Evaluating the Winters Contract against other 2017 G contracts

[Doggin94it]

1 hour ago, 20andOut said:

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

 

That's not actually true.  Take a spin through the team pages on OverTheCap and check out each team's effective cap, and you'll see the reality.  For example, Cleveland's effective cap this year is 217.8M, because they carried over something like 50M in cap room from 2017.  So Sperm's actually right that paying money in salary this year instead of signing bonus has effectively zero impact (assuming no other transactions) on future cap room (since you can roll unused cap forward).  He's wrong because: 1) the assumption of "no other transactions" isn't a viable one for most teams (most spend to or near the cap) and 2) the dead money hits in future years impacts keep-or-cut decisions in those years (which is why players prefer signing bonus to salary).

[Doggin94it]

BTW, for anyone wondering, you can see the effective cap for all teams here. Only 7 teams (9ers, Browns, Jags, Titans, Panthers, Redskins, and Eagles) rolled over more than 10M in cap space.  Only another 7 (Packers, Bears, Bengals, Raiders, Texans, Colts and Dolphins) rolled over between 6-10M.  Most of the NFL is, just as a matter of fact, spending essentially to the cap (with minor wiggle room left for in-season acquisitions or extensions).  So Sperm's idea that cap room created in 2017 by use of a signing bonus is typically going to be set aside and rolled over to be used in future years is empirically wrong.

To again take a concrete example, the Chiefs gave Duvernay-Tardif a 10M signing bonus and kept his salary at 690K.  Why?  Because they are currently pressed right up against the cap and couldn't have accounted for all 10M of that money in 2017 if they wanted to.  There's no "cap space to be rolled over" due to the signing bonus; to the contrary, the signing bonus was given specifically because of that.  Sperm's "dead money is irrelevant" theory of cap management is basically salary cap flat-eartherism.

[Sperm Edwards]

5 hours 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.

Lol.

You're complaining that a previous GM locked up Hunter cheaply, at proportionally the same annual amount that the team just re-signed Ben Ijalana. He was a bad signing because he was a bad signing, not because they signed him too early. Funny you should bring him up, since had the team extended him a year earlier he would have been half the cost as a backup player. 

Wayne Hunter, lol. So because they signed Wayne Hunter 5 years ago, and it turned out badly, the team should therefore only sign/re-sign players at the most expensive points in their entire careers. Because that is fool-proof, like Mo Wilkerson at $17m per, Darrelle Revis at $16m per, Buster Skrine at $6m per, Santonio Holmes at $9m per, etc.

They knew as much or more Winters, with a year left on his rookie contract, than they knew about Buster Skrine coming in new as a full UFA.

[Sperm Edwards]

33 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

BTW, for anyone wondering, you can see the effective cap for all teams here. Only 7 teams (9ers, Browns, Jags, Titans, Panthers, Redskins, and Eagles) rolled over more than 10M in cap space.  Only another 7 (Packers, Bears, Bengals, Raiders, Texans, Colts and Dolphins) rolled over between 6-10M.  Most of the NFL is, just as a matter of fact, spending essentially to the cap (with minor wiggle room left for in-season acquisitions or extensions).  So Sperm's idea that cap room created in 2017 by use of a signing bonus is typically going to be set aside and rolled over to be used in future years is empirically wrong.

To again take a concrete example, the Chiefs gave Duvernay-Tardif a 10M signing bonus and kept his salary at 690K.  Why?  Because they are currently pressed right up against the cap and couldn't have accounted for all 10M of that money in 2017 if they wanted to.  There's no "cap space to be rolled over" due to the signing bonus; to the contrary, the signing bonus was given specifically because of that.  Sperm's "dead money is irrelevant" theory of cap management is basically salary cap flat-eartherism.

I can't help it if you can't understand that if money isn't used then it can be rolled over unless it is used on someone else.

Every team has the same amount to spend as a minimum and as a maximum. Whether that is done by front-loading any individual player's contract or pushing it off a little, the exact same amount comes off the cap.

Teams pick and choose to sometimes front load and sometimes back load. The problem with back loading is a GM worried about his job security will then use every amount cleared in the early year(s), rather than only use it if some unique, must-have player presents himself. In the Jets' case, late last year, that was Ryan Fitzpatrick.

In April, in order to clear space to temporarily carry Mo at his franchise tag amount, the Jets restructured Carpenter's contract. Had the team successfully traded Mo, as they wanted to do, it would have cleared that $16m. Had they then - as a number of teams do every year - kept it in their pants and not spent every dollar cleared, it would have carried over. When this happens, the "dead" money (or higher cap number the following years if kept) is there, but the cap ceiling grows by a proportional amount.

All teams spend to the cap in the end, and the individual players have cap charges of the amount paid to them. The only exception is someone like Revis (or years ago, Faneca), which are different situations altogether.

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, j4jets said:

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. 

I get your point plenty. It's that your numbers are not correct for a number of reasons.

1. You are ignoring the other players that was signed (or kept) in year 1 due to the backloading of the contract. It counts. A player doesn't count less in year 1 with no benefit to the team. And if there is no benefit, with no one else signed, then yes that extra/un-needed money would have carried over.

2. Your examples are not apples and apples. One contract is simply paying out more guaranteed money than the other. You're fixing it so the player with the signing bonus is also paid more guaranteed money outright.

 

The game being played here is to presume that there is no benefit to using a signing bonus to sign more players in the early part(s) of the contract.  You can't put that benefit in your pocket, use it up, and then later on pretend the benefit never existed. In practice, if that benefit is not used up, then it forwards to the future in the form of a higher future cap ceiling.

[RutgersJetFan]

47 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I can't help it if you can't understand that if money isn't used then it can be rolled over unless it is used on someone else.

Every team has the same amount to spend as a minimum and as a maximum. Whether that is done by front-loading any individual player's contract or pushing it off a little, the exact same amount comes off the cap.

Teams pick and choose to sometimes front load and sometimes back load. The problem with back loading is a GM worried about his job security will then use every amount cleared in the early year(s), rather than only use it if some unique, must-have player presents himself. In the Jets' case, late last year, that was Ryan Fitzpatrick.

In April, in order to clear space to temporarily carry Mo at his franchise tag amount, the Jets restructured Carpenter's contract. Had the team successfully traded Mo, as they wanted to do, it would have cleared that $16m. Had they then - as a number of teams do every year - kept it in their pants and not spent every dollar cleared, it would have carried over. When this happens, the "dead" money (or higher cap number the following years if kept) is there, but the cap ceiling grows by a proportional amount.

All teams spend to the cap in the end, and the individual players have cap charges of the amount paid to them. The only exception is someone like Revis (or years ago, Faneca), which are different situations altogether.

Sounds like flat earth propaganda to me.

[j4jets]

23 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I get your point plenty. It's that your numbers are not correct for a number of reasons.

1. You are ignoring the other players that was signed (or kept) in year 1 due to the backloading of the contract. It counts. A player doesn't count less in year 1 with no benefit to the team. And if there is no benefit, with no one else signed, then yes that extra/un-needed money would have carried over.

2. Your examples are not apples and apples. One contract is simply paying out more guaranteed money than the other. You're fixing it so the player with the signing bonus is also paid more guaranteed money outright.

 

The game being played here is to presume that there is no benefit to using a signing bonus to sign more players in the early part(s) of the contract.  You can't put that benefit in your pocket, use it up, and then later on pretend the benefit never existed. In practice, if that benefit is not used up, then it forwards to the future in the form of a higher future cap ceiling.

1. I am indeed ignoring the other players being signed. That's why I said it all depends on how your cap situation is when you sign the player. Good example: We picked up Beachum (Beechum?). Gave him a decent signing bonus to keep his 2017 cap low to manage this year. 

2. Player A got a signing bonus of 20mil. Nothing else is guaranteed. He can be release after year one and his total cap charge would be 20mil (plus first years minimal 1mil salary). Player B got his first two years' salaries worth 20 mil guaranteed. Nothing else, although it seems like player A will be on the books for at least 3 years simply due to the fact he received a good signing bonus. Player B's year 3 isn't guaranteed and can be released without a 2nd thought if he fell off a cliff. But A? No. Not that easy.

[Sperm Edwards]

33 minutes ago, j4jets said:

1. I am indeed ignoring the other players being signed. That's why I said it all depends on how your cap situation is when you sign the player. Good example: We picked up Beachum (Beechum?). Gave him a decent signing bonus to keep his 2017 cap low to manage this year. 

2. Player A got a signing bonus of 20mil. Nothing else is guaranteed. He can be release after year one and his total cap charge would be 20mil (plus first years minimal 1mil salary). Player B got his first two years' salaries worth 20 mil guaranteed. Nothing else, although it seems like player A will be on the books for at least 3 years simply due to the fact he received a good signing bonus. Player B's year 3 isn't guaranteed and can be released without a 2nd thought if he fell off a cliff. But A? No. Not that easy.

It's still different amount being paid to the player over the first 2 years. Things are not typically done this differently unless they're different quality players.

Player A receives $29m over the first 2 years; Player B receives $21m over the first 2 years. While the guarantee on paper is the same, in practical terms a player receiving a $20m signing bonus and a $1m salary in year 1 is empirically guaranteed to be on the team through year 2.

They're just totally different contracts for that reason, and it's not a subtle difference. If you want to make a true comparison of similar contracts, where the only difference is one used a signing bonus and the other used zero bonus money, you make it so both players have received the same amount of cash through 2 seasons.

[20andOut]

4 hours ago, Doggin94it said:

That's not actually true.  Take a spin through the team pages on OverTheCap and check out each team's effective cap, and you'll see the reality.  For example, Cleveland's effective cap this year is 217.8M, because they carried over something like 50M in cap room from 2017.  So Sperm's actually right that paying money in salary this year instead of signing bonus has effectively zero impact (assuming no other transactions) on future cap room (since you can roll unused cap forward).  He's wrong because: 1) the assumption of "no other transactions" isn't a viable one for most teams (most spend to or near the cap) and 2) the dead money hits in future years impacts keep-or-cut decisions in those years (which is why players prefer signing bonus to salary).

Not sure which part of my post you are claiming is not true. Yes teams have different effective cap #s due to rolling over cash. I said they can roll over cash. Cleveland though is the exception to common practice. Last year Cleveland chose to go into full rebuilding mode and chose to hoard cash (which they just spent) and picks. But the minimum spending per team has been being phased in and all teams must now spend 89% of cap. The vast majorities of teams as another poster noted spend right up to the cap minus a couple mil for emergencies. Those teams use signing bonuses to put todays payroll on future cap years and when those players don't work out as often happens they end up with dead money and often end up in a situation commonly reffered to as "Cap Hell"  where this years cap money is wasted on prior year f-k ups. Nothing I said was "not actually true"

[Doggin94it]

I get your point plenty. It's that your numbers are not correct for a number of reasons.
1. You are ignoring the other players that was signed (or kept) in year 1 due to the backloading of the contract. It counts. A player doesn't count less in year 1 with no benefit to the team. And if there is no benefit, with no one else signed, then yes that extra/un-needed money would have carried over.
2. Your examples are not apples and apples. One contract is simply paying out more guaranteed money than the other. You're fixing it so the player with the signing bonus is also paid more guaranteed money outright.
 
The game being played here is to presume that there is no benefit to using a signing bonus to sign more players in the early part(s) of the contract.  You can't put that benefit in your pocket, use it up, and then later on pretend the benefit never existed. In practice, if that benefit is not used up, then it forwards to the future in the form of a higher future cap ceiling.

you've managed to make my point for me. it's simply not true that signing bonus & straight salary are equivalents from a cap management standpoint due to carryover; instead, when you use signing bonus you're allocating less Year 1 cap and more Year X cap to the player. Typically, the reason to do that is to allow you to sign other players or fit the new player into existing cap space without having to clear cap room.

But what that means, as a matter of fact, is that it will hurt your cap more to cut the player in the future, which makes the cut less likely.

Bottom line, it's a risk-management question (how sure are you that the player's performance will justify the cap cost in years x, y, z of the deal), as well as an opportunity cost question (do you want the extra space this year to allow you to sign other players). That doesn't mean dead money is inherently bad any more than it means using signing bonuses to create more year 1 cap room is inherently good; each decision needs to be evaluated in context.

But it absolutely does mean the two structures are different,with different pluses and minuses and different impacts on the likelihood of the player seeing later years on the deal. You were claiming the distinction was irrelevant, which is - literally - nonsense.

Sent from my SM-G920T using JetNation.com mobile app

[Sperm Edwards]

9 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

you've managed to make my point for me. it's simply not true that signing bonus & straight salary are equivalents from a cap management standpoint due to carryover; instead, when you use signing bonus you're allocating less Year 1 cap and more Year X cap to the player. Typically, the reason to do that is to allow you to sign other players or fit the new player into existing cap space without having to clear cap room.

But what that means, as a matter of fact, is that it will hurt your cap more to cut the player in the future, which makes the cut less likely.

Bottom line, it's a risk-management question (how sure are you that the player's performance will justify the cap cost in years x, y, z of the deal), as well as an opportunity cost question (do you want the extra space this year to allow you to sign other players). That doesn't mean dead money is inherently bad any more than it means using signing bonuses to create more year 1 cap room is inherently good; each decision needs to be evaluated in context.

But it absolutely does mean the two structures are different,with different pluses and minuses and different impacts on the likelihood of the player seeing later years on the deal. You were claiming the distinction was irrelevant, which is - literally - nonsense.

Sent from my SM-G920T using JetNation.com mobile app
 

No. It's the 2nd, additional player that hurt the cap, not the first one that was signed for (and paid) the same money no matter what years the cap hits were allocated.

It didn't hurt the Jets to move $6m of Mo's money from 2016 to 2017-18. It was that they used that $6m plus another $1m in 2016, plus another $5m of 2017 money, on Fitzpatrick. They're more or less spending the same money on Mo himself over 2 years. If Fitzpatrick had told the Jets to stick it then all $12m would have been available to the Jets in 2017. 

The reason you do it is to allow the opportunity to sign someone else later, or because you the GM (or your predecessor) locked the team into too much in the past. But allowing this opportunity does not force one's hand into doing so and endeavor into poor decisions on others.

In the end, the exact same number comes off the cap, whether it's allocated proportionally in even amounts, or if it's back-weighted a little. Neither is superior to the other; neither is more responsible or less responsible. The only thing good or bad is making sure you've signed the right players because all the front or back loading of the cap isn't going to cover up for having no QB and paying Darrelle Revis $19m/year.

[CrazyCarl40]

All of this money talk is fascinating but it's all done in a vacuum where injuries aren't talked about and the signing teams aren't talked about. Paying a guard that much money on a second contract coming off of a major shoulder injury after one solid year of play is a bad use of resources, no matter how it is structured. They overpaid him because they waited on an extension and had no viable backups through drafts over the last few seasons. It's poor management all around. The offensive line has been ignored for some time and I doubt that changes with this regime. 

[Jet9]

Long-winded negativity is JN in a nutshell. Sperm is the captain, DBatesman is the recruiter. 

[Doggin94it]

No. It's the 2nd, additional player that hurt the cap, not the first one that was signed for (and paid) the same money no matter what years the cap hits were allocated.
It didn't hurt the Jets to move $6m of Mo's money from 2016 to 2017-18. It was that they used that $6m plus another $1m in 2016, plus another $5m of 2017 money, on Fitzpatrick. They're more or less spending the same money on Mo himself over 2 years. If Fitzpatrick had told the Jets to stick it then all $12m would have been available to the Jets in 2017. 
The reason you do it is to allow the opportunity to sign someone else later, or because you the GM (or your predecessor) locked the team into too much in the past. But allowing this opportunity does not force one's hand into doing so and endeavor into poor decisions on others.
In the end, the exact same number comes off the cap, whether it's allocated proportionally in even amounts, or if it's back-weighted a little. Neither is superior to the other; neither is more responsible or less responsible. The only thing good or bad is making sure you've signed the right players because all the front or back loading of the cap isn't going to cover up for having no QB and paying Darrelle Revis $19m/year.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, now. you can't argue on the one hand about the "pocketed benefit" of the contract structure allowing the signing of other players and then, simultaneously, that the other players signed have nothing to do with the contract.

Bottom line is that Winters is exactly the type of player I'd prefer the Jets go cap=cash on, because there's a more than insignificant risk (based on injury and past history) that he'll underplay the contract and we'll want to escape it in two years, which giving him a large signing bonus and a lower year 1 cap hit would have made less viable. And that's true whether we roll that cap space forward or spend to the cap this year.

Sent from my SM-G920T using JetNation.com mobile app

[CrazyCarl40]

57 minutes ago, Jet9 said:

Long-winded negativity is JN in a nutshell. Sperm is the captain, DBatesman is the recruiter. 

Is this a quote from the movie Mean Girls?

[Sperm Edwards]

33 minutes ago, Doggin94it said:

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, now. you can't argue on the one hand about the "pocketed benefit" of the contract structure allowing the signing of other players and then, simultaneously, that the other players signed have nothing to do with the contract.

Bottom line is that Winters is exactly the type of player I'd prefer the Jets go cap=cash on, because there's a more than insignificant risk (based on injury and past history) that he'll underplay the contract and we'll want to escape it in two years, which giving him a large signing bonus and a lower year 1 cap hit would have made less viable. And that's true whether we roll that cap space forward or spend to the cap this year.

Sent from my SM-G920T using JetNation.com mobile app
 

Nope. The entire "bottom line" point is that it isn't better or worse on the cap to offer Winters a contract sans signing bonus. That if they'd done so the same amount would come off the cap if he's cut after 2 years. The "dead cap" you were speaking of is either "dead" (as you see it) in years 1-2 or in year 3. The same amount comes off the cap as long as the same amount is paid in cash. Since unused cap space would carry over, that player has the same amount coming off if he's released in year 3. 

The "pocketed benefit" is on a different player, not the same player. The team would have chosen to add another (second) player in year 1 instead of carrying this flexibility over to year 3. That is the player who causes the appearance of costing more on the cap, not the original player and his "dead" cap. The other player does have nothing to do with the original contract. 

It's being seen as somehow "better" because it looks ugly as a line item, should Winters be released in year 3. If we're not making other obviously stupid signings (like making Hightower an offer at $12m, or offering a dead-end QB $12m at the end of July) it doesn't matter. 

[j4jets]

15 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

It's still different amount being paid to the player over the first 2 years. Things are not typically done this differently unless they're different quality players.

Player A receives $29m over the first 2 years; Player B receives $21m over the first 2 years. While the guarantee on paper is the same, in practical terms a player receiving a $20m signing bonus and a $1m salary in year 1 is empirically guaranteed to be on the team through year 2.

They're just totally different contracts for that reason, and it's not a subtle difference. If you want to make a true comparison of similar contracts, where the only difference is one used a signing bonus and the other used zero bonus money, you make it so both players have received the same amount of cash through 2 seasons.

Point being, signing bonuses can cause a team not to cut a player in future years if the cap is tight. Thus, resulting in that player playing an extra year or two at an inflated salary where as you can cut a player that only received guaranteed salary (no signing bonus). Preference is to pay ZERO signing bonus unless you are short on cap for that particular year. 

[Sperm Edwards]

5 hours ago, j4jets said:

Point being, signing bonuses can cause a team not to cut a player in future years if the cap is tight. Thus, resulting in that player playing an extra year or two at an inflated salary where as you can cut a player that only received guaranteed salary (no signing bonus). Preference is to pay ZERO signing bonus unless you are short on cap for that particular year. 

That is just not true. What causes a player to be a more difficult cut is

1. if the signing bonus caused a greater percentage of the contract to be paid out by year 2 than otherwise
2. how easy it is to replace that player

Beyond that (paying more to the player in advance), there is no difference except for emotional reasons. If you paid a player $20m over the first 2 years of the contract, it makes no difference if it was all salary or some was via signing bonus. If a player received $20m in guarantees, it matters not if half of it was signing bonus or if none of it was signing bonus.

All teams need look at is whether or not it's worth paying a certain amount of new money going forward. You can't change what was paid in the past, no matter what form those prior payments were made, and you can't change the guaranteed amount..

Look at Decker: if he was paid his signing bonus as past salary, the same amount is recoverable by cutting him: namely, the amount of new money he is to be paid.

It makes it neater on a spreadsheet to have no "dead" money but it really makes no difference whether money paid to him came off in year 1 or is forwarded to year 3. It's the same amount of money on the same team's cap. The only other reason to prefer it is if you believe the GM can't help but spend spend spend if it's there. Also it further makes no difference because, if the GM wanted another player that badly before the new player reaches year 3, he'd just restructure the first player (as Maccagnan did with both Carpenter and Skrine and, in a sense, Wilkerson).

[j4jets]

1 hour ago, Sperm Edwards said:

That is just not true. What causes a player to be a more difficult cut is

1. if the signing bonus caused a greater percentage of the contract to be paid out by year 2 than otherwise
2. how easy it is to replace that player

Beyond that (paying more to the player in advance), there is no difference except for emotional reasons. If you paid a player $20m over the first 2 years of the contract, it makes no difference if it was all salary or some was via signing bonus. If a player received $20m in guarantees, it matters not if half of it was signing bonus or if none of it was signing bonus.

All teams need look at is whether or not it's worth paying a certain amount of new money going forward. You can't change what was paid in the past, no matter what form those prior payments were made, and you can't change the guaranteed amount..

Look at Decker: if he was paid his signing bonus as past salary, the same amount is recoverable by cutting him: namely, the amount of new money he is to be paid.

It makes it neater on a spreadsheet to have no "dead" money but it really makes no difference whether money paid to him came off in year 1 or is forwarded to year 3. It's the same amount of money on the same team's cap. The only other reason to prefer it is if you believe the GM can't help but spend spend spend if it's there. Also it further makes no difference because, if the GM wanted another player that badly before the new player reaches year 3, he'd just restructure the first player (as Maccagnan did with both Carpenter and Skrine and, in a sense, Wilkerson).

We are going in circles. A player that received 20mil signing bonus on 5 year deal, carries a dead cap of $12mil if released in year 3 even if he made one mil each in the first two years as salary. You're right on the cap being pushed forward part, but if the team is in cap hell in year 3 (for reasons beyond the player himself), and the player has declined (like Revis), he will probably player another year as opposed to a player that received $10mil straight each year with no bonus. 

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, j4jets said:

We are going in circles. A player that received 20mil signing bonus on 5 year deal, carries a dead cap of $12mil if released in year 3 even if he made one mil each in the first two years as salary. You're right on the cap being pushed forward part, but if the team is in cap hell in year 3 (for reasons beyond the player himself), and the player has declined (like Revis), he will probably player another year as opposed to a player that received $10mil straight each year with no bonus. 

The team can spend the same amount, outside of the player's contract, whether given a signing bonus or not.

Your examples were not apples to apples, as it's only a valid comparison if you're looking at two contracts with the same amount of money paid to date. That is more a function of early vs late payout than signing bonus vs no signing bonus.

Keeping vs dumping Revis was a different situation, as he still had $6m guaranteed new money due to him.

Here's the other reason it makes no difference: an irresponsible GM signing anything that moves, to get onto the back pages of the NY tabloids, is just going to restructure that same player later on to lower his year 2 (or year 3) cap number. It doesn't "save" a thing. If the GM has it in mind to sign someone else, he's going to sign someone else and tell Ms. Davis to restructure Winters. In the end, so long as they aren't guaranteeing him additional money, it's just moving things from pile A to pile B.