Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Fuel for the "Crabtree trade" fire


Jeremy Igo

Recommended Posts

Just now, XOBlackxJokerOX said:

It'd be better to restructure Kalil. His play has not amounted to 9.9M. Can't some of that be converted to a bonus so that it doesn't count towards the cap? Instead of restructuring Cam's contract, extend him and stretch out the money, if possible. 

We can, Correy Joel had a breakdown of how to do it. Save 3.9 this year, create dead money of 3.9 next year.

Essentially just borrowing against next years cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, XOBlackxJokerOX said:

It'd be better to restructure Kalil. His play has not amounted to 9.9M. Can't some of that be converted to a bonus so that it doesn't count towards the cap? Instead of restructuring Cam's contract, extend him and stretch out the money, if possible. 

Kalil is done after this year so it wouldn’t make any sense. We would just be adding dead money to the cap next year 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, XOBlackxJokerOX said:

It'd be better to restructure Kalil. His play has not amounted to 9.9M. Can't some of that be converted to a bonus so that it doesn't count towards the cap?

NO!!! "Restructuring" takes non-guaranteed salary money and converts it to guaranteed bonus money. It's advantageous to the player because it creates more guaranteed money for them. It's advantageous to the team because it allows that bonus money to be spread out across the remaining years of the contract. The HUGE drawback is that now you've pushed guaranteed money into future years creating a lot more dead cap money if the player is released. You're essentially marrying yourself to that player and if he declines or just mails it in, well you're screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure where we stand capwise but regardless, before knowing whether we could make this move we'd need to know whether we're gonna sign Luke Willson and for how much.

If you had to make a choice between those two options, which would you take?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Please no. Restructures played a huge role in Hurney tanking our cap the last go round.

I agree with you that I don't want to see us start to rely on restructuring contracts.  However, it isn't always a bad thing.  It wasn't necessarily that we were restructuring and back-loading contracts the first go round; it was who we were restructuring and back-loading.  

IIRC, James Anderson was one of those guys.  I wouldn't have a problem with restructuring Cam and Luke - they are worth the future cap hit.  It's when you start doing that to guys like (for example, if we were to do it with him) Shaq Thompson it becomes a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mage said:

I agree with you that I don't want to see us start to rely on restructuring contracts.  However, it isn't always a bad thing.  It wasn't necessarily that we were restructuring and back-loading contracts the first go round; it was who we were restructuring and back-loading.  

IIRC, James Anderson was one of those guys.  I wouldn't have a problem with restructuring Cam and Luke - they are worth the future cap hit.  It's when you start doing that to guys like (for example, if we were to do it with him) Shaq Thompson it becomes a problem.

I think Short is one of those guys who you don't touch if only due to age. He'll turn 30 this season. And we'd be pushing guaranteed money down the road until he was 33 years old. That feels dangerous to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...