2012 RULES: Guaranteed Money Feedback

[Goodell]

Even though our contracts can seem comlicated at times (salary, roster bonus, signing bonus, etc.) they really are simplified versions of how we probably should be doing guaranteed versus non-guaranteed money.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 225AALfpGD

We wouldn't change any existing contracts, but might look at restructuring how we would upload salary data for new leagues from scratch as well as how draft pick contracts and free agent bids might be structured to be a little more realistic.

That might involve adding a "guaranteed money" value where it's not just the signing bonus as a cap hit that teams have to be careful about, but also how much of the salary going forward is going to be guaranteed as well.

This would allow us to enter in new contracts (for draft picks for example) exactly as they are reported in the press with signing bonus and guaranteed contract figures which can be different.

That would also put a different spin on some big player investments or how much one club is willing to guarantee versus another, and alter some decisions on big contract players if part of their salary ahead is guaranteed.

That could also add to some of our GM confusion and complicate our free agency bidding process with some new wrinkles.

Again, not looking to get into a poll on specifics just yet but create a place for feedback into our contract structures and possibly adding guaranteed money as part of that for new deals ahead. Let me know if any thoughts. We'll take some of the best ideas and eventually do some league-wide polling later.

[Goodell]

There were also news items last season where it seemed under NFL rules if veterans were on the team in week 1 their entire salary was guaranteed for the year, but if added later that wasn't the case. I don't recall hearing that before but did last year, so if that continues to be part of the NFL team building process to consider in cap management, might also be something we want to replicate here and put some additional significance to decisions coming out of training camp.

[soonertf]

I really like the idea of working in the guarentee money category.

[Ulrich82]

I could be wrong with the new CBA, but I don't believe veteran contracts are fully guaranteed on week 1. I believe the old rule was that a veteran can choose once in his career (or perhaps once per team) to guarantee his salary for a given year if he is cut during the year but on the week 1 roster. If I have the rule right, this seems like just a small detail to me rather than something we should try to match (how could we match it if it is really a decision the player makes). Also, I worry such a rule would tie owners hands too much in dealing with the salary cap in-season.

As for the issue of guaranteed money, I think we should keep our system and fold it into the signing bonus. I've always read "signing bonus" on this site as guaranteed money and it is part of guaranteed money in real life. That's really the only purpose it has here since we aren't dealing with fictional cash amounts per team used to pay out annual signing bonuses. If someone has a good idea, I am all ears. However, I think we have the basics right, and trying to add more categories just over complicates things.

[Strategist]

I agree I think we shouldn't really get caught up on definitions. Essentially SB is guaranteed money and salary is non guaranteed.

[Ben C.]

I've also read that veteran contracts are guaranteed after the first game of the season.

One other thing I'd like to add while I'm thinking of it is the NFL has different minimum salaries based on how many years you've been in the league. For example, the minimum for a vet with 10 years of experience is 910k versus 375k for rookies.

Here's a link: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -new-deal/

[Ulrich82]

The minimum salary has never been flat. More years worked = larger minimum salary. However, to keep teams from just dumping average veterans in favor of young players, I believe only a portion of the veteran minimum actually counts against the cap (I admit I could be wrong about this as maybe it only applies to signing bonuses, but I don't think so).

I believe the idea is something like the following example (I am making up numbers):
10 year vet:
->Minimum salary: $800,000
->Counts against cap: $450,000

3 year vet:
->Minimum salary: $450,000
->Counts against cap: $450,000

In this case, the decision between the vet and younger player is simply a cash flow issue which is something we don't deal with in this league.

[Goodell]

We had lower minimum bids for rookies and younger players and required a higher minimum for veterans over 3 years I believe, but I think it probably makes sense to use the real minimums for experience levels where if you wanted to sign a 10-year veteran on the market that you had to give him at least the 10-year veteran minimum contract bid. Just have to ensure we keep good records on years of experience and list those on the free agent bid page.

[Goodell]

I could be wrong with the new CBA, but I don't believe veteran contracts are fully guaranteed on week 1. I believe the old rule was that a veteran can choose once in his career (or perhaps once per team) to guarantee his salary for a given year if he is cut during the year but on the week 1 roster. If I have the rule right, this seems like just a small detail to me rather than something we should try to match (how could we match it if it is really a decision the player makes). Also, I worry such a rule would tie owners hands too much in dealing with the salary cap in-season.

I read an old article that mentioned the once in a career thing, but heard a lot of news last year that talked about the importance of veterans and whether on the roster or not week 1 as it guaranteed their salary (some of that because we had Kyle Orton here and he had a big salary and Tebow behind him so that action needed before week 1 was brought up a lot during camp). Here are some similar links I found quickly this morning from this past season with that mention of week 1 meaning veterans got their full salary.

And many teams will be hesitant to sign more expensive veterans prior to Week 1 (which would guarantee their entire salary).
http://wap.nfl.com/news/09000d5d821aa78 ... ing-backs/

This could be a frugal waiting game on the part of the Raiders. If the team waits until after Week 1 to sign him, they will not be on the hook for his entire season salary. Veterans on an NFL roster at the start of Week 1 have their base salary guaranteed.
http://www.footballnewsnow.com/2011/no- ... iders-yet/

This seems to be a move made to save the $1.5 million he would cost if he's on the roster the first week of the season. Veterans on the roster the first week of the regular season have their entire salary guaranteed for the season.
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/dolphins ... phins.html

He's a 10-year NFL veteran. If he was on the opening week roster, as a vested veteran, his entire 2011 salary would have been guaranteed, so that tells us his spot on the roster is fluid.
http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2011/9/16 ... -nfl-draft

Andrew Brandt - And there is the vested veteran issue. If a vested player -- with four or more years of NFL experience -- is on the roster as of this Saturday afternoon, his salary is guaranteed for the year (through termination pay). If that same player is signed two days later after the first weekend of games, his termination pay is a fraction of that. That is why we will see vested veterans released or simply not signed -- Tiki Barber and others -- until next week at the earliest.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-br ... 49975.html

http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2011/8/29/ ... plications

[Shagg]

I really like the idea of working in the guarentee money category.

me too