Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 10544950)

It just costs a little bit more up front. And when you cut a player (or negotiate a new contract) in the last few years of that deal (which is general practice), you save less actual money (though the cap savings are the same) because you gave more of it in a signing bonus on the front end.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 10544950)

Handing out a big signing bonus almost always leads to more guaranteed money (and increases the team's "true cash" payroll for that year).

Yes, the signing bonus still counts against the cap... but adding more money to the bonus allows you to be more creative as a team to create cap space in years you need it while still speading the cost out over the rest of the contract.

It just costs a little bit more up front. And when you cut a player (or negotiate a new contract) in the last few years of that deal (which is general practice), you save less actual money (though the cap savings are the same) because you gave more of it in a signing bonus on the front end.

Contract A: 5 years, $50 million ($15 million signing bonus)
1: $5 million (cap hit $8 million)
2: $6 million (cap hit $9 million)
3: $6 million (cap hit $9 million)
4: $8 million (cap hit $11 million)
5: $10 million (cap hit $13 million)

Contract B: 5 years, $50 million ($5 million bonus)
1: $7 million ($8 million)
2: $8 million ($9 million)
3: $8 million ($9 million)
4: $10 million ($11 million)
5: $12 million ($13 million)

In these cases the contract value and dollars and cap hits work out the exact same way. In both cases, you've got a player who is a good candidate for a cut after year. In Contract A, you will have paid said player $32 million. In Contract B, you will have paid said player $28 million ( but saved $4 million in cash).

The bigger the bonuses, the more that different grows. For example, if you bumped Contract A's signing bonus out to $20 million (and subtracted $1 million from each year's actual salary to balance the extra $5 million bonus out while leaving the cap hit the same), you would have paid the player $34 million by the time you hit year 4, the obvious cut/renegotiate year.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10544960)

This is actually a very important point and has nothing to do with the cap.

A signing bonus is just that, a bonus. It's paid. If you give a player a big bonus and then cut him 2 years later, that is cash you will never get back, regardless of the cap ramifications.

Think of it as an investment. The more guaranteed money, the bigger the risk. It's not that Clark is cheap. He's risk averse. He doesn't want to invest in an uncertain future. Just look at the money he's given to front office staff. Regardless of how those moves turned out, none of the guys he's hired have been overly risky.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10544973)

Negotiating a high signing bonus gives you less flexibility to tinker in future years. Restructuring contracts prematurely (I'm assuming you are talking about Hali and Flowers) means pushing today's guaranteed money and spreading that over a few years, making them more difficult to cut when they're 33 without racking up a good chunk of dead money.

I'm glad we're having this conversation because I don't disagree with anything you're saying (even if I called you out earlier). But people have to stop saying that it's because we're being cheap. It has nothing to do with that. Some people are okay taking more of an "all in now" approach even if that means racking up some debt in future years. That's what you're basically implying. That's fine. But that isn't an argument about how much the Chiefs spend in total. That is an argument about whether you spend more of that upfront or if you'd rather free up money for future spending.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 10544991)

In my example, the team IS saving $4 million (in the first example) or $6 million (in the second example, with the bigger bonus) over the course of the non-cut contract in guaranteed money, because of the bigger bonus.

That's a not-insignificant amount (12-18 percent).

It's a cap management issue, yes. But there's also (as htismaque pointed out) a risk aversion factor. And a savings in ultimate cash outlay.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10545018)

In the example you listed above, if you are spreading $15M over 5 years, you are essentially guaranteeing the contract for 4 years. It isn't until year 4 that the dead money becomes remotely reasonable and even then, to cut the guy you'd be paying $6M in dead money. In the second example, you have the flexibility to cut the guy loose. Restructuring a contract prematurely is the same deal (Berry is different, because his contract is actually in prime position for a restructure). You are creating a little more guarantee in future years of the contract. It's why a lot of teams don't rely on free agency as their primary offseason strategy.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 10545022)

Cap hit to cut in Year 4 would be $3 million, with $3 million hitting the following year.

Not ideal, but not an insurmountable obstacle (and still a significant savings over what the cap hit otherwise would be).

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10545029)

Cap hit to cut in year 4 is $6M. It's a $15M signing bonus prorated by $3M over 5 years. $15M to cut in year 1, $12M in year 2, $9M in year 3, $6M in year 4.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 10542852)

I think too many people place far too much blame on Bob Sutton for the collapse in the second half of the season, while also failing to recognize the talent that is already in place, and failing to recognize how much the glaring weakness at FS impacted that talent's ability to perform, as well as Sutton's ability to make adjustment's.

Flowers and Sean Smith, both are guys that are far better in coverage when lining up tight and playing physical man at the snap.

Neither are that competent in off coverage.

Marcus Cooper is just learning, but showed he can play physical man, as well.
He didn't work at playing in off coverage, but with practice might grow into that role as well.

that being the case, early in the season, this defense thrived playing physical man from the snap, but over the course of the first half, teams began to see the glaring weakness that Kendrick Lewis was.

This secondary didn't get exposed because the Chiefs played better QBs.
It got exposed because teams adjusted and game planned to attack that weakness.

Guys like (what his name?) Jeff Tuel and Case Keenum took advantage of it.
Sutton adjusted by backing Flowers, Smith and Cooper off the line, essentially playing their weakness to take the big plays away.

It didn't work.

We have a talented core on the defense, and a competent free safety, not a great one you, but a competent one, would have a huge impact on this defense.

I have no issue with not persuing DeSean Jackson.

My issue is failing to persue a FS in free agency.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 10544990)

Good post.
At the same time, let's keep in mind that they outbid other teams for Reid and I'm assuming Dorsey. They even let them hire in consultants beyond a normal coaching staff like Childress. It's hard to say the Chiefs are cheap. Conservative, yes. Cheap? No.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 10545037)

If you cut after June 1, they are charged the regular prorated cap amount for that year, and the remainder for the following year.

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho (Post 10545022)

Cap hit to cut in Year 4 would be $3 million, with $3 million hitting the following year.

Not ideal, but not an insurmountable obstacle (and still a significant savings over what the cap hit otherwise would be).