PDA

View Full Version : Steelers have $6.24 million of salary cap room



Lady Steel
03-17-2015, 02:54 AM
As the smoke cleared on the signings of quarterback Ben Roethlisberger and running back DeAngelo Williams, the Steelers have $6.24 million in salary cap room as they look at veteran cornerbacks to possibly sign.



http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/steelers/2015/03/17/Steelers-salary-cap/stories/201503170057

steelreserve
03-17-2015, 10:36 AM
While some of that $6.24 million of salary cap room would be used to sign a veteran cornerback, the Steelers have two more potential moves to create even more room. The release or retirement of Troy Polamalu before June would open up $3.75 million in salary cap space (less the $435,000-wage earner who would replace him on the 51-man roster), and $6 million if it occurs after June 1.

Defensive end Cameron Heyward counts $6,969,000 against their cap today — all in salary because of the fifth-year option the Steelers exercised on his rookie contract. That should be significantly reduced when they negotiate a long-term contract for him. For example, if they sign him to an average of $9 million over five years ($45 million total), they could pay him a salary and roster bonus of $2 million this year with a $15 million signing bonus and he would count $5 million against the cap in 2015, almost $2 million lower than what he counts now.

No, you see, that would be stupid. Because an average of $9 million doesn't mean you take a $5 million cap hit today and the rest disappears. It means you pay him $5 million now and $14 million or $15 million in the later years of the contract.

"Yeah, but the salary cap will go up!!!!"

Will it triple in the next three years? No? Then you've screwed yourself. Do we still not understand this? You're paying a contract that's OK now and doubles or triples three years from now, and then it's not OK. Maybe you could do that with one guy, but that's how we do most of them. I don't think we'll ever be out of the salary cap mess, because Omar Khan is incompetent and does deals like this.

Hey, I know a different way we could save $2 million! How about cut a BAD PLAYER. Do we have any of those who make $2 million? (Looks at Cam Thomas) ... Nope, untouchable. A pillar of the team and the anchor of the defensive line. Best investment we ever made. Welp, carry on with the backloading then!

Mojouw
03-17-2015, 11:09 AM
As long as the backloading is non-guaranteed money - it doesn't matter. It is the restructures that pushes guaranteed money into the future that destroys the cap.

Most teams back load deals with money they have no intention of paying the player and don't have to, because they can cut the player with no cap ramifications.

It allows the deal to look bigger and let agents take a bigger cut.

steelreserve
03-17-2015, 12:29 PM
As long as the backloading is non-guaranteed money - it doesn't matter. It is the restructures that pushes guaranteed money into the future that destroys the cap.

Most teams back load deals with money they have no intention of paying the player and don't have to, because they can cut the player with no cap ramifications.

It allows the deal to look bigger and let agents take a bigger cut.


Yeah, but when was the last time we did that? We are not "most teams." We always arrange things so that we pay full freight, and bad players are worth twice their weight in gold in dead money.

(No, seriously - you think I'm joking, but the price of gold is $1,148 per ounce. A solid gold Woodley statue at 270 pounds would only be worth $4.9 million.)

Omar Khan never saw a contract he didn't restructure. You really think he wouldn't mess with a deal like that? Heyward signs a long-term deal worth $9 million a year, and no matter how "cap-friendly" it is, I guarantee you we restructure it during the first offseason. If it is not an unmitigated disaster to start with, Khan will make it one. Keep in mind that this is the guy thanks to whom we are currently paying a player $8 million who hasn't played for us for two years. You think the Woodley contract was bad, that was just a warm-up.

Mojouw
03-17-2015, 01:08 PM
Yeah, but when was the last time we did that? We are not "most teams." We always arrange things so that we pay full freight, and bad players are worth twice their weight in gold in dead money.

(No, seriously - you think I'm joking, but the price of gold is $1,148 per ounce. A solid gold Woodley statue at 270 pounds would only be worth $4.9 million.)

Omar Khan never saw a contract he didn't restructure. You really think he wouldn't mess with a deal like that? Heyward signs a long-term deal worth $9 million a year, and no matter how "cap-friendly" it is, I guarantee you we restructure it during the first offseason. If it is not an unmitigated disaster to start with, Khan will make it one. Keep in mind that this is the guy thanks to whom we are currently paying a player $8 million who hasn't played for us for two years. You think the Woodley contract was bad, that was just a warm-up.

I guess I just disagree with you. Watching the Saints and Cowboys strip their team for parts and I see what a truly bad cap situation look like - at least to me.

I look at Pittsburgh and see a team that has traditionally been able to find a way to sign multiple "stars" (defined here as amongst the highest paid at their positions), not lose too many key components, and keep the core of team together for a decent amount of time.

Other than the Woodley contract, there haven't been too many that really bit them in the ass. So the Steelers are going through a 2 season period of a rough time with the cap. Not bad for the run of success they have had for most of the last decade.

Dwinsgames
03-17-2015, 01:19 PM
I guess I just disagree with you. Watching the Saints and Cowboys strip their team for parts and I see what a truly bad cap situation look like - at least to me.

I look at Pittsburgh and see a team that has traditionally been able to find a way to sign multiple "stars" (defined here as amongst the highest paid at their positions), not lose too many key components, and keep the core of team together for a decent amount of time.

Other than the Woodley contract, there haven't been too many that really bit them in the ass. So the Steelers are going through a 2 season period of a rough time with the cap. Not bad for the run of success they have had for most of the last decade.


Willie Colon

steelreserve
03-17-2015, 01:43 PM
I guess I just disagree with you. Watching the Saints and Cowboys strip their team for parts and I see what a truly bad cap situation look like - at least to me.

I look at Pittsburgh and see a team that has traditionally been able to find a way to sign multiple "stars" (defined here as amongst the highest paid at their positions), not lose too many key components, and keep the core of team together for a decent amount of time.

Other than the Woodley contract, there haven't been too many that really bit them in the ass. So the Steelers are going through a 2 season period of a rough time with the cap. Not bad for the run of success they have had for most of the last decade.


I wouldn't be too upset about it if it was just "keep the team together for one last run, take your lumps for a couple years, and move on." But that's not what we're doing. We're doing the same exact shit again, except without having a championship team to keep together. The Mitchell, Brown, Pouncey, Gilbert contracts all started out as manageable, but then immediately we start fucking them up. THAT'S what has me concerned. It is no longer a tool we break out for special circumstances; it has become standard procedure, and we are now the guy living hand-to-mouth on a fixed income with $40,000 in credit card debt.

The Saints, to me, have the look of a team that gambled and lost, but went into it knowing the risks full well. The Cowboys are run by an idiot. Yeah, they're both worse off than us, but not being dead last out of 32 teams is not much consolation to me. You look around the league at what other teams are doing, and no, not everyone can sign the big-name free agent to a huge contract, but most of them can at least try a couple of things. We sit there stuck in the mud every offseason for a decade.

We used to have the fallback of "Garrr - we don't need free agents! We build through the draft!" But since we kind of stopped doing that either, it becomes a problem.

- - - Updated - - -


Willie Colon

Starks

Kemo

pretty much the entire offensive line from that era

Mojouw
03-17-2015, 02:16 PM
Here, Behind the Steel Curtain claims that the restructures that are being done are "par for the course" http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/nfl-pittsburgh-steelers-news/2015/3/11/8192299/maurkice-pounceys-contract-restructure-saves-steelers-3-8-million-in

From another post at the same site: "As for the restructured contracts themselves, judging by the reactions of fans and national pundits, the move doesn't seem very popular. In essence, the team gave some guaranteed money to three players they knew they weren't going to cut in 2015. Between three players, if the exact figure is $9.5 million, they stretched out a little more than $3 million each over at least three years, and these aren't players in position to be released anyway, avoiding concerns surrounding dead money."

http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/steelers-salary-cap-contracts-transactions-history/2015/2/26/8113085/steelers-2015-salary-cap-space-contract-restructure-free-agency

Looking at Gilbert's deal here: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/pittsburgh-steelers/marcus-gilbert/

The restructure made his dead money big in 2015 and 2016. After that he cost 5 million to cut in 2017, 3 million and change in 2018, and basically nothing in 2019.

So the Steelers created a situation where they are basically guaranteeing that Gilbert is on the roster in 2015 and 2016. Most likely also 2017. What realistic scenario, barring catastrophic injury, is Gilbert not at least the swing tackle on this team by 2017? The team is taking a 6 to 6.5 million dollar cap hit per year to sign (what some places are rating as the 10th best RT in the league) their starting tackle through his prime. How is this a bad deal?

This table (sorted by % contract guaranteed) http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/contracts/right-tackle/ kinda demonstrates what the Steelers are doing with basically all of their players. They guarantee a comically low percentage of the overall contract value initially. Then they restructure it to convert non-guaranteed money over the portion of the contract they expect the player to be a starter. This works well -- except when that player can no longer be an effective starter.

- - - Updated - - -


I wouldn't be too upset about it if it was just "keep the team together for one last run, take your lumps for a couple years, and move on." But that's not what we're doing. We're doing the same exact shit again, except without having a championship team to keep together. The Mitchell, Brown, Pouncey, Gilbert contracts all started out as manageable, but then immediately we start fucking them up. THAT'S what has me concerned. It is no longer a tool we break out for special circumstances; it has become standard procedure, and we are now the guy living hand-to-mouth on a fixed income with $40,000 in credit card debt.

The Saints, to me, have the look of a team that gambled and lost, but went into it knowing the risks full well. The Cowboys are run by an idiot. Yeah, they're both worse off than us, but not being dead last out of 32 teams is not much consolation to me. You look around the league at what other teams are doing, and no, not everyone can sign the big-name free agent to a huge contract, but most of them can at least try a couple of things. We sit there stuck in the mud every offseason for a decade.

We used to have the fallback of "Garrr - we don't need free agents! We build through the draft!" But since we kind of stopped doing that either, it becomes a problem.

- - - Updated - - -



Starks

Kemo

pretty much the entire offensive line from that era

Paying too much for a player is not the same as restructering.

ALLD
03-17-2015, 03:01 PM
Maybe Gilbert will retire early?

steelreserve
03-18-2015, 03:46 PM
Here, Behind the Steel Curtain claims that the restructures that are being done are "par for the course" http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/nfl-pittsburgh-steelers-news/2015/3/11/8192299/maurkice-pounceys-contract-restructure-saves-steelers-3-8-million-in

From another post at the same site: "As for the restructured contracts themselves, judging by the reactions of fans and national pundits, the move doesn't seem very popular. In essence, the team gave some guaranteed money to three players they knew they weren't going to cut in 2015. Between three players, if the exact figure is $9.5 million, they stretched out a little more than $3 million each over at least three years, and these aren't players in position to be released anyway, avoiding concerns surrounding dead money."

http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/steelers-salary-cap-contracts-transactions-history/2015/2/26/8113085/steelers-2015-salary-cap-space-contract-restructure-free-agency

Looking at Gilbert's deal here: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/pittsburgh-steelers/marcus-gilbert/

The restructure made his dead money big in 2015 and 2016. After that he cost 5 million to cut in 2017, 3 million and change in 2018, and basically nothing in 2019.

So the Steelers created a situation where they are basically guaranteeing that Gilbert is on the roster in 2015 and 2016. Most likely also 2017. What realistic scenario, barring catastrophic injury, is Gilbert not at least the swing tackle on this team by 2017? The team is taking a 6 to 6.5 million dollar cap hit per year to sign (what some places are rating as the 10th best RT in the league) their starting tackle through his prime. How is this a bad deal?

This table (sorted by % contract guaranteed) http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/contracts/right-tackle/ kinda demonstrates what the Steelers are doing with basically all of their players. They guarantee a comically low percentage of the overall contract value initially. Then they restructure it to convert non-guaranteed money over the portion of the contract they expect the player to be a starter. This works well -- except when that player can no longer be an effective starter.


OK, here's the bottom line about restructuring. It might be done all the time, but it is not the intelligent way to handle things. Restructuring a contract is the same as saying "Whoops - we fucked up."

If you were cap-savvy and had the long-term plan for your team's future worked out, you would get the contract right the first time. It makes sense for Brown's cap number in successive years to go $4M-$5M-$8M-$12M-$12M? Then structure the damn deal that way in the first place; nothing's stopping you.

"No, but guaranteed money!"

OK, sure, you'd have to guarantee more money up front to do a deal that way. But guess what? Every time you restructure a deal, you're guaranteeing more money anyway.

"But you're only guaranteeing money for THAT SEASON! You could still cut the player more easily than if you guaranteed more up front!"

Well, not really. In theory, you could, I guess - if you cut the guy after one season and were willing to eat almost his entire signing bonus as dead money, then that would technically work out better than cutting a guy after one season with a large guarantee up front. In reality, it never happens that way. Give the guy a sizeable contract, and it's very rare that you'd cut him after the first year and eat several million dollars. It doesn't matter much if it's a $12 million signing bonus or $22 million in guarantees over the life of the contract that we're talking about. If you did either one, you'd be broke. So what happens is he sticks around for a second season, and you restructure his contract.

Guess what? You just guaranteed his salary not only this season, but next season as well, because you just created a prohibitive dead-money expense if you cut him. It doesn't actually SAY "guaranteed," but you'd damn well better believe he's guaranteed to be on the roster unless he commits murder. Maybe the cap hit would be so bad that you even guaranteed his contract for the season after that.

So the effect that restructuring has is to create a hidden guarantee that's at least double the amount of the restructure. And when you do it multiple times to the same contract like we do, it forces you to hang on to underperforming players into the late years of their contracts, and then be faced with the choice of eight figures in dead money, or even more to keep him even though he's not helping you.

An occasional restructure is a useful tool to give you some flexibility when you need it. Doing it constantly like we do says to me that you're irresponsible and running along juggling more things than you can handle. Not that you're shrewd and cap-savvy. Just overwhelmed. Not the place I want us to be in.



Paying too much for a player is not the same as restructering.


No, it's even worse. The money you overpaid in the first place - that's cap space too. And when you cut that player with 2-3 years left on his deal and are then left eating a similar amount of dead money, you just double-dipped on wastefulness.

st33lersguy
03-18-2015, 03:47 PM
Cut Cam Thomas, save more space

polamalubeast
03-18-2015, 04:13 PM
We are not in 2012 or 2013 when the Steelers were in horrible shape for the salary cap

The Steelers are in a far better position, the evidence is than the steelers have saved only one million for the Ben Roethlisberger contract....This is certain this is not perfect, but at least the Steelers seem to get out of trouble for the salary cap

Just looked at the structure of the Suh contract with the dolphins....His cap hit is only 6 millions in 2015 but 28 million next year!

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/miami-dolphins/ndamukong-suh/