Colledge restructures contract.

[Crazy Canuck]

If they are going to restructure deals when then need to to upgrade the roster I agree,This gives them a lot of flexability.

Bringing in Bell who would be an upgrade would be a start.

But I still don't know why we let Marshal leave. I feel he showed his value. Maybe still being in the Manning hunt affected that.

Marshall?

$5M + is the reason and the Cards filled the third CB / FS adequately with Gay.

 

[CardsFan88]

But...the Cards had to give Colledge 3 million in guaranteed money versus $3 million in salary which is not guaranteed. There's no free lunch in restructures unless the player is going to get released otherwise. On the other hand it is a good move to shift cap dollars from 2012 to the future as it is anticipated that the cap will increase substantially in 2013.

Unfortunately that might not be the case. I just read something this morning on ESPN nation.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/56191/speaking-too-soon-on-2014-salary-cap-spike

A good portion of our offseason salary-cap discussions have centered around a commonly-held notion that the cap limit will increase dramatically when the NFL's new television contract starts in 2014. The assumption appears fundamentally flawed, and the strong sense here at the NFL owners meetings is that the cap won't increase much -- if any -- when the transition occurs.

In all, the NFL figures to have at least five seasons -- 2011-2015 -- of nearly flat cap limits. This year, the cap increased minimally, by about $225,000, to $120.6 million.

and

The average of the current deal is $1.93 billion. By the end of the new deal, the average will be $3.1 billion. But it is a gradual progression, and the NFL won't reach that top revenue number until 2022.

So in 2014, the league will shift from the high point of the old deal to the low point of the new one. Without getting specific, Lewand said: "There is not a big jump."

In the end, Lewand said: "I think that a lot of clubs have cap issues going forward. It's going to be a tight cap and it's going to be a challenge going forward. It's a challenging cap."

And that won't change anytime soon.

It still is the right thing for the cards to do, but it looks like there's a crunch upcoming. Any team vastly under in the next couple of years might be able to pick up some players at a nice discount.

I'm not too worried since we've always done a decent job of not being many millions over like the Skins, Cowpatties, etc.

We'll probably have a minimal amount of adjustment during these lean years, but we also might not have a decent chunk to go after the types of free agency we've been involved in every year. (While we don't make big splashes like some teams do every few years, or the ones who cut constantly and make splashes seemingly most years, we did generally do a decent bit almost every year).

So we won't have to cut much, but won't be signing much beyond the minimum-double the minimum per season, unless a direct decrease happens with a player retiring or expiring contract (that isn't re-signed).

Of course this is all speculation, but it will be interesting to see it play out. The next couple of FA periods might be pretty crappy except for a few individual players....because the great ones will always get paid. The rest?

 

[joeshmo]

Unfortunately that might not be the case. I just read something this morning on ESPN nation.

Pure rhetoric from the owners to lower the cost of free agent deals this year and next year. They are finding it very hard to negotiate with agents for long term deals because they either don't want to sign long term more then 2 years, or if they do sign long term they want a big raise in years 3,4,5 and so on. Owners are hating free agency right now.

The NFL will have told the NFLPA a bold face lie during the new CBA negotiations if this were true. A lie that the NFLPA would have known about by simply letting their accountants look at the numbers.

You notice how this info is just now coming out to light as the Owners Meetings were about to start, it isn't just a coincidence.

 

[Jetstream Green]

Bell just isn't that good. Pretty average. Don't know what all the fuss is about with him.

but better than what we have, that be the reason for thee fussing lol

 

[DoTheDew]

Wow. Thats awesome.

This is what Mitch was alluding too. Buy in.

Cards havent managed this well in the past so Kudos to Graves and team for getting the cap space cleared to bring in a Bell and (hopefully) a MLB.

He says he did it to help the team, and it does help the team, but it's not like he actually hurt himself in any way. However, Kudos to Graves for making his contract such that it could be restructured this year for our benefit.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

He says he did it to help the team, and it does help the team, but it's not like he actually hurt himself in any way.

Well F*** him then. I am no longer happy he did it as it wasn't entirely selfless.

Appreciate you guys setting me straight!

 

[CardsFan88]

Pure rhetoric from the owners to lower the cost of free agent deals this year and next year. They are finding it very hard to negotiate with agents for long term deals because they either don't want to sign long term more then 2 years, or if they do sign long term they want a big raise in years 3,4,5 and so on. Owners are hating free agency right now.

The NFL will have told the NFLPA a bold face lie during the new CBA negotiations if this were true. A lie that the NFLPA would have known about by simply letting their accountants look at the numbers.

You notice how this info is just now coming out to light as the Owners Meetings were about to start, it isn't just a coincidence.

I'd say yes and no. Part of this is the payoff of the last negotiations. Players had to give something up, and what they gave up was a slower increase somewhere during the window. Rather than put it on the back end, Owners want to put it on the front end, because it means owners 'bent the cost curve' causing all subsequent years to come from a lower base, and want the pain to be now so the owners can pocket the difference from the beginning rather than at the end. Salary cap is not necessarily what is spent, though the minimum salary clause will help mitigate some fears.

I also see it as blowback from what has been happening. Remember all the 'guarantees' were supposed to be guarantees. But owners and front offices started using all the roster bonuses early on, like Kolb, as opportunities to ditch players, and they have. Because of this, agents have been asking for more salary and less or smaller such bonuses. They'd rather have it upfront, or higher salaries throughout. It is the differential from one year to the next that is driving many of these decisions, or making them easier and more justified when a free agent doesn't pan out as expected. (also dead cap space can have influence keeping actual paid salaries lower in subsequent years, and even perhaps lower than the minimum if teams are at or near the minimum but have dead cap space. )

I would say it's coming out like you said because the owners are driving this and the realities that somewhere along the line the hit has to be taken. Now or later. Players benefit (if hit taken later) by virtue of slower increases at a much higher level (and thus the decreases aren't as big of a percentage) so subsequently the cap would move higher faster and the players under contract are more likely to be paid, and more players would get that money now instead of future players later. Obviously by bending the curve and paying out the average of 3.1 billion later they keep more money for themselves (but at what interest rate...it seems negligible).

I'd say it's probably always been the owners position, nothing new. Just the best journalists in all of news -sports reporters- are still deaf, dumb, blind, stupid, and then some. Thus they've only found out about it, or managed to get confirmation now.

I agree it is entirely a power play, one way or the other, and there probably will be a compromise. But I still figure that the next couple of years we will continue to see smaller increases than expected, and the increases and roster bonuses built in under anticipation of a big increase will start to hit, leaving teams with less to spend on FA, and more people getting cut...compounded with a shift by the agents to utilize roster bonuses less in favor of the more traditional and cap eating ways of pure bonus and higher salary but more steady year after year....which will have an impact.

(on this last point I mean higher outlays in the initial years at the same time the increases of past years contracts hit during a relatively flat or smaller cap increase than expected)

It is a power play, but one at this point the owners have leverage, so while I fully expect them to have increases, it's not going to be what the players and agents thought the first couple of years.

It seems as though it's about a 60 percent increase in average through 2022, but that doesn't mean it's going to be 6 percent per (for simplicity sake). I wouldn't be surprised at a 2-3 percent the first couple of years, then more like 7 or so the remaining years. Couple that with inflation pressures outstripping the increase, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a strike in a few years. Even with the exorbitant increases the past 15 years in salary, they've still lost purchasing power to inflation, and in a few years it might get testy. Owners are satisfied with the labor deal, but it's the players that have to live through it on an individual basis. I'm not saying there will be, especially given the blowback by the public hating both sides of the past debate, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they did strike at some point.

It's tough to analyze because the NFL might be doing the best thing possible long term, 2-3 increases now, then more later...as by then inflation will be rampant (hell it already is), and they can say...we're giving you 7-8-9 percent increases...rather than just 6 per. It is quite an interesting situation. How the NFL and other sports owners/players navigate the economic hell coming (let alone present). If they just did a straight increase of 6 per, as inflation ramps up, there will be less cushion to absorb it through higher salaries. It is all just a game, a really idiotic one, but owners/players-agents love to play them, and the pressures ahead will be much higher than have been faced by sports leagues in modern times.

The average of 3.1 billion can be arrived at many ways. I also used the shortcut, as it is impossible to know how they are actually going to increase it...as the average of 3.1 billion after 10 years, will mean that in the last few years the cap will be significantly higher than the number an average of 3.1 billion is. Another interesting aspect would be the impact of expansion. Smaller increases, but an additional team or two is another way they could keep the cap number down but reach the average goal. It's just impossible to know how all these will factor in. But now that the owners have the players agreed to those numbers, the owners are going to do their best to mete it out in a way that's most beneficial to them.

At least that is my pure speculative guesstimate given incomplete information.

 

[DoTheDew]

So we won't have to cut much, but won't be signing much beyond the minimum-double the minimum per season, unless a direct decrease happens with a player retiring or expiring contract (that isn't re-signed).

FYI, Fitz's cap number is $4 mill higher next year this this. Rhodes, ADub and DD each go up about $1 mill. DWash may be up for a new contract. Beanie too. CC will either be on a new contract for close to what the tag is this year, franchised again for a higher cap number, or gone. Levi's contract is supposedly much lower this year then next (something like $3.75 million less this year in base salary).

Kolb and Bradley become more likely targets to be cut, though. At any rate, if the cap doesn't go up much from this year to next, we're going to be in as bad or worse shape going into the off-season, though perhaps with more options for getting out of the mess.

 

[CardsFan88]

FYI, Fitz's cap number is $4 mill higher next year this this. Rhodes, ADub and DD each go up about $1 mill. DWash may be up for a new contract. Beanie too. CC will either be on a new contract for close to what the tag is this year, franchised again for a higher cap number, or gone. Levi's contract is supposedly much lower this year then next (something like $3.75 million less this year in base salary).

Kolb and Bradley become more likely targets to be cut, though. At any rate, if the cap doesn't go up much from this year to next, we're going to be in as bad or worse shape going into the off-season, though perhaps with more options for getting out of the mess.

I'd speculate most teams are in even worse shape, though that is just a guess. I think our situation is relatively manageable compared to other teams. Of course teams where the players are buying in will have an easier time managing this with the willingness to restructure. So it's not an even playing field.

We sign everybody to decent deals except Fitz (which was huge thus not 'decent' size even if equitable). But many teams have been throwing out pretty huge contracts the last few years for questionable choices.

Also Levi's situation is another case of why a crunch is coming. Levi took a pretty big hit. For us to get him back, he had to take a significant hit. That 17 million salary didn't get paid, and thus the agent didn't, let alone the player. They'll each get paid on the new contract, but it isn't anything they thought they'd get. But then again the Cards thought they were getting a better player when they drafted him, so.....

I guess I should of said, we won't have to cut nearly as many as productive players as others will (cut or allow to test free agency is more appropriate).

It'll also be really interesting to see what Jones and Snyder do, and how much they have to gut their teams. I don't think one could say the Skins would be destroyed, especially with a RGIII or Luck growing into the next CBA, but given where the teams are, I think it will hurt the Cowboys quite a bit, especially given the decreases in their cap, while the small increases the other teams might help one player per team, maybe 40 players on 30 teams. So again two teams have an additional playing field constraint.

Though both have a valid point in saying even though they were violating a collusive standard, how can you legally take something away that wasn't official and was set as a non-enforceable standard brought about by collusion? By enforcing it, the NFL opens itself up to another lawsuit, Al Davis style, and the last thing I think anyone wants is for these two teams to win a 1-2 billion dollar (each) case making them even more able to outbid everyone for the one time possible destruction of two teams and the paltry cap relief everyone else will enjoy. That's a major grey area, but one I think the NFL loses, because in order to prove they broke something, they have to show they engaged in collusion, negating what they broke. But who knows if there are some other documents, maybe relating to the old CBA that made it possible. Hard to say.

 

[joeshmo]

FYI, Fitz's cap number is $4 mill higher next year this this. Rhodes, ADub and DD each go up about $1 mill. DWash may be up for a new contract. Beanie too. CC will either be on a new contract for close to what the tag is this year, franchised again for a higher cap number, or gone. Levi's contract is supposedly much lower this year then next (something like $3.75 million less this year in base salary).

Kolb and Bradley become more likely targets to be cut, though. At any rate, if the cap doesn't go up much from this year to next, we're going to be in as bad or worse shape going into the off-season, though perhaps with more options for getting out of the mess.

Take a look at the 2013 free agent list and it doesn't look as dire as you would seem to think. Campbell is the only one on the list that will cost anything, and he wont be on that last come training camp time I still 100% believe.

http://www.spotrac.com/free-agents/nfl/2013/arizona-cardinals/

Honestly we can let every single one of those guys straight up walk without a second blink.

Bye the way Rhodes should be on that list as well. This could be his last season as his 2013 year is a full player option.

 

[CardsFan88]

I forgot to add something too, because it really shows the fungability of what could happen. When you take the average of 1.93 and 3.1, depending on the rate you increased it, you could actually have a negative number the first year of the 3.1 billion CBA payout (negative as in decreased cap) when compared to the last year under the 1.93 payout CBA.

Now I think that is off the table, but I just wanted to show that it is possible to have a negative, and what the NFL owners position would be coming from, since they could say, let's just increase it by $500,000. (now I think it'll be more, but I don't see a rise much past a couple of percent, if that)

Say, and hell I forget how many years (which does matter in the equation for actual numbers, but for simplicity I'll just say 9 years for the previous CBA, and this one for 10 years since it is irrelevant to prove the point) the last CBA was around, but let's just look at a rough example of how this could occur.

So 1.93 billion/32 = $60,312,000 was the average team cap of the *fake* 9 year period.

So roughly and for simplicity, if it was 60,312,000 per team as an average cap number we'll ask this question......

What numbers coming off the old CBA could make the final year's cap number higher than the first year of the new CBA?

Say you had numbers like this.

43,45,49,52,60,62,65,69 = 445/8 =55.625, then you have X for the final year, which needs to bring it up to 60,312,000.

For 9 years @ 60,312,000 the last year's cap number would have to be ~97,808,000.

Now for a new one to average 3.1 billion over ten years....3.1 billion/32 = 96.875 million per team on average per year. I won't go through the exercise, but you can see, it's quite easy to get a number lower 96.875 million (as an average...thus the first year could be 80 million and the last year 130 or something like that) as opposed to the 97.808 million the cap was the year before.

Basically this exercise in futility is to show that there indeed is a theoretical possibility that there can be a decrease occurring in the cap from one year to the next. Of course the real numbers, years, etc are different, but it's all how it is setup.

It is flexible and open to interpretation, but it CAN happen. Since the players agreed to the deal, the power resides with the owners to determine how they want to implement it aside from whatever they agreed to otherwise, which seems to be on the surface at least, the minimum cap.

In the end the average only needs to be 3.1 billion over the length of the CBA, no matter what they start the cap at the first year or how many teams are involved (unless something is written like minimum cap, or increases due to expansion).

So it is entirely possible the owners will push hard for a slower increase in the beginning, to soak up more of the money early on from the networks. (who in turn need to ratchet up the costs of advertising, who then must ratchet up the costs of the products that advertise....and in the U.S. today there is simply very little appetite for increased costs. It is very possible that ads will be very hard to sell for the prices the networks agreed to give the NFL, though that would be a huge screwup given our economic situation was already apparent when the deal was struck...but screwups happen.)

Get ready for an additional couple of dollars per 12 pack, just because of this, or something like that. Extra 50 cents for Doritos, a buck for the Schick 27 blade razor, so on and so forth.

But the NFL is in a bind, they want it to remain on 'free' TV, but their costs are getting to the point where only ESPN and the cable networks will have the funds (through subscriber fees) to pay the extra amount. Even though ESPN is causing a problem with cable companies forcing everyone to pay for ESPN, there probably is more leeway there then with the free networks trying to recoup it from advertising dollars.

Who knows what is built into that contract...are the numbers on the top end just projection? Are there clauses built in that change the payout to the NFL based on the ability of the networks to sell advertising and ratings? All hard to say. But I can't rule it out.

I think the owners will budge some, but probably not as much as the players and agents thought. (Which is the key, the perception by players and agents is different from what reality is)

It might be greed. It might have to do with the uncertainty of advertising dollars. I just don't have that info. But it seems obvious where the owners want to start, and that is at the lowest possible cap they can get away with. The increases will come, but not necessarily next year or even the next couple of years. They have the life of the CBA to make the numbers work. (though of course it's best not to push it back too much, then you get a likely decrease in the last of this CBA compared to the first of the next CBA in the 2020's onward.)

Colledge restructuring (and others) is just a part of what will be a driving theme on how teams don't self destruct themselves in the immediate years upcoming. Teams that get 'buy in' have a better shot at staying intact and maybe even adding some cheap, quality players, and thus winning, as opposed to teams which don't get buy in, and whose players leave for greener pastures. One could say the teams that get their players to restructure should fair better during this crunch....that is if the NFL owners engineer it, which they are perfectly capable of doing.

Of course this is all theoretical.

 

[40yearfan]

Hes better than Levi, thats all that matters.

Also the Bills were 2nd best in QB sacks last year. LT is a pretty big part of that.



All these restructures help us now, but in the long run are very detrimental. Its the exact problem the Steelers and Saints had this year. All those restructures came due and they couldnt afford their roster. All this does is push the pay further down the road, eventually itll all come due and we'll lose DWash and PP and everyone next up for a payday.

No. The Cards CAP situation is being managed very well and those types of things are being taken into account. We have flexibility today and we will have flexibility in the coming years. This is a well run team financially.

 

[Chopper0080]

Take a look at the 2013 free agent list and it doesn't look as dire as you would seem to think. Campbell is the only one on the list that will cost anything, and he wont be on that last come training camp time I still 100% believe.

http://www.spotrac.com/free-agents/nfl/2013/arizona-cardinals/

Honestly we can let every single one of those guys straight up walk without a second blink.

Bye the way Rhodes should be on that list as well. This could be his last season as his 2013 year is a full player option.

Agreed. Campbell is the only player I would want to keep. It does make me wonder if we draft an ILB later in the draft as Lenon will probably be gone.

S is a long term ? for me. The position is becoming so important and we don't seem to have much talent to develop at the position nor is this a great class to try and address it.

 

[kerouac9]

No. The Cards CAP situation is being managed very well and those types of things are being taken into account. We have flexibility today and we will have flexibility in the coming years. This is a well run team financially.

You must be registered for see images

It's startling how easy that was to do.

 

[Dayman]

I appreciate the extra cap space, but I wish someone else would have restructured. I thought the Cards overpaid Colledge in the first place. Guaranteeing him more money in the future seems like it's dead money waiting to happen. Something tells me he won't be worth $7 million + in three years.

 

[Cardiac]

I appreciate the extra cap space, but I wish someone else would have restructured. I thought the Cards overpaid Colledge in the first place. Guaranteeing him more money in the future seems like it's dead money waiting to happen. Something tells me he won't be worth $7 million + in three years.

I'm fairly certain we didn't guarentee him more money in the future. We took a portion of this years salary and made it a bonus payment so the CAP hit would be spread out for the remainder of his contract.

Yes what he costs against the CAP goes up but the money he is paid is the same. IIRC it was about 3 mill converted from salary this year to a bonus payment. He gets the 3 mill imediately instead of waiting to get paid over the course of this season.

 

[CardsFan88]

I'm fairly certain we didn't guarentee him more money in the future. We took a portion of this years salary and made it a bonus payment so the CAP hit would be spread out for the remainder of his contract.

Yes what he costs against the CAP goes up but the money he is paid is the same. IIRC it was about 3 mill converted from salary this year to a bonus payment. He gets the 3 mill imediately instead of waiting to get paid over the course of this season.

Under this scenario it just means if he is cut, we get less cap relief because it will result in more dead cap space.

If we don't cut him, it would be the same overall, but more on the back end.

For colledge he gets more up front (thus a realized guarantee), and we get cap relief this year (or however they restructured, as it is possible to do it with multiple years if we wanted to).

 

[Phrazbit]

Good deal.

And great example of how the Cardinals structure contracts leaves them with MORE flexibility in the long run, no matter what some on this site claim.

Thats simply not true. These restructurings are short term benefits that make future cap numbers larger and less flexible because a larger portion is guaranteed.

I can handle a guy like Larry restructuring because the odds of him being released during the course of his deal are rather small. But when you start doing long term deferments to marginal players like Colledge and likely waiver candidates like Kolb (which we havnt done yet but many thought we would) it is a very risky proposition.

 

[Dayman]

I'm fairly certain we didn't guarentee him more money in the future. We took a portion of this years salary and made it a bonus payment so the CAP hit would be spread out for the remainder of his contract.

Yes what he costs against the CAP goes up but the money he is paid is the same. IIRC it was about 3 mill converted from salary this year to a bonus payment. He gets the 3 mill imediately instead of waiting to get paid over the course of this season.

I think we're pretty much on the same page here.

The total value of Colledge's contract didn't change, but his guaranteed cap hits in the latter years of his deal increased to $2.275 million apiece. His base salary also jumps to $4.8 million in 2014 & 2015, which will likely make him a prime candidate for release before the 2014 season. You don't see many average guards making over $7 million at the age of 32. If that happens, the dead money on his contract would account for a $4.5 million cap hit, as opposed to the $3 million hit he would have accounted for in his original contract. It's not a huge issue, but I have a feeling people won't be so happy about it in a couple years, cap increase or not.

 

[JeffGollin]

Thats simply not true. These restructurings are short term benefits that make future cap numbers larger and less flexible because a larger portion is guaranteed...

GM's and owners tend to take the long view and don't want to mortgage the franchise with too much back-loaded compensation.

But coaches - who need to win now (or be gone) favor back- loaded deals because it allows them to pack more talented players into Year One.

 

[40yearfan]

Thats simply not true. These restructurings are short term benefits that make future cap numbers larger and less flexible because a larger portion is guaranteed.

I can handle a guy like Larry restructuring because the odds of him being released during the course of his deal are rather small. But when you start doing long term deferments to marginal players like Colledge and likely waiver candidates like Kolb (which we havnt done yet but many thought we would) it is a very risky proposition.

Once again you are forgetting that the CAP goes up in future years, so what may seem like big money now won't be so bad 2 -3 years down the road.

 

[40yearfan]

You must be registered for see images

It's startling how easy that was to do.

Right K9. We all know you could do a better job.

 

[Phrazbit]

Once again you are forgetting that the CAP goes up in future years, so what may seem like big money now won't be so bad 2 -3 years down the road.

It is still dead money. Just because the cap goes up doesnt make having millions in wasted space a good thing.

 

[MrYeahBut]

Right K9. We all know you could do a better job.

Sorry it came at your expense 40, but I thought his comment was really funny. It seemed to be the perfect answer to your spinning the company line post... I'm not trying to discount what you said, his response just made me laugh out load.


.

 

[40yearfan]

Sorry it came at your expense 40, but I thought his comment was really funny. It seemed to be the perfect answer to your spinning the company line post... I'm not trying to discount what you said, his response just made me laugh out load.


.

That's not the company line. It's my personal opinion after 50 years of being a businessman. The Cards are one of the best financially run teams in the NFL. That's why the have the cash to have the highest payroll in the NFL last year and why they are able to adjust their CAP to meet just about any situation. Think about how it was just a few short years ago before the new stadium came on line and compare it to now. The difference is astounding.