Chiefs Restructure Sammy Watkins

[Jakuvious]

10 minutes ago, Kiwibrown said:

What are the details? 

Under the old deal, he was slated to just make $14M in salary this year. New deal changes it to $7M in salary and $2M in signing/roster bonuses, with $7M in potential incentives. $1M is for either hitting 75% playtime or 7 TDs, which is likely if healthy. He then has incentives for hitting 65 catches, 800 yards, and 8 TDs, with a stipulation on postseason targets. Each of those targets carry a $750k bonus if we make the playoffs, with an additional $1.25M if we make the superbowl and he plays >50% of the snaps in the championship.

So it turned a 1 year, $14M deal, into a 1 year deal that bottoms out at $9M, but maxes out at $16M. If he repeats what he did last year, for reference, he would hit the regular season playing time incentive, but miss the statistical incentives, so it'd be a $10M deal, or a $4M paycut from Sammy.

It's a nice deal in a lot of ways. Most likely scenario is it's just a pay cut from Watkins. He's taking probably $4M less to stay with the team. The alternative would've absolutely been him getting cut. And given what the WR market has been this offseason, it's unlikely he gets more than $10M elsewhere. And if he would, it likely wouldn't be enough more to really motivate him to want to go elsewhere. For the Chiefs, it helps them keep the roster together, and brings Watkins deal more in lie with his actual value. If Watkins does exceed expectations, hits the statistical benchmarks, we make the superbowl, etc., and we wind up paying him the full $16M, he'll have proved worth it anyways, and that incentive pay will hit next year's cap, not this year's, anyway.

[Jakuvious]

2 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

1) He would have received 7 million from his guarantee had he been cut so he wouldn't have had to sign for much to make more elsewhere. A 3 million one year deal would have got him more than what he likely makes with the Chiefs this year.

2) We'll see, depends on the incentives but I doubt they are realistically reachable.

That's....not how that works.

[Oregon Ducks]

1 hour ago, Kirill said:

He ate Richard Sherman alive in the super bowl tho

He won't face 32 year-old CBs who are past their prime every game.

 

[JaguarCrazy2832]

Makes sense especially this year with the offseason unknown

[Thomas5737]

12 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

That's....not how that works.

7 million of his base salary was guaranteed.

[Thomas5737]

12 hours ago, kingseanjohn said:

Please stop ignorant trolling

It's not trolling, it's a real possibility and one that may benefit Watkins by staying there and signing a long term deal next year as their #1. We aren't talking about someone who had a small incident, Hill has a history and no matter how great he is on the field he certainly hasn't proved he has learned his lesson off of the field as far as domestic issues are concerned. DV is way up for obvious reasons nationwide and I imagine most of it is from repeat offenders because most of us wouldn't go that route a first time.

[Soko]

13 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

7 million of his base salary was guaranteed.

Dead cap =/=guaranteed money for that season. It simply means that he’d count $7M against the cap if he was outright cut (as opposed to the $21M he’d count against on the roster). The year-to-year income is separate from the dead cap/cap hit. You have to actually look at how it’s structured. 

Watkins’ old deal had $30M in total guarantees. $21M signing bonus, the salary in 2018, and roughly $8M of 2019. It had no protections or guarantees for 2020. 

[kingseanjohn]

1 hour ago, Thomas5737 said:

It's not trolling, it's a real possibility and one that may benefit Watkins by staying there and signing a long term deal next year as their #1. We aren't talking about someone who had a small incident, Hill has a history and no matter how great he is on the field he certainly hasn't proved he has learned his lesson off of the field as far as domestic issues are concerned. DV is way up for obvious reasons nationwide and I imagine most of it is from repeat offenders because most of us wouldn't go that route a first time.

The accusations were bs. Hill has custody of his son. I'm done talking about it because no one looks past the headlines or believes anything to the contrary despite evidence being presented. It's trolling, you got me, I'm done.

[SaveOurSonics]

12 hours ago, Oregon Ducks said:

He won't face 32 year-old CBs who are past their prime every game.

 

I mean. Sherm was PFFs #1 graded CB last season iirc so it's not like he was dunking on some bum. 

[Thomas5737]

1 hour ago, Yin-Yang said:

Dead cap =/=guaranteed money for that season. It simply means that he’d count $7M against the cap if he was outright cut (as opposed to the $21M he’d count against on the roster). The year-to-year income is separate from the dead cap/cap hit. You have to actually look at how it’s structured. 

Watkins’ old deal had $30M in total guarantees. $21M signing bonus, the salary in 2018, and roughly $8M of 2019. It had no protections or guarantees for 2020. 

7 million of his 2020 base salary was guaranteed. If he gets cut he gets the guaranteed money. If he was traded it would go to the team that traded for him so he wasn't getting cut but he could have been traded for a mid/late round pick.

The point was that someone said he might not make more if he was cut and signed elsewhere and with the 7 million guaranteed that is extremely unlikely. He would have financially been better off (in all likelihood) being cut and signing elsewhere. I think he was due a little over 9 million this year in salary before the new deal.

I don't know about the offset language in his contract, if it was there then it probably doesn't matter which route he took financially. He wouldn't be able to double dip and it would depend on how much he actually earned in 2020 with his new team whether the Chiefs would be responsible for any of that 7 million.

[Jakuvious]

2 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

7 million of his base salary was guaranteed.

This is not correct. He had a non-guaranteed, $14M base salary this season. We would've taken $7M in dead cap from cutting him because that was the prorated portion of his $21M signing bonus. That $7M was already paid to him when we signed him. Had we cut him, he would make nothing from KC.

[Jakuvious]

2 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

It's not trolling, it's a real possibility and one that may benefit Watkins by staying there and signing a long term deal next year as their #1. We aren't talking about someone who had a small incident, Hill has a history and no matter how great he is on the field he certainly hasn't proved he has learned his lesson off of the field as far as domestic issues are concerned. DV is way up for obvious reasons nationwide and I imagine most of it is from repeat offenders because most of us wouldn't go that route a first time.

It's pretty clearly trolling.

[Soko]

56 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

7 million of his 2020 base salary was guaranteed. If he gets cut he gets the guaranteed money. If he was traded it would go to the team that traded for him so he wasn't getting cut but he could have been traded for a mid/late round pick.

You are incorrect. None of his 2020 salary was guaranteed. I already split it up for you above - signing bonus + 2018 salary + partial 2019 salary. If he got cut instead of restructured, he’d get nothing.

Again, dead cap =/= guaranteed dollars for that season.

56 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

The point was that someone said he might not make more if he was cut and signed elsewhere and with the 7 million guaranteed that is extremely unlikely. He would have financially been better off (in all likelihood) being cut and signing elsewhere. I think he was due a little over 9 million this year in salary before the new deal.

Watkins would’ve made around $14M on the old deal. Now his floor is less, but has a higher ceiling with incentives. 

Looking at the WR market, I don’t think he’d be bringing in much over $10M, if any at all.

[Thomas5737]

I either misread or read bad info then. Yeah, he may not have made more if he got cut then. Well, he would have because he would have signed a multiyear deal with bonus money so he would have collected a lot more in 2020 but on average he may not have made more.

[Thomas5737]

49 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

It's pretty clearly trolling.

If it upsets people then I apologize but it wasn't trolling. It is a real probability with him, we know what he has said and done in the past, no one would be surprised if something were to happen and if it did Watkins' value to the Chiefs is magnified which was the point, I have no desire to bash Hill in this thread it isn't about him but it could change Watkins' value if something did happen and it is a possibility.