Diggs restructure back in March?

[mrags]

Just curious and maybe someone more in tune with nfl contracts and restructures/extensions can answer. 
 

back in March, when the Bills restructured Diggs contract, converting salary to bonuses, do the Bills have the right to just restructure in any way chose to make it work? Or is that something Diggs had to approve? 
 

reason for my thought on this, is if Diggs possibly was disgruntled since the Bengals game, and was maybe expecting or hoping to be traded, and now with the restructure it essentially eliminates any possibility that he would be traded due cap/dead cap. 
 

I thought this deserved its own thread instead of getting completely lost in the other Diggs threads. 

[Reed83HOF]

They can restructure anytime they like,  it's in almost 100% of the contracts, team can do it whenever they want.  

[mrags]

4 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

They can restructure anytime they like,  it's in almost 100% of the contracts, team can do it whenever they want.  

Did the player have to agree with that and sign off in that in the original contract? Or do teams just have the right of restructure? 
 

based on the link below, it shows that there are 2 different types of restructures, where one is not needed for the team to do it on their own. Where is with the other it is needed for the player to agree to the terms. 

https://overthecap.com/restructure

 

was it a simple restructure or a max restructure?

 

 

[Reed83HOF]

It's agreed to and signed off in the original contract. The player and agent never really care in the long run since restructures require paying money sooner rather than later. 

 

How do I know this?  Wgr and Sal beat it in my head every morning for 45 minutes on my way to work everytime making cap space is being discussed...Lol 

[BuffaloBillyG]

4 minutes ago, mrags said:

Did the player have to agree with that and sign off in that in the original contract? Or do teams just have the right of restructure? 
 

based on the link below, it shows that there are 2 different types of restructures, where one is not needed for the team to do it on their own. Where is with the other it is needed for the player to agree to the terms. 

https://overthecap.com/restructure

 

was it a simple restructure or a max restructure?

 

 

If it's a simple restructure almost every contract has the language baked in that the team can do it. Pretty standard.

 

If the team wishes to alter the deal by adding void years and such then they need consent 

[Big Turk]

29 minutes ago, mrags said:

Just curious and maybe someone more in tune with nfl contracts and restructures/extensions can answer. 
 

back in March, when the Bills restructured Diggs contract, converting salary to bonuses, do the Bills have the right to just restructure in any way chose to make it work? Or is that something Diggs had to approve? 
 

reason for my thought on this, is if Diggs possibly was disgruntled since the Bengals game, and was maybe expecting or hoping to be traded, and now with the restructure it essentially eliminates any possibility that he would be traded due cap/dead cap. 
 

I thought this deserved its own thread instead of getting completely lost in the other Diggs threads. 

 

It's in the contract they can restructure whenever they want and it's very rare to talk to a player prior to doing it. Why? Because it accelerates the money the player receives so what player is going to refuse more up front money?

[MJS]

27 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

They can restructure anytime they like,  it's in almost 100% of the contracts, team can do it whenever they want.  

I think the players have to agree. Tyreek Hill refused to let the Chiefs do it a couple of years ago.

[mrags]

1 minute ago, Big Turk said:

 

It's in the contract they can restructure whenever they want and it's very rare to talk to a player prior to doing it. Why? Because it accelerates the money the player receives so what player is going to refuse more up front money?

This is why I brought it up. 
 

let’s just say that in the event that Diggs was disgruntled after the Bengals game. And legitimately was hoping for a trade, maybe wanted to play with his brother in Dallas, Who knows, anything is possible. But maybe he was hoping for this to happen. Maybe not this year, maybe he wanted to give it one more year. But wanted the option to be there. And after this restructure it pretty much guarantees that he will not be traded because of cap/dead cap hit. Maybe, just maybe that’s why he’s against disgruntled and not at camp. 
 

I'm not implying anything. Not saying it is the case. I’m looking for reasons that might make sense. 
 

and, I was arguing with someone (shocker right?) about the specifics of restructuring and they said that Diggs never should have signed the restructure then if that’s what he wanted. And I argued that he probably didn’t have an option, that the Bills did it on their own without his say in the matter. They disagreed and said he had to agree to it. I said they were wrong, and now I’m here for confirmation. 

[Allen2D̶i̶g̶g̶s̶TBD]

I have no idea why Diggs would want to be traded. He's making great money with a great team with a great qb who targets him a ton.

 

He's not gonna have higher pay or production elsewhere 

[NoSaint]

11 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

It's in the contract they can restructure whenever they want and it's very rare to talk to a player prior to doing it. Why? Because it accelerates the money the player receives so what player is going to refuse more up front money?

I would assume it’s very rare not to talk to the player. Just because it fits your plans doesn’t mean it fits theirs long term. Making 7 figure (occasionally 8 figure) decisions is something you chat about. 
 

if nothing else a chance to say “we see you as a cornerstone, thank you, your cash is headed your way early”

[Beck Water]

50 minutes ago, mrags said:

Just curious and maybe someone more in tune with nfl contracts and restructures/extensions can answer. 
 

back in March, when the Bills restructured Diggs contract, converting salary to bonuses, do the Bills have the right to just restructure in any way chose to make it work? Or is that something Diggs had to approve? 
 

reason for my thought on this, is if Diggs possibly was disgruntled since the Bengals game, and was maybe expecting or hoping to be traded, and now with the restructure it essentially eliminates any possibility that he would be traded due cap/dead cap. 
 

I thought this deserved its own thread instead of getting completely lost in the other Diggs threads. 

 

My understanding is that there are team-option restructures where salary is converted to signing bonus, in almost all the top contracts with significant salary.

 

Team option, meaning for those specific restructures, the player does not have to approve.  Diggs almost certainly had one of those.

 

There are other contract restructures which the player must approve - either because their contract wasn't at a level where team-options to restructure were written in, or because an actual pay cut in exchange for guaranteed money was involved.

 

The team-option restructures where salary is converted to signing bonus, are usually not a problem for the player, since normally salary is paid in weekly chunks during the season so it just means the guy got paid early and the money is in his pocket, giving him a positive NPV.

 

12 minutes ago, mrags said:

and, I was arguing with someone (shocker right?) about the specifics of restructuring and they said that Diggs never should have signed the restructure then if that’s what he wanted. And I argued that he probably didn’t have an option, that the Bills did it on their own without his say in the matter. They disagreed and said he had to agree to it. I said they were wrong, and now I’m here for confirmation. 

 

He may have had to agree to it, but it's often written into the contract and just happens.  We bystanders really don't know but probability favors "just happens" for the type of restructure that happened for Diggs.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Beck Water

[Beck Water]

42 minutes ago, mrags said:

Did the player have to agree with that and sign off in that in the original contract? Or do teams just have the right of restructure? 
 

based on the link below, it shows that there are 2 different types of restructures, where one is not needed for the team to do it on their own. Where is with the other it is needed for the player to agree to the terms. 

https://overthecap.com/restructure

 

was it a simple restructure or a max restructure?

 

It was a simple restructure.  Diggs had $6.75M of his 2023 salary converted into a bonus and split over the remaining length of his contract.

Look at the "transactions" tab and then look at the restructure column; Diggs had $1.35M added this year and to the next 4 years - but keep in mind the amortization is just an accounting procedure for the cap, and the player gets all that money up-front.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

20 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

My understanding is that there are team-option restructures where salary is converted to signing bonus, in almost all the top contracts with significant salary.

 

Team option, meaning for those specific restructures, the player does not have to approve.  Diggs almost certainly had one of those.

 

There are other contract restructures which the player must approve - either because their contract wasn't at a level where team-options to restructure were written in, or because an actual pay cut in exchange for guaranteed money was involved.

 

The team-option restructures where salary is converted to signing bonus, are usually not a problem for the player, since normally salary is paid in weekly chunks during the season so it just means the guy got paid early and the money is in his pocket, giving him a positive NPV.

 

 

He may have had to agree to it, but it's often written into the contract and just happens.  We bystanders really don't know but probability favors "just happens" for the type of restructure that happened for Diggs.

Players already agreed to it in the contract. 

[mrags]

29 minutes ago, Allen2Diggs said:

I have no idea why Diggs would want to be traded. He's making great money with a great team with a great qb who targets him a ton.

 

He's not gonna have higher pay or production elsewhere 

Because maybe he wanted to be traded to Dallas to play with his brother. Or maybe he isn’t a fan of the direction of the team and wants to be traded. End of the day, he may have his reasons and now because of the restructure it’s not possible for more than 2 years. 

[K-9]

42 minutes ago, MJS said:

I think the players have to agree. Tyreek Hill refused to let the Chiefs do it a couple of years ago.

This is true. Any change to the terms of a contract must be agreed to by all parties to the contract. 

[Beck Water]

5 minutes ago, mrags said:

Because maybe he wanted to be traded to Dallas to play with his brother. Or maybe he isn’t a fan of the direction of the team and wants to be traded. End of the day, he may have his reasons and now because of the restructure it’s not possible for more than 2 years. 

 

It really wasn't too possible before the restructure.  He had $21.76M of signing and restructure bonus on the Bills books even prior to his $16M fully guaranteed option bonus and his $6.745 salary to bonus restrcuture.

[StHustle]

49 minutes ago, Allen2Diggs said:

I have no idea why Diggs would want to be traded. He's making great money with a great team with a great qb who targets him a ton.

 

He's not gonna have higher pay or production elsewhere 

Joe is that you? 🤔

[mrags]

12 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

It really wasn't too possible before the restructure.  He had $21.76M of signing and restructure bonus on the Bills books even prior to his $16M fully guaranteed option bonus and his $6.745 salary to bonus restrcuture.

Well. It was more possible than it is now. 

[Beck Water]

4 minutes ago, mrags said:

Well. It was more possible than it is now. 

 

That's kind of like saying it would only chemically castrate a guy instead of removing his testicles.  To the guy, both are pretty dismal outcomes.

[JESSEFEFFER]

My theory.  Josh was bypassing the gimme layups and taking many more deep shots.  It was a trend the last part of the season.  One might think that Diggs was pissed that Josh kept taking those shots which, for the most part, were not to him very often.  The offense was having protection problems and Josh was not attempting to get the ball out any quicker.  One might call that stubborn or even selfish in some respects.  But, this trend seemed connected close in time to his elbow injury which might have made certain types of throws more problematic.