RDSCNZ20 Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Since we need players to hlep out, how do you guys think that restructuring of contracts will be impacted by an outside coach? I am anxious that players may not want to restructure if the team ripped apart.. KJ and also reading these articles seems like there are angst amongst the players.. why start over again and with a dysfunctional and basically a lying FO.. thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Not sure, but it can't be good. KJ did allude last night that there was a bit of concern among the players with whom she spoke, so there's a good chance that will carry over if he's is hired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoCommiesGo Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 What effect would it have if the majority of players refused to restructure? Our salary cap is built on restructuring contracts, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pranger Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Well, the thing to keep in mind is that it is financially advantageous to the players to restructure, as big $$$$ are converted from salary to guaranteed bonus money. Would a player's (potential) dislike for (an unknown) coach overwhelm his financial self-interest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbws Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Since we need players to hlep out, how do you guys think that restructuring of contracts will be impacted by an outside coach?I am anxious that players may not want to restructure if the team ripped apart.. KJ and also reading these articles seems like there are angst amongst the players.. why start over again and with a dysfunctional and basically a lying FO.. thoughts you mean, "There am angst," right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Well, the thing to keep in mind is that it is financially advantageous to the players to restructure, as big $$$$ are converted from salary to guaranteed bonus money. Would a player's (potential) dislike for (an unknown) coach overwhelm his financial self-interest? Several of these guys have prorated signing bonus dollars due in 2008 that the FO would like to put off a few more years via an extension. They'll get paid regardless whether they re-do their deals, so why should they care. Springs will still get paid, even if he refuses to renegotiate. The FO has no power in his case, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurd Cudins Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Several of these guys have prorated signing bonus dollars due in 2008 that the FO would like to put off a few more years via an extension. They'll get paid regardless whether they re-do their deals, so why should they care.Springs will still get paid, even if he refuses to renegotiate. The FO has no power in his case, for example. This is inaccurate. Prorated signing bonus is money that has already been paid to the player. However, for cap considerations it is allowed to be spread out over a certain number of years. Springs and the other players will receive NO new money if they are released, regardless of prorated SB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tastes Like Chicken Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 How many of the players are wishing for continuity based on their own enlightened self interests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 This is inaccurate. Prorated signing bonus is money that has already been paid to the player. However' date=' for cap considerations it is allowed to be spread out over a certain number of years. Springs and the other players will receive NO new money if they are released, regardless of prorated SB.[/quote']They receive no new money, but its still due on the books. That's my point. Maybe I should have rephrased it, but the point is still what's on the books. They have nothing to gain by reworking their deals, especially if the big dollars are on the back end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 This is inaccurate. Prorated signing bonus is money that has already been paid to the player. However' date=' for cap considerations it is allowed to be spread out over a certain number of years. Springs and the other players will receive NO new money if they are released, regardless of prorated SB.[/quote']Correct. But if released, the prorated bonus still counts against the cap. It's time to blow it up and stop the cap games. Look at the teams out there with good talent who are under the cap. I'm tired of these games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgngld Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Well, the thing to keep in mind is that it is financially advantageous to the players to restructure, as big $$$$ are converted from salary to guaranteed bonus money. Would a player's (potential) dislike for (an unknown) coach overwhelm his financial self-interest? I couldn't agree more. People need to remember, these are PROFESSIONAL football players, not Redskins fans. Most of them don't even know the words to Hail To The Redskins! They will restructure when their agents tell them it is in their interest, and not otherwise. They may be disappointed if they get a new coach, but (as you often hear them say) they understand that this is a business and they'll approach it in that way. And IMO that's exactly what they ought to do as grown, responsible men with families to provide for. Even those who would probably leave (Todd Collins would probably follow Al Saunders) would be doing so because they think it's good for their career, not out of sentiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurd Cudins Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 They receive no new money, but its still due on the books. That's my point. Maybe I should have rephrased it, but the point is still what's on the books. They have nothing to gain by reworking their deals, especially if the big dollars are on the back end.That's not entirely true. it all depends on market value. A player that is asked to renegotiate(not restructure) must ask himself how much he is worth on the open market. Usually, that is less than he would have made, otherwise the team wouldn't be entertaining the idea of releasing him. So then, it becomes an exercise in determining what the players value is and how to structure a new deal. The big problem teams face in doing this is(like you said), prorated SB and even OB money is still on the books and any new money is added to that. We did do something similar to this scenario with Jon Jansen and it doesn't seem to have worked out well because his cap # for 2008 is $8.8M and the only way to bring that down is to guarantee his base salary and prorate it, thus putting off the huge cap hit. The good news is that if we do that, his 2009 # will still be very manageable, but we will be left with a problem in 2010. It's a cash prolongs problems system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 How many of the players are wishing for continuity based on their own enlightened self interests? If building upon their foundation is considered self-interest, then what's wrong with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I'm assuming that most of these guys are pessimistic because they aren't sure if they fit into our plans. Some of them might not be playing in the league if not for Gregg Williams. Therefore, if they are approached to restructure, they would be willing to do so since it means they have another year of job security. That's my take. As loyal as some of them are to the current coaches, I'm sure job security is the major factor in most cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I think some would restructure, others may take what is due to them be cut and go to others teams with a better chance of winning, instead of sticking around a rebuilding team, with not much cap room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corrupt3d Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I kind of hope that some players will not restructure out of spite. Screw Dan, he should learn a lesson. He didnt learn it from one of the best coaches in the game, maybe 53 players can teach it to him, that rat ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Most re-structures are simply turning salary into guaranteed up-front bonus money. Some are extensions with, again, more money guaranteed and up-front. As was said, these are in the players' financial self interest and there is no reason to think they will deny themselves money to spite the team. Think about if your boss offered to pay half of your year's salary to you now and you could keep it even if you got laid off or fired. Would you really consider saying "No, because I'm mad at you"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Most players will restrucutre because if the choice is a lot of money in August versus trying to find a job in June, the choice is easy. Every year, I am simply amazed at how many people on this site have no idea what "restructuring" is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.