This is a common statement that is thrown out there but nobody ever mentions the steep and inherent depreciation curve that you get when you plot age versus performance. Players decline with age. From a cap perspective, restructuring is the exact same as "paying for age". Can't recall anyone ever being in favor of dishing out high dollar contracts to old players but that is exactly what is being done when base salaries are spread across future years. Cap charges go up when the player is older.
If cap charges become higher when a player is older, and player performance declines over time, it's awfully hard to find the benefit in using the interest-free credit card every single year. Inevitably you arrive at a point where you are overpaying for diminished returns. Who thinks that's a great idea? Furthermore, at some point the credit card is used just to pay off the other credit cards that are inevitably paying for diminished returns. Identify the benefit, please.
Perhaps, but the means by which a teams arrives at the cap limit are endless.
- 2 teams have the exact same cap total. Call it $180M for simplicity's sake.
- Team #1 has $50M in prorated money comprised of bonuses and restructures.
- Team #2 has $20M in prorated money comprised of bonuses and restructures.
A = Prorated Money
B = Non-Prorated Money
If A + B has to equal $180M (or salary cap total) then Team #1 will have $130M in non-prorated money and Team #2 will have $160M in non-prorated money.
Here's the question: Which team has greater depth?
If I were a betting man, I'd bet on Team #2 every time. Why? Because the amount of cap dollars that aren't prorated (more or less: base salaries, roster bonuses, and workout bonuses) is $30M greater than Team #1.
You don't give large signing bonuses to depth. Depth is almost entirely comprised of current year spending. Spread $30M in base salaries across the bottom portion of a team's roster and the bottom portion of said team's roster dramatically improves. Take a player in year 1 and compare that player to himself in years 3, 4, or 5. Talent is the same so the only difference is experience and game knowledge. Which version of said player would you wager to be more productive? Ultimately, even if talent is the same and you are going to pay the minimum salary, being able to pay for the guy in his 4th year gives you a better player than the rookie you would have otherwise settled for.
Actually, they can "figuratively" do it every year. Hypothetically, perhaps. Make-believe and in dreams, maybe....but not "literally". To actually carry out such a plan every year and receive additional cap space (no benefit if you don't), the team would have to increase the amount freed up to a greater extent than the amount they have added over the course of the previous 4-5 years.
- Restructure $5M now and you add $1M to 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022
- Do that again in 2019, 2020, and 2021
- 2022 salary cap total increase by $4M
- $4M reduction for 2022 = $20M restructured in 2022 to break even
- Now $4M added to 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026
- 2023 now has $7M added from previous years
- $7M reduction = $35M restructured to break even
See the pattern? On a rolling basis, the team has to beat a 1:1, therefore the amount restructured must increase because 1/5th of the restructured amount applies to the present year. The combination of a cash floor and a salary cap means a team would inevitably arrive a point where they cannot be cap compliant (under the limit) while meeting the cash floor (above the minimum). They could help themselves with large signing bonuses but now they're adding prorated money to prorated money and only exacerbating the issue. At some point it fails so from a "literal" perspective it cannot be done. Figuratively however, they could restructure some every year. Ultimately they'd be worse off than if they had never restructured at all.
And yet......Stephen DOESN'T.
Even if we pretend that the Jones' have not
- more or less - publicly stated that their approach has changed, explain why they don't follow through? Explain why there isn't a single team that operates like this? Seriously, at this point there shouldn't be a discussion about whether or not restructuring like this is beneficial. It doesn't happen in the manner that people suggest so why even entertain the idea? How much time do these people allocate to deciding how they will spend their Powerball winnings? That's pretty much how time they should spend on these threads because both are so unlikely to ever occur.
Sure, the team
could restructure like this thread suggests....but the team
could also trade Dak and Zeke for a bag of used prophylactics. They won't so what's the point in pretending like it's a realistic possibility?
I'm sick of seeing self-proclaimed "cap experts" constantly prop up hypotheticals as though people should expect any team to choose to employ them. NO TEAM DOES. PERIOD. I challenge any self-proclaimed "Cap Expert", "Capologist", or "Cap Guru" to name a single team that has managed their cap in the manner that they suggest. Hell, find whatever rock Adam crawled under and see if he can pass this test. I assure you that none of them can, not even Adam.
Why can't they? Because as good as it looks on paper, in practice it's an absolute joke. Consequently, no team has ever maxed out their restructuring on an annual basis. Not a single one.
and 24 yrs of misery and counting and counting and counting....now Stephan is playing football guy this misery of ours will never end it seems at the Jones family bakery.....
