Late night bullshit: How the Chiefs make Desean Jackson cap friendly.

[Direckshun]

Pretty simple.

The Chiefs really want Desean Jackson, but they don't have a lot of cap space in 2014.

Desean Jackson really wants to play for the Chiefs, namely their coach, but he wants his payday.

How do you make these two pieces fit?

In negotiation theory, a compromise is when both sides of a dispute both sacrifice a little in order to achieve something.

However, a collaboration is when both sides get what they want from the dispute, and nobody has to sacrifice much of anything.

The solution, my friends, is in four words: the Eagles dead money.

Desean Jackson gets $10m in dead money from Philly over the next three years.

$6m in 2014
$2m in 2015
$2m in 2016

Since I'm not concerned about our cap number in 2015 (regardless of the recent thread decrying our lack of cap space, we're going to make strategic cuts that will give us around $40m pre-Houston-extension) or 2016, we obviously need to make 2014 work.

Well, the Eagles pretty much did that for us. Jackson's guaranteed $6m from them. All we need to do is pony up something like $6m, and boom, we get Jackson for a deal, and he gets paid like a mother****er.

We can pay him comfortably in 2015 and 2016, even load some guaranteed money in there. In 2017, we can have something set up to give us flexibility to cut him if we need to.

Both sides get exactly what they want without having to sacrifice anything.

The Chiefs can, and should, land Desean Jackson.

[TribalElder]

He wants a new deal every year

[OldSchool]

Originally Posted by TribalElder

He wants a new deal every year

Structure it so that we can cut him by the time his wheels start to fall off. He's a WR who lives and dies by his speed and quickness. Backload the deal to years 2016 and beyond and it won't be much of a problem because we should be able to cut him without taking a huge cap hit once he hits 30+ where most small speed WRs really start to drop off.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Pretty simple.

The Chiefs really want Desean Jackson, but they don't have a lot of cap space in 2014.

Desean Jackson really wants to play for the Chiefs, namely their coach, but he wants his payday.

How do you make these two pieces fit?

In negotiation theory, a compromise is when both sides of a dispute both sacrifice a little in order to achieve something.

However, a collaboration is when both sides get what they want from the dispute, and nobody has to sacrifice much of anything.

The solution, my friends, is in four words: the Eagles dead money.

Desean Jackson gets $10m in dead money from Philly over the next three years.

$6m in 2014
$2m in 2015
$2m in 2016

Since I'm not concerned about our cap number in 2015 (regardless of the recent thread decrying our lack of cap space, we're going to make strategic cuts that will give us around $40m pre-Houston-extension) or 2016, we obviously need to make 2014 work.

Well, the Eagles pretty much did that for us. Jackson's guaranteed $6m from them. All we need to do is pony up something like $6m, and boom, we get Jackson for a deal, and he gets paid like a mother****er.

We can pay him comfortably in 2015 and 2016, even load some guaranteed money in there. In 2017, we can have something set up to give us flexibility to cut him if we need to.

Both sides get exactly what they want without having to sacrifice anything.

The Chiefs can, and should, land Desean Jackson.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say dead money.

Normally dead money means that a team is counting money against the cap that has already been paid to player that has since left the team. Which means that Jackson already has that money and won't be getting paid more from Philly.

Unless you mean something else by 'dead money', you're mistaken.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

I'm not sure what you mean when you say dead money.

Normally dead money means that a team is counting money against the cap that has already been paid to player than has left the team. Which means that Jackson already has that money from philly and it won't be getting more.

Unless you mean something else, you're mistaken.

Fair point.

When does he get it, then? I always figured if "dead money" was allocated to a particular year, than that's the year he receives it.

[J Diddy]

Before I comment is this a "the world is ending thread" or a "**** yeah desean jackson" thread?

[RippedmyFlesh]

Originally Posted by TribalElder

He wants a new deal every year

The good thing is it would be Dorsey dealing with that instead of a coach who likes him. I think it would work.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Fair point.

When does he get it, then? I always figured if "dead money" was allocated to a particular year, than that's the year he receives it.

I think Laz is right. Dead money means it was part of a bonus or guaranteed payment in the past.

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Fair point.

When does he get it, then? I always figured if "dead money" was allocated to a particular year, than that's the year he receives it.

He already has it.

example

player A signs contract for 5 years, with a signing bonus of 20 million.

That mean he receives 20 million dollars all at once, when the contract is signed. But that 20 million doesn't hit the teams cap all at once, it is prorated over the length of the 5 yr contract. 4 million each year x 5 = 20 million.
say the player gets cut after year 4 of the contract



Now the team still has 4 million leftover in 'dead money' against it's cap for the 5th year of that contract, even though the player is gone.

Dead money is just a term used to talk about salary cap impact

[keg in kc]

Jackson to here would be such a monumentally positive move (assuming he doesn't end up being Aaron Hernandez 2.0...) that the cynical side of me says there's no way it could ever happen.

[Mr. Laz]

Players love 'dead money' because it's really double-dipping, they are getting paid by 2 teams for the same season. Some players seem to do it on purpose.

Player A gets a new contract ... insists on big signing bonus

Player A then starts being such a complete prick that team doesn't want him anymore. He still performs on the field to keep his market value up but causes such problems behind the scenes that he gets cut

Player A then moves on to another team, with another signing bonus, gets paid again

10 million signing bonus from the 1st team even though he never finish the contract
10 million signing bonus from the 2nd team

Terrell Owens did such a masterful job of it that the league started writing stuff into the contracts to try and stop it.

The last CBA even has a clause in it about double dipping iirc.

[Iconic]

So in other words, our only option at this point is to restructure contracts?

[Mr. Laz]

Originally Posted by Iconic

So in other words, our only option at this point is to restructure contracts?

depends on how much Jackson wants to get paid

Since he seems to want a new contact every other year i imagine he is going to want a brand new contract compared to a top 10 wr. He won't give 2 shits that he bailed on philly with signing bonus money.

It's why i don't trust him

seems like a real weasel to me

[BullJunkandIron]

If we did sign him he would play like crap. Rison 2.0

[salame]

I heard somewhere the chiefs have limited cap space