How is Ahmad Brooks?

Originally posted by WRATHman44:

Originally posted by SofaKing:
I'm not talking "real dollars". I'm talking cap charge. When a player's cap charge is increased, it increases their risk of release if they are deemed not worth the drain on the cap. Has nothing to do with getting real money back. It has to do with freeing up cap space.

All respect dude, but you're really really wrong on this one. The cap hit is a combination of prorated bonus money and that year's salary. When you cut a guy, the only cap relief you get is from the salary coming off the books. The prorated bonus $ stays on the books. To make matters worse, ALL of the future bonus proration for the remainder of the contract gets added to the team's cap immediately, so even though they aren't spending that money on him, they aren't allowed to spend it on anyone else (hence the term, "dead money"). It is actually safe to say that the team would have LESS incentive to cut Brooks before the last year of his deal.

I understand prorated money stays on the books. That's where dead money comes from. But dead money can be split up across multiple seasons, like Carlos Rogers. It does not have to be taken all in one year.

It really comes down to which figure is greater. Cap savings or dead money. If cap savings > dead money, there is incentive to cut a player. The prorated bonus money stays on the books, but not the entire cap charge. It is the large cap charge that becomes the biggest handcuff, not the bonus money.

I'm not saying the 49ers will or should cut Brooks in the future. But increasing his cap charge in future seasons increases the chances he is released, especially as he gets older and the potential dead money decreases with each passing season.

Originally posted by ninerfan4life:

f**k you Drew Brees

^

That is all.

Originally posted by SFL49ER:

Originally posted by ninerfan4life:
f**k you Drew Brees

^

That is all.

x3

Originally posted by SofaKing:

Keep in mind when a player restructures like this, it increases their salary cap charge for future seasons. So yes, more of his salary is guaranteed through signing bonus spread throughout the deal, but the player is now at increased risk of being released in the future in a cost cutting move. That's the trade-off. The team has to sweeten the pie for the player if they are going to restructure.

You've got this backwards. Taking more of a signing bounus means LESS of a chance of being cut because you cutting the guy would result in less cap space created. Salary & salary cap number are not the same thing.

If a player is making 5 million in 2014, 2015 & 2016 & restructures to take 3 million up front & reduces his salary to 2 million in 2014, that money doesn't get tacked on to his 2015 & 2016 salaries; it gets tacked on to his salary cap number; his salaries stay the same. If he gets cut AFTER the restructure, it will result in even more dead money and less cap space created because his signing bounus portion (already paid) is higher.

Originally posted by VPofCarnage:
You've got this backwards. Taking more of a signing bounus means LESS of a chance of being cut because you cutting the guy would result in less cap space created. Salary & salary cap number are not the same thing.

If a player is making 5 million in 2014, 2015 & 2016 & restructures to take 3 million up front & reduces his salary to 2 million in 2014, that money doesn't get tacked on to his 2015 & 2016 salaries; it gets tacked on to his salary cap number; his salaries stay the same. If he gets cut AFTER the restructure, it will result in even more dead money and less cap space created because his signing bounus portion (already paid) is higher.

That is understood. His future salary cap number is exactly what I'm talking about. Here is Brooks' contract details, after restructure:



His cap number doubles starting in 2015. The way I see it, he could be a candidate for release as early as 2016. The team could save $6.5 mil toward the cap, and split the $3.2 mil in dead money across 2016 and 2017. That's the point I'm getting at. Ahmad benefits financially from taking new bonus money up front, but his increased cap number in future years increases, making him a candidate for release as he gets older and the dead money hit lessens.

Originally posted by SofaKing:

I'm not saying the 49ers will or should cut Brooks in the future. But increasing his cap charge in future seasons increases the chances he is released, especially as he gets older and the potential dead money decreases with each passing season.

Not trying to harp on you or be a dick at all, but you are entirely, 100% backwards on this one. Take this hypothetical:

2014: 5 million salary
2015: 5 million salary
2016: 5 million salary
Signing bounus: 6 million (and pretend 2014 is his first year in the contract).

Prorated signing bounus money cap hit per season BEFORE being cut: 2 million.

If he's cut in 2015 without restructuring: 2 million dollars in dead money.

...Now say for some reason he takes 3 million of his 2014 salary as a bounus because Baalke suddently needs cap space.

Prorated signing bounus cap hit per season AFTER restructuring: 3 million dollars.

If he's cut in 2015 AFTER restructuring: 3 million dollars in dead money.

The penalty of cutting him is even more severe the greater percentage of his money is guaranteed. Pretend 100% of his contract was a signing bounus & he was under contract for 2 more years. Would the likelihood of him being cut be greater now that they've already paid him or would it be less?

Originally posted by SofaKing:

His cap number doubles starting in 2015. The way I see it, he could be a candidate for release as early as 2016.

You can't cut "cap number." You can only cut "salary" (unless it's guaranteed salary, which it's not in Brooks' case).

If a guy's salary is completely guaranteed there's no incentive to cut him at all (see Barry Zito). The less money is guaranteed the greater incentive to cut him & save some cap room.

Originally posted by VPofCarnage:
Not trying to harp on you or be a dick at all, but you are entirely, 100% backwards on this one. Take this hypothetical:

2014: 5 million salary
2015: 5 million salary
2016: 5 million salary
Signing bounus: 6 million (and pretend 2014 is his first year in the contract).

Prorated signing bounus money cap hit per season BEFORE being cut: 2 million.

If he's cut in 2015 without restructuring: 2 million dollars in dead money.

...Now say for some reason he takes 3 million of his 2014 salary as a bounus because Baalke suddently needs cap space.

Prorated signing bounus cap hit per season AFTER restructuring: 3 million dollars.

If he's cut in 2015 AFTER restructuring: 3 million dollars in dead money.

The penalty of cutting him is even more severe the greater percentage of his money is guaranteed. Pretend 100% of his contract was a signing bounus & he was under contract for 2 more years. Would the likelihood of him being cut be greater now that they've already paid him or would it be less?

I never said he could be cut in 2015. Please read the above post.

Originally posted by SofaKing:

I never said he could be cut in 2015. Please read the above post.

When he gets cut doesn't matter at all. The same principle applies if he's cut tomorrow or in the last year of his contract.

And he can be cut in 2015. He can be cut any time.

Originally posted by VPofCarnage:

Originally posted by SofaKing:
I never said he could be cut in 2015. Please read the above post.

When he gets cut doesn't matter at all. The same principle applies if he's cut tomorrow or in the last year of his contract.

And he can be cut in 2015. He can be cut any time.

I really feel like we're arguing over semantics, and my point is not getting addressed or answered. I'll re-post this chart, because it summarizes where I'm getting at:

Originally posted by SofaKing:
That is understood. His future salary cap number is exactly what I'm talking about. Here is Brooks' contract details, after restructure:



His cap number doubles starting in 2015. The way I see it, he could be a candidate for release as early as 2016. The team could save $6.5 mil toward the cap, and split the $3.2 mil in dead money across 2016 and 2017. That's the point I'm getting at. Ahmad benefits financially from taking new bonus money up front, but his increased cap number in future years increases, making him a candidate for release as he gets older and the dead money hit lessens.

Originally posted by SofaKing:

I really feel like we're arguing over semantics, and my point is not getting addressed or answered. I'll re-post this chart, because it summarizes where I'm getting at:

No, this isn't semantics. This is like if you left a negative off of an equation in math and you have it 100% backwards. It's not an insignificant detail.

You wrote:

"Ahmad benefits financially from taking new bonus money up front, but his increased cap number in future years increases, making him a candidate for release as he gets older and the dead money hit lessens."

The dead money INCREASES, not lessens.

You're thinking you can cut "cap hit." You can't cut "cap hit." You can only cut salary. The cap "savings" versus not cutting him is equal in both cases, but his dead money (hypothetically) would go UP after restructuring not down.

Baalke is essentially reaffirming his long-term commitment to Brooks. They could still cut the guy, but this restructure doesn't increase the likelihood of that one iota.

Originally posted by VPofCarnage:
No, this isn't semantics. This is like if you left a negative off of an equation in math and you have it 100% backwards. It's not an insignificant detail.

You wrote:

"Ahmad benefits financially from taking new bonus money up front, but his increased cap number in future years increases, making him a candidate for release as he gets older and the dead money hit lessens."

The dead money INCREASES, not lessens.

You're thinking you can cut "cap hit." You can't cut "cap hit." You can only cut salary. The cap "savings" versus not cutting him is equal in both cases, but his dead money (hypothetically) would go UP after restructuring not down.

Baalke is essentially reaffirming his long-term commitment to Brooks. They could still cut the guy, but this restructure doesn't increase the likelihood of that one iota.

Dude, I'm not disputing Dead Money goes up after restructure. I don't know why that point keeps getting brought up. When I say the dead money is decreasing, I'm talking with each passing year of the current deal. Look at the dead money figures in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. They are going down.

I'm simply looking at the chart, and determining when Brooks' cap number might become an issue with our salary cap situation. If there is a time to cut him loose, it could happen in 2016. The numbers are there in the chart -- by 2016 we could have $6.5 mil in savings by cutting him, $3.2 mil in dead money that can be split across 2016 and 2017. That's all I'm getting at. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by SofaKing:

Dude, I'm not disputing Dead Money goes up after restructure. I don't know why that point keeps getting brought up.

I'm simply looking at the chart, and determining when Brooks' cap number might become an issue with our salary cap situation. If there is a time to cut him loose, it could happen in 2016. The numbers are there in the chart -- by 2016 we could have $6.5 mil in savings by cutting him, $3.2 mil in dead money that can be split across 2016 and 2017. That's all I'm getting at. Nothing more, nothing less.

Of course he's a candidate to get cut (either next year or in 2016). I never disputed that. That was a distinct possibility 3 weeks ago, and it still is. I was disputing your claim that the likelihood of him getting cut goes up after getting more guaranteed money. That's backwards.

Originally posted by VPofCarnage:
Of course he's a candidate to get cut (either next year or in 2016). I never disputed that. That was a distinct possibility 3 weeks ago, and it still is. I was disputing your claim that the likelihood of him getting cut goes up after getting more guaranteed money. That's backwards.

Right, it was never the guaranteed money I was talking about. I was strictly concerned with his cap number in future years after the restructure. It's a big number, and the dead money from cutting him isn't that much by 2016. That to me makes him a candidate for release. Apologies if I was wording it s**tty in the previous posts.

To further clarify my original point. Here is an explanation of contract restructuring by an NFL player agent:

In a typical contract restructuring, a player will convert some portion of his base salary or roster bonus (without reducing salary) into signing bonus because it can be prorated or spread out evenly over the life of a contract (most other salary components usually can't be prorated) for a maximum of five years. The team gets a lower cap number in the current season while the player gains more short-term security in the current year of his contract. The player's cap numbers in the remaining contract years increase, which can make him more susceptible to becoming a cap casualty in the future

That's the point I was trying to make, but perhaps did not make myself clear. Contract restructuring DOES make the player more susceptible to release in future years, but in exchange they get short-term security through additional signing bonus.