Bills restructure Ryan Bates contract

[Ethan in Cleveland]

Hope for Gilmore but expect Haden

[That's No Moon]

[Yawning Frog]

for extending poyer perhaps

[muppy]

1 hour ago, Tuco said:

That would leave Bates with a base salary of $0 dollars for the season. That's not allowed. I wasn't really being snarky but let me tell you I understand the cap rules. I wish I had saved a screen shot of Bates contract details from Spotrac when they first went up compared to what they are now. But whether you like it or not, here's the real numbers and how they were changed. (by the way, Bates never had a $1.5 million salary for 2022, it was, and still is, actually $1.45 million)

 

His initial contract looked like this (guaranteed amounts in bold red)-

 

YEAR     --     BASE SALARY    --     PRORATED BONUS   --   ROSTER BONUS   --   WORKOUT BONUS   --   CAP FIGURE

2022     --       $1,450,000      --           $500,000            --  $1,500,000(GTD) --            $50,000            --   $3,500,000

2023     --       $3,900,000     --           $500,000            --               $0               --           $100,000           --   $4,500,000

2024     --       $3,400,000       --           $500,000           --         $500,000          --           $100,000           --   $4,500,000

2025     --       $3,400,000       --           $500,000           --         $500,000          --           $100,000           --   $4,500,000

 

And the new figures with the guaranteed roster bonus converted to signing bonus and prorated look like this -

 

YEAR     --     BASE SALARY    --     PRORATED BONUS   --   ROSTER BONUS   --   WORKOUT BONUS   --   CAP FIGURE

2022     --       $1,450,000      --           $875,000            --               $0              --            $50,000            --   $2,375,000

2023     --       $3,900,000     --           $875,000            --               $0               --           $100,000           --   $4,875,000

2024     --       $3,400,000       --           $875,000           --         $500,000          --           $100,000           --   $4,875,000

2025     --       $3,400,000       --           $875,000           --         $500,000          --           $100,000           --   $4,875,000

 

 

Buscaglia mis-stated when he said they converted base salary. They converted a guaranteed bonus. Not sure what's difficult to understand.

lol oh my Tuco ...MasterStrategist poked a bear he had no business poking...

 

Memo: there is noone better at understanding this stuff AND explaining it clearly as senor Tuco 🙂  Now Im sure he's blushing lol hahahaaaa

[T master]

So add that to what i heard they got from extending Diggs $6 Mill for this years cap that would mean they have another $7.125 Million in cap space to divvy out .

 

The rookies are how much ? Will they have any more to play with , how much will they have after paying the rookies ? 

[GunnerBill]

20 hours ago, Tuco said:

 

And now a word about a somewhat related subject. I've seen a lot of people here mention they thought you couldn't restructure a contract for a year. Well that's not exactly true. The CBA says that after a contract is renegotiated (note that says renegotiated, not restructured) to give the player more money, then it can't be renegotiated again for a full year. That's different than a restructure where the money stays the same, and basically means if a player with an existing contract is given a new contract for more money, they can't do it again for at least a year. But it doesn't apply to an actual restructure where the player's money stays the same.

 

Go Bills.

 

 

 

What we were saying is actually specific to RFA matches. I thought when you matched an RFA offer you then couldn't do anything with that deal for the rest of that league year. And to be honest that is how I'd prefer it was. But it isn't, and the Bills have used it to their advantage.

[Alphadawg7]

I hope it has something to do with us signing a corner capable of starting.  I would prefer not heading into a draft with such a glaring hole.  

[Tuco]

54 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

What we were saying is actually specific to RFA matches. I thought when you matched an RFA offer you then couldn't do anything with that deal for the rest of that league year. And to be honest that is how I'd prefer it was. But it isn't, and the Bills have used it to their advantage.

Well that's what some of you were saying. LOL. Though I see a lot of different stuff different places so I may get it mixed up from time to time. And I wasn't really calling anybody out in particular.

 

Anyway, my original point was, the Bills did match the contract as it was written (as of course, they had to). But the contract wasn't written with a guaranteed $3 million salary in 2022 that then had $1.5 million converted, as was erroneously tweeted by Buscaglia and now is being repeated by every other website and blog. The contract was written with a $1.45 million salary, a $50,000 workout bonus, and a $1.5 million dollar guaranteed option bonus. This was clearly posted on the Over The Cap website last week when they added Bates contract to their page. (and oh how I wish I had saved a screen shot, LOL). In fact I saw the way it was listed and commented on another message board back on Sunday the 3rd that there was a guaranteed option bonus due and that if the Bills wanted they could convert it.

 

Guaranteed option bonuses are only good for one thing, and that's changing guaranteed money into signing bonus but at a later date from when the contract is signed. The term "option bonus" can be misleading, as sometimes contracts do have actual option bonuses, where the team has the option to pay it or cut the player loose - but those are usually referred to as roster bonuses in such cases. But when an option bonus is fully guaranteed, there is no team option as to whether or not to pay it - it's guaranteed after all. The option lies in the team's ability, when the bonus comes due, to either pay the bonus as guaranteed salary during the season and charge the whole amount to the cap in that year (almost never), or to convert it to signing bonus and prorate the cap hit (almost always).

 

Usually guaranteed option bonuses are used in year 2 of a contract in order to push a portion of the prorated cap hit back a year. But for whatever reason, whether to try to make the initial cap hit higher and harder for us to match, or some other reason - it's basically irrelevant since we did match - the Bears included it in year one of the Bates offer. But now I'm rambling. The point is, the Bills did not "restructure" Bates' contract by converting salary. They matched the contract that included the guaranteed option bonus, and then exercised the option to convert that into signing bonus when it came due (even though it was just a few days after signing) - all without changing the contract one bit from the way it was written.

 

In other words, the way the matched contract was written, even if the Bills didn't match and Bates went to the Bears, the Bears would have had the exact same option on that $1.5 million bonus roughly a week after it was signed. Nothing the Bills did changed the contract from the one they matched. That's my only original point. Contrary to popular belief, the Bills didn't change the contract one bit. And people thinking the rules need to be changed because they think the Bills did change the contract by "restructuring" and "converting salary" after only a week are, unfortunately, basing their thoughts on wrong information.

Edited April 9, 2022 by Tuco

[GunnerBill]

9 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Well that's what some of you were saying. LOL. Though I see a lot of different stuff different places so I may get it mixed up from time to time. And I wasn't really calling anybody out in particular.

 

Anyway, my original point was, the Bills did match the contract as it was written (as of course, they had to). But the contract wasn't written with a guaranteed $3 million salary in 2022 that then had $1.5 million converted, as was erroneously tweeted by Buscaglia and now is being repeated by every other website and blog. The contract was written with a $1.45 million salary, a $50,000 workout bonus, and a $1.5 million dollar guaranteed option bonus. This was clearly posted on the Over The Cap website last week when they added Bates contract to their page. (and oh how I wish I had saved a screen shot, LOL). In fact I saw the way it was listed and commented on another message board back on Sunday the 3rd that there was a guaranteed option bonus due and that if the Bills wanted they could convert it.

 

Guaranteed option bonuses are only good for one thing, and that's changing guaranteed money into signing bonus but at a later date from when the contract is signed. The term "option bonus" can be misleading, as sometimes contracts do have actual option bonuses, where the team has the option to pay it or cut the player loose - but those are usually referred to as roster bonuses in such cases. But when an option bonus is fully guaranteed, there is no team option as to whether or not to pay it - it's guaranteed after all. The option lies in the team's ability, when the bonus comes due, to either pay the bonus as guaranteed salary during the season and charge the whole amount to the cap in that year (almost never), or to convert it to signing bonus and prorate the cap hit (almost always).

 

Usually guaranteed option bonuses are used in year 2 of a contract in order to push a portion of the prorated cap hit back a year. But for whatever reason, whether to try to make the initial cap hit higher and harder for us to match, or some other reason - it's basically irrelevant since we did match - the Bears included it in year one of the Bates offer. But now I'm rambling. The point is, the Bills did not "restructure" Bates' contract by converting salary. They matched the contract that included the guaranteed option bonus, and then exercised the option to convert that into signing bonus when it came due (even though it was just a few days after signing) - all without changing the contract one bit from the way it was written.

 

In other words, the way the matched contract was written, even if the Bills didn't match and Bates went to the Bears, the Bears would have had the exact same option on that $1.5 million bonus roughly a week after it was signed. Nothing the Bills did changed the contract from the one they matched. That's my only original point. Contrary to popular belief, the Bills didn't change the contract one bit. And people thinking the rules need to be changed because they think the Bills did change the contract by "restructuring" and "converting salary" after only a week are, unfortunately, basing their thoughts on wrong information.

 

No I have the right information. I still think the rule should be changed. When a team matches an RFA deal they should be prohibited from making any adjustment to that contract, whether that is triggering bonuses or converting salary for the rest of that league year. Because the RFA system should give a player a chance to maximise their value. And if the original team can match and then make adjustments to the structure of the contract it makes it harder for other teams to find a deal that takes the player away and consequently that can chill the market. 

 

I'd change the rule personally, even though I am glad it worked out for the Bills. 

[NoSaint]

On 4/8/2022 at 9:35 AM, ColoradoBills said:

There has to be something in the new CBA that makes a team match the contract for only a certain period of time.

One way or another Beane used the "fine print" to his advantage.

Go Bills.

it definitely used to be that you couldn’t restructure a deal in the league year it was signed. Clearly no longer the case.

[Tuco]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

No I have the right information. I still think the rule should be changed. When a team matches an RFA deal they should be prohibited from making any adjustment to that contract, whether that is triggering bonuses or converting salary for the rest of that league year. Because the RFA system should give a player a chance to maximise their value. And if the original team can match and then make adjustments to the structure of the contract it makes it harder for other teams to find a deal that takes the player away and consequently that can chill the market. 

 

I'd change the rule personally, even though I am glad it worked out for the Bills. 

 

To the bolded is my point. The Bills did not make any adjustment to the structure of the contract. The contract the Bills matched included a guaranteed option bonus that was due just a few days after it was signed. If they didn't match, the exact same option bonus would have been included in the Bears contract. You can't ignore an option bonus. The team is forced to make their decision by the due date. If Bates had gone to the Bears, the Bears would have been in the exact same position. They would be forced to make their decision on the option bonus.

 

And that, is a whole lot different than saying the Bills restructured and converted salary into bonus (which is what Buscaglia and now everybody else is telling everybody). I agree they shouldn't be able to do that. But they didn't

 

The Bills didn't change the structure of the contract. The Bills matched a contract that included an option bonus. When the bonus came due, the Bills were forced, by the rules of the CBA, to make their decision on that option. And if the Bills didn't match the contract, the Bears would have had to do the same thing. Nobody changed the contract or it's structure. But you can't ignore an option bonus. The team's decision is forced.

 

 

[GunnerBill]

36 minutes ago, Tuco said:

 

To the bolded is my point. The Bills did not make any adjustment to the structure of the contract. The contract the Bills matched included a guaranteed option bonus that was due just a few days after it was signed. If they didn't match, the exact same option bonus would have been included in the Bears contract. You can't ignore an option bonus. The team is forced to make their decision by the due date. If Bates had gone to the Bears, the Bears would have been in the exact same position. They would be forced to make their decision on the option bonus.

 

And that, is a whole lot different than saying the Bills restructured and converted salary into bonus (which is what Buscaglia and now everybody else is telling everybody). I agree they shouldn't be able to do that. But they didn't

 

The Bills didn't change the structure of the contract. The Bills matched a contract that included an option bonus. When the bonus came due, the Bills were forced, by the rules of the CBA, to make their decision on that option. And if the Bills didn't match the contract, the Bears would have had to do the same thing. Nobody changed the contract or it's structure. But you can't ignore an option bonus. The team's decision is forced.

 

 

 

I have seen nothing anywhere to support the assertion it was a time bound option bonus due this week. If you have that sourced then please share. 

 

My understanding is it was a guaranteed roster bonus (i.e. payable this year, that they converted to amortized bonus). 

[Tuco]

37 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I have seen nothing anywhere to support the assertion it was a time bound option bonus due this week. If you have that sourced then please share. 

 

My understanding is it was a guaranteed roster bonus (i.e. payable this year, that they converted to amortized bonus). 

Oooh that's a good one! I doubt I can actually find the due date of the bonus so you've got me there. Yes, it was a guaranteed roster bonus. When they're guaranteed, roster bonus and option bonus are exactly the same thing. Both can be converted and prorated or paid and charged to the single season. And I've never heard of a guaranteed roster or option bonus that didn't have a deadline dated on it.

 

But it must have been due at some point this year, right? You don't just leave it up to the team to decide when to pay a roster bonus. And if so, didn't the Bears have the exact same opportunity to convert it to bonus as the Bills did? And it was, after all, the Bears idea to include it in the first place. So I don't see how this is any kind of advantage that the Bills got because of the rules. Or how it in any way limited the Bears ability to sign an RFA. I'm sure the Bears know the rules and wouldn't have included the guaranteed bonus if they thought in any way it would make it easier for the Bills to match.

 

Anyway, I'm glad they kept him. And there's too many people (not you) running around thinking the Bills changed the contract in less than a week by converting salary.

 

Go Bills.

Edited April 9, 2022 by Tuco

[Richard Noggin]

On 4/8/2022 at 11:42 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

I am not sure I think you should be able to. IMO if you match an RFA deal to keep a guy then for that season at least you should not be able to touch the contract. So in Bates's case the Bills should be prevented from restructuring until the opening of the 2023 league year otherwise it is tough for a team really to lure away an RFA. 

But doesn't that greatly disadvantage the player and the team?

 

Obviously the team likes having the flexibility of moving cap money around to create space, BUT we often forget how advantageous these restructures are for players: get MORE guaranteed money up front in a lump sum (the first priority in all contract negotiations in a league where deals are not, for the most part, guaranteed), AND make it more likely you'll actually stay employed to see those higher salary numbers in the back half of the deal (restructured contracts are more costly to terminate). It's a win-win for players AND teams to allow for widespread freedom to restructure. 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Richard Noggin

[Beast]

On 4/8/2022 at 9:53 AM, Buffalo_Stampede said:

There’s a signing/trade coming. 
 

 

Or they are just clearing room for an in-season move, ala LA Rams. You never know what can happen during a season as far as injuries go.

[GunnerBill]

2 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

But doesn't that greatly disadvantage the player and the team?

 

Obviously the team likes having the flexibility of moving cap money around to create space, BUT we often forget how advantageous these restructures are for players: get MORE guaranteed money up front in a lump sum (the first priority in all contract negotiations in a league where deals are not, for the most part, guaranteed), AND make it more likely you'll actually stay employed to see those higher salary numbers in the back half of the deal (restructured contracts are more costly to terminate). It's a win-win for players AND teams to allow for widespread freedom to restructure. 

 

It disadvantages the player more if teams simply start opting out of the RFA game because it is too difficult to find a deal the current team won't match (only to then adjust in some way later). Because without the Bears getting involved Bates was playing on a 1 year, $2.4m deal. The current RFA system is skewed too far towards the original team IMO. 

[GunnerBill]

13 hours ago, Tuco said:

Oooh that's a good one! I doubt I can actually find the due date of the bonus so you've got me there. Yes, it was a guaranteed roster bonus. When they're guaranteed, roster bonus and option bonus are exactly the same thing. Both can be converted and prorated or paid and charged to the single season. And I've never heard of a guaranteed roster or option bonus that didn't have a deadline dated on it.

 

But it must have been due at some point this year, right? You don't just leave it up to the team to decide when to pay a roster bonus. And if so, didn't the Bears have the exact same opportunity to convert it to bonus as the Bills did? And it was, after all, the Bears idea to include it in the first place. So I don't see how this is any kind of advantage that the Bills got because of the rules. Or how it in any way limited the Bears ability to sign an RFA. I'm sure the Bears know the rules and wouldn't have included the guaranteed bonus if they thought in any way it would make it easier for the Bills to match.

 

Anyway, I'm glad they kept him. And there's too many people (not you) running around thinking the Bills changed the contract in less than a week by converting salary.

 

Go Bills.

 

Roster bonuses normally trigger on 1st June and in the overwhelming majority of cases they are simply paid as an in-year bonus. It was the Bills choice to kick the can on that money and pro-rate it, essentially pay it 6 weeks early for some cap relief. The Bears could have just been planning to pay it on June 1 and count it against this year's cap. I don't accept that having it in there forced a decision point. It didn't. The Bills proactively took that decision.

 

My concern with the system as it stands is that it skews the RFA system too far towards the existing team. Bates was the only RFA league wide to get an offer. And by nature the guys who become RFAs are late round picks and UDFAs who haven't had a payday via their rookie deal. If they get to the point of RFA and there is interest in them you want the interested teams to make offers. Anything that disinclines that should be looked at afresh in my view. 

[Putin]

On 4/8/2022 at 9:11 AM, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Yeah they’re going to sign a CB either way but the question is what level of CB.

I hope the level that is better then Levi Wallace 

[Rochesterfan]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Roster bonuses normally trigger on 1st June and in the overwhelming majority of cases they are simply paid as an in-year bonus. It was the Bills choice to kick the can on that money and pro-rate it, essentially pay it 6 weeks early for some cap relief. The Bears could have just been planning to pay it on June 1 and count it against this year's cap. I don't accept that having it in there forced a decision point. It didn't. The Bills proactively took that decision.

 

My concern with the system as it stands is that it skews the RFA system too far towards the existing team. Bates was the only RFA league wide to get an offer. And by nature the guys who become RFAs are late round picks and UDFAs who haven't had a payday via their rookie deal. If they get to the point of RFA and there is interest in them you want the interested teams to make offers. Anything that disinclines that should be looked at afresh in my view. 

 

While I totally agree that the RFA system skews way to far to the existing team - I do not think this example or anything with the Bates contract points to that.

 

The fact that Bates was the only RFA to get an offer is what shows the skew.  The rest got tendered at levels that either made them less attractive or additional compensation that kept other teams away.

 

Bates was actually how RFA should work.  He was free to explore and get offers - teams could create offers within the rules to make it difficult, but Bates was essentially a FA with the Bills having the right to retain him on his best salary.  Bates got a significant raise to take on a longer term deal and it was valued appropriately.

 

Whether the Bonus was paid 6/1, as part of the yearly salary, or upfront to save CAP space doesn’t impact what he got.  The money is the same.  RFAs are also going to be a difficult group to go after and of course the league wants it that way - cheap labor.  
 

There are dangers attached to RFAs - if tendered - the existing team has 5 days to decide - therefore holding off the signing team from making deals, losing draft picks if tendered high enough - so you have picks and players going.  Those things have a bigger impact on RFAs than converting a bonus - at least in my opinion.

 

 

[GunnerBill]

29 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

While I totally agree that the RFA system skews way to far to the existing team - I do not think this example or anything with the Bates contract points to that.

 

The fact that Bates was the only RFA to get an offer is what shows the skew.  The rest got tendered at levels that either made them less attractive or additional compensation that kept other teams away.

 

Bates was actually how RFA should work.  He was free to explore and get offers - teams could create offers within the rules to make it difficult, but Bates was essentially a FA with the Bills having the right to retain him on his best salary.  Bates got a significant raise to take on a longer term deal and it was valued appropriately.

 

Whether the Bonus was paid 6/1, as part of the yearly salary, or upfront to save CAP space doesn’t impact what he got.  The money is the same.  RFAs are also going to be a difficult group to go after and of course the league wants it that way - cheap labor.  
 

There are dangers attached to RFAs - if tendered - the existing team has 5 days to decide - therefore holding off the signing team from making deals, losing draft picks if tendered high enough - so you have picks and players going.  Those things have a bigger impact on RFAs than converting a bonus - at least in my opinion.

 

 

 

There are other factors, sure. But the harder you make it for a new club to prize away an RFA the less inclined they will be to try which disadvantages future RFAs. Personally I think allowing existing teams to immediately take advantage of cap relief options in contracts does that. I'd change the rules personally. If you match an RFA deal you can do nothing to that contract at all until the opening of the following league year. So if a roster bonus is due on 1 June it gets paid on 1 June. 

 

I am not saying it would be the first rule I'd try and change as the Head of the NFLPA but it would be on my list.