PDA

View Full Version : Why aren't the Giants restructuring more people???



bryan_kilmeade
03-16-2013, 11:49 AM
As everyone here knows, the Giants have very little money left and they still have to put money aside for the draft. The Giants currently have a little over $47 mil tied up on 4 players, granted one of them is Eli...but why don't the Giants restructure with the top 4 or 5 highest paid players. I understand that you don't want to keep pushing salary further back to future years, but as long as the Giants do it in a responsible and smart way, it should be fine. The top 4 players who are making that $47 mil are:

Eli---- ~20 mil
Snee- ~11 mil
Rolle-- ~9 mil
Tuck-- ~6 mil

DaKraken
03-16-2013, 11:52 AM
Takes two to tango

FBomb
03-16-2013, 11:52 AM
Because restructuring contracts is what has put us in the position we are in now. Eventually the bill comes due. The only thing we can really do that would help is have these players sign extensions take big signing bonuses and spread out the rest.

tonyt830
03-16-2013, 11:59 AM
Because restructuring contracts is what has put us in the position we are in now. Eventually the bill comes due. The only thing we can really do that would help is have these players sign extensions take big signing bonuses and spread out the rest.you beat me to it FBomb. Rolle and Eli both have restructured in the past, which of course is hitting the Giants cap number hard now.

I'm sure numbers are getting crunched in the front office. I think realistically Diehl taking a pay cut would help--he cant restructure since he is in the last year of his contract. But if the Giants could gain 2 million towards the cap, if Diehl takes a cut, that would be of some help. If Diehl is waiting on Boothe before doing so, he could lose out, if Boothe is re-signed. Diehl than may get released, and if Im not mistaken, the Giants could gain more cap space if they outright release Diehl.

nycsportzfan
03-16-2013, 12:05 PM
Because restructuring contracts is what has put us in the position we are in now. Eventually the bill comes due. The only thing we can really do that would help is have these players sign extensions take big signing bonuses and spread out the rest. Ya, this is commonsense here...

GiantRoc
03-16-2013, 12:16 PM
Restructuring would not give us anything but more trouble later. If it would have helped, it would have been done already. Having Diehl still on his contract is the bitterest pill to swallow for me. He may not be washed up, but he is not even close to the worth of his contract. He has plugged up a lot of money. I would have rolled the dice on cutting him, and try for a re-signing.

AGiantDynasty
03-16-2013, 12:19 PM
Restructuring is something you do in a VERY limited basis. To save a few million to sign or resign someone you have your eyes on. When you over do it, you get cap problems like we have now.

Why do fans around here think restructuring magically frees up cap space with no negative consequences? It doesn't and should be used extremely sparingly.

PRGiant
03-16-2013, 02:59 PM
I think we are in a position where it's better to stay put and be ok going forward. The Baas restructure already has me pissed...

miked1958
03-16-2013, 03:25 PM
Because restructuring contracts is what has put us in the position we are in now. Eventually the bill comes due. The only thing we can really do that would help is have these players sign extensions take big signing bonuses and spread out the rest.this... If we stand firm and don't cave in we will be in really good shape in next few years

jomo
03-16-2013, 03:33 PM
Takes two to tangoIt really only takes one to tango. The player would always accept the typical structure of a "restructure". Basically the team advances money from the later years in the contract (often times increasing the guaranteed money). The so called benefit for the team is that they extend the contract a couple of years and in the process spread the up front bonus over a longer period which reduces the current cap hit. The problem as many have pointed out is that the restructure pushes the cap hit down the road. If the player's skills erode or we cut him, the penalty is a cap hit for the remaining guaranteed money in the contract. I think we are trying to get out of those situations right now as are many teams. Have you ever seen so many one year contracts?

njersey
03-16-2013, 04:20 PM
As everyone here knows, the Giants have very little money left and they still have to put money aside for the draft. The Giants currently have a little over $47 mil tied up on 4 players, granted one of them is Eli...but why don't the Giants restructure with the top 4 or 5 highest paid players. I understand that you don't want to keep pushing salary further back to future years, but as long as the Giants do it in a responsible and smart way, it should be fine. The top 4 players who are making that $47 mil are:

Eli---- ~20 mil
Snee- ~11 mil
Rolle-- ~9 mil
Tuck-- ~6 mil

Contracts should be honored by both sides. How would you feel if your company asked you to take a pay cut?

BlueBlooded1979
03-16-2013, 05:15 PM
Contracts should be honored by both sides. How would you feel if your company asked you to take a pay cut?

This is probably the most misinformed statement uttered by NFL fans. This isn't baseball, NFL contracts have guaranteed portions and what are effectively team option/incentive portions. They are usually a 35%/65% split. Very few players play out all of those "option" years and if you guaranteed all of todays contacts then you would have teams that are 50m-60m over the cap. If the players wanted fully guaranteed contracts they would see their salaries drop by 60% and their years max out at 3. With a hard cap this system makes more sense for both sides.

If you look at Greg Jennings contract it is really a 2yr/18m guaranteed contract with 3yr/27m worth of team options.

jomo
03-16-2013, 05:16 PM
Contracts should be honored by both sides. How would you feel if your company asked you to take a pay cut?Since when aren't contracts being honored?????

RoanokeFan
03-16-2013, 05:17 PM
As everyone here knows, the Giants have very little money left and they still have to put money aside for the draft. The Giants currently have a little over $47 mil tied up on 4 players, granted one of them is Eli...but why don't the Giants restructure with the top 4 or 5 highest paid players. I understand that you don't want to keep pushing salary further back to future years, but as long as the Giants do it in a responsible and smart way, it should be fine. The top 4 players who are making that $47 mil are:

Eli---- ~20 mil
Snee- ~11 mil
Rolle-- ~9 mil
Tuck-- ~6 mil

Restructuring only saves you CAP space now. It becomes due and payable tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow.

RoanokeFan
03-16-2013, 05:18 PM
Contracts should be honored by both sides. How would you feel if your company asked you to take a pay cut?

Contracts are honored

Cloud57
03-16-2013, 05:19 PM
As everyone here knows, the Giants have very little money left and they still have to put money aside for the draft. The Giants currently have a little over $47 mil tied up on 4 players, granted one of them is Eli...but why don't the Giants restructure with the top 4 or 5 highest paid players. I understand that you don't want to keep pushing salary further back to future years, but as long as the Giants do it in a responsible and smart way, it should be fine. The top 4 players who are making that $47 mil are:

Eli---- ~20 mil
Snee- ~11 mil
Rolle-- ~9 mil
Tuck-- ~6 mil

Snee and Rolle need to go after this year.

jomo
03-16-2013, 05:40 PM
Contracts are honoredThat's why we have contracts, isn't it?? Duh!!

ashleymarie
03-16-2013, 05:52 PM
Restructuring only saves you CAP space now. It becomes due and payable tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow.

I am not very familiar with restructuring, so pardon my ignorance, but is interest paid on the monies paid out later to the player?

RoanokeFan
03-16-2013, 05:53 PM
That's why we have contracts, isn't it?? Duh!! I've never understood why so many believe contracts aren't honored.

jomo
03-16-2013, 06:00 PM
I am not very familiar with restructuring, so pardon my ignorance, but is interest paid on the monies paid out later to the player?Well ashleymarie, there is money you get now as cash and there is money that is charged against the salary cap. Team, when restructuring tend to pay a "bonus" upfront but they spread that bonus over the entire contract for cap purposes.

Let's say that we have a player who is going to earn $4M per year for 5 years or $20M total but maybe only $12M is guaranteed.
So in year 1 we pay a "bonus" of $10M. The Giants would spread that out over 5 years which means our hit in year 1 might be $4M.
If the Giants cut that player in year 2, they will be hit with the entire balance of the $10M they advanced in year 1 plus the $2M topping off to the $12M minimum. So we cut a player from our roster but still get hit with the balance of the contract guarantee or $8M for a guy who's gone. That is what is known as "dead money."

So restructuring will help us in the near term "cap wise" but if the player doesn't play out the contract or if his skills deteriorate, we'll be paying much more over time than the player is worth.

FBomb
03-16-2013, 06:07 PM
I've never understood why so many believe contracts aren't honored.

Because they assume when a player is cut before his contract expires that the owners aren't honoring thier contracts. Basically, they have no idea what the language of the contract states.

Flip Empty
03-16-2013, 06:08 PM
The Giants seem to be having little trouble signing players so I don't get why people keep complaining about the cap. I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing.

jomo
03-16-2013, 06:10 PM
Because they assume when a player is cut before his contract expires that the owners aren't honoring thier contracts. Basically, they have no idea what the language of the contract states.They just hear the "5 years $20 million" part and think that's all there is to the contract.

FBomb
03-16-2013, 06:12 PM
The Giants seem to be having little trouble signing players so I don't get why people keep complaining about the cap. I'm pretty sure they know what they're doing.


WHAT????!!!!! You think that the Giants front office, who have only won TWO Superbowls is the past 5 years knows more about what they're doing than WE do??

BLASPHOMER!!!!!

FBomb
03-16-2013, 06:13 PM
They just hear the "5 years $20 million" part and think that's all there is to the contract.

The argument that really got under my skin was how Reese "screwed" Osi.

danme
03-16-2013, 06:42 PM
Because in the past all the restructureing we have done over the last 2-5 years is what has put us in CAP HELL. You cant keep kicking the can down the road and ignore the money owed to players to pay them less this year. That causes the PAYROLL to increase the next year because the money they really didnt save they just defered to a later time becomes due.

Now we are in a position that the Monies Owed due to restructering is and has come due. Restructering is good for the short term but it creates MAJOR BILLS because the money that wasn't paid still needs to be paid. Thats is why we have NO MONEY This Season and it doesn't look good for next Season either.

I would rather NOT restructure or as the GIants have done Keep Restructureing contracts because of the aforementioned reasons

Peace
Dan

ELI_HOF_NYG
03-16-2013, 06:48 PM
Because restructuring contracts is what has put us in the position we are in now. Eventually the bill comes due. The only thing we can really do that would help is have these players sign extensions take big signing bonuses and spread out the rest.

Bingo, FBomb. we need a sticky which explains all of this.....how contracts work, what restructuring is, defining what the cap is and how it works, UFA vs. RFA, etc, etc,. that would be great and a fun learning tool as I am sure many are in the dark as to how all of this works and why it works this way.

bryan_kilmeade
03-17-2013, 12:40 AM
I don't think it magically frees up cap space, the point I was making which apparently wasn't clear enough (and probably my fault) but what I mean't to convey was that clearly resigning Cruz and Nicks long term is arguably our top priority and everyone has to agree that $47 million on four people is a little ridiculous don't you think?

EJ Blue
03-17-2013, 01:48 AM
Antrel Rolle is making 9 mil this year? for what?

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

fizzlesticks
03-17-2013, 02:00 AM
Antrel Rolle is making 9 mil this year? for what?

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

He's not, that just his cap hit because of restructuring and what not. He is still overpayed though.

gmen0820
03-17-2013, 02:01 AM
Tuck's contract is up after this year, so he's only in line for an extension (puke), or a pay-cut (doubtful).

hungrrrry
03-17-2013, 10:00 AM
I'm no capologist myself and want everything to work out the way I want it to...but I know that wont happen. I agree though, that we should stand pat for 2013 and hope for some surprises instead of expect huge and unrealistic results. I get a good feeling about 2013!

RoanokeFan
03-17-2013, 10:19 AM
Because they assume when a player is cut before his contract expires that the owners aren't honoring thier contracts. Basically, they have no idea what the language of the contract states.

I guess, but still .......

RoanokeFan
03-17-2013, 10:19 AM
Tuck's contract is up after this year, so he's only in line for an extension (puke), or a pay-cut (doubtful).

Tuck had better put in a credible season in 2013

gmen0820
03-17-2013, 10:27 AM
Tuck had better put in a credible season in 2013We'll see. If he doesn't, he's surely gone. If he puts up a real Tuck year, then we'd have to get creative about re-signing him. As for the other big salaries, Eli's deal will probably be completed re-done, Snee might retire next year, and Rolle may just be flat out cut next year.

RoanokeFan
03-17-2013, 10:36 AM
We'll see. If he doesn't, he's surely gone. If he puts up a real Tuck year, then we'd have to get creative about re-signing him. As for the other big salaries, Eli's deal will probably be completed re-done, Snee might retire next year, and Rolle may just be flat out cut next year.

In the meantime, I sure hope they find a way to seriously involve Tracy and Ojomo in the rotation. I agree he'll likely be gone if he repeats his most recent performance.

gmen0820
03-17-2013, 12:15 PM
In the meantime, I sure hope they find a way to seriously involve Tracy and Ojomo in the rotation. I agree he'll likely be gone if he repeats his most recent performance.Although they adjust as fast as a thick milkshake through a coffee straw, Coughlin & Co. usually identify the issue.

I'm sure Tuck is on a far shorter leash this year.

I Bleed Blue 56
03-17-2013, 01:11 PM
I agree with everyone on here saying no to restructring new deals. This is why we are broke now. The cowboys pretty much restructred there whole team. It wont affect them now but their days of signing big names will never be the same. They will have a revolving door of players which is good for us.

Sovereign
03-17-2013, 03:29 PM
Really? If you restructure all of them our cap for the next 3 years would be worse than it is today. And we don't have important FA's on the level of Cruz and Nicks like next year.

Please, if restructure now you're guaranteed to lose Cruz.

dave56dj
03-17-2013, 05:46 PM
What the giants need to do is what they are already doing - reese is no dummy and he isn't fooled by the flashy cars like wallace and kruger. They have released players with hefty contracts who all had injury issues in the last few years at positions they felt had some depth. They have given out 1 year contracts to players who are betting on themselves (bennett) to keep their options open b/c guys like jpp cruz and nicks are running out of options soon. They have kept top ten players with big contracts like eli beatty and the other three just mentioned soon.

Restructuring is far less helpful then pay cuts. The problem with a pay cut is you really have to be willing to cut said player otherwise asking for a pay cut is meaningless. Essentially webster plays for 3 mill less or they have to release him an cwebb took the deal. With snee the giants have no depth - with diehl its probably just a matter of time but still need depth. They can't release rolle due to depth and eli doesn't deserve a cut. They will find space and field a very good team as reese always does. He doesn't do everything right but on the whole he has proven to be a very good gm - love the moves on sat.

Sean Montemayor
03-17-2013, 09:11 PM
What the giants need to do is what they are already doing - reese is no dummy and he isn't fooled by the flashy cars like wallace and kruger. They have released players with hefty contracts who all had injury issues in the last few years at positions they felt had some depth. They have given out 1 year contracts to players who are betting on themselves (bennett) to keep their options open b/c guys like jpp cruz and nicks are running out of options soon. They have kept top ten players with big contracts like eli beatty and the other three just mentioned soon. +1Restructuring is far less helpful then pay cuts. The problem with a pay cut is you really have to be willing to cut said player otherwise asking for a pay cut is meaningless. Essentially webster plays for 3 mill less or they have to release him an cwebb took the deal. With snee the giants have no depth - with diehl its probably just a matter of time but still need depth. They can't release rolle due to depth and eli doesn't deserve a cut. They will find space and field a very good team as reese always does. He doesn't do everything right but on the whole he has proven to be a very good gm - love the moves on sat. +1

tcseacliff
03-17-2013, 09:28 PM
this looks good for the cap! https://twitter.com/TomRock_Newsday/status/313424594612666368

RoanokeFan
03-17-2013, 09:52 PM
The argument that really got under my skin was how Reese "screwed" Osi.

Please screw me for $41M

G-Men Surg.
03-18-2013, 04:38 AM
Please screw me for $41M
That's a lot of srews for 41 mill .

tcseacliff
03-18-2013, 04:41 PM
well, after all he is a potential DPOY ! NOT ! (no red ink needed!)