Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501
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.
|
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.