Salary Cap Manipulation Question

[Verdict]

Other than the loss of a roster spot (which i concede is valuable) what would be the cost/benefit analysis of keeping a player on the roster an extra year (or part of a year) to defer his cap hit into another year when you know he can bring nothing to the team?

I know teams have been forced to keep a player for another year because they can't afford to cut them or trade them, but I cannot recall a team ever using this intentionally as a cap strategy. Is there a circumstance this would be a viable strategy to create cap room for a team going all in?

 

[SSoup]

Other than the loss of a roster spot (which i concede is valuable) what would be the cost/benefit analysis of keeping a player on the roster an extra year (or part of a year) to defer his cap hit into another year when you know he can bring nothing to the team?

I know teams have been forced to keep a player for another year because they can't afford to cut them or trade them, but I cannot recall a team ever using this intentionally as a cap strategy. Is there a circumstance this would be a viable strategy to create cap room for a team going all in?

I think I need you to more fully explain the scenario you're describing.

I can't think of many situations where teams are keeping a guy that brings nothing and is useless, for purely monetary reasons. Unless maybe it's insanely early in a long-term contract. Like, if you're in year 2 of a 7-year deal, then you've still got tons of prorated money sitting there. It might not be feasible accelerate the entire cap hit (assuming the rest of your roster is good enough to warrant having spent good money on them) just for the purposes of shedding the useless player from your roster.

But, then, I think teams have gotten smarter about how they structure contracts for this reason. More and more, deals seem to be written in a way where a player enjoys a triggered bonus a year or two into a big deal, which effectively means the team can shove him out a trap door if they realize early enough that they shouldn't have given the guy such a huge deal. He still walks away after a very rich 1- or 2-year stint, but the team gets out from under the rest of the deal (and the player gets a second bite at the apple in free agency, which is why players sometimes agree to these sorts of contracts, because they think they'll strike it rich again if set loose in free agency another time).

I think some teams hold onto guys not because they have to but just out of pride, or just to cling to hope that the guy will get it together and start living up to his contract. Or sometimes they make too big a deal out of the signing (trying to sell tickets and merch), that ownership isn't willing to sign off on cutting bait with the guy so soon after duping stupid fans into buying crap based on that player who isn't really worth all the hype.

 

[Verdict]

I think I need you to more fully explain the scenario you're describing.

I can't think of many situations where teams are keeping a guy that brings nothing and is useless, for purely monetary reasons. Unless maybe it's insanely early in a long-term contract. Like, if you're in year 2 of a 7-year deal, then you've still got tons of prorated money sitting there. It might not be feasible accelerate the entire cap hit (assuming the rest of your roster is good enough to warrant having spent good money on them) just for the purposes of shedding the useless player from your roster.

But, then, I think teams have gotten smarter about how they structure contracts for this reason. More and more, deals seem to be written in a way where a player enjoys a triggered bonus a year or two into a big deal, which effectively means the team can shove him out a trap door if they realize early enough that they shouldn't have given the guy such a huge deal. He still walks away after a very rich 1- or 2-year stint, but the team gets out from under the rest of the deal (and the player gets a second bite at the apple in free agency, which is why players sometimes agree to these sorts of contracts, because they think they'll strike it rich again if set loose in free agency another time).

I think some teams hold onto guys not because they have to but just out of pride, or just to cling to hope that the guy will get it together and start living up to his contract. Or sometimes they make too big a deal out of the signing (trying to sell tickets and merch), that ownership isn't willing to sign off on cutting bait with the guy so soon after duping stupid fans into buying crap based on that player who isn't really worth all the hype.

It's sort of hard to explain because the scenario wouldn't arise very often.