Why Aren't We Restructuring Contracts

[omar586]

who's contract can we restructure to help us re-sign some of our players, and other free agents, it seems alot of teams are restructuring contracts except us.

[EdReedFTW]

Because restructuring contracts off short time relief but it can really cause problems with the cap down the road. Short answer is all of those savings that gotten now will all show up at the same time in the next several years. Which will cause MAJOr problems

[Moderator 2]

Restructuring is mortgaging the future

[RavensWin09]

i could see sizzle doing it but i don't want more than that. if we want cap, just sign ray rice and webby already. should save some good money.

[GrimCoconut]

This again? I've seen this restructuring subject come up a lot. I think there is a misunderstanding regarding how restructuring works. Let me explain. We are set to pay Ed Reed close to 8M this year, which is the final year of his contract. Let's say we give him the vet minimum of 800,000 (not sure what the actual vet minimum is--this is an example only). That means that the other 7.2M is still accounted but spread over the duration of the new contract as a signing bonus. The money doesn't disappear or anything. Sometimes players take paycuts, but it doesn't happen very often. That's like your boss coming to you asking you to reduce your salary. I mean, come on.

The problem with these restructures is that it extends the duration of the contract & that signing bonus must be accounted. What if Ed Reed retires? We still have to pay it because we guaranteed it. The problem with restructuring is once you start, you begin a vicious cycle of constantly doing it until you get to the point that you must begin cutting players. You will eventually enter a rebuilding mode.

Just because a lot of other teams do it doesn't mean we should, nor that it is a good idea. I agree that for some players it makes sense, but there IS risk involved for us. If the player gets hurt & is done for their career we still have to pay that salary & that can hurt when you make a contract LONGER.

[RAYvenFan20]

yea it worked out so well for the steelers...[img]http://content.boards.baltimoreravens.com//public/style_emoticons/default/eyes.gif[/img]

[omar586]

ok, now i understand, because i thought since we signed 4 players , that 4.5 million have been reduced to who knows how much, we still need to money for draft too. if we sign flacco, rice , and webby this offseason that would be awesome going forward

[RavensWin09]

[quote name='RAYvenFan20' timestamp='1332688608' post='1033837']
yea it worked out so well for the steelers...[img]http://content.boards.baltimoreravens.com//public/style_emoticons/default/eyes.gif[/img]
[/quote]
i can't believe they tried to restructure so many players just for mike wallace and it still won't be enough! he isn't even that elite and there will be a more "very valuable" player they will NEED to re-sign in the future and they won't be able to because they'll always be trapped in their own cap. they'll regret it soon enough.

i wouldn't want that to happen to us and ozzies smart enough not to over do it. but as i mentioned, i could see suggs doing a MINOR restructure but nothing more.

[CapoRocky]

[quote name='GrimCoconut' timestamp='1332688568' post='1033836']
This again? I've seen this restructuring subject come up a lot. I think there is a misunderstanding regarding how restructuring works. Let me explain. We are set to pay Ed Reed close to 8M this year, which is the final year of his contract. Let's say we give him the vet minimum of 800,000 (not sure what the actual vet minimum is--this is an example only). That means that the other 7.2M is still accounted but spread over the duration of the new contract as a signing bonus. The money doesn't disappear or anything. Sometimes players take paycuts, but it doesn't happen very often. That's like your boss coming to you asking you to reduce your salary. I mean, come on.

The problem with these restructures is that it extends the duration of the contract & that signing bonus must be accounted. What if Ed Reed retires? We still have to pay it because we guaranteed it. The problem with restructuring is once you start, you begin a vicious cycle of constantly doing it until you get to the point that you must begin cutting players. You will eventually enter a rebuilding mode.

Just because a lot of other teams do it doesn't mean we should, nor that it is a good idea. I agree that for some players it makes sense, but there IS risk involved for us. If the player gets hurt & is done for their career we still have to pay that salary & that can hurt when you make a contract LONGER.
[/quote]

I wouldn't want to do it to Reed who might retire in the near future. I'd rather have us try to be wiser when we sign long-term contracts.

[CapoRocky]

[quote name='RavensWin09' timestamp='1332689440' post='1033846']
i can't believe they tried to restructure so many players just for mike wallace and it still won't be enough! he isn't even that elite and there will be a more "very valuable" player they will NEED to re-sign in the future and they won't be able to because they'll always be trapped in their own cap. they'll regret it soon enough.

i wouldn't want that to happen to us and ozzies smart enough not to over do it. but as i mentioned, i could see suggs doing a MINOR restructure but nothing more.
[/quote]

I hope that someone steals Wallace from the Steelers. Come on, Broncos. Manning needs a big play receiver.

[1/28/01]

Poorly run teams (for the most part...there is always the exception to every rule) "restructure" contracts. Causes massive future issues as others have alluded to.

[CapoRocky]

[quote name='RavensWin09' timestamp='1332688422' post='1033831']
i could see sizzle doing it but i don't want more than that. if we want cap, just sign ray rice and webby already. should save some good money.
[/quote]

This has come up before, I disagree with signing Rice, who wants A.P. money, not less than the over 7+M that he's getting under the tag. From a business standpoint, tagging Rice for this year and next makes the most sense because the RB position has a high risk of injury and a greater chance of diminishing returns from the investment. Signing Webb would make sense, since he will get a much bigger payday after this season.

[CapoRocky]

[quote name='1/28/01' timestamp='1332689831' post='1033853']
Poorly run teams (for the most part...there is always the exception to every rule) "restructure" contracts. Causes massive future issues as others have alluded to.
[/quote]

Well summarized, professor.

[GrimCoconut]

[quote name='CapoRocky' timestamp='1332690090' post='1033854']

This has come up before, I disagree with signing Rice, who wants A.P. money, not less than the over 7+M that he's getting under the tag. From a business standpoint, tagging Rice for this year and next makes the most sense because the RB position has a high risk of injury and a greater chance of diminishing returns from the investment. Signing Webb would make sense, since he will get a much bigger payday after this season.
[/quote]
Yeah, if we extend Flacco & Webb the way to do it would be to back-load it. Let's say Flacco gets a deal for 7yrs. We give him his biggest paydays in years 3-7, because Lewis & Reed will almost definitely be off the books by then. You do the same thing with Webb if he gets a 5-year deal, you make years 3-5 the biggest paydays. With Rice we should pay him the most up front or in the middle years. I'd rather not sign him longer than 4yrs, personally. Make years 2-3 the highest paid & the last year with no guaranteed money or very little if possible. If we have to, just franchise tag him three years in a row. It won't be more than AP money if we did do that.

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='RavensWin09' timestamp='1332689440' post='1033846']
i can't believe they tried to restructure so many players just for mike wallace and it still won't be enough! he isn't even that elite and there will be a more "very valuable" player they will NEED to re-sign in the future and they won't be able to because they'll always be trapped in their own cap. they'll regret it soon enough.

i wouldn't want that to happen to us and ozzies smart enough not to over do it. but as i mentioned, i could see suggs doing a MINOR restructure but nothing more.
[/quote]
they didnt do it to get mike wallace they done it to get under the cap, they will have to do it every single year until they bite the bullet and cut those guys they gave ridiculous contracts too, like woodley, harrision, ben, troy etc..

Restructing the current salary, turning it into a signing bonus and spreading it out of the years left on the deal saves cap this year, but all it does is put off the inevitable, and the more and longer you do it, the worse it will get. Pitts could have just cut one big contract, or two, but instead the re do five or six, putting it off, then in a few years, tehy will have to cut 5/6 guys instead on one or two now. Its not a great idea.

We done it once before after our superbowl, to keep all the guys we had, and add me to get another shot, what happened? we mortgaged our future, didnt repeat and had to cut a whole bunch of starters and start all over again and rebuild. Biscotti vowed to never do it again.

If you restructure you really just have to accept you can be at the top for a few years, but then at some stage will have to rebuild all over again. We dont do it like that, we want to be contenders year in year out.

Frankly, im gald we are run they way we are, the steelers FO seems great for creating all this cap space, but they got into the mess from poor management initially, and they will eventually have to make huge cuts to get back on track.

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='GrimCoconut' timestamp='1332690381' post='1033860']
Yeah, if we extend Flacco & Webb the way to do it would be to back-load it. Let's say Flacco gets a deal for 7yrs. We give him his biggest paydays in years 3-7, because Lewis & Reed will almost definitely be off the books by then. You do the same thing with Webb if he gets a 5-year deal, you make years 3-5 the biggest paydays. With Rice we should pay him the most up front or in the middle years. I'd rather not sign him longer than 4yrs, personally. Make years 2-3 the highest paid & the last year with no guaranteed money or very little if possible. If we have to, just franchise tag him three years in a row. It won't be more than AP money if we did do that.
[/quote]

you can onyl franchise twice

[XxSizzleXx]

We don't need to, with the amount we pay our top players and how talented they are compared to other teams, we get bargains on most all our players.

[GrimCoconut]

[quote name='arnie_uk' timestamp='1332690774' post='1033869']


you can onyl franchise twice
[/quote]
That's not what I heard. I heard there is no limit but it's never been used more than three times. I can't remember where I read/heard that, so I will look it up for you if you'd like. I do remember someone stating that it could be used three years in a row.

Regardless, we could use it two years in a row if we wanted.

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='GrimCoconut' timestamp='1332692133' post='1033898']
That's not what I heard. I heard there is no limit but it's never been used more than three times. I can't remember where I read/heard that, so I will look it up for you if you'd like. I do remember someone stating that it could be used three years in a row.

Regardless, we could use it two years in a row if we wanted.
[/quote]
i thought you could only franchise the one player twice, edit, seen a source said its three times in a row.

I knew there was a limit, i was sure it was two, hence the big jump in salary in the second year, i wonder what the third year tag would be

[hawkprey]

We don't pay players stupid contracts to begin with. The Ravens always strike deals with the future in mind.

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='hawkprey' timestamp='1332693205' post='1033925']
We don't pay players stupid contracts to begin with. The Ravens always strike deals with the future in mind.
[/quote]
bingo, the steelers FO are getting themselves out of the mess they made, they made their bed a long time ago, and soon, they will have to lie it it with wholesale cuts

They just keep digging and digging with restructuring deal

[Alexir]

Who on the team doesn't deserve the money they are making? I think everyone is getting paid properly and we don't need to re-structure contracts. We need to get Rice a deal and extend Flacco, that is the only way we free up cap space.

[Gordo52]

Our front office is filled with masterminds. If they think restructering a contract would be best, then they would do so.
I too don't understand why they dont. But they know a lot more about that stuff then we do, so just put your trust in Ozzie & friends!

[harfordravenfan]

[quote name='hawkprey' timestamp='1332693205' post='1033925']
We don't pay players stupid contracts to begin with. The Ravens always strike deals with the future in mind.
[/quote]

Yup, and I'm proud that we don't (except the whole foxworth thing), kinda the reason we see some of our great players leave yet we still manage to compete.

[K-Dog]

Restructuring usually means pay cut. I dont know who I would want to do that to or who deserves it.

[Moderator 3]

[quote name='K-Dog' timestamp='1332699025' post='1034021']
Restructuring usually means pay cut. I dont know who I would want to do that to or who deserves it.
[/quote]

No it doesn't. It just moves future earnings to bonus (guaranteed) and allows the guaranteed portion to be spread out across the future years. It also usually involves adding a year or more to the existing contract.

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='K-Dog' timestamp='1332699025' post='1034021']
Restructuring usually means pay cut. I dont know who I would want to do that to or who deserves it.
[/quote]

No it does not, what it means is say a player is due 10 mil this year as a salary, and they have 5 years left, you turn that 10 mil salary into a bonus, the player still gets the 10mil, but for cap purposes that 10 mil is spread out over the 5 years, so instead of a 10 mil cap hit we now take 2 mil in each year.
[quote name='Ravens<3' timestamp='1332696382' post='1033989']
Our front office is filled with masterminds. If they think restructering a contract would be best, then they would do so.
I too don't understand why they dont. But they know a lot more about that stuff then we do, so just put your trust in Ozzie & friends!
[/quote]
I just explained why they dont do it... using that example above, and multiply that by 5/6 for the steelers, in three or four years down the line they will have so much cap tied up on pro rated bonus they wont have any room to manover, it will then mean these 5/6 guys will have to get cut, and then you will be carrying loads, $10mil plus dead cap for a couple of years and have to re build. Just like we did in the early 2000s.

thats why we dont do it

[Ravenseconbeast]

Not alot of players to restructure contracts tbh. And to be honest, its really not worth killing ourselves on future.

[The Raven]

It'll get figured out. And, it's only March. No need to panic yet. Ozzie, Pat, and Eric will get this figured out.

But, if we would have won the Superbowl, we wouldn't have this problem. Ray and Reed would have retired. It would have been a fairy tale ending, AND we'd have 15 million more in cap to work with. Gah! WHY EVANS?! Sorry for the rant. It would have been perfect if we just could have won it all. That would have helped the cap so much. And, we would still be in pretty good shape personnel wise. It sounds really blasphemous, but if this happened, we wouldn't have these cap problems.

[tctony]

If we could get Reed to commit for a couple more years and give him a 3 year deal and spread out his money, that would be better. His $7 mil is hurting.

We gotta get Rice signed. He counts for 7.7 this year.

Ngata and Suggs would be the candidates for any restructure IMO, because we know they will be here.