Brian Winters Contract Details

[JetPotato]

I hate to buck a good trend, but Mac knows what he's doing.

[Jet9]

7 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

I know you think it is a joke, but that is the job of the GM.  Projecting how a players will perform is his job.  I don't give a **** if he uses a crystal ball, but he'd better start doing a better job of it.

He just did. 

[Dcat]

4 minutes ago, Jet9 said:

He just did. 

Indeed!

[LionelRichie]

8 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

I know you think it is a joke, but that is the job of the GM.  Projecting how a players will perform is his job.  I don't give a **** if he uses a crystal ball, but he'd better start doing a better job of it.

Exactly.   

The crystal ball better be telling him that Winters can recover from the torn rotator cuff in time for the season.   otherwise he just spent 15M for 1 season of a very average RG.  

[Mogglez]

That's a phenomenal deal.  I don't see how anyone could have an issue with a contract like that.

[Joe Jets fan]

47 minutes ago, Mogglez said:

That's a phenomenal deal.  I don't see how anyone could have an issue with a contract like that.

Because many posters here are dumb as hell and hate EVERYTHING the Jets do.  

[20andOut]

1 hour ago, LionelRichie said:

The crystal ball better be telling him that Winters can recover from the torn rotator cuff in time for the season.   otherwise he just spent 15M for 1 season of a very average RG.  

No expert but I think Rotator cuff issues are more of a long term issue for pitchers and QBs (Chad) rotating shoulder to throw. Don't think recovery is expected to be an issue for a lineman.

On another note this defintely seems to be the contract structure that Macc likes to go with. Garauntee a couple years up front so if there are problems after a year or two you are not screwed by a lingering cap hit  for remaining signing bonus. I like it. Just not sure about the point or effect of making first year almost all Roster bonus rather than just garaunteed salary.

[Joe Jets fan]

25 minutes ago, 20andOut said:

No expert but I think Rotator cuff issues are more of a long term issue for pitchers and QBs (Chad) rotating shoulder to throw. Don't think recovery is expected to be an issue for a lineman.

On another note this defintely seems to be the contract structure that Macc likes to go with. Garauntee a couple years up front so if there are problems after a year or two you are not screwed by a lingering cap hit  for remaining signing bonus. I like it. Just not sure about the point or effect of making first year almost all Roster bonus rather than just garaunteed salary.

Because then Winters gets the bonus up front.  Instead of week by week. Better then a signing bonus because all cap charge in year one. 

[j4jets]

4 hours ago, JetPotato said:

I hate to buck a good trend, but Mac knows what he's doing.

Not really.

[20andOut]

8 hours ago, Joe Jets fan said:

Because then Winters gets the bonus up front.  Instead of week by week. Better then a signing bonus because all cap charge in year one. 

Understand difference in cap charge vs signing bonus just not sure what the advantage of roster bonus over garaunteed salary (assuming no suspensions)

[Sperm Edwards]

22 hours ago, thshadow said:

I like the fact that Macc pretty much does not use signing bonuses.  So all cap hits are up front - there are none of these backend charges that prevent someone from being cut and/or lead to dead money.

It also makes it easy to think about the contract.  $8M guaranteed the 1st year, $7M guaranteed the 2nd year, and then nothing guaranteed after that.

 

Despite undeserved credit for this, it makes no difference. It all comes from the same pot. You're still paying it, so it still comes off. Only difference is it comes off earlier. 

It makes the math slightly easier at a quick glance, or likening it to a household budget, but in the end it accomplishes nothing unless structured poorly. Especially since he still, like other GMs, restructures players a year or two into their contract, to lower the current cap number.

The only time up front bonus money is bad is when an obvious non-contender uses this method to increase the spending limit for the current non-contending season, like he's done in the past. If bonus money is used to create flexibility, but he team doesn't max out the cap, then it's 6 in one half dozen in the other. Mathematically it makes no difference.

[Sperm Edwards]

@thshadow

Say a player is on a 2 yr $20m deal to make the math really easy. Year 1 $10m and year 2 $10m. Well if you instead gave a $6m sign bonus, followed by $4m salary in year 1 and $10m in year 2, it lowers the player's y1 cap # to $7m (and raises the y2 cap #  to $13m). What if the team just did that to have a rainy day fund during the season, but ultimately still finishes the year with $3m unspent? It gets pushed to the next season.

Unless structured really poorly, the main effect is it raises and lowers the spending limits for different years more than anything else. Year 1, in my example, he may have only counted $7m, but by having $3m leftover the effect is we lowered the team's spending limit by $3m in y1, thereby raising it by $3m in y2. If the cap limit was $150m, what's he difference if we used $7m allocation on this player on $147m cap charges, followed by $13m allocation on $153 cap charges? None, in terms of the amount left to spend on other players. It bothers fans to see the high line item for y2, but it's the same money on the same budget.

That only changes if we do this manipulation, then continue to fully max out spending, on a foolhardy endeavor when there's no realistic chance that season. But if done in an effort to push a realistic contender over the top, even if it ultimately fails, I can't fault a GM's effort to assemble the best contender possible when SB chances are truly realistic. Signing/option bonuses are useful tools for cap manipulation if used right. If the tool is unused just to save the GM from himself, then find a more disciplined GM instead.

[Sperm Edwards]

9 hours ago, Joe Jets fan said:

Because then Winters gets the bonus up front.  Instead of week by week. Better then a signing bonus because all cap charge in year one. 

Lol. That makes no difference whatsoever. It's neither a good thing nor a bad thing either way. Flip a coin and pick one. 

[Sperm Edwards]

20 hours ago, Tinstar said:

Thank you for taking the time.  I guess I just don't understand why you would give him 15 mil guaranteed and then say he has to be on the rooster for 7 mil of it to be guaranteed that 1st year .

The reason is to give the player money earlier in a lump sum instead of getting it later in weekly installments (salary). Players like that. I'd like that better and so would you. For team cap management, there's really no difference other than writing a larger check earlier.

I didn't read anywhere that his roster bonus is paid in September for making the "final" roster, the way you're thinking of all roster bonuses. It can be - and typically is - as bonus for simply being on the Jets roster at whatever arbitrary time they've chosen. For example: March 9, when the 2017 league year officially begins.

[JetFreak89]

Bottom line that a lot are missing is that yes, Mac has slightly overpaid for some of our recent signings but he does so in order to keep the contracts short and to not tie up $ in the future. This is a great plan since we know we aren't going to HAVE to pay any superstars in the near future (read Franchise QB). This protects us from going into cap hell like we did with Tanny.

Also, unlike Tanny, if a player is producing (like Carpenter) we can restructure their contract and push $ down the road knowing that they are still young and their solid play will likely continue. Contrast this with Tanny who routinely restructured the contracts of our overpriced, older vets in order to create space which only exacerbates the issue.


Sent from my iPad using JetNation.com mobile app

[Bleedin Green]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Despite undeserved credit for this, it makes no difference. It all comes from the same pot. You're still paying it, so it still comes off. Only difference is it comes off earlier. 

It makes the math slightly easier at a quick glance, or likening it to a household budget, but in the end it accomplishes nothing unless structured poorly. Especially since he still, like other GMs, restructures players a year or two into their contract, to lower the current cap number.

The only time up front bonus money is bad is when an obvious non-contender uses this method to increase the spending limit for the current non-contending season, like he's done in the past. If bonus money is used to create flexibility, but he team doesn't max out the cap, then it's 6 in one half dozen in the other. Mathematically it makes no difference.

In the older days moves like this were a bit of a bigger deal, but ever since they've implemented the whole concept of the rolling cap, you're right that it really does not make any difference.  In the past, instead the GMs had to keep moving around money in order not to "waste" space, but wisely they've done away with that.  What really becomes the key factor more than anything is the total amount of fully guaranteed money in the contract.  That money can be moved around however the team likes, but as you said, in the end it will all be coming from the same place.

That said, there is some purely psychological benefit that can come with that, as right or wrong, there tends to be a much greater hesitancy for players to be cut when there would be any significant cap hit that would come along with it from past bonuses, even if it all nets out the same.

[Sperm Edwards]

18 minutes ago, JetFreak89 said:

Bottom line that a lot are missing is that yes, Mac has slightly overpaid for some of our recent signings but he does so in order to keep the contracts short and to not tie up $ in the future. This is a great plan since we know we aren't going to HAVE to pay any superstars in the near future (read Franchise QB). This protects us from going into cap hell like we did with Tanny.

Also, unlike Tanny, if a player is producing (like Carpenter) we can restructure their contract and push $ down the road knowing that they are still young and their solid play will likely continue. Contrast this with Tanny who routinely restructured the contracts of our overpriced, older vets in order to create space which only exacerbates the issue.


Sent from my iPad using JetNation.com mobile app

That all sounds great, but literally none of this is correct, unfortunately.

There is no evidence that any player gets a higher amount per year if it's a shorter contract. These aren't car payments, where spreading it out lowers your annual nut. If anything the average amount would be the higher on a longer deal, because every agent/player knows there is cap inflation annually, and they don't want to lock themselves into a lower amount for longer. 

Restructuring mid-contract, for the players we have/had, has nothing to do with anything other than the same GM previously+currently spending above our means. For example, Carpenter was restructured for one reason only: to temporarily carry Wilkerson's higher franchise tag amount. In the end, Carpenter gets paid the same number of dollars and the net is zero. But what does it matter if the higher current cap charges belong to Wilkerson or Carpenter? None, of course. Then in September, Skrine was restructured to keep a rainy day fund for the upcoming season. If that money went unused, while he'd count a few million more in the future it also comes with a few million more in higher future cap ceilings by an equal amount dollar for dollar: the net benefit is zero.

To your last points, Mo is an example of an overpriced vet, whom Maccagnan effectively restructured from his franchise tag amount, to create additional space today. On paper - particularly since he knew Mo's tendencies behind the scenes, in ways from which fans were shielded - he was better off continuing to tag Mo twice. Same money; lower (year to year) risk for the team; greater incentive for the player to keep producing every year instead of dogging it & acting like a tool in year 1 (which he did). What was he worried about, having to fork over a $22m/year contract to a 29 year old Mo in 2018? He wouldn't command that kind of contract, so for that reason and the other reasons I just listed, the extension was stupid and shortsighted.

Two weeks later he did that and worse with Fitzpatrick, using $12m of 2017's spending ability on this overpriced veteran. $5m of it directly in the form of dead cap space, and $7m indirectly in others' restructures plus space that would have otherwise simply carried over. Very Tannenbaum-esque. 

[Sperm Edwards]

1 minute ago, Bleedin Green said:

In the older days moves like this were a bit of a bigger deal, but ever since they've implemented the whole concept of the rolling cap, you're right that it really does not make any difference.  In the past, instead the GMs had to keep moving around money in order not to "waste" space, but wisely they've done away with that.  What really becomes the key factor more than anything is the total amount of fully guaranteed money in the contract.  That money can be moved around however the team likes, but as you said, in the end it will all be coming from the same place.

That said, there is some purely psychological benefit that can come with that, as right or wrong, there tends to be a much greater hesitancy for players to be cut when there would be any significant cap hit that would come along with it from past bonuses, even if it all nets out the same.

Thank you.

This concept of "no dead cap space for cutting early" sounds great, and looks neater on a spreadsheet, but the net benefit is zero unless the GM is an undisciplined spender, for whom money burns a hole in his pocket.

People are giving undue credit here, even in paying a greater amount for lesser players they'd have equally credited if we'd gone without, due to the cap scheduling of those amounts. There is nothing special about it deserving of such credit. If you have a player count less in the current year, it's only a problem if the GM is undisciplined enough to still continue to max out the current year's cap by pissing it away on temporary players that still won't get us over the hump (*cough* Fitzpatrick *cough*), instead of carrying that extra current space forward to the following year. All it [having it hit the current year more] does is save the GM from himself and there is no other mathematical benefit. If that's needed, to the point where doing so is heralded as saving the team from a GM overspending on more (on I guess more players they believe would be unneeded), then the GM himself is the problem.

How that is not transparently clear is a head scratcher, unless it's just misplaced hero/idol worship.

[chirorob]

Basically, it's a 2 year deal with 2 team options at about 7 million per.

[thshadow]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Thank you.

This concept of "no dead cap space for cutting early" sounds great, and looks neater on a spreadsheet, but the net benefit is zero unless the GM is an undisciplined spender, for whom money burns a hole in his pocket.

Well, using a signing bonus is like borrowing money from your future cap.  You say that's fine unless you do something stupid.  I would rephrase that as it's stupid unless you have a really good reason.

Because no, no GM that I know of has borrowed money from the future cap - and then saved it...  Yes, they *could* - but that's like saying the Jets *could* make a good pick in the 2nd round.

 

[JetFreak89]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

That all sounds great, but literally none of this is correct, unfortunately.

There is no evidence that any player gets a higher amount per year if it's a shorter contract. These aren't car payments, where spreading it out lowers your annual nut. If anything the average amount would be the higher on a longer deal, because every agent/player knows there is cap inflation annually, and they don't want to lock themselves into a lower amount for longer. 

Restructuring mid-contract, for the players we have/had, has nothing to do with anything other than the same GM previously+currently spending above our means. For example, Carpenter was restructured for one reason only: to temporarily carry Wilkerson's higher franchise tag amount. In the end, Carpenter gets paid the same number of dollars and the net is zero. But what does it matter if the higher current cap charges belong to Wilkerson or Carpenter? None, of course. Then in September, Skrine was restructured to keep a rainy day fund for the upcoming season. If that money went unused, while he'd count a few million more in the future it also comes with a few million more in higher future cap ceilings by an equal amount dollar for dollar: the net benefit is zero.

To your last points, Mo is an example of an overpriced vet, whom Maccagnan effectively restructured from his franchise tag amount, to create additional space today. On paper - particularly since he knew Mo's tendencies behind the scenes, in ways from which fans were shielded - he was better off continuing to tag Mo twice. Same money; lower (year to year) risk for the team; greater incentive for the player to keep producing every year instead of dogging it & acting like a tool in year 1 (which he did). What was he worried about, having to fork over a $22m/year contract to a 29 year old Mo in 2018? He wouldn't command that kind of contract, so for that reason and the other reasons I just listed, the extension was stupid and shortsighted.

Two weeks later he did that and worse with Fitzpatrick, using $12m of 2017's spending ability on this overpriced veteran. $5m of it directly in the form of dead cap space, and $7m indirectly in others' restructures plus space that would have otherwise simply carried over. Very Tannenbaum-esque. 

You are right, these aren't car payments, a car can't say "No, I don't want to be sold to this person". It seems you are forgetting that there is a negotiation between two parties of inherently different interests. Sure the Jets could have offered Winters a short-term contract which paid him as a low tier Guard, but Winters would have (and probably did) reject that. The Jets don't want to offer him a long-term contract because they probably feel that they could find a better replacement in the next few years. I think they are right.If they offered him a long term contract, it likely would have been for less $ overall but more money guaranteed over the course of the contract. That is a pretty typical give/take between players and teams. 

The rest of the post is just you arguing semantics. Yes, restructuring ends in a net zero benefit, but no one is arguing that restructuring adds or subtracts money from a contract. When you are talking about moving money, you are talking about cap hit. The important thing is not when an actual check is cashed, it's the flexibility created in a certain year. There is a big difference in having flexibility in one year versus the other. It matters who the cap charges are attached to when you are talking about players that either will or won't be on the team because you are too close to the cap limit. You can argue after the fact whether that flexibility was utilized correctly but put simply, that's just an opinion using hindsight.  

I think it's entirely fair to compare with Tanny because as well all can recall, there were a number of older players that were on the team towards the end of his tenure solely because the cap hit would have been too high to cut them. This effects of this are still evident with the team with the lack of skilled depth at a number of positions. 

[Joe Jets fan]

5 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Lol. That makes no difference whatsoever. It's neither a good thing nor a bad thing either way. Flip a coin and pick one. 

No difference for the Jets but big difference for the player, he gets his money when roster bonus used and not over 17 weeks.  

 

Unless i I am missing something 

[CanadaSteve]

We all get it....people hate Mac, he should be fired, we should hire a new GM....wash and repeat in 2-4 years.

[Sperm Edwards]

11 hours ago, thshadow said:

Well, using a signing bonus is like borrowing money from your future cap.  You say that's fine unless you do something stupid.  I would rephrase that as it's stupid unless you have a really good reason.

Because no, no GM that I know of has borrowed money from the future cap - and then saved it...  Yes, they *could* - but that's like saying the Jets *could* make a good pick in the 2nd round.

 

No it isn't borrowing money from your future unless you use it.

No GM that you know of? Well look up spending limits, and you'll see some teams have more than the league allocated amount. Each one of them, and example of a GM that has issued signing bonuses to players and left that extra flexibility unused.

A child feels he has to spend money because just because he has it, even when better judgment dictates saving it for the future. Is Maccagnan a child?

[joenamathwouldn'tcry]

Quote

 

 Aside from all the bickering back and forth about the reading and cognitive abilities of the Jets Nation posters, I think this is a good deal for the team.  Winters is aggressive, strong at the point of attack, nasty, and a good run blocker, attributes that too few of his peers on this team possess. He'll keep up his end of the contract,  Hear that Darell ?

[Sperm Edwards]

10 hours ago, JetFreak89 said:

You are right, these aren't car payments, a car can't say "No, I don't want to be sold to this person". It seems you are forgetting that there is a negotiation between two parties of inherently different interests. Sure the Jets could have offered Winters a short-term contract which paid him as a low tier Guard, but Winters would have (and probably did) reject that. The Jets don't want to offer him a long-term contract because they probably feel that they could find a better replacement in the next few years. I think they are right.If they offered him a long term contract, it likely would have been for less $ overall but more money guaranteed over the course of the contract. That is a pretty typical give/take between players and teams. 

The rest of the post is just you arguing semantics. Yes, restructuring ends in a net zero benefit, but no one is arguing that restructuring adds or subtracts money from a contract. When you are talking about moving money, you are talking about cap hit. The important thing is not when an actual check is cashed, it's the flexibility created in a certain year. There is a big difference in having flexibility in one year versus the other. It matters who the cap charges are attached to when you are talking about players that either will or won't be on the team because you are too close to the cap limit. You can argue after the fact whether that flexibility was utilized correctly but put simply, that's just an opinion using hindsight.  

I think it's entirely fair to compare with Tanny because as well all can recall, there were a number of older players that were on the team towards the end of his tenure solely because the cap hit would have been too high to cut them. This effects of this are still evident with the team with the lack of skilled depth at a number of positions. 

So the answer is in the end, because Maccagnan didn't strike a deal then that's proof that a deal couldn't be struck. Convenient position to take, except Maccagnan has earned no such benefit of the doubt thus far. Quite the contrary, if anything.

What just happened is the exception rather than the rule. Winters is now only the 3rd starting guard in the NFL who remained with his team despite a failure to sign an extension prior to completion of his final season. Hey, good for Winters for cashing in. He played Maccagnan like a fiddle, which is something of a theme already. But had we let him go and someone else gave Winters this same contract, there is no doubt the same people applauding Maccagnan now would still be applauding him just as loudly for walking away from the same deal.

Next, you speak of flexibility, but then ignore that it makes no mathematical difference whether a signing bonus or roster bonus is issued, for a team having (or that soon will have) plenty of cap space. It isn't a matter of opinion; it's just math. If anything, the lesser amount of flexibility - mathematically - is to offer a roster bonus instead of a signing bonus. That is, if the GM can be trusted to not spend just because it's there.

If not for the lack of any benefit to cutting him, due to guarantee not just accelerated signing bonus, do you honestly believe the Jets would be looking to pay Wilkerson another guaranteed $15m just for this year (that's on top of a guaranteed minimum dead cap hit of $9m next year even if cut after this 1 year)? There isn't a team in the NFL that would sign up for that knowing what they know now, Jets included. He's only around because the cap hit is too high to cut him with all of it being guaranteed. Ditto Revis, who'll probably restructure with a slight salary reduction; there is a 0% chance the Jets - or anybody - would be thinking anything other than "cut him now" if not for Maccagnan guaranteeing him $6m this year. Not to mention the 10 or so draft picks he's already traded away in just his first 2 seasons. So I find it amusing when people try to claim how he's oh-so-different than Tannenbaum in this regard. 

[Sperm Edwards]

8 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

We all get it....people hate Mac, he should be fired, we should hire a new GM....wash and repeat in 2-4 years.

Keep repeating the same no-backup propaganda enough and eventually people will believe it's true. Is this the tactic you're going for? 

Nobody knows Maccagnan enough to "hate" him. If you could read, you'd realize I'm finding fault with his actions and inactions, not him personally. I think he's a poor assessor of value, a poor future planner, a poor negotiator, and so far he isn't exactly stellar at drafting either.

But feel free to continue making it personal if that's the extent of your insight.

[Sperm Edwards]

8 hours ago, Joe Jets fan said:

No difference for the Jets but big difference for the player, he gets his money when roster bonus used and not over 17 weeks.  

 

Unless i I am missing something 

Yes you are. I was speaking of the difference between roster/signing bonus, not the difference between roster bonus and salary. There is no different advantage to the team in awarding him a roster bonus instead of a signing bonus. Mathematically it's the same (for a disciplined GM).

[Smashmouth]

On ‎1‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 9:45 AM, LIJetsFan said:

I must admit, I'm totally confused by this.

the guy is improving by a large margin and should continue too. He's got a nasty streak and is an above average Run Blocker and getting better in pass protection you just can't give up players this young showing this much promise, he will only get better

[HessStation]

When did this happen? How did 8MM per for a jag guard become a good deal? League spending must have jumped the shark while i wasn't looking. 

[CrazyCarl40]

1 hour ago, Smashmouth said:

the guy is improving by a large margin and should continue too. He's got a nasty streak and is an above average Run Blocker and getting better in pass protection you just can't give up players this young showing this much promise, he will only get better

Based on what? The hope that he does? There is a bigger chance he regresses to the player he was the first three years or that he stays an average guard than there is he becomes an all pro. Especially coming off of a major surgery and injury to a body part that's pretty important for lineman. 

[HessStation]

2 hours ago, CrazyCarl40 said:

Based on what? The hope that he does? There is a bigger chance he regresses to the player he was the first three years or that he stays an average guard than there is he becomes an all pro. Especially coming off of a major surgery and injury to a body part that's pretty important for lineman. 

Yeah. To me it's another questionable move I guess I won't pass too much judgment on until I see on the field next year. But so far a lot of Maccagnan's big contracts haven't panned out on return...

[CanadaSteve]

10 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Keep repeating the same no-backup propaganda enough and eventually people will believe it's true. Is this the tactic you're going for? 

Nobody knows Maccagnan enough to "hate" him. If you could read, you'd realize I'm finding fault with his actions and inactions, not him personally. I think he's a poor assessor of value, a poor future planner, a poor negotiator, and so far he isn't exactly stellar at drafting either.

But feel free to continue making it personal if that's the extent of your insight.

Hey dude, no need to be a dick.  This actually wasn't directed towards you.

 

[Sperm Edwards]

4 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

Hey dude, no need to be a dick.  This actually wasn't directed towards you.

 

While I won't respond in kind, it's kind of [well, choose your own adjective] to reduce others' legitimate and enumerated criticisms to baseless, blind personal hatred. Like anyone here knows the guy or gives a crap about him personally in any regard.

[Larz]

Super bowl?