June 1 questions

[BeastsoftheNFCeast]

If a player is traded after june 1, can the june 1 rule of dividing up the bonuses still be applied just as if they got cut? Also, how is the money divided up durring a regular june 1 cut, I used to think that their bonus that they were supposed to make gets paid the year they got cut, and then the rest gets paid the next year, but I just read an article that leads me to believe otherwise.

[Schneed10]

Here's the lowdown:

If you're traded after June 1st, you have all the same effects on the salary cap as a guy who is cut after June 1st.

It works like this:

When you get signed you get a signing bonus and other guaranteed moneys. All of that money gets spread through the life of your contract for cap purposes. Let's say you sign for 5 years and you get $10 million in guarantees. Then each season, your bonus counts $2.0 million against the team's cap ($10 million divided by 5 years = $2.0 million per year).

Say you play two years for the team. That means $4 million of your guaranteed money has already hit the team's cap in the last two years. There's still another $6 million to go. So if the team cuts you or trades you, they have to eat that $6 million as what they refer to as "dead money". It's called dead money because you're gone from the team, but there's still money for you on the cap.

Now, where June 1st comes in... June 1st is effectively the first day of the NFL's new fiscal year. So if you get cut or traded after June 1, then the team can take the $6 million in dead money, allocate $2 million of it to the 2007 cap, and allocate the remaining $4 million to the 2008 cap. Cutting you or trading you always means that the team has to eat the dead money somehow, it's just that the timing (pre June 1 or post June 1) determines whether they have to eat all the dead money in 2007, or postpone some of it until 2008.

It would also be helpful if you linked to the article you just read so I can help clarify anything else.

[Schneed10]

Now, recently the NFL introduced exceptions to the June 1 rule. They said that each team can release up to two players before June 1, and still reap the cap benefits of a post-June 1 cut.

By designating a player a Post-June 1 cut, the player gets to hit the market in March when all the other free agents are out there. This allows the player to enter the market while starting jobs remain open. When June 1 comes around, most starting jobs are secured through the draft or free agency.

Meanwhile, the team still gets to spread the impact of the dead money over 2 seasons. It's a win-win for player and team.

[dmek25]

schneed, your becoming quite the salary cap connoisseur

[Bill B]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Now, recently the NFL introduced exceptions to the June 1 rule. They said that each team can release up to two players before June 1, and still reap the cap benefits of a post-June 1 cut.

By designating a player a Post-June 1 cut, the player gets to hit the market in March when all the other free agents are out there. This allows the player to enter the market while starting jobs remain open. When June 1 comes around, most starting jobs are secured through the draft or free agency.

Meanwhile, the team still gets to spread the impact of the dead money over 2 seasons. It's a win-win for player and team.

Schneed - for the 2 exceptions can the team also use this for trades or only for players released? Lets say a team is interested in Brandon Llyod and were offering a 3rd round pick - could the Skins use the exception in this circumstance or is the rule only good if the Skins releaesed Llyod and thereby spreading his cap hit but at the same time not getting anything in return for him?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Bill B

Schneed - for the 2 exceptions can the team also use this for trades or only for players released? Lets say a team is interested in Brandon Llyod and were offering a 3rd round pick - could the Skins use the exception in this circumstance or is the rule only good if the Skins releaesed Llyod and thereby spreading his cap hit but at the same time not getting anything in return for him?

Good question, I'm not entirely sure, but I'm leaning towards no. I think it only applies to players you're releasing.

My thinking behind that is the June 1 exception was put into place as a proposal by the player's association, because they realized that players who were released on June 1 often had a hard time finding a place to fit in, because by that time most teams around the league had filled their needs. So people getting axed after June 1 were finding it hard to get a job.

But when you're talking about a trade, you don't have that problem. In your scenario, since a team is making an offer for Brandon Lloyd, presumably they have a need for him, otherwise they wouldn't make the offer. Plus, in the instance of a trade, the traded player would retain his current contract. So the traded player doesn't really need this kind of protection under the June 1 rule.

I'm pretty sure it's only for released guys, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Good question, I'm not entirely sure, but I'm leaning towards no. I think it only applies to players you're releasing.

My thinking behind that is the June 1 exception was put into place as a proposal by the player's association, because they realized that players who were released on June 1 often had a hard time finding a place to fit in, because by that time most teams around the league had filled their needs. So people getting axed after June 1 were finding it hard to get a job.

But when you're talking about a trade, you don't have that problem. In your scenario, since a team is making an offer for Brandon Lloyd, presumably they have a need for him, otherwise they wouldn't make the offer. Plus, in the instance of a trade, the traded player would retain his current contract. So the traded player doesn't really need this kind of protection under the June 1 rule.

I'm pretty sure it's only for released guys, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

I think your right on.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think your right on.

yeah he is right