P. Ram Restructures!

JudgeJebus · 02-18-2005, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

What I don't understand is why would a player NOT want to restructure?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the basics of it is the player gets a bonus up front, which is guaranteed money in the bank in exchange for lowering their base figures for X amount of years.

Are they potentially losing any money by doing this?? After all, the only guaranteed money in these contracts are the bonuses, so I would think players would jump at these opportunities.

I'm sure there's a reason players sometimes balk at restructuring, I just understand why.

One reason why a player would not want to restructure is that it often entails an extension of the contract. For example, Samuels' current contract is only through 2006. Thus, even if he were to restructure and convert all of his 2005 salary to bonus, it would still only be spread out over 2005 and 2006. To really get the benefit of a restructuring, we would need to extend his contract. This is something he might not want to do if he thinks his value is not as high now as it would be later.

You are right, though, that in many cases the player should not care about a restructuring. Where the contract is long enough so that it is just a simple conversion of salary to bonus, then the player still gets the same amount of money at the same time (sometimes earlier)--all that changes is the accounting (the bonus is amortized over the life of the contract).

joethiesmanfan · 02-18-2005, 02:16 PM

Samuels is a bigger disappointment than Gardner for real. He needs to restructure or get rid of him he is average anyway. and Brunnell if i ever see hime put on the field with a Redskins uniform again, i don't want to see him with a Redskins helmet on. how is he a big time character guy. He knows he is not deserving what he is getting he needs to retire. Joe Gibbs needs to be realistic Brunnell is done. He is the most overpaid player in NFL history damn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mattyk · 02-18-2005, 02:18 PM

Gotta disagree on the Samuels-Gardner comparison. Samuels has been to the Pro Bowl and was once a top 5 LT, his game has fallen off a bit but he was pretty solid overall last season and looks like he's on the right path with Bugel coaching him back up.

CrazyCanuck · 02-18-2005, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smootsmack

According to Hail Redskins this is what the link says:

The full post:

Ramsey's new figures:

2005: Base salary dropped from $1.602M to the 4th-year minimum of $455,000
2006: Base salary INCREASED from $1.188M to $1.688M

This could be a couple things:

1. It could be a simple restructuring with his 2005 base salary being reduced from $1.602M to $455,000 with the difference being made up via a signing bonus, with the increase in 2006 due to an escalator (his 2005 base salary recently increased $500,000 from $1.102M to $1.602M because of an escalator, so another $500,000 escalator for 2006 would make sense). In this case, the $1.147M bonus he would receive would be prorated $573,500 for 2005 and 2006. Along with the $620,000 allocation from his 2002 rookie signing bonus and adjusted base salary, his 2005 cap number would be $1.649M, a savings of $573,000 from his previous 2005 cap number of $2.222M.

2. He could have reduced his base salary from $1.602M to $455,000 with SOME of the difference being paid via a signing bonus, and the rest being transferred to his 2006 base salary. In this case, he would have received a $647,000 signing bonus with the remaining $500,000 being pushed to his 2006 base salary. In this case, the $647,000 bonus would be prorated $323,500 for 2005 and 2006. Along with the $620,000 allocation from his rookie signing bonus and adjusted base salary, his 2005 cap number would be $1.399M, a savings of $823,000 from his previous 2005 cap number of $2.222M; this would save $250,000 more from his 2005 cap number than the first scenario, but would cost $250,000 more on his 2006 cap number.

Your scenario definitely sounds feasible.

I'm still trying to figure out the point of Ramsey restructuring without an extension. It seems all we're doing here is moving some money from 2006 to 2005 (which doesn't make sense).

Nevertheless this is a good sign. I hope PR isn't still bitter about the Brunell signing.

CRT3 · 02-18-2005, 02:42 PM

Thanks Patrick!!!

jbcjr14 · 02-18-2005, 04:35 PM

The transformation to greatness continues.....stay tuned!

monk81 · 02-18-2005, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrudLee

In a simple restructure, you're right. It's simply guaranteeing as much of a year or two's salary by converting it into signing bonus, and then spreading the burden of that money onto future years. It also reduces the chance of a later release or trade, because there is additional bonus to accelerate.

I don't understand why players backload their salaries and move the money to future years and then the teams cut or trade them......wouldn't you want to STAY employed.........or stick with a team that's successful. And if I were a player, I think I'd keep my salary reasonable in order to stay in the NFL and with a winning team or a team that is moving towards success and a Super Bowl..........Guess some are money hungry and make hay while the sun is shinning.....

monk81 · 02-18-2005, 06:21 PM

Every little bit helps...............

CRT3 · 02-18-2005, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monk81

I don't understand why players backload their salaries and move the money to future years and then the teams cut or trade them......wouldn't you want to STAY employed.........or stick with a team that's successful. And if I were a player, I think I'd keep my salary reasonable in order to stay in the NFL and with a winning team or a team that is moving towards success and a Super Bowl..........Guess some are money hungry and make hay while the sun is shinning.....

They actually don't backload, what they do get is alot of upfront cash which counts against the cap over the period of the contract. So instead of making 1 million a year for 5 years, they get paid the minium salary allowed and take the remaining right there and then. So if the min was $500,000 then they would get 2.5 million guarenteed right then and there.

Mattyk · 02-18-2005, 06:54 PM

CRT3, what's up with the pics all over the place?

This isn't extremeskins or hailredskins. C'mon now.

Daseal · 02-18-2005, 06:55 PM

He's rebelling because he's stuck with Chad Morton...

CRT3 · 02-18-2005, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

CRT3, what's up with the pics all over the place?

This isn't extremeskins or hailredskins. C'mon now.

Sorry about that, I will make them smaller. Just experimenting a bit. But please no more Morton. What post number to I have to reach to get rid of him?

Schneed10 · 02-18-2005, 07:51 PM

Players are happy to restructure contracts when the overall value of the contract remains the same, and the length of the contract remains the same. It just means that instead of getting their money in the form of salary throughout the season, they get that same amount of money all up front in one lump-sum bonus payment. They don't change the contract, they just change when they get paid, which affects the way you allocate the bonus to the cap.

It's a good point on Samuels, he doesn't want to sign an extension at this point because he knows he's better than how he's done in the past couple seasons. I'm sure the Skins are pushing to extend him out to like 2010 and sign him to a Jon Jansen type contract. Samuels probably doesn't want to committ long term, because he thinks he's better than Jansen; and since Samuels has been to the Pro Bowl before and thinks he can get back there, he wants to prove it before he signs a long-term deal. I can't say I blame him, it's in his own best interests. But that said, I'd much rather have Jon Jansen than Chris Samuels if you forced me to choose, despite Jansen never making it to the Pro Bowl. The dude's got a passion for the game and you can tell that other players look up to him. I think if the Skins can't extend Samuels in the coming weeks, I think they have to cut him. He's good, and he'd be missed, but at that price I'm sorry, I'd have to cut ties and let Molinaro give it a go.

Of course, also don't forget that Vaughn Parker is quite a talent, and if he can get into shape he wouldn't be a bad insurance policy.

All that said, I hope Samuels gets extended and sticks around. He is real good and we need him. But he's no Jon Jansen in my eyes, and he's not worth a cap hit of $9 million a year.

sportscurmudgeon · 02-18-2005, 07:57 PM

Someone asked why players don't automatically restructure. Here's the problem with doing it every year:

If you contantly put off base salary increases into the future for the sake of a signing bonus in the current year, you wind up in the situation that Chris Samuels is in now. He restructured twice and piled up a huge payday in 2005/6. And now the team wants him to forego that big payday to take a signing bonus and extned further into the future. At some point, it becomes disadvantageous for a player to keep piling up money in a final year or two because he is unlikely ever to see that money because the team will cut him as a "cap casualty". So after a point, the player who restructures is helping to cut his own throat.

As I understand it, this is a big part of Chris Samuels' reluctance to redo his deal. He did it twice before and this is the time when he is supposed to get all the money he deferred for the good of the team in past years. That's what he was told. Now, the team wants him to take less one more time...

bedlamVR · 02-18-2005, 08:38 PM

He wont be taking less though. If he simply redid his deal taking most of his salary as SB this year it would be no point because it would just make his masive cap number in 2006 even bigger. He has to be looking at an exention again with a big upfront payment the only question is where is he going to get the best money... here with Mr Money Bags Dan Snyder or in FA?

02-18-2005, 02:16 PM	#17
joethiesmanfan The Starter Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 1,163	Re: P. Ram Restructures! Samuels is a bigger disappointment than Gardner for real. He needs to restructure or get rid of him he is average anyway. and Brunnell if i ever see hime put on the field with a Redskins uniform again, i don't want to see him with a Redskins helmet on. how is he a big time character guy. He knows he is not deserving what he is getting he needs to retire. Joe Gibbs needs to be realistic Brunnell is done. He is the most overpaid player in NFL history damn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

02-18-2005, 02:18 PM	#18
Mattyk ‎\m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 40 Posts: 72,673	Re: P. Ram Restructures! Gotta disagree on the Samuels-Gardner comparison. Samuels has been to the Pro Bowl and was once a top 5 LT, his game has fallen off a bit but he was pretty solid overall last season and looks like he's on the right path with Bugel coaching him back up. __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

02-18-2005, 02:42 PM	#20
CRT3 Impact Rookie Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Rockville Age: 50 Posts: 795	Re: P. Ram Restructures! Thanks Patrick!!! __________________ 16-0 for 2007

02-18-2005, 04:35 PM	#21
jbcjr14 The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Austin, Texas Age: 43 Posts: 2,001	Re: P. Ram Restructures! The transformation to greatness continues.....stay tuned! __________________ "Work Harder: millions on welfare are counting on you" - Obama 2009 address to Congress.

02-18-2005, 06:21 PM	#23
monk81 The Starter Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: TEXAS Posts: 2,029	Re: P. Ram Restructures! Every little bit helps...............

02-18-2005, 06:54 PM	#25
Mattyk ‎\m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 40 Posts: 72,673	Re: P. Ram Restructures! CRT3, what's up with the pics all over the place? This isn't extremeskins or hailredskins. C'mon now. __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

02-18-2005, 06:55 PM	#26
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 30 Posts: 8,057	Re: P. Ram Restructures! He's rebelling because he's stuck with Chad Morton...

02-18-2005, 07:51 PM	#28
Schneed10 RG Glee Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 33 Posts: 7,893	Re: P. Ram Restructures! Players are happy to restructure contracts when the overall value of the contract remains the same, and the length of the contract remains the same. It just means that instead of getting their money in the form of salary throughout the season, they get that same amount of money all up front in one lump-sum bonus payment. They don't change the contract, they just change when they get paid, which affects the way you allocate the bonus to the cap. It's a good point on Samuels, he doesn't want to sign an extension at this point because he knows he's better than how he's done in the past couple seasons. I'm sure the Skins are pushing to extend him out to like 2010 and sign him to a Jon Jansen type contract. Samuels probably doesn't want to committ long term, because he thinks he's better than Jansen; and since Samuels has been to the Pro Bowl before and thinks he can get back there, he wants to prove it before he signs a long-term deal. I can't say I blame him, it's in his own best interests. But that said, I'd much rather have Jon Jansen than Chris Samuels if you forced me to choose, despite Jansen never making it to the Pro Bowl. The dude's got a passion for the game and you can tell that other players look up to him. I think if the Skins can't extend Samuels in the coming weeks, I think they have to cut him. He's good, and he'd be missed, but at that price I'm sorry, I'd have to cut ties and let Molinaro give it a go. Of course, also don't forget that Vaughn Parker is quite a talent, and if he can get into shape he wouldn't be a bad insurance policy. All that said, I hope Samuels gets extended and sticks around. He is real good and we need him. But he's no Jon Jansen in my eyes, and he's not worth a cap hit of $9 million a year.

02-18-2005, 07:57 PM	#29
sportscurmudgeon Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,159	Re: P. Ram Restructures! Someone asked why players don't automatically restructure. Here's the problem with doing it every year: If you contantly put off base salary increases into the future for the sake of a signing bonus in the current year, you wind up in the situation that Chris Samuels is in now. He restructured twice and piled up a huge payday in 2005/6. And now the team wants him to forego that big payday to take a signing bonus and extned further into the future. At some point, it becomes disadvantageous for a player to keep piling up money in a final year or two because he is unlikely ever to see that money because the team will cut him as a "cap casualty". So after a point, the player who restructures is helping to cut his own throat. As I understand it, this is a big part of Chris Samuels' reluctance to redo his deal. He did it twice before and this is the time when he is supposed to get all the money he deferred for the good of the team in past years. That's what he was told. Now, the team wants him to take less one more time... __________________ The Sports Curmudgeon www.sportscurmudgeon.com But don't get me wrong, I love sports...

02-18-2005, 08:38 PM	#30
bedlamVR Special Teams Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 388	Re: P. Ram Restructures! He wont be taking less though. If he simply redid his deal taking most of his salary as SB this year it would be no point because it would just make his masive cap number in 2006 even bigger. He has to be looking at an exention again with a big upfront payment the only question is where is he going to get the best money... here with Mr Money Bags Dan Snyder or in FA?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

P. Ram Restructures!

Redskins Locker Room