Those numbers are accurate if he had been CUT, not sure that they apply in the same way when the player chooses to retire.
Retirements and cuts are dealt with the same way, except with retirements the team can try to recoup portions of signing bonus on remaining years.
from
https://www.behindthesteelcurtain.c...-retirements-and-trades-affect-the-salary-cap
Teams can end a contract at any time, but so can players. In a player's case, though, the only way they can do this is by retiring. In the end, though,
the math looks pretty much the same as if the player had been cut -- and the June 1 rule applies here, too.
For instance, if our player from the example above had retired instead of being cut, his money would account the same way as if he had been cut by the team. If he files his retirement paperwork on or after June 1, the money counts as if he was cut on or after June 1.
Just like anything else in the NFL, though, there is a "but" for this rule, too: if the player retires with time remaining on his contract, then chooses to come back into the league later,
he is not a free agent. Contracts apply, in most cases, to
accrued seasons, not calendar years. If the player doesn't play, he doesn't accrue a season. Therefore, his return to the field would put him back under the control of the same team, unless that team chooses to cut him. This rule is part of the reason why Barry Sanders chose to retire: the
Lions refused to cut him, and he decided he'd rather stop playing altogether than play another season for Detroit. Conversely,
Brett Favre retired, and then the team chose to cut him while he was retired. He was then able to return to the league later as a free agent.
Okay, there are actually two "buts" for retirements. When a player retires, the team has the option to pursue the return of a portion of the signing bonus equal to the unplayed portions of the contract, and that money is no longer counted against the salary cap. This is typically done through an arbitrator. This is known as the "Barry Sanders Rule" because this is exactly how the situation played out in his case, as he was required to pay back a portion of his bonus. The difference between now and then is there was no precedent when Sanders played; now, it's explicitly written into the CBA to allow for this arbitration.
