Vikings are now #8 in available cap space
17,809,972
Effective Cap Space: the cap space a team will have after signing at least 51 players and its projected rookie class to its roster.
Hurry-up Vikings, we ain't getting any younger!
Bears #1 32 mil
Lions #4 23 mil
Packers #9 16 mil
Justin Jefferson: "Gimme that" :p
Vikings projected to have three times that in 2024.
Considering this, I wonder if the Vikings might forego the typical contract structure for Jefferson, and put more money up front.
@"MaroonBells" said: Vikings projected to have three times that in 2024.Considering this, I wonder if the Vikings might forego the typical contract structure for Jefferson, and put more money up front.
Depends if they think they're bringing in anyone else, or if our roster is our roster by and large. But does it really matter? I thought unused cap rolls over now days?
Front loading cash is dangerous. You get to the point late in the deal where the player does not see much cash coming next year. He will forget about the mega cash he received up front and focus on the mini cash he is expected to play for next season. Then comes the holdout and everyone agreeing that he is underpaid.
@"dadevike" said: Front loading cash is dangerous. You get to the point late in the deal where the player does not see much cash coming next year. He will forget about the mega cash he received up front and focus on the mini cash he is expected to play for next season. Then comes the holdout and everyone agreeing that he is underpaid.I'm not going to pretend to know everything about contracts, but I'm pretty sure teams can structure the cap hits any way they want without it impacting the amount of money going to the player.
For example, Tyreek Hill signed a 4-year, $120M contract. His yearly cash and average annual salary is roughly the same through the term, but the Dolphins chose to have only $6M hit the cap in the first year and only $12M hit the cap the second year, with $31M hitting the cap in 2024. Most big contracts are structured in a similar way.
I'm just saying maybe don't do that. Maybe spread it out evenly, or if you have extra cap space this year, have more money hit the cap the 1st year, so there isn't a huge acceleration down the road (or AS huge anyway)....especially when you're trying to fit his money in with TJH, Hunter, etc. You could maybe even stagger the accelerated years so they don't all hit at once.
@"MaroonBells" said:@"dadevike" said: Front loading cash is dangerous. You get to the point late in the deal where the player does not see much cash coming next year. He will forget about the mega cash he received up front and focus on the mini cash he is expected to play for next season. Then comes the holdout and everyone agreeing that he is underpaid. I'm not going to pretend to know everything about contracts, but I'm pretty sure teams can structure the cap hits any way they want without it impacting the amount of money going to the player.For example, Tyreek Hill signed a 4-year, $120M contract. His yearly cash and average annual salary is roughly the same through the term, but the Dolphins chose to have only $6M hit the cap in the first year and only $12M hit the cap the second year, with $31M hitting the cap in 2024. Most big contracts are structured in a similar way.
I'm just saying maybe don't do that. Maybe spread it out evenly, or if you have extra cap space this year, have more money hit the cap the 1st year, so there isn't a huge acceleration down the road (or AS huge anyway)....especially when you're trying to fit his money in with TJH, Hunter, etc. You could maybe even stagger the accelerated years so they don't all hit at once.
Sure, there are ways to pay money now and spread out that money evenly or push it off for later years. That's the salary cap and that's the team's concern, not the player's. The player wants cash today and guarantees of cash in the future. That's it. They don't care about cap issues or money paid in the past. Those are not their problem.What I'm saying is that telling player X that he is not going to see a lot of new cash this year but he will still count for a huge salary cap hit because the team paid him most of his contract value 3 years ago will fall on deaf ears. He does not want to hear about the cash he received 3 years ago or his salary cap hit this year. All he wants to know is whether his will be paid this year what he thinks he's worth this year. That's why paying a lot of the contract up front is a risky play.
I think I’m somewhere in between. I think a lot of guys are ok with not getting
their full value in cash every year, assuming they got it in the past, but I
think it’s a tough situation for guys when their paycheck is going to be
relatively tiny, especially when some of these guys are bad with money and got
it all up front and burned through it quickly and now need a big salary to pay
for their big lifestyle.
I think the NFL could really use some cleaning up of the way
contracts are allowed to get structured.
It sort of feels like everything is as complicated as possible in an
attempt to give players the illusion that they’ll get more money, when in
actuality it’s going to be pulled away before that happens. From a fans perspective it’s almost
impossible to make heads or tails of how the teams doing cap-wise, when at any
point in time a player could be cut, traded, renegotiated, etc. all leading to
a wide variety of different cap outcomes.
I think they really need to do away with void years, especially in this
world where the cap increases like crazy every year. We should never have an environment, where
the cap is a myth, because at that point why have a cap at all? I think the cap rules we have right now
increase how much players move around between teams, causing fans to not really
want to put too much emotional investment into the players anymore, because at
any moment a GM could just wipe their favorite player away.
@"dadevike" said: Front loading cash is dangerous. You get to the point late in the deal where the player does not see much cash coming next year. He will forget about the mega cash he received up front and focus on the mini cash he is expected to play for next season. Then comes the holdout and everyone agreeing that he is underpaid.Kind of like the Hunter situation. He got top 5 DE money in his first couple years of his extension and then missed most of two seasons while he got that big money, and now that he's only due a 5.5 mil base salary, he thinks he needs more.
I don't mind front loading contracts because it's actually better for the team when you're paying guys for what you expect them to do the next couple years. If it's a 5-yr deal, you are basically front loading for 3 and leaving it open to do another extension at Year 4 or in the final year of the deal... Or if their play is declining, you can cut them with minimal dead money.
@"Wetlander" said: I don't mind front loading contracts because it's actually better for the team when you're paying guys for what you expect them to do the next couple years. If it's a 5-yr deal, you are basically front loading for 3 and leaving it open to do another extension at Year 4 or in the final year of the deal... Or if their play is declining, you can cut them with minimal dead money.The problem is when the dead money is not so minimal - the Cook situation. You can have a big non-guaranteed number that the team is not going to pay, so it offers a smallish but guaranteed number. The player may have other ideas. He knows you are not going to pay that big fake number but he also knows that cutting him creates a big cap problem. He refuses to renegotiate: pay me per the contract or cut me and I'll go where I want. So the team has only bad choices: pay the player more than the team wants to pay (more than any other team would pay him); or cut the player and take a big dead cap number and get nothing for the player.
Edit Post (mod action — author will see a notice)
Warn Poster
Suspend User (3 days)
The user will be suspended for 3 days and will receive an email with the reason and information about how to appeal.