Evaluating the Winters Contract against other 2017 G contracts

[Doggin94it]

Winters:

Overall: 4/29M, 7.25M Per, 15M Guaranteed

Cumulative Cash Flows: Year 1: 8M; Year 2: 15M; Year 3: 21.5M; Year 4: 29M

Cap Management: The first 2 years of Winters' salary (8M & 7M) are guaranteed, and there's no signing bonus. He can be cut after 2018 with no dead money.

Bitonio:

Bitonio was still under contract for 1.164M in 2017; his 5 year extension included new money this year, so it's a 6 year cash flow on a 5 year extension.

Overall: 5/51M, 10.2M/Yr extension, plus pre-existing 2017 contract, 17M guaranteed

Cumulative Cash Flows: Year 1: 12.237M Year 2: 18.237; Year 3: 25.237M; Year 4: 33.737M; Year 5: 42.737M; Year 6: 51.737M

Cap Management: Bitonio can be cut with no dead money at any point after 2017, has escalating cap hits during those years from 6M in 2018 to 9M in 2022.

Duvernay-Tardif:

Like Bitonio, Duvernay-Tardif was extended with a year left on his deal; he was still under contract for 690K in 2017, and his 2017 salary was not adjusted.  Again, cash flow is over 6 years.

Overall: 5/42m, 8.4M/Yr extension, 4M guaranteed (10M signing bonus)

Cumulative Cash Flows: Year 1: 10.69M Year 2: 14.05M; Year 3: 20.3M; Year 4: 27.3M; Year 5: 34.55M; Year 6: 43.05M

Cap Management: With the 10M signing bonus, Duvernay-Tardiff carries hefty dead money through the first 3 years of the deal, and only saves 2.5M in cap space if cut before year 3 (the first 2 years are negative), creating a roughly 20M virtual guarantee.  If cut before year 4, the Chiefs eat 4M in dead money and create only 5M in cap room.  This contract really shows the value of extending a player on their rookie deal; building in the 690K salary he was due in 2017, the contract value goes from 5/42 to 6/42.6 – essentially saving the Chiefs about $1M per year in average cap cost for Duvernay-Tardif , without even factoring in how much more the Chiefs would have had to pay for 2018-2022 if they’d let him hit FA.

Warford:

Overall: 4/34, 8.5M/Year, 17M Fully guaranteed

Cumulative Cash Flows: Year 1: 10.1M Year 2: 17M; Year 3: 25.5M; Year 4: 34

Cap Management: Warford doesn’t become a cap-positive cut until year three, and that year he saves only 6M in cap room while leaving 4+M in dead money.  This is a deal the Saints really hope lasts all 4 years.

Leary

Overall: 4/36M, 9/Year, 18.65M Fully Guaranteed

Cumulative Cash Flows: Year 1: 11M; Year 2: 19M; Year 3: 27.5M; Year 4: 36M

Cap Management: Huge dead money hits in years 1 and 2 make him a cap-negative cut until year 3, when he can be cut for 7M in cap savings and just under 2M in dead money.  His salary takes a jump to the 9+M range for years 3 and 4, so if the “starter on the bench” view of Leary ends up being wrong, he’ll never see year 3.  But they’re locked in for 2 years.

Zeitler:

Overall: 5/60, 12M per, 23M fully guaranteed

Cumulative Cash Flows: Year 1: 18M Year 2: 28M; Year 3: 38M; Year 4: 48M; Year 5: 60M

Cap Management: Wow is this a huge win for Zeitler.  This isn’t a “funny-money at the end” contract; he actually beats his per-year average for the contract as a whole (12M) over the first 3 seasons as the contract comes into balance at 12M per for years 4 & 5.  As a result, Zeitler’s not a viable cut until year 4, when cutting him would save 7.6M in cap room (while leaving 4.8 in dead money).  This is a contract meant to last all 5 years.

 

Thoughts:

Winters’ contract actually seems like a bargain, looking at the money being thrown around in free agency.  His first-year payout is about 20% less than the lowest Year1 payout in the recent guard contracts (Duvernay-Tardif & Warford). He’s not in Zeitler’s class, but he’s an improving young player and it looks like the transition from college Tackle to pro Guard has been successfully completed.  Last year, PFF had him ranked as their number 32 overall guard, meaning he was already grading out in the top half of starting guards in the league; for comparison, LDT was their No. 26 pass-blocking guard, but struggled in run blocking (I don’t pay for their site so I’m going based on reported numbers, and don’t know Winters’ run/pass breakdown or LDT’s overall number). And it’s reasonable to project continued improvement.  Wish we had extended him in the middle of last year, but we likely did not have the cap room and we’re not really paying a premium for that failure, even comparing him to the extended guards (Bitonio and Dr. Duvernay-Tardif).

[Sperm Edwards]

Since unused cap room gets forwarded to the future, forget about the "dead money" and focus only on the guaranteed money and yearly averages. Teams that use signing bonuses instead of all-salary (or roster bonuses) aren't better or worse off; it's the exact same thing in the end. 

If a player (on a 4 yr deal) makes $10m in salary in both years 1 and 2, it's $20m total. If it was done with a $10m signing bonus, plus $5m salaries, it's still $20m total. Now if both are cut in year 3, at a glance it looks like scenario 2 carries $5m in "dead" money and is therefore worse in some way. In reality, scenario 2 also saved $5m on the prior 2 salary caps. If there wasn't anyone to spend it on, that would carry over as a higher spending ceiling. Net = zero.

Giving Winters $0 as signing bonus is neither good nor bad, unless he's a player that carries a high risk of getting suspended during the guaranteed years.

[HessStation]

I wouldn't call it bargain. The Duvernay-Tardif seems like the best contract condsering risk/reward. Isn't Warford a much better OG, at this time, than Winters? They're like the same contract. Most of Zeitler's money comes year 1 it seems. I'd call Winter's contract reasonable, a bit high but ok if he stays equal, bad if he reverts back or even takes a step back, and solid/good if he continues to improve. 

[HessStation]

6 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Since unused cap room gets forwarded to the future, forget about the "dead money" and focus only on the guaranteed money and yearly averages. Teams that use signing bonuses instead of all-salary (or roster bonuses) aren't better or worse off; it's the exact same thing in the end. 

If a player (on a 4 yr deal) makes $10m in salary in both years 1 and 2, it's $20m total. If it was done with a $10m signing bonus, plus $5m salaries, it's still $20m total. Now if both are cut in year 3, at a glance it looks like scenario 2 carries $5m in "dead" money and is therefore worse in some way. In reality, scenario 2 also saved $5m on the prior 2 salary caps. If there wasn't anyone to spend it on, that would carry over as a higher spending ceiling. Net = zero.

Giving Winters $0 as signing bonus is neither good nor bad, unless he's a player that carries a high risk of getting suspended during the guaranteed years.

...which, in terms of what's guaranteed, with all of these, amounts to approximately two years in length. *shrugs. Not knowing exactly where all these players grade out, they all seem about in line. Zeitler's the biggerst but he's also the most established.

[Doggin94it]

22 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Since unused cap room gets forwarded to the future, forget about the "dead money" and focus only on the guaranteed money and yearly averages. Teams that use signing bonuses instead of all-salary (or roster bonuses) aren't better or worse off; it's the exact same thing in the end. 

If a player [X, a Guard](on a 4 yr deal) makes $10m in salary in both years 1 and 2, it's $20m total. If it was done with a $10m signing bonus [Y], plus $5m salaries, it's still $20m total. Now if both are cut in year 3, at a glance it looks like scenario 2 carries $5m in "dead" money and is therefore worse in some way. In reality, scenario 2 also saved $5m on the prior 2 salary caps. If there wasn't anyone to spend it on, that would carry over as a higher spending ceiling. Net = zero.

Giving Winters $0 as signing bonus is neither good nor bad, unless he's a player that carries a high risk of getting suspended during the guaranteed years.

This is completely false, Sperm, since it assumes that the team doesn't touch the "phantom cap room" created by the bonus and rolls it forward into future years to account for future hits.  It also assumes that the team will treat the entire 5M in cap room created as allocable to the guard position. That's very Econ 101, and not in a good way, since it ignores human behavior.  The reality is that the team in Scenario 2 likely spent that "saved cap space" in scenario 1 and 2 - and that even if that cap space rolled forward to year 3, the team might be better off allocating it to other positions. 

Also, you're ignoring sunk costs and cost allocation, and their impact on roster decisions in year 3.  If we assume that a replacement player at guard costs 7M, and the team cuts X (who has a 7M salary) in year 3 and signs a replacement player [z] at that price, they're paying 7M in that year's cap for that G position.  If the team cuts Y (same 7M salary) in year 3, they'll end up paying 12M for a G that year - 5M over the average value - and that makes a difference to decisionmaking.  For one thing, instead of asking which is the better player, X or Z (since the impact on roster construction is the same; cap-wise, the two are completely fungible), the team is asking whether "spending 12M in cap room on Z is better for the team than spending 9.5M on player Y" - i.e., is Z worth 2.5M more in cap space than Y.  That's a completely different scenario.

Bottom line - a player with dead cap hit in a given year is significantly less likely to be cut than a player (of equal performance and equal salary) with no dead cap hit.  That's just reality.

[j4jets]

How does Winters compare against those other guards, performance wise? 

[Doggin94it]

30 minutes ago, HessStation said:

I wouldn't call it bargain. The Duvernay-Tardif seems like the best contract condsering risk/reward. Isn't Warford a much better OG, at this time, than Winters? They're like the same contract. Most of Zeitler's money comes year 1 it seems. I'd call Winter's contract reasonable, a bit high but ok if he stays equal, bad if he reverts back or even takes a step back, and solid/good if he continues to improve. 

The LDT contract strongly benefits from the fact that he was due only 690K in 2017 before the extension. 

Warford was PFF's 33rd ranked G for pass blocking and 16th for run blocking; not sure about the overall rank but would assume it was meaningfully higher than Winters.  He gets paid about 1M more per year than Winters (or about 17.25% more).  He's also pretty much guaranteed the third year of his contract unless he completely busts, while the Jets have more flexibility after year 2 if Winters regresses.

 

[j4jets]

37 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Since unused cap room gets forwarded to the future, forget about the "dead money" and focus only on the guaranteed money and yearly averages. Teams that use signing bonuses instead of all-salary (or roster bonuses) aren't better or worse off; it's the exact same thing in the end. 

If a player (on a 4 yr deal) makes $10m in salary in both years 1 and 2, it's $20m total. If it was done with a $10m signing bonus, plus $5m salaries, it's still $20m total. Now if both are cut in year 3, at a glance it looks like scenario 2 carries $5m in "dead" money and is therefore worse in some way. In reality, scenario 2 also saved $5m on the prior 2 salary caps. If there wasn't anyone to spend it on, that would carry over as a higher spending ceiling. Net = zero.

Giving Winters $0 as signing bonus is neither good nor bad, unless he's a player that carries a high risk of getting suspended during the guaranteed years.

Giving him no signing bonus helps if you are cap strapped in a particular year. You can cut/release the player without a penny going against your cap. With the signing bonus, you get to take the advantage of having a smaller cap hit in year 1 but eventually pay for it in the following years.When the cap is tight, you may be inclined towards keeping the player than taking on the "dead money" cap hit. Preference would depend on how the cap situation is in the year you sign the player. We could've signed Glennon for like $4-5mil cap hit this year if we wanted to. 

[Doggin94it]

3 minutes ago, j4jets said:

How does Winters compare against those other guards, performance wise? 

Warford (thank you, Google) was 21st overall; LDT was 27th overall (again, thanks).  Bitonio had an 83.3 overall grade from PFF compared to Winters' 77.1.  Take that for what it's worth.

[Sperm Edwards]

25 minutes ago, HessStation said:

...which, in terms of what's guaranteed, with all of these, amounts to approximately two years in length. *shrugs. Not knowing exactly where all these players grade out, they all seem about in line. Zeitler's the biggerst but he's also the most established.

Yes and no. Also compare his contract to others drafted in his same class, and any of those who were extended at that time, not just those who got contracts this year.

For example, from the same draft class, Kyle Long is/was more than $2.5m/year better than Brian Winters. Long was a mid-1st rounder, and was a pro bowl guard right away from year 1; then he was moved over to RT and was then a stud there as well. He was extended in early Sept at $10m/yr. 

We'll see what he is this year after his injury, but the same could be said of Winters. I think both are expected to make full recoveries. And incidentally, that is why players are willing to get long term deals done early. It's terrible, but it can happen to any of them and they all know it. Had Winters suffered the same injury as Long, he'd be on a show-me contract at less than half what he just got, and maybe doesn't get much of anything guaranteed (if anything at all) to boot.

[Doggin94it]

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Yes and no. Also compare his contract to others drafted in his same class, and any of those who were extended at that time, not just those who got contracts this year.

For example, from the same draft class, Kyle Long is/was more than $2.5m/year better than Brian Winters. Long was a mid-1st rounder, and was a pro bowl guard right away from year 1; then he was moved over to RT and was then a stud there as well. He was extended in early Sept at $10m/yr. 

We'll see what he is this year after his injury, but the same could be said of Winters. I think both are expected to make full recoveries. And incidentally, that is why players are willing to get long term deals done early. It's terrible, but it can happen to any of them and they all know it. Had Winters suffered the same injury as Long, he'd be on a show-me contract at less than half what he just got, and maybe doesn't get much of anything guaranteed (if anything at all) to boot.

You know exactly why that's a poor analytical frame; the increase in the salary cap inflates the costs from year to year.  If you want to compare Long's contract against Winters', you'd need to compare it on a "% of top G contract signed that year" basis or inflate Long's price to 2017 values.

Of course, if your argument is "it would have cost less to extend Winters heading into 2016, or during the year" - sure.  But given Winters' play in the first 3 years after he was drafted, extending him wasn't an obvious call.  (In fact, heading into the season a loud contingent here were hoping he'd be cut after camp in 2016).

[Sperm Edwards]

19 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

This is completely false, Sperm, since it assumes that the team doesn't touch the "phantom cap room" created by the bonus and rolls it forward into future years to account for future hits.  It also assumes that the team will treat the entire 5M in cap room created as allocable to the guard position. That's very Econ 101, and not in a good way, since it ignores human behavior.  The reality is that the team in Scenario 2 likely spent that "saved cap space" in scenario 1 and 2 - and that even if that cap space rolled forward to year 3, the team might be better off allocating it to other positions. 

Also, you're ignoring sunk costs and cost allocation, and their impact on roster decisions in year 3.  If we assume that a replacement player at guard costs 7M, and the team cuts X (who has a 7M salary) in year 3 and signs a replacement player [z] at that price, they're paying 7M in that year's cap for that G position.  If the team cuts Y (same 7M salary) in year 3, they'll end up paying 12M for a G that year - 5M over the average value - and that makes a difference to decisionmaking.  For one thing, instead of asking which is the better player, X or Z (since the impact on roster construction is the same; cap-wise, the two are completely fungible), the team is asking whether "spending 12M in cap room on Z is better for the team than spending 9.5M on player Y" - i.e., is Z worth 2.5M more in cap space than Y.  That's a completely different scenario.

Bottom line - a player with dead cap hit in a given year is significantly less likely to be cut than a player (of equal performance and equal salary) with no dead cap hit.  That's just reality.

The team should only touch the "phantom" cap room if it is needed. Most teams do not just spend every nickel of space just because it's there - and then dip into the following year's spending on top of that - the way the Jets have irresponsibly done these past 2 years. If the team used it up on some other needed piece, that other player's cost would come off the cap no matter what. The sum of their 2 contracts is still the sum of their 2 contracts. 

The rest you're speaking of, in terms of sunk cost influencing keeping a player, is an emotional decision not a rational one. A player is either worth (to his team) whatever new money he's due in year 3 or he is not. If he makes $7m in new money and has $2.5m/yr (x 2 years) in amortized bonus that hasn't yet hit the cap, it's not real savings to keep him. That amortized $5m comes off on top of his $7m in new money, not instead of it. It doesn't go away just because you've chosen to keep him. $7m in salary plus $2.5m in amortized SB = $9.5m not $7m.  

Whether he's got amortized SB or not, the team saves $7m by cutting him. $2.5m will still come off year 3 and year 4, but that money was already spent. 

[Komba]

It's pretty freaking clear that Winters' deal is the best of that bunch and I'm not even a huge fan of Winters.  When you factor in the fact that he's a better player than a couple of those players, it makes it that much better.

Good bit of business by Mac.

[HessStation]

I appreciate this thread.

[HessStation]

11 minutes ago, Komba said:

It's pretty freaking clear that Winters' deal is the best of that bunch and I'm not even a huge fan of Winters.  When you factor in the fact that he's a better player than a couple of those players, it makes it that much better.

Good bit of business by Mac.

Sounds like, using most rankings or metrics available, he not better than most...or any of the players? 

[Sperm Edwards]

5 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

You know exactly why that's a poor analytical frame; the increase in the salary cap inflates the costs from year to year.  If you want to compare Long's contract against Winters', you'd need to compare it on a "% of top G contract signed that year" basis or inflate Long's price to 2017 values.

Of course, if your argument is "it would have cost less to extend Winters heading into 2016, or during the year" - sure.  But given Winters' play in the first 3 years after he was drafted, extending him wasn't an obvious call.  (In fact, heading into the season a loud contingent here were hoping he'd be cut after camp in 2016).

Extending Winters in 2017 wasn't the obvious call either. The team either wants him or it doesn't, regardless of what any contingent here complain about. His dramatic jump in play came when he filled in for Colon in 2015. It's their job to know what he is and what he isn't. 

It's a fantasy to think the team thought he was unworthy of keeping around in August of 2016 but was worth $7.5m/year after the season. He didn't have that good of a 2016 season; he was just ok, like he was as the 2015 season closed out.

Following that season, when we had all the leverage and he had none, that was the time to extend him. It was low risk high reward, since he wouldn't have commanded nearly this level contract. Further, it wouldn't have been so easy for him to turn down a lower deal in Feb 2016, as he should have had a real concern that he could have headed into 2017 free agency as a backup. The team was (allegedly) hot for Osemele -- had they signed him, Winters would have clearly been the odd man out, released to backup again.

It is a realistic analytical frame because they were both drafted in the same year, and it demonstrates quite well that it is better to lock up your players early rather than later. We did this with Winters, Snacks, Mo, and are on pace to do it with Enunwa (and technically Pryor, should they end up re-signing him).

You don't get a good deal on your players by waiting; you do it by being proactive.

[PepPep]

7 minutes ago, HessStation said:

Because you know all about those other guards...you totally watch every game and watch the guard play....Sorry for putting you on the spot and don't mean to be a dick but what you wrote is completely subjective with almost no merit. Really not trying to be a dick but this is how a good discussion goes off on useless tangents. 

Well, without going deep into details you can fairly say that the Jets did not overpay for Winters but if the contract offered was considerably less, they would probably not be able to retain him. Any way you slice it, it depends on how he performs in the next two years. Considering he is still pretty young, has improved bit by bit every season and is not a big injury risk I think it was a smart investment.  

[Sperm Edwards]

38 minutes ago, j4jets said:

Giving him no signing bonus helps if you are cap strapped in a particular year. You can cut/release the player without a penny going against your cap. With the signing bonus, you get to take the advantage of having a smaller cap hit in year 1 but eventually pay for it in the following years.When the cap is tight, you may be inclined towards keeping the player than taking on the "dead money" cap hit. Preference would depend on how the cap situation is in the year you sign the player. We could've signed Glennon for like $4-5mil cap hit this year if we wanted to. 

As a GM, you're supposed to know what you have now and in the future. So it isn't that big of a deal unless the GM is irresponsible and continually tries to field a team that costs in excess of the cap limit. If he's responsible, it won't matter because the cap shouldn't be tight, unless they're in a go-for-broke year with a worthy QB, and only players worth keeping should be kept.

Your last statement is precisely my point. Whatever new player the team wants can always be made to fit. Technically the team didn't have the room to re-sign Fitzpatrick and retain any wiggle room for the 2016 season. What did they do? They made Mo's 2016 cap number drop by $6m and then forwarded $5m of Fitzpatrick's $12m onto the 2017 season. The wisdom of signing him aside, the point is things can always be moved around if some alleged "must have" player requires this cap space.

What really eats up future cap space is the team signing bad players under contract with guaranteed money, not whether or not that contract has $6m spread over contract years 2-4 instead of all of it hitting year 1. The space freed up in year 1 is taken away from years 2-3, or vice versa if constructed otherwise.

[HessStation]

3 minutes ago, PepPep said:

Well, without going deep into details you can fairly say that the Jets did not overpay for Winters but if the contract offered was considerably less, they would probably not be able to retain him. Any way you slice it, it depends on how he performs in the next two years. Considering he is still pretty young, has improved bit by bit every season and is not a big injury risk I think it was a smart investment.  

I would agree it looks like a decent contract. But let's not go overboad and start overglorifying sh*t, right now or as of last year he wasn't better than any of those guys. Solid and improving, yes. Some of those guys don't grade out too much better and most made out slightly to a little bit better, for the most part. I deleted that comment bc didn't mean to sound pretnetious. But come on, it was a reasonable contract for a guy with some upside. And that's if Winter's continues to improve. 

[Sperm Edwards]

14 minutes ago, PepPep said:

Well, without going deep into details you can fairly say that the Jets did not overpay for Winters but if the contract offered was considerably less, they would probably not be able to retain him. Any way you slice it, it depends on how he performs in the next two years. Considering he is still pretty young, has improved bit by bit every season and is not a big injury risk I think it was a smart investment.  

If they were signing him off someone else's roster (if he was someone else's FA) I'd agree.

Look, it's not that much different. Probably $3m give or take, when also looking at how much (how little) a much more accomplished Carpenter got 1 year earlier, and if that discrepancy amount on this one player will never be what keeps us out of the SB. Finding another few million in any 1 season is an easy task for any GM.

[PepPep]

19 minutes ago, HessStation said:

I would agree it looks like a decent contract. But let's not go overboad and start overglorifying sh*t, right now or as of last year he wasn't better than any of those guys. Solid and improving, yes. Some of those guys don't grade out too much better and most made out slightly to a little bit better, for the most part. I deleted that comment bc didn't mean to sound pretnetious. But come on, it was a reasonable contract for a guy with some upside. And that's if Winter's continues to improve. 

I don't know how why you think I was 'overglorifying' anything. All I said is that they probably met somewhere in the middle (per typical contract negotiations)...they didn't overpay, but he also didn't nec. come cheap. And, as I said, it all depends on how he performs. If he stays healthy and continues to improve, it will be a good signing. If he regresses, it will be a bad signing, but at least Macc can cut him loose in 2 years (as I understand it). I commented that is was a smart investment simply b/c odds are that he DOES continue to improve (even if not by much) and that he DOES stay healthy. And I'm simply basing that off the fact that he has improved little by little each year (granted he looked pretty awful his rookie year), and he has not had a lot of injuries, and he is still pretty young. 

[Maxman]

3 hours ago, Doggin94it said:

Winters:

Overall: 4/29M, 7.25M Per, 15M Guaranteed

Cumulative Cash Flows: Year 1: 8M; Year 2: 15M; Year 3: 21.5M; Year 4: 29M

Cap Management: The first 2 years of Winters' salary (8M & 7M) are guaranteed, and there's no signing bonus. He can be cut after 2018 with no dead money.

Bitonio:

Bitonio was still under contract for 1.164M in 2017; his 5 year extension included new money this year, so it's a 6 year cash flow on a 5 year extension.

Overall: 5/51M, 10.2M/Yr extension, plus pre-existing 2017 contract, 17M guaranteed

Cumulative Cash Flows: Year 1: 12.237M Year 2: 18.237; Year 3: 25.237M; Year 4: 33.737M; Year 5: 42.737M; Year 6: 51.737M

Cap Management: Bitonio can be cut with no dead money at any point after 2017, has escalating cap hits during those years from 6M in 2018 to 9M in 2022.

Duvernay-Tardif:

Like Bitonio, Duvernay-Tardif was extended with a year left on his deal; he was still under contract for 690K in 2017, and his 2017 salary was not adjusted.  Again, cash flow is over 6 years.

Overall: 5/42m, 8.4M/Yr extension, 4M guaranteed (10M signing bonus)

Cumulative Cash Flows: Year 1: 10.69M Year 2: 14.05M; Year 3: 20.3M; Year 4: 27.3M; Year 5: 34.55M; Year 6: 43.05M

Cap Management: With the 10M signing bonus, Duvernay-Tardiff carries hefty dead money through the first 3 years of the deal, and only saves 2.5M in cap space if cut before year 3 (the first 2 years are negative), creating a roughly 20M virtual guarantee.  If cut before year 4, the Chiefs eat 4M in dead money and create only 5M in cap room.  This contract really shows the value of extending a player on their rookie deal; building in the 690K salary he was due in 2017, the contract value goes from 5/42 to 6/42.6 – essentially saving the Chiefs about $1M per year in average cap cost for Duvernay-Tardif , without even factoring in how much more the Chiefs would have had to pay for 2018-2022 if they’d let him hit FA.

Warford:

Overall: 4/34, 8.5M/Year, 17M Fully guaranteed

Cumulative Cash Flows: Year 1: 10.1M Year 2: 17M; Year 3: 25.5M; Year 4: 34

Cap Management: Warford doesn’t become a cap-positive cut until year three, and that year he saves only 6M in cap room while leaving 4+M in dead money.  This is a deal the Saints really hope lasts all 4 years.

Leary

Overall: 4/36M, 9/Year, 18.65M Fully Guaranteed

Cumulative Cash Flows: Year 1: 11M; Year 2: 19M; Year 3: 27.5M; Year 4: 36M

Cap Management: Huge dead money hits in years 1 and 2 make him a cap-negative cut until year 3, when he can be cut for 7M in cap savings and just under 2M in dead money.  His salary takes a jump to the 9+M range for years 3 and 4, so if the “starter on the bench” view of Leary ends up being wrong, he’ll never see year 3.  But they’re locked in for 2 years.

Zeitler:

Overall: 5/60, 12M per, 23M fully guaranteed

Cumulative Cash Flows: Year 1: 18M Year 2: 28M; Year 3: 38M; Year 4: 48M; Year 5: 60M

Cap Management: Wow is this a huge win for Zeitler.  This isn’t a “funny-money at the end” contract; he actually beats his per-year average for the contract as a whole (12M) over the first 3 seasons as the contract comes into balance at 12M per for years 4 & 5.  As a result, Zeitler’s not a viable cut until year 4, when cutting him would save 7.6M in cap room (while leaving 4.8 in dead money).  This is a contract meant to last all 5 years.

 

 

 

Thoughts:

Winters’ contract actually seems like a bargain, looking at the money being thrown around in free agency.  His first-year payout is about 20% less than the lowest Year1 payout in the recent guard contracts (Duvernay-Tardif & Warford). He’s not in Zeitler’s class, but he’s an improving young player and it looks like the transition from college Tackle to pro Guard has been successfully completed.  Last year, PFF had him ranked as their number 32 overall guard, meaning he was already grading out in the top half of starting guards in the league; for comparison, LDT was their No. 26 pass-blocking guard, but struggled in run blocking (I don’t pay for their site so I’m going based on reported numbers, and don’t know Winters’ run/pass breakdown or LDT’s overall number). And it’s reasonable to project continued improvement.  Wish we had extended him in the middle of last year, but we likely did not have the cap room and we’re not really paying a premium for that failure, even comparing him to the extended guards (Bitonio and Dr. Duvernay-Tardif).

Did you write this? Awesome job!!!

[JustInFudge]

Math is not my friend.  Therefore, the cap hurts my head.

So thank you for this thread.  It's good reading for the dummies like me. 

[Doggin94it]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Extending Winters in 2017 wasn't the obvious call either. The team either wants him or it doesn't, regardless of what any contingent here complain about. His dramatic jump in play came when he filled in for Colon in 2015. It's their job to know what he is and what he isn't. 

It's a fantasy to think the team thought he was unworthy of keeping around in August of 2016 but was worth $7.5m/year after the season. He didn't have that good of a 2016 season; he was just ok, like he was as the 2015 season closed out.

Following that season, when we had all the leverage and he had none, that was the time to extend him. It was low risk high reward, since he wouldn't have commanded nearly this level contract. Further, it wouldn't have been so easy for him to turn down a lower deal in Feb 2016, as he should have had a real concern that he could have headed into 2017 free agency as a backup. The team was (allegedly) hot for Osemele -- had they signed him, Winters would have clearly been the odd man out, released to backup again.

It is a realistic analytical frame because they were both drafted in the same year, and it demonstrates quite well that it is better to lock up your players early rather than later. We did this with Winters, Snacks, Mo, and are on pace to do it with Enunwa (and technically Pryor, should they end up re-signing him).

You don't get a good deal on your players by waiting; you do it by being proactive.

Making a long-term commitment based on a relatively short sample size as an injury replacement is how you end up with Wayne Hunter.

I agree, generally, it's better to lock up players while still under contract.  Enunwa is the prime example right now; he's due only 615,000 right now and rolling that into a long term deal can significantly lower the overall cost.  But I doubt they were anywhere near as certain Winters was in the long term plan, at the time, as they are right now about Quincy.

[Doggin94it]

24 minutes ago, Maxman said:

Did you write this? Awesome job!!!

Yep, thanks

[HessStation]

22 hours ago, PepPep said:

I don't know how why you think I was 'overglorifying' anything. All I said is that they probably met somewhere in the middle (per typical contract negotiations)...they didn't overpay, but he also didn't nec. come cheap. And, as I said, it all depends on how he performs. If he stays healthy and continues to improve, it will be a good signing. If he regresses, it will be a bad signing, but at least Macc can cut him loose in 2 years (as I understand it). I commented that is was a smart investment simply b/c odds are that he DOES continue to improve (even if not by much) and that he DOES stay healthy. And I'm simply basing that off the fact that he has improved little by little each year (granted he looked pretty awful his rookie year), and he has not had a lot of injuries, and he is still pretty young. 

No, you weren't. I was referring to my reply via the original statement from the other poster, Komba, making it sound like a better move or that Winters was a beter player than it/he was. 

You and I are in agreement,

[HessStation]

1 hour ago, JiF said:

Math is not my friend.  Therefore, the cap hurts my head.

So thank you for this thread.  It's good reading for the dummies like me. 

Same here.

[j4jets]

3 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

As a GM, you're supposed to know what you have now and in the future. So it isn't that big of a deal unless the GM is irresponsible and continually tries to field a team that costs in excess of the cap limit. If he's responsible, it won't matter because the cap shouldn't be tight, unless they're in a go-for-broke year with a worthy QB, and only players worth keeping should be kept.

Your last statement is precisely my point. Whatever new player the team wants can always be made to fit. Technically the team didn't have the room to re-sign Fitzpatrick and retain any wiggle room for the 2016 season. What did they do? They made Mo's 2016 cap number drop by $6m and then forwarded $5m of Fitzpatrick's $12m onto the 2017 season. The wisdom of signing him aside, the point is things can always be moved around if some alleged "must have" player requires this cap space.

What really eats up future cap space is the team signing bad players under contract with guaranteed money, not whether or not that contract has $6m spread over contract years 2-4 instead of all of it hitting year 1. The space freed up in year 1 is taken away from years 2-3, or vice versa if constructed otherwise.

There are lots of variables in the GMs job. For instance, take Revis for example. No one expected him to be released this year.  A big chunk of his salary was guaranteed. Legal troubles have kept Revis on the sideline. He couldve very easily signed a one year deal structured just like Fitz' where he would receive the vets minimum in year 1 (rest to be paid by the Jets), and then receive like a $5mil bonus right after the NFL season officially ends. He'd end up making $11mil while his new team only pays him $6mil for one year. Thats besides the point. The GM expected Revis to be here in 2017 and it was completely reasonable. He fell off the cliff. It happens. Giving signing bonus, imo, isn't good business in general. Tanny did that and his players had huge cap charges for future years. Then to save some cap, he started guaranteeing a lot of the contracts for old vets. That was his downfall. 

[Sperm Edwards]

19 hours ago, Doggin94it said:

Making a long-term commitment based on a relatively short sample size as an injury replacement is how you end up with Wayne Hunter.

I agree, generally, it's better to lock up players while still under contract.  Enunwa is the prime example right now; he's due only 615,000 right now and rolling that into a long term deal can significantly lower the overall cost.  But I doubt they were anywhere near as certain Winters was in the long term plan, at the time, as they are right now about Quincy.

No, because you're supposed to know the player and they should have known with Hunter. Further, Hunter wasn't that expensive so it wasn't some tragic mistake the team necessarily kept paying for over the next 2 seasons. They gave all that money to Revis and he was good for one year. Tons of money for plenty of others they "knew" with flaws on or off the field, and were far more expensive than Winters, whom they'd had for 3 seasons since drafting him. The very point is Winters wouldn't have been in the $7-8m range had they exercised this initiative as they should have.

The Jets just took no less of a gamble, at double that money, on Beachum. They did the same, on sizable contracts, for players they knew far less than Winters, when they signed Skrine and Gilchrist.

The norm, for teams retaining their own guards, is to extend them before they hit free agency. The way Winters was handled is the exception not the rule.

[Sperm Edwards]

18 hours ago, j4jets said:

There are lots of variables in the GMs job. For instance, take Revis for example. No one expected him to be released this year.  A big chunk of his salary was guaranteed. Legal troubles have kept Revis on the sideline. He couldve very easily signed a one year deal structured just like Fitz' where he would receive the vets minimum in year 1 (rest to be paid by the Jets), and then receive like a $5mil bonus right after the NFL season officially ends. He'd end up making $11mil while his new team only pays him $6mil for one year. Thats besides the point. The GM expected Revis to be here in 2017 and it was completely reasonable. He fell off the cliff. It happens. Giving signing bonus, imo, isn't good business in general. Tanny did that and his players had huge cap charges for future years. Then to save some cap, he started guaranteeing a lot of the contracts for old vets. That was his downfall. 

You just don't understand, which is shown in bringing up Tannenbaum. The current CBA is very different than the one he operated under as GM of the Jets. Back then it was use it or lose it. That is no longer the case. If you gave someone a SB to push their cap number higher in the future, the savings this year is no longer lost by failing to use it this year.

On paper there is no advantage unless money burns a hole in the GM's pocket, and he spends it all (and more) just because it's there.

[Doggin94it]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

No, because you're supposed to know the player and they should have known with Hunter. Further, Hunter wasn't that expensive so it wasn't some tragic mistake the team necessarily kept paying for over the next 2 seasons. They gave all that money to Revis and he was good for one year. Tons of money for plenty of others they "knew" with flaws on or off the field, and were far more expensive than Winters, whom they'd had for 3 seasons since drafting him. The very point is Winters wouldn't have been in the $7-8m range had they exercised this initiative as they should have.

The Jets just took no less of a gamble, at double that money, on Beachum. They did the same, on sizable contracts, for players they knew far less than Winters, when they signed Skrine and Gilchrist.

The norm, for teams retaining their own guards, is to extend them before they hit free agency. The way Winters was handled is the exception not the rule.

OK, now I see the problem.  You're looking at the GM's job as omniscience, rather than risk management.  Carry on.

[Pac]

2 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

OK, now I see the problem.  You're looking at the GM's job as omniscience, rather than risk management.  Carry on.

ohhh snap..  burrrn!

I'm not sure what you 2 are talking about but I'm on your side in this one.

[varjet]

Unless we think that the Jets were better off signing one of the FAs rather than Winters, it is tough to second guess the contract.  They can get out of it in Year 3.  I agree with Sperm that the Jets have to be much better at extending contracts before they expire.  Smart GMs know when to do that, and it saves the team money in the long term and also is a good incentive/strategy from a player perspective.

For a rebuilding team it is smart to keep the OL functional and build around that culture.  They need the OL to help the other positions develop.

It would appear to me that the Jets OL spend is somewhere in the 2nd Quartile (top 76-51%) but their performance is likely to be in the 50-26% range (average to low average).  That is because only one to none of the starters are expected to be players on their rookie contracts.  Rookie contracts are very powerful.  This is another spot where MacC could do better, and if he is smart he would be thinking about replacing Winters now, because it would not surprise me if his performance remains static and declines from here.  I think Matt Slauson had a similar performance.

But as I have said before, the Jets have SO many other problems, that extending Winters is among the least of them (unless Craig Watt was able to perform similarly at much cheaper).  The Jets were forced to extend Winters because they did not provide themselves with other options.

 

[j4jets]

5 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You just don't understand, which is shown in bringing up Tannenbaum. The current CBA is very different than the one he operated under as GM of the Jets. Back then it was use it or lose it. That is no longer the case. If you gave someone a SB to push their cap number higher in the future, the savings this year is no longer lost by failing to use it this year.

On paper there is no advantage unless money burns a hole in the GM's pocket, and he spends it all (and more) just because it's there.

And you're not getting my point. I'll rephrase it.

Player A: Signs a 5 year deal with 20 mil bonus. Year 1 salary 1 mil. Rest salary is 8 mil each year (61 mil deal)
Year 1: cap charge 5 mil
Years 2-5: cap charge $12 mil each
Cost to cut in year 3: $12 mil (cap saving of $0)
Net earning after first two seasons: $29 mil

Player B: Signs a 5 year 60 mil deal with first two year guaranteed ($21 mil). Salary of 10 mil in years 3-5. (61 mil deal)
Cap charge years 3-5: $12 mil
Cost to cut in year 3: $0 (cap saving of 10 mil) 
Net earnings after first two season: $21 mil

Which player has the highest chance of staying? Which player cost less and is easy to cut loose after 2 seasons? You can talk about the left over cap being pushed forward but you cant deny the fact Player A, who received a big signing bonus, is essentially costing more and will likely stay at least 3 years. And money does get spent if its there. Ask Macc. 

[20andOut]

On 3/13/2017 at 11:02 AM, Sperm Edwards said:

Since unused cap room gets forwarded to the future, forget about the "dead money" and focus only on the guaranteed money and yearly averages. Teams that use signing bonuses instead of all-salary (or roster bonuses) aren't better or worse off; it's the exact same thing in the end. 

If a player (on a 4 yr deal) makes $10m in salary in both years 1 and 2, it's $20m total. If it was done with a $10m signing bonus, plus $5m salaries, it's still $20m total. Now if both are cut in year 3, at a glance it looks like scenario 2 carries $5m in "dead" money and is therefore worse in some way. In reality, scenario 2 also saved $5m on the prior 2 salary caps. If there wasn't anyone to spend it on, that would carry over as a higher spending ceiling. Net = zero.

I think Sperm must teach Common Core math as a day job. Teams around the league routinely used signing bonus to push cap hit down the road to future years, spending more money currently. Rarely if ever is any GM saving the extra coin for the future. WHile the new CBA allows saving money to future years it also has a cap floor requiring  that 89%  cap gets spent limitimg the ability to save for future dead money the way you suggest. The way I see it Maccs sytem of guaranteeing a couple years where you have a good idea what you are going to get from a playeris much better than a huge signing bonus where you have dead money 4 and 5 years out where the risk is much greater