This is something I suppose I never thought about, but I saw it in a
comment to an article in The Athletic, and then googled to make sure it
was accurate: The trade deadline from earlier in the season is still in
effect through March 13, the beginning of the new league year, so teams
can't trade players now in order to reach the required cap compliance by
March 13. So the only options are releasing a player or extending a
player's contract, either by a true extension or by adding those fake
void years.

--Robin

On 2/29/24 8:30 AM, Robin Miller wrote:
>
> This is something I suppose I never thought about, but I saw it in a
> comment to an article in The Athletic, and then googled to make sure it
> was accurate: The trade deadline from earlier in the season is still in
> effect through March 13, the beginning of the new league year, so teams
> can't trade players now in order to reach the required cap compliance by
> March 13. So the only options are releasing a player or extending a
> player's contract, either by a true extension or by adding those fake
> void years.
>
> --Robin
>
>

So they have to shed the $22 million they are currently over by March
13? Then after that, they could trade players to make room for rookie
salaries and free agents?

I'd think the likeliest casualty by March 13 under that scenario would
be Mike Williams, whose injury history would probably depress his trade
value anyways. Combined with a restructured deal for Keenan Allen, that
should buy them the time to work out deals (trades or restructures) for
Mack and Bosa.

Michael

phlash74 wrote:
> On 2/29/24 8:30 AM, Robin Miller wrote:
>>
>> This is something I suppose I never thought about, but I saw it in a
>> comment to an article in The Athletic, and then googled to make sure
>> it was accurate: The trade deadline from earlier in the season is
>> still in effect through March 13, the beginning of the new league
>> year, so teams can't trade players now in order to reach the required
>> cap compliance by March 13. So the only options are releasing a player
>> or extending a player's contract, either by a true extension or by
>> adding those fake void years.
>>
>> --Robin
>>
>>
>
> So they have to shed the $22 million they are currently over by March
> 13? Then after that, they could trade players to make room for rookie
> salaries and free agents?

Yes, exactly.

> I'd think the likeliest casualty by March 13 under that scenario would
> be Mike Williams, whose injury history would probably depress his trade
> value anyways. Combined with a restructured deal for Keenan Allen, that
> should buy them the time to work out deals (trades or restructures) for
> Mack and Bosa.
>
> Michael

I agree. Unfortunately, this makes it a lot harder to do anything about
Mike Williams than release him, it seems to me.

--Robin

Robin Miller <robin.miller@invalid.invalid> writes:

> This is something I suppose I never thought about, but I saw it in a
> comment to an article in The Athletic, and then googled to make sure
> it was accurate: The trade deadline from earlier in the season is
> still in effect through March 13, the beginning of the new league
> year, so teams can't trade players now in order to reach the required
> cap compliance by March 13. So the only options are releasing a player
> or extending a player's contract, either by a true extension or by
> adding those fake void years.
>
> --Robin

There is a third option. Any player who has 2 or more years left on
their contract can have salary above the minimum converted to an upfront
payment that is evenly spread over the length of the contract. Wise
teams put the ability to do this without involving the player into their
contracts. It makes little difference to the player except for shifting
the tax year for January regular season games.

You do not want to do this with someone who will be traded, of course.

Eddie Grove wrote:
> Robin Miller <robin.miller@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> This is something I suppose I never thought about, but I saw it in a
>> comment to an article in The Athletic, and then googled to make sure
>> it was accurate: The trade deadline from earlier in the season is
>> still in effect through March 13, the beginning of the new league
>> year, so teams can't trade players now in order to reach the required
>> cap compliance by March 13. So the only options are releasing a player
>> or extending a player's contract, either by a true extension or by
>> adding those fake void years.
>>
>> --Robin
>
> There is a third option. Any player who has 2 or more years left on
> their contract can have salary above the minimum converted to an upfront
> payment that is evenly spread over the length of the contract. Wise
> teams put the ability to do this without involving the player into their
> contracts. It makes little difference to the player except for shifting
> the tax year for January regular season games.
>
> You do not want to do this with someone who will be traded, of course.
>

So the salary above the minimum is converted to a bonus? Yes, you're
right, I have heard of this. Until these last couple of years, these
issues haven't really come up for the Chargers.

Here's one page talking about this:

https://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/2023/6/2/23746809/explaining-how-the-nfl-works-part-8-contract-restructures-minimum-salary-dead-money-signing-bonus

Unfortunately this won't help the Chargers because Mack, Allen and
Williams are only under contract for 2024, and Bosa is only under
contract for 2024 and 2025.

The cleanest way (and maybe the only way) for the Chargers to do this is
to release Williams (preferable of the big 4), saving $20M, and
Kendricks, saving $6.5M. That creates $15M in dead money but eliminates
their cap overage of $25,607,797 according to OTC.

--Robin

Robin Miller <robin.miller@invalid.invalid> writes:

> Eddie Grove wrote:
>> Robin Miller <robin.miller@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> This is something I suppose I never thought about, but I saw it in a
>>> comment to an article in The Athletic, and then googled to make sure
>>> it was accurate: The trade deadline from earlier in the season is
>>> still in effect through March 13, the beginning of the new league
>>> year, so teams can't trade players now in order to reach the required
>>> cap compliance by March 13. So the only options are releasing a player
>>> or extending a player's contract, either by a true extension or by
>>> adding those fake void years.
>>>
>>> --Robin
>>
>> There is a third option. Any player who has 2 or more years left on
>> their contract can have salary above the minimum converted to an upfront
>> payment that is evenly spread over the length of the contract. Wise
>> teams put the ability to do this without involving the player into their
>> contracts. It makes little difference to the player except for shifting
>> the tax year for January regular season games.
>>
>> You do not want to do this with someone who will be traded, of course.
>>
>
>
> So the salary above the minimum is converted to a bonus? Yes, you're
> right, I have heard of this. Until these last couple of years, these
> issues haven't really come up for the Chargers.
>
> Here's one page talking about this:
>
> https://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/2023/6/2/23746809/explaining-how-the-nfl-works-part-8-contract-restructures-minimum-salary-dead-money-signing-bonus
>
> Unfortunately this won't help the Chargers because Mack, Allen and
> Williams are only under contract for 2024, and Bosa is only under
> contract for 2024 and 2025.

Bosa is due $21.6M in 2024. You can convert roster bonus to signing
bonus with no difficulty. If they paid $20M of it tomorrow, that would
defer $10M cap from 2024 to 2025.

Don't get me wrong. I think these cap manipulations are stupid for any
team that did not make the divisional round in the previous two
years. Better to get younger and overspend when you are actually a
contender. However, they are easy to manage if you haven't been spending
like an idiot in the recent past.