Orton's Arm Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 Okay. But in your Method B the $25 million paid this year in a bonus would be spread over the cap for five years by rule? It couldn't be counted all $25 million this year, meaning the team has more space the following year? I guess I'm confused on what the "rules" are for signing bonus proration vs the "option" a team has. With the example $25 million bonus there are three things to determine, and I'm not sure what the flexibility and choice is for each: #1) When the player gets paid the cash #2) How the cash counts against the cap over the years #3) How the cash counts in the owners imaginary budget We know Ralph is going to say that all of the bonus is this year for #3. But is #2 determined by rules, or can a team decide between counting it all this year vs spreading it for either #1 or #2? Are #1 and #2 linked to each other or does changing one not necessarily change the other? I'm pretty sure there is a healthy dose of Ralph being cheap when the dust settles, but there also seems a healthy dose of smart future planning and avoiding getting into bad situations a couple years after a signing. Without guaranteed contracts this might not be as big as the bad deals are in baseball, but would seem to have its advantages. Maybe we can be smarter and better for it. But I hate the thought of a Billionaire penny pinching and not trying to win one before he passes away. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that signing bonuses automatically get amortized over the life of the contract. At any rate, I remember Antoine Winfield getting a very high first year's salary. I don't see a reason for the Vikings to have structured his contract that way if they could simply have taken as much of a cap hit as they wanted from his initial signing bonus. But stuff like that can change. In any case, the Bills' large amount of unused cap space is a sign the owner's being cheap. I know it's always easy to spend someone else's money, but in this case I think Ralph would be well-served to spend the extra cash to get a Super Bowl ring. Maybe he's trying to make a point about how hard it is for small market teams to compete under the new agreement. . . .
ndirish1978 Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 Scott from Syracuse is an idiot. No way. First time I've seen that in a chat: "horrible answer." Fact is I'm ok with not re-signing Fletcher.
ndirish1978 Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 The Bills won't be a winning team again til Wilson dies
obie_wan Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that signing bonuses automatically get amortized over the life of the contract. At any rate, I remember Antoine Winfield getting a very high first year's salary. I don't see a reason for the Vikings to have structured his contract that way if they could simply have taken as much of a cap hit as they wanted from his initial signing bonus. But stuff like that can change. In any case, the Bills' large amount of unused cap space is a sign the owner's being cheap. I know it's always easy to spend someone else's money, but in this case I think Ralph would be well-served to spend the extra cash to get a Super Bowl ring. Maybe he's trying to make a point about how hard it is for small market teams to compete under the new agreement. . . . Any "guaranteed" money automatically gets amortized over the life of the contract, even if that money is paid in later years. Money can be pulled into the fiest year of a contact by identifying a bonus as a roster bonus. Although not guaranteed, the money is typically earned by passing of an easily met condition, like the start of training camp. Thus the entire amount is counted in the cap the year it is paid.
Recommended Posts