Are Cardinals clever or simply cheap?
Contract approach may guard against flops
Kent Somers
The Arizona Republic
Nov. 15, 2006 12:00 AM
The recent signings of several Cardinals players required a heavy initial investment from team ownership, but the structure of the deals gives the team some flexibility under the salary cap should those players not produce.
Running back Edgerrin James will be paid nearly half of his $30 million contract in the first year of a four-year deal. Defensive tackle Darnell Dockett signed a five-year extension last month that includes $7 million of guarantees. Half of that was in the form of a salary increase this year, and the other half is due in the spring.
Linebacker Gerald Hayes, who agreed to a five-year extension last week, has a similar deal. He'll receive about $7.5 million in guarantees, half of which came in a salary increase this year with the other half due in the spring.
A hefty portion of all three deals count against this year's salary cap, instead of being prorated over the life of the contract. That's because much of the guaranteed money came in the form of immediate salary increases, or in James' case a roster bonus.
Cynics might say the deals were structured that way because team officials, most notably Vice President Michael Bidwill and his father, Bill, were sensitive to being called cheapskates. Before they signed James last spring, the Cardinals were about $28 million under the $102 million salary cap. To sit on that cap space would not have played well for a team moving into a new taxpayer-approved stadium.
Even with James' deal, the club entered this season more than $10 million under the salary cap. And with the way this season started fans were justified in asking why the team didn't spend it on another offensive lineman or defensive back.
So, the argument could be made that the team front-loaded deals to consume cap space and appease their fans. There could be some truth there, too. The team has extended contracts before after taking heat for having a considerable amount of cap space.
The Cardinals say they had other motives. By front-loading the deals and taking larger salary-cap charges this year, the club improved its cap situation in years to come. It took a hefty initial cash outlay from the Bidwills, but the Cardinals also protected themselves should those players not pan out. Here's how:
Let's say a new coach is hired this February, which isn't a stretch given Dennis Green's 12-29 record in 2 1/2 seasons. And let's say the new coach doesn't think Hayes is a good fit, which is a stretch, and wants to cut him in 2007 or 2008.
Because the team front-loaded the contract, the salary-cap impact would be considerably less than if the club had structured the deal in a more conventional fashion.
That means a new coach wouldn't be saddled with several players who are untouchable because of their contracts.
It's a philosophy that's been implemented successfully elsewhere, such as Philadelphia. But the Eagles have a track record of winning and, unlike the Cardinals, fans give them the benefit of the doubt that they are spending wisely and not just being cheap.
Contract approach may guard against flops
Kent Somers
The Arizona Republic
Nov. 15, 2006 12:00 AM
The recent signings of several Cardinals players required a heavy initial investment from team ownership, but the structure of the deals gives the team some flexibility under the salary cap should those players not produce.
Running back Edgerrin James will be paid nearly half of his $30 million contract in the first year of a four-year deal. Defensive tackle Darnell Dockett signed a five-year extension last month that includes $7 million of guarantees. Half of that was in the form of a salary increase this year, and the other half is due in the spring.
Linebacker Gerald Hayes, who agreed to a five-year extension last week, has a similar deal. He'll receive about $7.5 million in guarantees, half of which came in a salary increase this year with the other half due in the spring.
A hefty portion of all three deals count against this year's salary cap, instead of being prorated over the life of the contract. That's because much of the guaranteed money came in the form of immediate salary increases, or in James' case a roster bonus.
Cynics might say the deals were structured that way because team officials, most notably Vice President Michael Bidwill and his father, Bill, were sensitive to being called cheapskates. Before they signed James last spring, the Cardinals were about $28 million under the $102 million salary cap. To sit on that cap space would not have played well for a team moving into a new taxpayer-approved stadium.
Even with James' deal, the club entered this season more than $10 million under the salary cap. And with the way this season started fans were justified in asking why the team didn't spend it on another offensive lineman or defensive back.
So, the argument could be made that the team front-loaded deals to consume cap space and appease their fans. There could be some truth there, too. The team has extended contracts before after taking heat for having a considerable amount of cap space.
The Cardinals say they had other motives. By front-loading the deals and taking larger salary-cap charges this year, the club improved its cap situation in years to come. It took a hefty initial cash outlay from the Bidwills, but the Cardinals also protected themselves should those players not pan out. Here's how:
Let's say a new coach is hired this February, which isn't a stretch given Dennis Green's 12-29 record in 2 1/2 seasons. And let's say the new coach doesn't think Hayes is a good fit, which is a stretch, and wants to cut him in 2007 or 2008.
Because the team front-loaded the contract, the salary-cap impact would be considerably less than if the club had structured the deal in a more conventional fashion.
That means a new coach wouldn't be saddled with several players who are untouchable because of their contracts.
It's a philosophy that's been implemented successfully elsewhere, such as Philadelphia. But the Eagles have a track record of winning and, unlike the Cardinals, fans give them the benefit of the doubt that they are spending wisely and not just being cheap.
