+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 78 of 78

Thread: Pat Traina with her thoughts after studying cap situation - she knows her stuff

  1. #71
    All-Pro slipknottin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    34,029
    Quote Originally Posted by pathas View Post
    a player can defer a portion of his non guaranteed salary to a future year without changing what guaranteed money he has coming from the signing bonus - which is the only thing that's guaranteed, I believe. But maybe I am wrong about this. I think Brady did that last year.
    Huh? A signing bonus is guaranteed money. You mean a player could push off getting the signing bonus for a year? How would that help the team or the player? A signing bonus is distributed through the entire contract regardless.

    If you mean a player could defer his base salary, then it just makes them a far more likely release candidate in the future.

  2. #72
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    2,116
    Quote Originally Posted by slipknottin View Post
    Huh? A signing bonus is guaranteed money. You mean a player could push off getting the signing bonus for a year? How would that help the team or the player? A signing bonus is distributed through the entire contract regardless.

    If you mean a player could defer his base salary, then it just makes them a far more likely release candidate in the future.
    that's what I said - the base is not guaranteed and it can be deferred. So you're right - that would make them a far more likely release candidate in the future. Thus - that would be a restructure not in favor of the player. Flip Empty said restructures are ALWAYS in the favor of the player and I don't think I agree with that - but then I can't site any specific examples. So again - maybe I am wrong - but I think I'm right - and that's what matters.

  3. #73
    Moderator RoanokeFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    92,948
    Quote Originally Posted by ShakeandBake View Post
    Brown was toasted in coverage plenty of times last year, and Will Hill hasn't played enough to say one way or another.

    +1
    “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” MB Rule # 1


  4. #74
    All-Pro Drez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    12,316
    Quote Originally Posted by pathas View Post
    that's what I said - the base is not guaranteed and it can be deferred. So you're right - that would make them a far more likely release candidate in the future. Thus - that would be a restructure not in favor of the player. Flip Empty said restructures are ALWAYS in the favor of the player and I don't think I agree with that - but then I can't site any specific examples. So again - maybe I am wrong - but I think I'm right - and that's what matters.
    Restructure always do benefit the player. It turns non-guaranteed money into guaranateed money. Slip was just saying that if a player could defer base salary, then it would make them more likely to be released (as a cap casualty) before that money is due to them.

  5. #75
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    2,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Drez View Post
    Restructure always do benefit the player. It turns non-guaranteed money into guaranateed money. Slip was just saying that if a player could defer base salary, then it would make them more likely to be released (as a cap casualty) before that money is due to them.
    so what you are saying is that a player has NEVER deferred a part of his base salary??? I don't believe it. But maybe that's true.

  6. #76
    All-Pro Drez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    12,316
    Quote Originally Posted by pathas View Post
    so what you are saying is that a player has NEVER deferred a part of his base salary??? I don't believe it. But maybe that's true.
    Why would a player defer part of his base salary? Have you ever gone up to your boss and said, "Hey, business sucked this week, so you can give me 25% this week's pay this week two weeks from now."

  7. #77
    All-Pro slipknottin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    34,029
    Quote Originally Posted by pathas View Post
    that's what I said - the base is not guaranteed and it can be deferred. So you're right - that would make them a far more likely release candidate in the future. Thus - that would be a restructure not in favor of the player. Flip Empty said restructures are ALWAYS in the favor of the player and I don't think I agree with that - but then I can't site any specific examples. So again - maybe I am wrong - but I think I'm right - and that's what matters.
    Thats not a restructure then. Thats agreeing to a new contract. Restructure is only moving base salary to signing bonus.

    I have never heard of any player pushing his base salary back a season. Why would a player ever agree to that unless they changed a portion of it to guaranteed money.

  8. #78
    All-Pro Drez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    12,316
    Quote Originally Posted by slipknottin View Post
    Thats not a restructure then. Thats agreeing to a new contract. Restructure is only moving base salary to signing bonus.

    I have never heard of any player pushing his base salary back a season. Why would a player ever agree to that unless they changed a portion of it to guaranteed money.
    Exactly. It just doesn't make sense for the player to do it.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts