1. The issue with offset language applies to the 4th year of a contract. The 5th year on 1st round contracts is an option year that a team must decide whether it picks up (at a hefty expense) I believe after the 3rd year. 2. Offsets are a means of reducing guaranteed money. They in effect reduce the compensation you will receive from another team after you are cut. So yes, that's a pure reduction in compensation.
Would someone explain in plain english...What exactly the offset language mean? Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
You do realize there's a new CBA with a rookie wage scale that has reduced rookie salaries to a fraction of what they were before, right?
This will be followed by hooray because he'll be playing in Super Bowls in our new Palm Beach stadium while we're perennially $30 million under the cap. Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk 2
As they should be. 50 > 20 but 20 is still a lot to guarantee on a glorified dice roll. Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk 2
Offset language only applies to guaranteed salaries. Guaranteed salaries weren't popular until very recently especially under the new CBA with the rookie wage scale. Last year Trent Richardson got a 4 year, $20.4 million contract that was fully guaranteed. The Browns in effect are paying $20.4 million for Trent Richardson's rights. They own him for up to 4 years at the cost of $20.4 million. The "offset" language is a way of trying to reduce that $20.4 million compensation in the event that they don't want him anymore after 3 years. It's taking the $20.4 million contract that is guaranteed to Trent Richardson as a #3 overall pick and saying, "Psych! More like a $17.2 million contract." This is negotiations. No team wants to pay more money than is necessary. No player wants to get LESS money than is necessary. I find most of the discussion about this to be one-sided in the extreme.
TO PROVE HOW STUPID OFFSETTING LANGAUGE IS: Andrew Luck signed a 4 year deal worth $22 Million (with a $14.5 Million dollar signing bonus). Here is his remaining contract breakdown: 2013: $1.4 million 2014: $2.4 million 2015: $3.4 million So lets say Luck was an absolute bust and they cut him after his 3rd season (I say 3rd because Gabbert has been playing pretty damn bad and he is going into his 3rd season with Jacksonville). The dead cap would be ONLY $3.4 million in 2015. The current NFL Salary Cap is $123 Million. So with Andre Luck's 4th year as dead cap you would only be tying up 2.76% of your Salary Cap up. Pretty ridiculous if you think about it.... It would make sense to hold out for offset language before the rookie wage scale, but to do it now is just stupid.
Its not necessarily about the dead cap space. Its about the actual money being paid out. Take 3.4M for one player, and extrapolate for all the players over a 10 year period. Thats a good chunk of change for the NFL.
Contract termination is far from a psyche. It's more of a "You haven't lived up to the expectations of your employment. You made a cool $17 million though". Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk 2
It's even more stupid than that. If the Colts decide that Andrew Luck is so valueless in 2015 that he's not worth $3.4 million, then the chances are when he hits the market he's going to make only $3.4 million or less. And if that's the case then the Colts would still in all likelihood be on the hook for $2.9 million of compensation in 2015, because Luck's new team would only offer the minimum knowing that Luck's old team is making up the difference. And Luck, he wouldn't give a sh-t. He'd probably prefer his old team foot as much of the bill as possible. So digging in on the "offset" issue doesn't save a team 2.76% on the salary cap in 2015 in the event Luck is a bust, more like 0.41% of the salary cap.
couldn´t it be we wait for the 1st of June money to come available ? i was expecting no pick would sign before june
Personally, I agree with the Dolphin's position about offset language in a vacuum. The player is guaranteed a certain amount of money and he gets that regardless of whether he plays or not and regardless of whom he plays for. The language just gives the team a break if the player is playing elsewhere in the league and having part of that salary paid by another team. Unfortunately, contracts don't exist in a vacuum. Ultimately, I see the issue as one not worth fighting over if the standard league contract doesn't generally include that language. The delay in getting a player in and working probably is more damaging to the team than saving the league minimum for a year (most likely amount) if the player is cut. It may not matter as much with Jordan as the academics and injury will delay his workout start date regardless, but in general I see the value of having your draft picks working with the team as higher. I could see that concept being lost on an accountant, but the GM should see the bigger picture.
This example is a little misleading. When Trent Richardson signs a rookie contract for $20.4M guaranteed, he is guaranteed to make that much money in the NFL regardless of what happens. What he isn't guaranteed is to receive that from the team that drafted him.
Yes. So do NFL players. Forcing trades, free agency, retirement, hold outs, etc. This isn't a plight of the working man issue. Professional sports have well and long established employment rules. You're portraying it as an issue for the NLRB. Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk 2
Ignoring the flip side? What if the player has been worth far more than he's been paid? Can he prematurely terminate the contract and say "I've lived up to way more than my compensation and so I'm leaving you. You got a great talent at a cheap price though."
Sure it does. If tomorrow Ryan Tannehill tells Miami he doesn't want to play football anymore, he doesn't owe them anything. If Miami cuts Tannehill tomorrow, they still owe him.
So every single draft pick we sign for 10 years is going to be a bust? If that's the case the GM has bigger issues than worrying about offset language. Also I could be mistaken but i think players drafted in the 2nd-7th or 3rd-7th typically agree to contracts with offset language, so your argue wouldn't apply.
So then his contract is with the NFL head office and not with a team organization? That's not how the NFL is structured.
That's incorrect. He would be giving back his claim on a large portion of guaranteed money by doing that.
And for practical purposes, thats what they're trying to change. The NFL doesn't want two of their members paying one player for the same year. That is an inherent negative for the NFL.
How much of his guaranteed money has he received? How much would be given back? What about the draft pick?
And that change in itself opens a new can of worms about the NFL attempting to have their cake and eat it to. But whether it's six of one or half a dozen of the other, it all breaks back to leverage and negotiations. What I don't like is people assigning moral/ethical value to the process as if "it's only right" that the NFL gets to insert offset language. It's not right or wrong. It's a negotiation of compensation.
If he goes awol and forces the team to cut him then retires he gets his money. Sent from my GT-P3110 using Tapatalk 2
I swear if this was the Ravens pushing for this precedent everyone in the media would be on Ozzy's jock for correcting an apparent flaw in the system.
Of course, thats their goal, as it should be. I don't think its a moral issue. Its an issue of doing what is best for the Miami Dolphins. I don't think anyone is going to complain if Dion Jordan isn't able to double-dip. I would think people would complain if Miami is paying him when another team is as well. Ideally, they Dolphins continue to get picks to agree to this, while other teams aren't able to.
Can he eat this "draft pick" that you speak of? Can he use it to buy a new car? If we're talking about Ryan Tannehill, he'd have received $8.043 million of the $12.668 million already. However, his early retirement likely allows the Dolphins to recover up to $5.7 million of what they've already paid him. So yeah. He does give back money if he takes his ball and glove and goes home.
Also, since the Dolphins didn't give in last year with Tannehill, they are likely not going to give in this year with Jordan. Otherwise, that might be viewed as unfair to Tannehill.
Nobody forces any team to cut them. That's the team's choice. The team has options if he goes AWOL or retires early. They will put him on a Reserve list that specifically fits this contingency (Reserve/Did Not Report or Reserve/Retired). That will mean that they do not have to count him on their 90 man or 53 man rosters. They will also pursue recovery of the unexpensed portion of his signing bonus. This has been done before, you know.
