Ability to restructure contracts

Steve brought this one up - The idea is to be able to give owner's the ability to restructure current contracts already active. So basically you own a player for 3 yrs $10K per, and the next yr he becomes 2 yrs, can you restructure to make it front or backloaded following the previously set guidelines.

Additionally if a player had a back-loaded deal can you restructure to make it a straight-line contract or front-loaded.

So for example, I have Brady at $50, $35, $14 front-load. Say I trade the player in the season could the team restructure it to make it a 3 yr straight line at $33k, $33k, $33k? Or say I trade him in the off-season, Brady would still be owed $49 the last 2 yrs ($35 +$14). Could the team that acquires the player give him 2 yrs ($25, $24) to make it straight line. Or back-load the remaining $49 as a 2 yr deal? ($17,$32).

Could these restructures only apply to players who have been traded, or can teams restructure their own contracts in the off-season as well?

It is an interesting thought and I applaud Steve for thinking outside the box.

Interesting. I think, just like the limitations on giving multi-yr deals to free agents pickups, there should be a limit of ONE restructure per team per season.

I would be okay if your are acquiring a player in trade to allow 1 restructure a year, but if you sign a player to a deal you have to honor that contract in my opinion.

1 other thought about allowing this. My concern would be that we allow the restructure and the team is planning to cut this player so they restructure to a straightline contract to avoid the larger contract hit they would have gotten.

I see your point here.

The only way to really do it is to basically trat the contract the same. Sure you can restructure but he needs to be paid X amount if he is cut after 1 yr, x amount for cut yr 2 and x amount for yr 3.

IMO probably WAY too much work for me to keep track of.

The only other thing is that if you trade the player, the new owner is the one restructuring so this gets to be considered as part of his trade value. Therefore there really is no benefit to trade for a guy and restucture him only to then cut. Only possible problem is people trading bad contracts for bad contracts to cut to circumvent. That would be an issue.

Only other scenario is that if you restructure you can't cut during yr. 1.

Steve, this is your baby what say you?

my thoughts,

what about allowing owners to manipulate the remaining money in two situations.

1. Team has said player with 1 yr. left on contract, and decides to give an extension. 1 or 2 yr. extensions both apply. We'll use the 2 yr. extension for example: player has 1 yr. left at 20k (A.J. Green) owner gives A.J. a 2 yr. extension @20k per. 20k/40k/40k as the rules stand now. Instead of having the option to front/backload only the extension, does it make sense to allow owners to roll the final yr. of the remaining deal into the equation. so in giving A.J. the 2 yr. extension, I could frontload: 50k/35/15 or backload: 15k/35/50, or even across the 3yrs. 34k/33k/33k.

2: Same would apply to giving extension to player after trading for him

I don't care for allowing owners to manipulate the money without giving the player an extension, so that would eliminate manipulating a players deal with 2yrs. left

thoughts....

So in your opinion no manipulating of contracts unless an extension is given?

I do like the concept of being able to work the extension value into the current yr's contract.  So basically you are giving the raise up front.  I know you tried doing this last year w.your boy Mathews.  I can certainly dig your proposal.

I do think that it might get tricky with the idea Steve originally proposed.  Although the idea behind it certainly is a good one.  Still interested to hear his take on this.

Martel, solid thought for sure.

I like Martel's idea of only allowing restructure with an extension.

Yea but you can't do simple math so your opinion means absolutely nothing.

LOL

 

Sorry. In process of putting house on market so tough week to get on forum. When I thought bout this, it was with mindset that you could take an existing contract like amendola (1yr, 1k) that is a steal and I'd like to spread some of his extension money to this year. Lets say I offer him 2 yr extension. I'd like to have option of going 21,1,21 or 21,21,1. If I am willing to offer him extension and I am on hook for all the $, why should I be restricted. Counter point is let's take a guy with a heftier contract,well his extension is still gonna cost me. I see this proposal more for guys already on good deals with1yr left. Allows you to have same extension payment amt rules, just dispersed differently. Not sure how this changes in case of trade to new owner

So Steve, you are more interested in something like what Martel is saying. Allow the extension $$ to be included in the 1st year.

So you can either decide to defer the cheap contract until the end or incoroporate it into the whole package.

So Amendola could be 1-21-21 or 21-1-21 or 21-21-1 OR Extension plus current salary = $43K total so spread that evenly (15-14-14).

So pretty much only for guys you are giving extensions to. That seems to be the sentiment here. I agree might cause too much of a headache if any contract can be restructured.

Yes. Exactly.

when do they have to decide on restructure? offseason? or can they see how much cap space they have after auction and then adjust, because I wouldn't like that. You could add high quality free agents with understanding that, Amendola for instance, will only cost 1k, then after FA doesn't go as planned with end of the auction role players, you restructure the extension to take advantage of fact you tried but failed to add more guys at back of FA. I'd be big fan of this rule if you had to decide pre-auction.

I would think rule would be just like any contract. Same a Front/Back Load, or any other extension.

OK to give a front-load or after auction but not restructure contract? Seems like it is the same exact thing.

I would've been OK with restructuring acquired backload/frontloads as long as extra penalty/discount was honored upon trade processing.

Oh contract still applies. If player X is still owed $5k that needs to be paid. No changes there.

This rule passed by a vote of 7-5.

Rule will read as follows:

"Any Player that is given an extension, the owner may incorporate the cost of the extension into the current year. The Restructure may be split evenly across all remaining years, you can incorporate the total charge as a front or back loaded deal or you may change when the payout is applied."

As an example:

Danny Amendoa on final year of contract tat pays him $1,000 could be resturctured as follows:

(1-21-21), (21-1-21), (21-21-1) for a normal extension. Or to split evenly the total remaining salary = $43K could be (15-14-14) Or it could be Front or Back Loaded based on the 3 years and $43K