In free agency, a team offering more guaranteed cash up front often wins the bidding war, even if the total contract value is lower than another team's.

Key Caveat:
Large signing bonuses increase dead cap risk if the player is cut or traded early."

 

I think that roster bonuses can be a useful tool if you're trying to keep players in by manipulating numbers and spreading the hit over time, but I don't think that it's something that you want to use unless it's "necessary." I don't know that you want to get into signing rookies on roster bonuses, as the bust rate is relatively high.

 

 

[kungfoodude]

On 7/16/2025 at 10:04 AM, TLGPanthersFan said:

Second round picks should never get fully guaranteed contracts. They are not worth the risk. 

That is just Panthers history pain speaking.

[tukafan21]

24 minutes ago, TD alt said:

From what I gather, sure it allows you more room in that you can manipulate the cap more due to smaller prorated amounts to fit salaries in, but for cap purposes, you're still on the hook for the money at the end of the day. 

 

"ChatGPT
You said:
What are the advantages for NFL teams to sign larger signing bonuses?
ChatGPT said:
NFL teams often use large signing bonuses as a strategic tool in contracts. While they cost real cash up front, they offer several advantages, especially when it comes to salary cap management, player retention, and negotiation leverage. Here's a breakdown of the benefits:

1. Salary Cap Flexibility
Signing bonuses are prorated over the life of the contract (up to 5 years) for salary cap purposes.

This allows teams to spread out the cap hit, even if the player receives the money immediately.

Example: A $20M signing bonus on a 4-year deal counts only $5M/year against the cap.

2. Attracting Top Talent
Players love signing bonuses because they're guaranteed money paid up front.

Offering a bigger signing bonus can sweeten the deal without inflating yearly salaries.

3. Front-Loading Real Cash, Not Cap
Teams with strong cash flow can pay big bonuses now while minimizing the immediate cap hit.

Useful for teams trying to build around rookie QB contracts or with flexible cash budgets.

4. Locking in Key Players
Larger bonuses make it harder for a player to be released early due to dead cap consequences.

This can create more job security for the player and roster continuity for the team.

5. Leverage in Restructures
Big signing bonuses create future cap hits via proration.

Teams can later restructure deals (e.g., convert salary to bonus) to create even more cap space.

6. Competitive Edge
In free agency, a team offering more guaranteed cash up front often wins the bidding war, even if the total contract value is lower than another team's.

Key Caveat:
Large signing bonuses increase dead cap risk if the player is cut or traded early."

 

I think that roster bonuses can be a useful tool if you're trying to keep players in by manipulating numbers and spreading the hit over time, but I don't think that it's something that you want to use unless it's "necessary." I don't know that you want to get into signing rookies on roster bonuses, as the bust rate is relatively high.

 

 

No, you're not on the hook for a larger than normal signing bonus because you're already on the hook for the guaranteed money.

This is the problem with things like Chat GTP, it makes assumptions in a vacuum that aren't correct in the whole picture, or even look at it in different ways.

It's basically looking at the signing bonus of a Free Agent, not a rookie who has a set value for the slot they were drafted in.  Because yes, for a FA, the more you add to the signing bonus, it does make the guaranteed money increase right along with it.

[Basbear]

The deal with spreading the cap hit over five years, is the cap increase around 10% per year(another formula).

 

Soooooooooooooo if the cap is 150 this year and 225 in five years, the 20 million in the future is a lower cap hit due to growth. 

 

It's just another layer and the saints used that method to a master class with most of the contracts while Brees was passing for 5k. 

[TD alt]

5 hours ago, tukafan21 said:

No, you're not on the hook for a larger than normal signing bonus because you're already on the hook for the guaranteed money.

This is the problem with things like Chat GTP, it makes assumptions in a vacuum that aren't correct in the whole picture, or even look at it in different ways.

It's basically looking at the signing bonus of a Free Agent, not a rookie who has a set value for the slot they were drafted in.  Because yes, for a FA, the more you add to the signing bonus, it does make the guaranteed money increase right along with it.

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.

[CPcavedweller]

On 7/15/2025 at 2:20 PM, CRA said:

so.....the entire second round is essentially holding out for guaranteed contracts.  Seems like it is stuck w/ Judkins and Emmanowori being the 3rd and 4th picks of that round and whatever slow trickle down does or doesn't produce from them. 

Give them guaranteed contracts worth half the amount they would receive in an incentivized contract then. 

[TD alt]

1 hour ago, CPcavedweller said:

Give them guaranteed contracts worth half the amount they would receive in an incentivized contract then. 

Yep, like I said, I don't mind guaranteeing them money, but make the contracts smaller amounts in order to minimize cap implications. I don't know about "half," the actual amounts, whether more or less than half, would have to be determined by the NFL and NFLPA (which will probably be highly contentious, if not "impossible"). 

I'm just for whatever leads to the best product on the field while also unaffecting my wallet.

As an aside, the NFL owners are greedy bastards in my estimation. They're trying to keep a larger portion of the pie, but players' agents are greedy as well, and they've sewn seeds of greed among the players. It's not all their fault; we all know what our society has evolved into, but the NFL wants a bigger piece of our smaller pocketbooks and refuses to "negotiate" with us (that's why we don't have cheaper and more reasonable à la carte options to view games that they're gradually trying to migrate to paid TV), so fu<k 'em. And then on top of that we have guys trying to water down the product even more by feeding greed. Change the way things are done so that we can at least see players prove themselves on the field without throwing wrenches into the engine that pays guys that have proven they can play on a pro level.

[NAS]

1 hour ago, TD alt said:

As an aside, the NFL owners are greedy bastards in my estimation. They're trying to keep a larger portion of the pie, but players' agents are greedy as well, and they've sewn seeds of greed among the players. It's not all their fault; we all know what our society has evolved into, but the NFL wants a bigger piece of our smaller pocketbooks and refuses to "negotiate" with us (that's why we don't have cheaper and more reasonable à la carte options to view games that they're gradually trying to migrate to paid TV), so fu<k 'em. And then on top of that we have guys trying to water down the product even more by feeding greed. Change the way things are done so that we can at least see players prove themselves on the field without throwing wrenches into the engine that pays guys that have proven they can play on a pro level

But the point is these rookies haven't provent hey can play at the pro level.  The rookie wage scale and reducing guarantees was a way to combat the cap impacts on top draft picks if / when they go bust.  Think about how that affects the ability for a team to move on.  Your point is only valid if there's no cap at all then the owners are either willing to pay or not.   

[TD alt]

27 minutes ago, NAS said:

But the point is these rookies haven't provent hey can play at the pro level.  The rookie wage scale and reducing guarantees was a way to combat the cap impacts on top draft picks if / when they go bust.  Think about how that affects the ability for a team to move on.  Your point is only valid if there's no cap at all then the owners are either willing to pay or not.   

Not fully understanding. I don't get why there has to be no cap for my point to be valid. In a perfect world, they can have a cap and have guaranteed rookie contracts. The two aren't mutually exclusive. It's just a matter of finding the sweet spot that makes most satisfied.