Interesting article from a couple of years ago about player transactions and their effect on the cap:
https://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/pi...salary-cap
I wasn't previously aware of the June 1st designation until Dirocco brought it up in a recent article from another thread (His quote of Blake's cap number next year after June 1 still seems off to me, however). I'm pretty sure I'd heard the term used but never understood what it meant or bothered to look it up, but if I understand it correctly now it may come in to play for us this coming offseason. From the article:
Quote:[font=Helvetica, sans-serif]For any player cut before June 1, [font=Helvetica, sans-serif]all remaining, prorated bonus money accelerates so that it is counted in the current year. For instance, let's assume a player is given a five-year contract with a $10 million signing bonus. Now, assume he is cut from the team after year two. There will still be $6 million in bonus money ($2 million per season) unaccounted for. Because he was cut before June 1, all $6 million of that money is automatically counted against the team's current-year salary cap rather than spreading it over the remaining three years.[/font]
For post-June 1 cuts, though, the accounting changes. In this case, only the current year's bonus money is counted against the team's current-year salary cap. All remaining bonus money [font=Helvetica, sans-serif]after the current year -- in the case of our example, the last $4 million -- is accelerated onto the next year's cap. So, the team would be on the hook for $2 million this year, and $4 million next year.[/font]
There is one caveat to the June 1 rule: a player can be cut at any time before June 1 and still be given this designation. It has no effect on the team's accounting -- they will be treated as if they were cut after June 1 if the team chooses to designate them as a June 1 cut. What it does, though, is give the player the chance to sign elsewhere, at any time. The player is entirely unaffected by the designation. The team simply cannot spend the money saved by giving the player the June 1 designation until after June 1.[/font]
We've all talked about Blake's cap hit next year being this big problem, but it may not be. He has offsets in his 2019 $6.5 salary guarantee and if he's a post June 1 cut (or designated as such if cut prior) only the 2019 signing bonus would be recognized in 2019 and the remaining portion would be recognized in 2020. That pushes out $5 million of his cap hit to 2020 instead of recognizing it all in 2019. So his oft quoted dead cap number of $16.5 million next year ($10 million signing bonus + $6.5 million guaranteed salary) could actually be as low as $5 million if he's designated a post June 1 cut and signs a deal elsewhere for $6.5 million or more factoring in the offsets. Based on his experience and success in last year's playoffs I can't imagine he gets anything less than $3 million to be a back up and maybe more especially if he's brought in somewhere to start short term.
Realistically though, Blake's cap hit could (and probably should) be under $10 million for next year as a post June 1st cut designee and with a partial offset which makes it much more likely that he is cut and not brought back assuming that there is a solid plan to replace him going into the offseason. The important part about cutting Blake early in the process and designating him as a post June 1 cut is that he will be able to find a larger salary in the thick of free agency which then affects his dead cap bottom line here with the offsets. If I'm understanding this all correctly, I don't see how he isn't cut prior to the start of free agency.
(11-30-2018, 01:05 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting article from a couple of years ago about player transactions and their effect on the cap:
https://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/pi...salary-cap
I wasn't previously aware of the June 1st designation until Dirocco brought it up in a recent article from another thread (His quote of Blake's cap number next year after June 1 still seems off to me, however). I'm pretty sure I'd heard the term used but never understood what it meant or bothered to look it up, but if I understand it correctly now it may come in to play for us this coming offseason. From the article:
Quote:[font=Helvetica, sans-serif]For any player cut before June 1, [font=Helvetica, sans-serif]all[/font][/font]
[font=Helvetica, sans-serif]For post-June 1 cuts, though, the accounting changes. In this case, only the current year's bonus money is counted against the team's current-year salary cap. All remaining bonus money [font=Helvetica, sans-serif]after the current year -- in the case of our example, the last $4 million -- is accelerated onto the next year's cap. So, the team would be on the hook for $2 million this year, and $4 million next year.[/font]
There is one caveat to the June 1 rule: a player can be cut at any time before June 1 and still be given this designation. It has no effect on the team's accounting -- they will be treated as if they were cut after June 1 if the team chooses to designate them as a June 1 cut. What it does, though, is give the player the chance to sign elsewhere, at any time. The player is entirely unaffected by the designation. The team simply cannot spend the money saved by giving the player the June 1 designation until after June 1.[/font]
We've all talked about Blake's cap hit next year being this big problem, but it may not be. He has offsets in his 2019 $6.5 salary guarantee and if he's a post June 1 cut (or designated as such if cut prior) only the 2019 signing bonus would be recognized in 2019 and the remaining portion would be recognized in 2020. That pushes out $5 million of his cap hit to 2020 instead of recognizing it all in 2019. So his oft quoted dead cap number of $16.5 million next year ($10 million signing bonus + $6.5 million guaranteed salary) could actually be as low as $5 million if he's designated a post June 1 cut and signs a deal elsewhere for $6.5 million or more factoring in the offsets. Based on his experience and success in last year's playoffs I can't imagine he gets anything less than $3 million to be a back up and maybe more especially if he's brought in somewhere to start short term.
Realistically though, Blake's cap hit could (and probably should) be under $10 million for next year as a post June 1st cut designee and with a partial offset which makes it much more likely that he is cut and not brought back assuming that there is a solid plan to replace him going into the offseason. The important part about cutting Blake early in the process and designating him as a post June 1 cut is that he will be able to find a larger salary in the thick of free agency which then affects his dead cap bottom line here with the offsets. If I'm understanding this all correctly, I don't see how he isn't cut prior to the start of free agency.
Good find! I wasn't aware that teams could cut and designate them as a June 1st cut. I was aware that if Blake was cut after June 1st, it's much more manageable. But I didn't know they could cut prior to that and use it. That could help a lot if they do that!
His salary isn't completely outrageous for someone who is theoretically a starter. To bad Al Davis isn't still around or we could swing a sweet trade for a couple high draft picks.
(11-30-2018, 02:19 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.optimumscouting.com/news/jack...ke-bortles
Justis wrote about a Bortles specific post June 1 cut just last month.
Nice additional info and scenarios. I don't see us trading away a 3rd to someone for them to assume his $6.5 million contract though. The offsets in his deal make that unnecessary. Also, I don't think anyone was expecting us to be overly aggressive in free agency this coming offseason either. So the "extend some of your own guys" option seems like the most feasible. I think we'll probably see extensions for both Jack and Ngakoue this offseason and they may consider going ahead and doing Ramsey as well. Looking more and more likely we're drafting a QB high and expecting him to start right away. That's going to require a pretty high 1st rounder. I know we need better QB play, but I also don't like going into the draft without a back up plan and that looks like what we'll be doing.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of these recent moves (Bortles benching, Hackett firing, Wash being retained, certain guys going on IR, etc..) were made partially or in whole to help us lose more games the rest of the way this year. Of course the players on the field aren't participating in tanking, but a smart front office would have a quicker trigger on IR designations and might put pressure on the coach to bench a QB who has carved out a significant piece of the blame pie for himself for the "savior" backup who is at best no better than the starter and who is probably a lot worse all under the guise of evaluating the position.
(11-30-2018, 03:10 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2018, 02:19 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.optimumscouting.com/news/jack...ke-bortles
Justis wrote about a Bortles specific post June 1 cut just last month.
Nice additional info and scenarios. I don't see us trading away a 3rd to someone for them to assume his $6.5 million contract though. The offsets in his deal make that unnecessary. Also, I don't think anyone was expecting us to be overly aggressive in free agency this coming offseason either. So the "extend some of your own guys" option seems like the most feasible. I think we'll probably see extensions for both Jack and Ngakoue this offseason and they may consider going ahead and doing Ramsey as well. Looking more and more likely we're drafting a QB high and expecting him to start right away. That's going to require a pretty high 1st rounder. I know we need better QB play, but I also don't like going into the draft without a back up plan and that looks like what we'll be doing.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of these recent moves (Bortles benching, Hackett firing, Wash being retained, certain guys going on IR, etc..) were made partially or in whole to help us lose more games the rest of the way this year. Of course the players on the field aren't participating in tanking, but a smart front office would have a quicker trigger on IR designations and might put pressure on the coach to bench a QB who has carved out a significant piece of the blame pie for himself for the "savior" backup who is at best no better than the starter and who is probably a lot worse all under the guise of evaluating the position.
Playing Bortles is what they'd do if they were trying to help us lose more games, not benching him.
(11-30-2018, 03:14 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2018, 03:10 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]Nice additional info and scenarios. I don't see us trading away a 3rd to someone for them to assume his $6.5 million contract though. The offsets in his deal make that unnecessary. Also, I don't think anyone was expecting us to be overly aggressive in free agency this coming offseason either. So the "extend some of your own guys" option seems like the most feasible. I think we'll probably see extensions for both Jack and Ngakoue this offseason and they may consider going ahead and doing Ramsey as well. Looking more and more likely we're drafting a QB high and expecting him to start right away. That's going to require a pretty high 1st rounder. I know we need better QB play, but I also don't like going into the draft without a back up plan and that looks like what we'll be doing.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of these recent moves (Bortles benching, Hackett firing, Wash being retained, certain guys going on IR, etc..) were made partially or in whole to help us lose more games the rest of the way this year. Of course the players on the field aren't participating in tanking, but a smart front office would have a quicker trigger on IR designations and might put pressure on the coach to bench a QB who has carved out a significant piece of the blame pie for himself for the "savior" backup who is at best no better than the starter and who is probably a lot worse all under the guise of evaluating the position.
Playing Bortles is what they'd do if they were trying to help us lose more games, not benching him.
That’s certainly a defendable position, but until I see Kessler move the ball effectively consistently and not turn it over regularly I’ll defer to the “he was the back up for a reason” argument. At the very least, I don’t think the brain trust at the stadium believes Kessler will be the driving force behind a change in fortunes for this team this year.
(11-30-2018, 03:26 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2018, 03:14 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Playing Bortles is what they'd do if they were trying to help us lose more games, not benching him.
That’s certainly a defendable position, but until I see Kessler move the ball effectively consistently and not turn it over regularly I’ll defer to the “he was the back up for a reason” argument. At the very least, I don’t think the brain trust at the stadium believes Kessler will be the driving force behind a change in fortunes for this team this year.
I'm sure they believe he can be more effective than Blake is right now, which is why they made the move. Wouldn't have made sense to do if they were objectively trying to lose more games. Also no doubt will influence the team mentally too.
I would agree that they will be quicker to send guys to IR + sit guys with minor injuries with the season over , which would in turn make us more likely to lose.
(11-30-2018, 03:26 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2018, 03:14 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Playing Bortles is what they'd do if they were trying to help us lose more games, not benching him.
That’s certainly a defendable position, but until I see Kessler move the ball effectively consistently and not turn it over regularly I’ll defer to the “he was the back up for a reason” argument. At the very least, I don’t think the brain trust at the stadium believes Kessler will be the driving force behind a change in fortunes for this team this year.
I think Kessler is starting the last few weeks (assuming no injury) is:
a) See if he is a capable backup for next year
b) See if he is capable of being a 'bridge' starter in case the rookie isn't ready
I just don't see any way, shape, or form that Bortles is on the roster next year. They wouldn't have named Kessler the starter
for the rest of the year if that weren't the case. The only way Bortles is on this team next year is if Kessler gets hurt and Bortles really...
really...lights it up when he comes back in. I don't see that happening. His confidence already looked shot before he was replaced, and a benching I'm sure, hasn't helped that any.
(11-30-2018, 03:37 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2018, 03:26 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]That’s certainly a defendable position, but until I see Kessler move the ball effectively consistently and not turn it over regularly I’ll defer to the “he was the back up for a reason” argument. At the very least, I don’t think the brain trust at the stadium believes Kessler will be the driving force behind a change in fortunes for this team this year.
I'm sure they believe he can be more effective than Blake is right now, which is why they made the move. Wouldn't have made sense to do if they were objectively trying to lose more games. Also no doubt will influence the team mentally too.
I would agree that they will be quicker to send guys to IR + sit guys with minor injuries with the season over , which would in turn make us more likely to lose.
I’m not saying you’re wrong because we don’t know what they believe, but I think you’re overlooking the fact that a significant injury to Blake would pretty much nullify the offsets in his deal. $6.5 million guaranteed in the grand scheme of things probably isn’t that big of a deal, but with the Jags cap situation next year it should be significant enough to matter.
If they know they’re done with him beyond this season, it would make zero sense to keep trotting him out there even if he were the better option. Better option doesn’t necessarily equate to him actually being a good option.
If this team already had its QB, there’s not nearly as much incentive to attempt to manipulate your draft position. When you’re in desperate need of a QB, however, draft position matters a lot more because generally most of the teams picking ahead of you are also in desperate need of a QB.
(11-30-2018, 04:36 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2018, 03:37 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure they believe he can be more effective than Blake is right now, which is why they made the move. Wouldn't have made sense to do if they were objectively trying to lose more games. Also no doubt will influence the team mentally too.
I would agree that they will be quicker to send guys to IR + sit guys with minor injuries with the season over , which would in turn make us more likely to lose.
I’m not saying you’re wrong because we don’t know what they believe, but I think you’re overlooking the fact that a significant injury to Blake would pretty much nullify the offsets in his deal. $6.5 million guaranteed in the grand scheme of things probably isn’t that big of a deal, but with the Jags cap situation next year it should be significant enough to matter.
If they know they’re done with him beyond this season, it would make zero sense to keep trotting him out there even if he were the better option. Better option doesn’t necessarily equate to him actually being a good option.
If this team already had its QB, there’s not nearly as much incentive to attempt to manipulate your draft position. When you’re in desperate need of a QB, however, draft position matters a lot more because generally most of the teams picking ahead of you are also in desperate need of a QB.
I mean the whole last paragraph is a given. Theres no argument against the reality that losing helps us get closer to getting a QB.
That doesn't mean every decision the front office and/or coaching staff makes from here until the end of the season is in pursuit of that goal. Keeping Blake at QB and sticking with the status quo would be a good signal the team/front office have no intention of making changes to what has shown to be a losing formula over the last 8 games or whatever. That would be an example of trying to lose.
Benching him however means they are not accepting that level of performance any longer and thus isn't a move made in order to lose more. Every week they play Blake would increase locker room resentment and make them trust Marrone less and less so they kinda had to make a move..
There are benefits to playing Cody , such as seeing if he can be an effective bridge QB next year, but it's primarily a decision based on 1) Performance and 2) Trying to keep the locker room together and with the HC
(11-30-2018, 03:10 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (11-30-2018, 02:19 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.optimumscouting.com/news/jack...ke-bortles
Justis wrote about a Bortles specific post June 1 cut just last month.
Nice additional info and scenarios. I don't see us trading away a 3rd to someone for them to assume his $6.5 million contract though. The offsets in his deal make that unnecessary. Also, I don't think anyone was expecting us to be overly aggressive in free agency this coming offseason either. So the "extend some of your own guys" option seems like the most feasible. I think we'll probably see extensions for both Jack and Ngakoue this offseason and they may consider going ahead and doing Ramsey as well. Looking more and more likely we're drafting a QB high and expecting him to start right away. That's going to require a pretty high 1st rounder. I know we need better QB play, but I also don't like going into the draft without a back up plan and that looks like what we'll be doing.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of these recent moves (Bortles benching, Hackett firing, Wash being retained, certain guys going on IR, etc..) were made partially or in whole to help us lose more games the rest of the way this year. Of course the players on the field aren't participating in tanking, but a smart front office would have a quicker trigger on IR designations and might put pressure on the coach to bench a QB who has carved out a significant piece of the blame pie for himself for the "savior" backup who is at best no better than the starter and who is probably a lot worse all under the guise of evaluating the position.
Regarding the first part of your comment in bold, drafting a QB high and expecting him to start and be successful is a HUGE gamble. Sure it's happened lately, but that's really not the norm. I just don't see this team making such a gamble. What if you end up with a Vince Young or a Blaine Gabbert? That's more likely the result.
Regarding the second part of your comment in bold. Trying to "help" the team lose games goes against everything that an NFL team is about. The changes that were made were done so in order for the team to try to win A game or two, not tank the season. If you think that the front office and/or coaches are trying to get a higher draft pick from the recent changes you need to get your head out of social media and look at reality.
Whatever Foles extension equates to is what I think Bortles would get on the open market. Certainly not 16.5mil...oops.
Reading OP I was transported back to Fr.Thomas' Algebra I class, "A train leaves Chicago heading east at 50 mph......." Made my head hurt.