Quote
Saguaro
I wasn't sure how to count the original signing bonus money in the equation. And I'm still not sure.
Yes, it counts against the cap in 2017, but Donald already pocketed that money back when.
So I'm focused on the difference he would have seen on a per year basis by signing vs. not signing.
You're saying that it was an extension that was worth far less than 20M last year, but now I'm the one who is going to have to ask "how do we know that?"
What bits we heard last year was that it was not the money difference, but the number of years.
Anyway, I appreciate the response.
I still think Donald is losing while he thinks he's winning.
I too wrestled with how to account for the signing bonus money. Ultimately I concluded that the cap number was the most accurate way to measure how much a player is paid per year.
A signing bonus is really just an advance on salary.
Consider this example. If my employer pays me an even $10K per month, and next week I ask for and receive a $30K advance to buy a new car with cash, I may have put an actual $40K in my pocket that month, but $30K of that will be subtracted from future months salary. Another way to think about it is, what if he kept that signing bonus money in a bank and paid himself $1.4M per year on an annuity like basis?
When it's all said and done, the average salary - which is the salary cap number - is still correct.
As for how do we know if the extension was worth far less? I have no one piece of direct evidence that says that but I do have a few circumstantial pieces in which to put together the puzzle.
Last year there were no reports that suggested $20M per year. This year there have been several.
Snead also said this year, and I'm paraphrasing as close to what I recall, "when a guy is 2 years away from the end of his contract, giving an extension is a bit trickier than when he's one year away."
I took from that statement that the team is doing a mathematical calculation that is very close to what I demonstrated above with Gurley. They already know the amount it will take to keep a player under their control for 5 years (when 2 years are left on contract.) So the offer goes something like this:
we give you a decent raise (like 15%) + guaranteed money + signing bonus money in exchange for helping us maintain salary cap stability and player cost control.
The last bit of circumstantial evidence is business common sense. Why wouldn't they do that mathematical calculation and offer something a bit better (like 15%) in exchange for salary cap stability and player cost control?
As I demonstrated Gurley signed for a 15% increase over what he would have gotten if they went the franchise tag route. If they offered AD $20M last year, that would have been a
50.3% increase over the amount they could have controlled him for over 5 years. I don't think, from a business perspective, they would have such a wide disparity in the raise they are offering their players, both of whom are mega stars. Why would they do that?
So no, I don't know for sure that the offer was significantly below $20M, but these reasons I've given make it pretty compelling in my mind that it was.
