Drew Brees renegotiates, now making the league minimum.

[DCofNC]

This ***** should be against the rules, but it’s not, so good for them.

[ColoradoBills]

3 minutes ago, mattynh said:

So his salary was 25 million and they cut it to 1 million?  He also has a 5.75 million signing bonus hit and 5.4 million restructure bonus accoridn to spotrac.  It looks to me like if he retires after June 1, ht still had a 11.5 million dead cap hit.  Unless he is "giving that bonus money" back?

 

Correct.  The "restructure bonus" is money he is 100% going to get.  It was what they used in the past to push his owed money into the future.

It seems his "signing bonus" was fully guaranteed for all situations so I see them not eligible to get it back or they wouldn't be doing what 

they are doing.  

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

10 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

With respect to this very myth about retirement and salary cap implications: Cover-1's Greg Thompsett set me straight last night via chat during their streamed salary cap podcast. I incorrectly commented that an unexpected Star Lotulelei retirement (a minor/mostly unfounded concern that nonetheless did come up and wasn't laughed off) would, on the bright side, provide cap relief for the Bills. 

 

Turns out that is not the case. Retirements can and do sometimes create sudden depth chart holes AND salary cap dead weight.

 

Come to think of it, for example, didn't Eric Wood's sudden retirement trigger some poopy cap implications? 

 

 

 

From what I've read, one of the issues is if a player retires, teams feel they have the right to get back money for future years, but rarely ever do request the money be returned.  Once in awhile you hear about a player leaving on bad terms, i.e. Antonio Brown and they stilt don't recoup the money.  I believe part of that is due to while I stated earlier "teams feel they have the right", I believe the NFLPA disagrees with that.  So to avoid bad press, particularly when the issue is a retirement, the team lets the player keep the money. 

 

It may also be one of these things the team is ready to move one so player announces today he's retiring, team asks for money back, player says I'll think about it, they go back and forth maybe gives back 60%, but took so long to get the money, they already were forced to take the cap hit.  Easier for teams to just take the hit right away and move on.

 

Believe I read about this recently in an article about Andrew Luck and was stated that: "Even Indy didn't ask Luck to return the money when he retired."

 

 

[Matt_In_NH]

48 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

 

The $24M was from his unguaranteed "base salary".  It would of went away if he retired or not.

The only thing they are doing is keeping him on the roster until June 1st.  He has a $22M dead cap that will be split over the next

2 years instead of all being hit at once.

 

The move is legal and it still does not get them out of cap hell.  Spotrac still has them needing to cut out $70M AFTER they lose a HOF QB!

Players will be cut/traded and their UFAs will likely sign elsewhere.

Yeah this makes sense, so the only weird thing happening is he wont officially retire until after June 1.  Is that circumventing the cap, maybe, either way the Saints have to take the hit, just a matter of it is all one year or spread over two. Teams do this all the time by waiting til June 1 to cut players...so an retiree waiting to retire seems reasonable.   

[Saxum]

The problem is that teams are not willing to pursue the money time for "bad reputation".

IMO you do want to be a team with reputation of "sign here and retire keeping bonus" for agents will (and have) take advantage of team. 

 

Barry Sanders "Keep the money and run'

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2000-02-16-0002160022-story.html

Quote

The Detroit Lions were awarded some--but not all--of the money they wanted returned from retired running back Barry Sanders.

An NFL arbitrator ruled Tuesday that Sanders must pay back $1.8 million of his $11 million signing bonus. For the Lions to get the rest of it, they have to wait--and Sanders must stay retired.

 

The Lions wanted Sanders to return $5.5 million of the bonus he got in 1997. He played two years of a six-year contract before startling the NFL by leaving football on the eve of training camp.

 

Arbitrator Sam Kagel ruled that Sanders owed the Lions only one-sixth of the $11 million bonus he received in 1997 because he's missed only one season so far.

Unless he returns to football, he will owe $1.83 million on future reporting dates.

 

Sanders' agent, David Ware said he would approach the Lions within a few days with the same offer he made last August: repaying $5.5 million in exchange for Sanders' release. But that appears unlikely.

 

https://www.freep.com/story/sports/nfl/lions/2016/03/11/calvin-johnson-signing-bonus/81634930/

Quote

 

In 1999, the Lions filed a grievance against Barry Sanders, seeking repayment of part of his signing bonus after the Hall of Fame running back retired early from the NFL. An arbitrator ruled that Sanders had to repay more than $5.5 million and forgo another $1.75 million of the $11-million signing bonus he received.

Sanders paid back the money in annual installments.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

From what I've read, one of the issues is if a player retires, teams feel they have the right to get back money for future years, but rarely ever do request the money be returned.  Once in awhile you hear about a player leaving on bad terms, i.e. Antonio Brown and they stilt don't recoup the money.  I believe part of that is due to while I stated earlier "teams feel they have the right", I believe the NFLPA disagrees with that.  So to avoid bad press, particularly when the issue is a retirement, the team lets the player keep the money. 

 

NFLPA disagrees with a lot of things they agree to and take the NFL to court for what they can not agreement with on bargaining table.

Some partners need divorces.

[Ethan in Cleveland]

20 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

From what I've read, one of the issues is if a player retires, teams feel they have the right to get back money for future years, but rarely ever do request the money be returned.  Once in awhile you hear about a player leaving on bad terms, i.e. Antonio Brown and they stilt don't recoup the money.  I believe part of that is due to while I stated earlier "teams feel they have the right", I believe the NFLPA disagrees with that.  So to avoid bad press, particularly when the issue is a retirement, the team lets the player keep the money. 

 

It may also be one of these things the team is ready to move one so player announces today he's retiring, team asks for money back, player says I'll think about it, they go back and forth maybe gives back 60%, but took so long to get the money, they already were forced to take the cap hit.  Easier for teams to just take the hit right away and move on.

 

Believe I read about this recently in an article about Andrew Luck and was stated that: "Even Indy didn't ask Luck to return the money when he retired."

 

 

It's why the signing bonus is what is most important on a player's second and third deal. That is the difference between NFL nad MLB/NBA contracts. NFL players can get cut anytime no matter what their contract says. If they retire unexpectedly that's when the teams may try to get some of the bonus back. But it is a sunk cost for the team. 

[Saxum]

8 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

It's why the signing bonus is what is most important on a player's second and third deal. That is the difference between NFL nad MLB/NBA contracts. NFL players can get cut anytime no matter what their contract says. If they retire unexpectedly that's when the teams may try to get some of the bonus back. But it is a sunk cost for the team. 

 

Incorrect.  The "being cut" is part of the contract so it is not "no matter what their contract says". Some players have signed contracts where all money is guaranteed but in those contracts they usually get less in contract.

 

 

Players also sign contracts and come into camp out of shape and cannot play, get mysterious injuries and no matter what their contract says do not play (Quinton Spain), intentionally tank performance to not play for Bills (Gary Anderson), quit in middle of game, etc.  

 

It is not "Players good, teams evil" like you try to frame it. 

[Doc]

While it helps, they're still screwed.  It would be best to take 2021 as a loss and look to get a top-3 pick in 2022.

[cba fan]

2 hours ago, mattynh said:

I dont get how this saves 24 million on their cap.

Does not save it, It just moves about half of it to the next year. As he will be a post June 1 cut/retirement.

Edited February 6, 2021 by cba fan

[Doc]

1 minute ago, cba fan said:

Does not save it, It just moves about half of it to the next year. As he will be a post June 1 cut/retirement.

 

It saves the $24M in base salary he previously had and also means fewer deep cuts to make before February 23rd.  And it looks like he has 3 years left of his signing bonus so the team will be charged one year's worth this year and the remaining 2 years in 2022.

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, mattynh said:

Yeah this makes sense, so the only weird thing happening is he wont officially retire until after June 1.  Is that circumventing the cap, maybe, either way the Saints have to take the hit, just a matter of it is all one year or spread over two. Teams do this all the time by waiting til June 1 to cut players...so an retiree waiting to retire seems reasonable.   

 

It is exactly that. They are not saving any money. It is purely about making sure they can hit the cap when they need to at the start of the league year so that Brees can retire after June 1st and they can spread the outstanding money he is due over 2 years. 

 

There is nothing dodgy going on. Again another example of fans need to understand what the cap is. It is an accounting tool. What money gets paid, and when, is very different to what the cap says. 

[GunnerBill]

19 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It saves the $24M in base salary he previously had and also means fewer deep cuts to make before February 23rd.  And it looks like he has 3 years left of his signing bonus so the team will be charged one year's worth this year and the remaining 2 years in 2022.

 

It doesn't really "save" that money. They'd never have had to pay it. He isn't playing. What it does, you are right, is reflect that reality early so that it is off the books before the league year restarts and the cap kicks back in. 

 

The other way they could do that of course is he could retire immediately but then that escalates all the already paid bonus money onto this year's cap rather than spreading it over two years.

[Rubes]

I think players who retire have the option of "refunding" the remaining part of their bonus in order to remove the cap hit, but of course players shouldn't be expected to do that. But if someone retired unexpectedly, especially right after signing a new contract with a big signing bonus, I could see why there would be some hard feelings about that.

 

 

[transient]

10 hours ago, cage said:

I could be wrong, but I want to say that the Bills did something similar w/ Eric Wood.  They didn't reduce his next year's salary, but held off the retirement announcement until they could use the June 1 rule to move the dead cap into following year.  

 

That’s what led to the awkward “hey all, what’s up” non-retirement press conference by Wood where players, former players, friends and family showed up to hear Wood not announce his retirement. Clearly he couldn’t play, so there was no question in his mind, but his camp didn’t think through the implications of the timing before putting together his send off. 

[without a drought]

His cap hit for 2021 was just over $36mil and now it has been reduced to around $12mil, that's the $24mil in cap space. Then if he retires after June 1, his $22.6mil in dead cap space can be spread out over 2 years.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

16 hours ago, BaaadThingsMan said:

Something tells me he won't be losing any money. 

 

Makes you wonder if there are back door deals made to players that aren't on the books.

 

 

[Putin]

16 hours ago, machine gun kelly said:

Brees could pay them to work and the team will still be in cap hell. 

Am I the only one who believes that  Brees should just retire? I’m not questioning his will or commitment I just think physically he’s done , I think his arm is shot 

[machine gun kelly]

You’re not wrong Big P.  Brees is probably one of the more under appreciated top QB’s out of the current legends.  He’s had a fantastic career, and people used to speak to his shoulder, his height, and so on.  He proved everyone wrong.  I wish him well, but Putin you’re right.  He just needs to retire and enjoy those kids.  I think he will.  He wouldn’t have been playing ball with his sons after the game on the field if not to say it was his swan song.  This contract thing must be a way prior to his retirement to help out the team vs. just announcing retirement.

[GunnerBill]

11 hours ago, Putin said:

Am I the only one who believes that  Brees should just retire? I’m not questioning his will or commitment I just think physically he’s done , I think his arm is shot 

 

He is retiring. He is just working with the team to do it in a way that manages the cap implications for the Saints. 

[JMF2006]

Now they just need another 100m in savings