Rubes Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 From NFL.com: One star was guaranteed free agency in 2007 when Tennessee paid $1 million to quarterback Steve McNair, voiding the final three years of a contract that would have kept him with the Titans until 2009. McNair will still count for a whopping $23.5 million against the salary cap due to previous bonuses in his contract. $23.5 million? One player? All in one year?? Good thing I don't like Tennessee. They deserve it.
JimBob2232 Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Let this be a lesson to all those who dont understand how resturcturing contracts is bad for the cap in the long run.
sfladave Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 I believe I read somewhere that if they wanted to keep him they would have had to pay a $50 million roster bonus this year. If that was true why did they ever create such a contract when it was obviously never going to be honored?
Ramius Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 I believe I read somewhere that if they wanted to keep him they would have had to pay a $50 million roster bonus this year. If that was true why did they ever create such a contract when it was obviously never going to be honored? 616985[/snapback] The whole purpose of the bonus is to force the team to re-work the contract when ti gets to that point. It essentially forces the hand of the team. Griese signed a similar type of deal with miami a few years back. His first years salary was like 1 mil, then had a bonus of 8 mil, basically forcing the fins to either start him of ditch him so he'd have a chance elsewhere. McNair's sounds similar.
buffaloboyinATL Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 I believe I read somewhere that if they wanted to keep him they would have had to pay a $50 million roster bonus this year. If that was true why did they ever create such a contract when it was obviously never going to be honored? 616985[/snapback] By not paying the bonus it voids the remaining 3 years of the deal. I've never heard of a $50 million roster bonus before though. I don't believe any team would/could ever pay that for any player.
bills_fan Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Wow, no wonder the Titans are so far over the cap every year. Too bad for McNair he signed that deal and the Titans basically sucked his last couple of years because of it.
Sisyphean Bills Posted March 4, 2006 Posted March 4, 2006 That dude must've won a ton of Super Bowls!
EC-Bills Posted March 4, 2006 Posted March 4, 2006 Let this be a lesson to all those who dont understand how resturcturing contracts is bad for the cap in the long run. 616983[/snapback] Yup. That's why I am leary of any restructuring with Moulds.
Sisyphean Bills Posted March 4, 2006 Posted March 4, 2006 Yup. That's why I am leary of any restructuring with Moulds. 617913[/snapback] It's not really so simple a formula as: restructure = bad. When a team has been built, restructuring can buy time and allow a few more shots to get over the last hurdles. The modus operandi of gutting the team of veteran talent annually and trying to rebuild it from scratch with draft picks and Patriot cast-offs doesn't work real well.
JimBob2232 Posted March 4, 2006 Posted March 4, 2006 It's not really so simple a formula as: restructure = bad. It pretty much is. Restructure means you are mortgaging your future in an attempt to win today. This might be okay for teams like the colts...but it kills teams like the bills. The colts could resturcture all day, sign 2-3 key players and go on a 2-3 year run... Right now, cutting moulds will cost something like 5 mil in dead cap space. Restructure that and cut him next year, will result in 7mil in dead cap space. NOW...if he accepts a pay cut, it would work out allright (maybe). Or if he gets a contract extension it coudl work out okay..but he isnt getting any younger, so thats probably bad on a different level. IMO, we have only one option if EM will not accept a pay cut. KEEP HIM. Its not worth creating another hole this offseason. Cut him next offseason. The money saved is going to be spent aquiring another WR. Its not cost effective.
Sisyphean Bills Posted March 4, 2006 Posted March 4, 2006 It pretty much is. Restructure means you are mortgaging your future in an attempt to win today. This might be okay for teams like the colts...but it kills teams like the bills. The colts could resturcture all day, sign 2-3 key players and go on a 2-3 year run... 618033[/snapback] BZZZT. Nice try. It's ridiculously simplistic to say "restructuring is always bad". It depends on what the new contract is, who the player is, the teams situation, etc. Anyway, nice of you to elide the context of my sentence. My original statement is exactly the same as yours, but you ignored the "When a team is built, ..." on. The Colts have an excellent team. The Bills are in "expansion team" rebuilding mode. Obviously, in the Bills case where there is no team restructuring outrageous contracts into the future to buy "one more run" with this group of bottom feeders makes no sense at all, not that anybody claimed anything of the sort.
Recommended Posts