Discussion in 'The National Football League' started by texansalltheway, Feb 2, 2005.
If we cut a player do we still have to pay them and does that still count against the cap.
Generally salary that would have been earned in the future does not go on the cap, but any prorated signing bonuses that have not already been accounted for must go on the cap.
If a player is cut, the team must still count:
1. (as infantrycak said) any prorated signing bonuses that have not already been accounted for must go on the cap
2. any future guaranteed moneys
Do you guys see us cutting anyone for cap space? McKinney, Wong, Foreman?
Is there such a thing in the NFL? Signing bonuses are paid. Salary and future roster bonuses are not guaranteed. Am I missing anything?
In a cap sense, all three are eligible to be cut. If cut, a managable amount of their remining signing bonus would hit this years cap as 'dead money' (ie bonus paid but yet to accrue as part of the cap).
Future guarantees are definitely not the norm in the NFL, but I have heard passing references to contracts with say $15 mil in guaranteed money with a $10 mil signing bonus. Now maybe the folks saying it are just wrong or maybe some contracts are now being written with guaranteed money paid at different points.
NFL contracts have to get by the league office and be in compliance with the collective bargaining agreement. I didn't think future money was allowed. If it was, I would think every star player would demand it.
Lately, there has been talk of Terrell Owens contract becoming guaranteed if he plays without getting clearance from the doctors. I suspect what they mean is that it the future portion of his contract would esentially be his injury settlement if the Eagles let him play without a medical release. I doubt the contract reads that his contract becomes guaranteed.
It won't let me cut and paste from this NFLPA article but look at the bottom half of page two. It says no-cut contracts are a rarity. That seems to imply they do occur and at least are not prohibited.
That seems strange. The players are always complaining that baseball players have guaranteed contracts but they don't. If it were possible, I'm surprised we haven't seen more. There have been lots of players with tons of leverage.
Further, if they are possible, but they don't occur (as opposed to 'not allowed under a collective bargaining agreement') then that suggests collution on the part of the owners to prevent players but having guaranteed contracts. The owners have better 'cover' if they are not allowed under the collective bargaining agreement.
to be cut:
bet the house.
Separate names with a comma.