DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Player News Continued

never a doubt that would get done

Browns Wyatt Teller: $9.136M

I expect a Watson restructure soon

thanks

When I open my browser, I get the usual click-bait selection of stories. Being a Browns fan, I get almost every article about them, from all sources. What I have been seeing ever since the announcement of team captains are stories about how the team "stripped" Chubb of his captain status and how tone-deaf the selection of DW as team captain. The main offender in this is Heavy, which isn't even a sports-oriented publication. The writer probably doesn't know anything about team culture, and certainly doesn't know how Nick Chubb thinks and operates. The team culture aspect is that DW is captain because he is the leader of the team, especially on offense. QBs are routinely picked as team captains throughout the sport. And Nick leads by example, not through being a vocal leader. From what I hear, he was completely on-board with giving his captaincy over to Deshawn.

Mmm hmmm....

I can only imagine the heavy equipment/machinery it took to open up Mike Brown's wallet to make that deal.

Good for Joe. In today's NFL he's worth that deal!!

Jaws of Life.

I guess we get to see who is good value for their $250M - $275M contract on Sunday. . . just one more layer or comparison and scrutiny to the slice of pie. I mean there was always going to be a comparison but this sort of just adds one added facet.

I love that they waited until 5 minutes before kickoff too haha. No doubt they've had this worked out for a little while (and he was probably kinda milking his calf until it got signed)

Now they have the problem of keeping all their assets- Chase, Higgins, Boyd- add in their Oline and Defense.....they could EASILY have money/cap problems. Let's not forget Mixon....wonder who's going to show "loyalty" and give them a team discount....ha, ha.......GO Browns!!!

and Brown doesn't have the deep pockets like Haslem does to pay out like we are currently doing. I think Higgins will be gone for sure

Not according to a lot of posters on this board. According to them, the cap is meaningless.

The cap is not meaningless. You have to pay up sometime. It can just be manipulated to allow for a winning window to open or stay open for a duration of time. Eventually you'll have to pay the piper so to speak but you're hoping the salary cap keeps increasing so you can let some older high price players go when you allow the large contract to hit hardest and then try to find replacements in the draft. See Rams 2021 thru 2023. Had they not won the SB in 2021 they probably would have extended contracts to keep window open longer.

Yes, teams have to pay up sometime. In this case, Jimmy is paying cash up front. We don't have to worry so much about "maxing out credit" and "balloon payments." While we're pushing cap hits into the future, that's just accounting. It's all already paid for. Jimmy seems to have the cash flow and willingness to spend to keep doing it practically indefinitely. Many teams don't have the cash to do so and can run into problems.

yeah I'm not as worried about the cap as other people

Cash up front? Then why has he restructured so many contracts to build up cap space to roll over into next year and put paying that money off? See, you can't sit back and say that for years after they signed watson the Browns will still have cap room to continue to pay its stars and then on the other hand say that the moment the Bengals sign Burrow they are in cap hell. Well I guess you can because I'm seeing it posted but it sure as hell doesn't make any sense.

He's not putting off paying. He's paying bonuses now, the cap hits are then spread over the length of the contract for salary cap (accounting) purposes.

Paying the cash up front is not paying the piper down the road. That is the salary cap. Eventually, they'll have to take a hit there. Hopefully, the window can stay open for some time, and they can kick the can down the road until then and the slary cap has increased to the point that the hit is not as bad as imagined. I do think by next season the Watson salary will start to look like a bargain.

I thought the cap hit was exactly what we were talking about? If he were paying it all up front he wouldn't be back loading the cap hit.

I'm talking about cash flow which is actually what matters.

The Mike Browns of the world can't afford to drop "a billion" dollars to push cap hits into the future. After putting Burrows guarantees into escrow, he's probably pretty much tapped out cash-wise. He can't restructure a contract into bonuses now and spread them out because he (probably) doesn't have the cash on hand to do so now.

We're "backloading" the cap hit that way because it makes the most sense with the cap steadily increasing every year. Plus, we benefit from the rollover which pushes our future cap even higher. We're kind of gaming the system (within the current rules.) It's not entirely unexpected considering Berry's economics background.

Player salaries will also rise every year. As of now the team value of the Bengals is 4 billion dollars. I don't think Mike Brown will have any problem getting his hands on cash if he needs it.

This is correct. Some people get this, and clearly, others do not.

I would snatch that dude immediately if came available

And all players salaries across the board will rise to keep pace with the rising salary cap which will minimize the impact you think putting off paying these players will achieve. That's the way it's always been. Speaking of not getting it.

Higgins will be getting a boatload of money in 6 months

You keep saying "putting off paying," I've repeatedly pointed out how that's not the case. *shrug* If it hasn't sunk in yet, I can't help you.

You, again, are correct. It's not "putting off paying". In fact it's paying the money now in a calendar year, but because base salary is converted to bonuses, it is amortized over x amount of years based on the contract from an accounting end, which can always be restructured further. Again, it's a cash flow vs cap hit issue which some people fail to understand. Apparently, Haslem can do this because he is more cash friendly in a calendar year than other owners. It's why the Browns FO can restructure so many contracts keeping the base salary low and breaking up bonuses from an accounting perspective. They've found the edge like some other teams have, so to speak, when managing a roster. Now, that doesn't absolve the Browns when it comes to bad contracts, it just means that can handle them better if they exist.

He'd have a better argument (although not that strong of one) going after the void years if it meant "putting off paying".

Just a casual observance, though it's true that Haslem is cash heavy allowing him to convert base salaries to bonuses he has to pay up front, moving that money cost for accounting purposes (the cap) into prorated bonuses has its drawbacks. In the example above in another post, it shows that hypothetically the Browns would give Watson another contract at the end of 2024 for 5-years at 56M APY. Using the same process Berry is currently using of restructuring each year and moving the base salaries to prorated bonuses and void years will leave over a 100M left to account for if Watson retires or leaves at the end of the new deal that the Browns would either be immediately accountable for that next season, or a post June 1 release would allow them to spread it out over 2 years.

In is also incorrect that that the prorated bonus can be restructured further, once that money is earmarked as a prorated bonus for a particular year - it is accountable for that year.
In the Watson example, even if they restructure him in 2024 and then sign him to a new deal @ 56M (just a guess), Watsons cap cost for 2025 would be 56M base salary plus the prorated bonus cost from the previous contract making his cap cost 83M for 2025.

Now Berry can restructure the 56M in base salary and keep adding it to the prorated bonus but that would only keep increasing the prorated bonus until the Browns get through the original contract length before it starts leveling out. In 2026 with another restructure, it would be 56M base plus the restructure prorated bonus cost of 36M or a 92M cap cost before another restructure. You CANNOT change the prorated bonus cost because the Browns must eventually be accountable for that cost accounting wise.

In 2024, the proposed cap is 256M and as of today - Sept 10, 2023 - the Browns are locked into 85.5M in prorated cap costs from all the restructures done in previous years. Not counting any carryover, 33.39% of the Browns cap allowance for 2024 will earmarked for accounting for the restructures from previous seasons - this 85.5M cannot be lowered but can increase if they restructure any other contracts for 2024. An example would be adding another 8.8M to that total from another Watson restructure. Keep in mind, none of these numbers include the actual base salaries for any player meaning the Browns base salaries for 51 players would only comprise of 66.61% of the proposed cap or about 170M plus any carryover. Even with the carryover and restructures Berry has been currently doing, the Browns are currently projected to be 25.5M over the cap for 2024 for 43 rostered players and 8 vacancies calculated at the league minimum.

Just when I was getting excited, Steve comes along...

I'm talking about putting it off in terms of the salary cap implications. Sure the salary cap will rise in upcoming years so at the moment that looks great. But as the salary cap rises so will the contract amounts of signing new players.

It's odd how on one hand when you say a player is being overpaid people such as yourself will say, "In a couple of years that will look like a bargain." Because you fully understand that salaries will continue to go up as the salary cap rises. Then when someone points out to you that will happen as well when you make pushing the can down the road in terms of salary cap hits it's like "Nuh uh. It's smart."

I'm not the one having a problem, "getting it".

I don't understand the point of making these moves now unless we are trying to acquire a guy like Chris Jones or Aaron Donald, which I don't see that we have the trade capital to a get either of them.

Yes we can carry this cap space over but we moved an equal amount if not more into the future.
What is the benefit of these restructures?

I don't think I've ever used the "bargain" line. I think just about every NFL salary is ridiculous, but that's another conversation entirely.

I also think you're not taking into account rookie salaries. While the cost of FA signings will go up, our core players are already under contract, and we can take advantage of cost controlled young guys to fill out the bottom of the roster. We might actually be able to develop those types of guys now that our FO and coaching staff have stuck around for a bit.

We'll have to replace expensive vets with younger guys at some point. All teams do. However, we're making the most of the cap room that is available. I don't get the need to complain about "problems" that don't really exist. Complaining about a problem that may or may not show up years down the road is a waste of mental energy, especially when the people that have to manage the cap are certainly well aware of future ramifications of their moves.

You're not having a problem getting it, you're just using the same inaccurate terminology over and over again. Okay.

It's not inaccurate. It's how it works. All teams attempt to do exactly what you have described by replacing high FA's with rookies. Yet many teams face salary cap issues year in and year out. The reason for that is expiring contracts and the turnover rate of players dictate you can't possibly replace them all with rookies. Even the best NFL GM's and scouting departments don't hit on all of their draft picks. Not even close in fact. The salary cap exists. Teams having problems with the salary cap exists. Shoving salary cap issues down the road exists. Pretending to be, or being in denial of that is where flawed terminology enters the conversation.

Constantly using "putting off paying" when referring to players that have already been paid is certainly inaccurate. Inaccurate is putting it nicely. It's straight up deceptive.

It was nice of you to not use it there.

This is a different conversation than the one you've been having.