Osi to retire as a Giant

[UK-Giantsfan]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000503930/article/osi-umenyiora-giants-in-talks-to-sign-retirement-deal

 

looks like Osi will sign a 1 day contract to retire in blue.

 

( at this rate .....we might actually need him to play a full season !!! )

 

 

[gmenroc]

I realize it's a good faith, nice gesture on the Giants part...but the dude left for money, right? Why bother letting him retire a Giant?

 

I'll admit, I hate these 1-day deals to let a player retire from a certain team. You want to retire a Giant, be good enough to stick on the team. Put the team first, your money second.

[BlueInCanada]

I realize it's a good faith, nice gesture on the Giants part...but the dude left for money, right? Why bother letting him retire a Giant?

 

I'll admit, I hate these 1-day deals to let a player retire from a certain team. You want to retire a Giant, be good enough to stick on the team. Put the team first, your money second.

 

You do realize it's 2015, this isnt 1972 when a player who gets drafted by a team retires with that team, even Strahan held out for more money and you couldn't find a more "Giant" player in the last 15 years.

 

Heck I honestly think Eli is playing for a different team next year.

[Herc]

Didn't realize he was that close to done. Dude had a lot if memorable plays on the backfield I wish him well

[Mr. P]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.sportswrath.com/index.php?showtopic=52596

[Nas]

I realize it's a good faith, nice gesture on the Giants part...but the dude left for money, right? Why bother letting him retire a Giant?

 

I'll admit, I hate these 1-day deals to let a player retire from a certain team. You want to retire a Giant, be good enough to stick on the team. Put the team first, your money second.

 

I have no problem with it... I can't fault the guy for going for a bigger payday... Who of us wouldn't?

[Herc]

I don't blame him for that either. What I DID blame him for was signing an extremely front loaded contract with us and then start complaining about being underpaid when he hit the back end of it. That was horseshit

[Nas]

I don't blame him for that either. What I DID blame him for was signing an extremely front loaded contract with us and then start complaining about being underpaid when he hit the back end of it. That was horseshit

 

Agreed but part of the blame goes to management too... front loading a contract gives you and Osi and prevents you from cutting him when he underperforms...

[Mr. P]

 

Agreed but part of the blame goes to management too... front loading a contract gives you and Osi and prevents you from cutting him when he underperforms...

Actually quite the opposite. Front loading a contract allows you to cut him when he under performs. The cap hit is lesser in the later years, when you realize he has underperformed.

[Nas]

Actually quite the opposite. Front loading a contract allows you to cut him when he under performs. The cap hit is lesser in the later years, when you realize he has underperformed.

 

Ha? How's paying someone a huge amount upfront help you when cutting him? Isn't the knock against NFL contracts that only guaranteed money is gauranteed... Teams cut players to save money under the cap no? Front loading Osi's contract made him seem "cheap" towards the end of his contract which is why he acted like a diva.

[Mr. P]

 

Ha? How's paying someone a huge amount upfront help you when cutting him? Isn't the knock against NFL contracts that only guaranteed money is gauranteed... Teams cut players to save money under the cap no? Front loading Osi's contract made him seem "cheap" towards the end of his contract which is why he acted like a diva.

 

Yes, teams cut players to save money under the cap, but also when they are getting paid the guaranteed money still counts against the cap as dead money even if you cut the player.

 

That is why frontloading the contract helps when a player underperforms.

 

 

compare 2 contracts for example:

 

contract 1: 20 million over 4 years, year 1: 8 mil year 2: 8 mil year 3: 2 mil year 4: 2 mil.

 

contract 2: 20 million over for years, year 1: 2 mil year 2: 2 mil year 3: 8 mil. year 4: 8mil.

 

for understanding purposes lets treat that as the guaranteed money. if contract 1 player underperforms, you can cut him after the 2nd year with only 2 mil in dead money the final 2 years. but if contract 2 player underperforms, you are stuck with 8mil in dead money over the final 2 years.

 

That is why frontloading a contract especially with the guaranteed money makes it easier to cut an underperforming player.

[gmenroc]

Not exactly PDub, you are right...but, guaranteed money is generally prorated over the contract. Annual salaries are the non-guaranteed part.

 

When you have a high guaranteed amount, you need years to spread it across in order to manage the cap hit effectively. And because cutting a player advances the accounting of the out-years of non-realized signing bonus into the current year, that's where it gets tricky.

 

Really, the annual salaries don't mean much when it comes to cutting a player. It has more to do with the signing bonus. In other words, front loading a contract is the equivalent of having a large signing bonus.

[Nas]

 

Yes, teams cut players to save money under the cap, but also when they are getting paid the guaranteed money still counts against the cap as dead money even if you cut the player.

 

That is why frontloading the contract helps when a player underperforms.

 

 

compare 2 contracts for example:

 

contract 1: 20 million over 4 years, year 1: 8 mil year 2: 8 mil year 3: 2 mil year 4: 2 mil.

 

contract 2: 20 million over for years, year 1: 2 mil year 2: 2 mil year 3: 8 mil. year 4: 8mil.

 

for understanding purposes lets treat that as the guaranteed money. if contract 1 player underperforms, you can cut him after the 2nd year with only 2 mil in dead money the final 2 years. but if contract 2 player underperforms, you are stuck with 8mil in dead money over the final 2 years.

 

That is why frontloading a contract especially with the guaranteed money makes it easier to cut an underperforming player.

 

Correct but that's because you already paid him the money...

[Mr. P]

 

Correct but that's because you already paid him the money...

Exactly.

[Mr. P]

Not exactly PDub, you are right...but, guaranteed money is generally prorated over the contract. Annual salaries are the non-guaranteed part.

 

When you have a high guaranteed amount, you need years to spread it across in order to manage the cap hit effectively. And because cutting a player advances the accounting of the out-years of non-realized signing bonus into the current year, that's where it gets tricky.

 

Really, the annual salaries don't mean much when it comes to cutting a player. It has more to do with the signing bonus. In other words, front loading a contract is the equivalent of having a large signing bonus.

Right.