Jump to content
RamRod

General Season Talk

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, N4L said:

TLDR: Rams contract structure allows no flexibility in future years, you are stuck with all of your players for better or worse. Niners contracts allow a ton of flexibility in future years, they can cut/trade all of their players at any time with very little downside. they can also restructure to create space, whereas the rams don't have the same ability 

Sorry you might want to look at our contracts closer. The problem you're seeing is these are year 1 of Gurley, Cooks and Goffs extensions. 

The last 3 years of Aaron Donalds contract? $8 million dead cap the last two years no dead cap. In fact after this year we have 4 years with only 2 of them having any guaranteed money. Dee Ford? Dead money throughout the term. Less than AD obviously since it's a smaller contract. 

Jimmy G same thing his biggest cap his is year 1 at $37 million (same exact hit as Jared in year one this year). Year 1 Jimmy had a $37 million cap hit and $42 million dead money with some dead money all the way to the end. Jared almost identical but no dead money last year and with 2 years left he has $5 million dead money to Jimmy's $3 million last year. 

The difference is you have almost nobody on a 2nd contract. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, N4L said:

I don't see how they are good for moving money around. You guys have big roster bonuses with rolling guarantees (that guarantee 1 full year before they come due for some reason), large signing bonuses, low/moderate base salaries. Initially it might make sense, but you cant 'move money around' in future years. 

Base salaries are the most flexible parts of the contracts, as they are not guaranteed, paid by the team that currently employs the player only, and can easily be converted into signing bonuses in the future that free up cap space in that particular year. Your contracts are not designed to be flexible in future years, they give players a lot of money up front but have a lot of dead space later in the event they aren't on your team. Sure, the large signing bonuses give you cap savings initially vs the amount of money actually paid, and that up front money should save you money down the road - due to the time value of money, because theoretically A) the cap should increase and B) players should take less money in the future for more money now, but I don't really see B actually taking place here. 

Also, the roster bonuses guaranteeing a year early is so backwards. It makes guys uncuttable. The large signing bonuses compound this issue because these players are both uncuttable and untradeable. 

I don't actually think the rams have saved any money up front though. relative to the amount of physical cash paid to the players sure, but relative to their actual cap hit in early years? Not really. Those guys still have big cap hits now, dead space later (in the event of a cut/trade) and tons of additional guaranteed money in future years. 

The contract structure you guys use is actually about as inflexible as you could make it. You have no maneuverability after the contract is signed. 

Look at the guys I referenced in my post. Those are cornerstone players as well (none of them are aaron Donald though) and none of them have the same structure that you guys have. If it was one guy, then sure, that came from the agent or the player and that was how you had to make that deal. when it is a pattern though? that shows whoever is structuring your contracts is not good at managing the cap. Someone who knows how to work the cap wouldn't sign these deals. Its almost like kronke has the same guy do his contracts from arsenal, avalanche etc. 

As I said before, the niners do most of the contracts with money being paid in base salaries with guarantees that only kick in on april 1st of that year. the rams guarantees kick in the year before. The base salary means after year one of the deal we can cut guys with no consequence, trade them, or restructure - converting that base salary to a signing bonus that frees up space in the current year. We don't offer (large) signing bonuses initially for this reason. it makes it super easy to move money around down the road. 

The contract structure should take the majority of the blame for why you guys may have cap issues in a few years. Yes, the players getting injured (gurley, cooks) shares some blame, but if they didn't have the structure they did, you would be able to get rid of them right now and wouldn't be burdened by them. Does that make sense? 

 

TLDR: Rams contract structure allows no flexibility in future years, you are stuck with all of your players for better or worse. Niners contracts allow a ton of flexibility in future years, they can cut/trade all of their players at any time with very little downside. they can also restructure to create space, whereas the rams don't have the same ability 

This is really bad analysis. Using a large roster bonus that is guaranteed instead of a large signing bonus is just an accounting trick. They're trying to park money in certain years. The reality is that if they need to move the money, they can convert it into a signing bonus and prorate it. The player isn't going to care. They get paid the money all the same, and it helps the team. If anything, it makes the player more difficult to cut, so he is getting security out of it.

As for the 49ers, you were a bad team handing out inflated contracts to players who didn't have better options. Of course you were able to work out more friendly deals. Once you have to start paying your own guys (who are top players at their positions) to keep them out of FA, you won't be able to get away with that structure. 

Also, we aren't going to have cap issues in a few years. We have plenty of flexibility in future years. And the idea that we could get rid of Gurley and Cooks now if we just had better management is a fantasy. When/if DeForest Buckner re-signs, you let me know if you can get out of his contract before Year 3. I am quite confident that you'll find out that you can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×