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!

     

Kuechly's Retirement Money & It's Dead Cap Hit

SetfreexX

By SetfreexX,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

SetfreexX Experienced

SetfreexX

Posted
Posted

As you know, we are eating 11M in dead cap due to Luke's retirement. I haven't seen any reports about the team seeking that money out, does anyone know if there is a deadline on that? Is the front office looking to be classy by letting him keep all of it with plans to eat the loss since this was health related. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted

Yeah, going after money from a great player hanging up the cleats in his prime due to health concerns in a presser while fighting back tears is going to sell very well to recruiting free agents and trying to re-sign our own guys. The Colts didn't go after Luck's money and we aren't going after Luke's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jfra78 Veteran

jfra78

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, raleigh-panther said:

I don’t know why contracts can’t be written, or should have been written, to translate this type of thing to a cash payment and not punish teams for these sudden retirements. By doing that, the players get their  money, and teams are not punished.  Win Win

Probably if it doesnt count against the cap, then the player would be off the hook so to speak.  If they decide to unretire, we still own their contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheCasillas Grand Master

TheCasillas

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, raleigh-panther said:

I don’t know why contracts can’t be written, or should have been written, to translate this type of thing to a cash payment and not punish teams for these sudden retirements. By doing that, the players get their  money, and teams are not punished.  Win Win

It's because team's still want the rights to that player. Not all retirements are permanent. Retirement is written the same as injury. NFLPA wanted to make sure the players get paid whether they retire or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrianS Veteran

BrianS

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, raleigh-panther said:

I don’t know why contracts can’t be written, or should have been written, to translate this type of thing to a cash payment and not punish teams for these sudden retirements. By doing that, the players get their  money, and teams are not punished.  Win Win

They are written that way.  Our dead cap hit for Luke is his signing bonus, which we paid Luke on the day he signed the contract.  He has the money, it was a cash payment.

The reason we still SEE that money is because of the way the NFL allows teams to spread out the CAP hit from a signing bonus over the entire length of the contract.  Instead of having to take Luke's entire salary and signing bonus against our cap the first year he signed it, we spread the signing bonus out over the whole contract.

Because he retired, we now have to account for his entire remaining portion of his signing bonus.  We paid him the money, so we have to account for it.

You also can't write contract rule exceptions that allow teams to simply dump signing bonus for players who retire.  It would be entirely to easy to take advantage of or manipulate.  Would be a mess.

What "needs" to happen is more money needs to move from signing bonuses to performance bonuses or guaranteed salary.  Good luck selling players on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SetfreexX Experienced

SetfreexX

Posted
  • Author
Posted
30 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Yeah, going after money from a great player hanging up the cleats in his prime due to health concerns in a presser while fighting back tears is going to sell very well to recruiting free agents and trying to re-sign our own guys. The Colts didn't go after Luck's money and we aren't going after Luke's.

Yeah, I'm not knocking the PR nightmare, or ramifications, was just curious we hadn't heard either way, I think we all just moved along with the assumption, I think a guy made a good point, on the off chance he returns we have his contact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ricky Spanish Grand Master

Ricky Spanish

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Yeah, going after money from a great player hanging up the cleats in his prime due to health concerns in a presser while fighting back tears is going to sell very well to recruiting free agents and trying to re-sign our own guys. The Colts didn't go after Luck's money and we aren't going after Luke's.

Lions did it to Megatron

He wants nothing to do with the organization any longer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AggieLean Grand Master

AggieLean

Posted
Posted

I wonder is there a list of players that teams have gone after for a return of the money, and a list of players that have been allowed to keep theirs.

Lions went after Calvin Johnson’s, while the Colts and Panthers (assuming) allowed Luck and Luke to keep theirs. Would be interesting to see, and to see if organizations have been inconsistent in their giving and taking away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheRed Newbie

TheRed

Posted
Posted

It's an interesting conversation, because there are posters here who stay in the pockets of certain Panthers players while overlooking others.

Personally I think it's fuged up to try to go after that money no matter who the player is. If they were the ones out there risking themselves they keep it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Sasquatch said:

They started the "get signing bonus money back" with Barry Sanders.

I think those were also a bit different situations. Luke was an all-time great player who retired in his prime due to health concerns. Barry and Megatron were all-time great players who retired in their primes in large part because they didn't want to play for the fuging Detroit Lions anymore. LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Jackie Lee
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

      Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...