Seven Players Who Could Get Terminated As A Result of Draft Weekend Transactions

The 2010 NFL Draft weekend is now behind us, and as result of transactions that occurred during that weekend, the following players could be looking for new homes.

1. Oakland Raiders QB JaMarcus Russell
With the acquisition of quarterback Jason Campbell, it seems a far gone conclusion at this point that the 2007 #1 overall draft pick will not be a member of the Raiders in 2010. Russell is currently accounting for $15.3 million against Oakland’s team salary. If released, then by virtue of team salary accounting rules and the bonus acceleration that is part of these rules, Russell’s 2010 dead money number will be $19.9 million, but in an uncapped year this enormous amount – which is slightly higher than Peyton Manning’s team salary number – is not a hindrance to the Raiders. From a cash perspective, the release of Russell will save the Raiders $6 million in salary, as $3.5 million of Russell’s $9.5 million salary remains guaranteed. With the start of Organized Team Activities (OTAs), the Raiders would be wise to release Russell before he suffers a season-ending injury, which would result in the Raiders being responsible for the full $9.5 million salary.

2. Seattle Seahawks WR Deion Branch
Branch has been a disappointment for his entire tenure in Seattle, and with the drafting of Notre Dame wide receiver Golden Tate in the second round, coupled with the continued development of 2009 third round pick Deon Butler, one could very well surmise that Branch’s days could be limited in the Pacific Northwest. Branch currently accounts for $8 million in team salary. By releasing Branch, the Seahawks could save themselves $5.5 million in Branch’s salary. Similar to Russell, that’s a lot of money at risk during OTAs for a player who may or may not factor into your plans for 2010.

3. Oakland Raiders DT Tommy Kelly
While the release of Kelly, who is one of the top ten highest paid defensive tackles in the game, is very unlikely, the drafting of second round defensive tackle Lamarr Houston may not bold well for Kelly’s future. The Raiders have acquired young pass rushers Kamerion Wimbley and Quentin Groves; these acquisitions may allow Richard Seymour to kick down to defensive tackle more frequently, which could squeeze out Kelly. Kelly currently accounts for $7.4 million in team salary. By terminating him, the Raiders would save $4.5 million in salary but incur a dead money charge against their team salary books of $11.5 million. However, as I mentioned in the case of Russell, if there’s ever a time to take on significant dead money, it’s the 2010 uncapped year.

4. Dallas Cowboys WR Roy Williams
Similar to Tommy Kelly, I do not foresee this termination occurring, primarily due to the fact that Williams’ $3.5 million salary is fully guaranteed and somehow think that Jerry Jones would like to get some sort of return on that investment, even if it’s minimal given the presence of first round wide receiver Dez Bryant. Like Kelly, Williams accounts for $7.4 million against the Cowboys’ team salary books. If they were to terminate Williams, not only would they still be on the hook for $3.5 million in salary, but they would take on a dead money charge of $17.5 million.

5. Cincinnati Bengals DE Robert Geathers
Geathers, a 15-game starter in 2009 for the Bengals, is surely going to be pushed by 2010 second round pick, defensive end Carlos Dunlap and 2009 third round pick Michael Johnson. Dunlap and Johnson could very well push Geathers out of the building. By terminating Geathers, who currently accounts for $5.5 million, the Bengals could save $3.5 million in Geathers’ salary. Geathers’ fate can easily depend upon the recovery of defensive end Antwan Odom, who prior to suffering a season ending injury in 2009, was having a break out season.

6. San Francisco 49ers S Michael Lewis
With fellow safety Dashon Goldson solidifying his status in the 49ers secondary with a strong 2009 season, Lewis will have to battle second round pick Taylor Mays for the starting safety position opposite of Goldson. The 49ers can save themselves $4.1 million by releasing Lewis. If Lewis cannot beat out Mays for the starting position, then $4.1 million is a lot of money to pay to a third safety, but first Lewis has to hope he even gets the opportunity to make it to training camp.

7. New Orleans Saints CB Randall Gay
The drafting of first round cornerback Patrick Robinson does not bold well for the future of the six year veteran Gay. The Saints have three young corners in Robinson, Tracy Porter, and Malcolm Jenkins who they have invested high picks in; not to mention the significant financial investment made into cornerback Jabari Greer. At best, Gay is the Saints’ fourth or fifth cornerback, and with $3 million due to him in a combination of a $500,000 roster bonus and $2.5 million salary, it would not be surprising to see the Saints let Gay go. With the roster bonus being earned on May 1st, a decision on Gay could be made by week’s end.

Grab Bag
Football Outsiders reader Dr. Obvious asks: “Is [Steelers linebacker Lamarr] Woodley, and any other Pro-Bowl quality player under a rookie contract screwed?” And Twitter follower @JonathanCarter0 asks: “What are ways that Tennessee could get around the 30% rule and get Chris Johnson that money?”

My fellow capologist Ian Whetstone does a great job breaking down the nuances, specifically the 30% rule, prohibiting a lucrative multi-year extension of Woodley in his recent article (http://pit.scout.com/2/966042.html). In addition to Woodley, Titans running back Chris Johnson is clearly disgruntled with his rookie contract, given his productivity, and the same can be assumed for Eagles wide receiver DeSean Jackson. If this were a normal league year with a salary cap, then signing these players to multi-year deals reflective of their productivity would not be a problem. As far as how one can get a deal done in spite of the 30% rule to reward these players, there are certain complex contracts structures that could potentially work, but the complexities of such deals probably diminishes the likelihood of a team and player executing such a deal. The simple and more likely temporary resolution is to sign these players to a short term contract of one or two years that holds them over until the labor environment changes (ie, the Kevin Kolb extension). For example, if a player and club agree that the player’s market value is $6 million per year, then a two year deal with minimum salaries totaling roughly $1 million and a signing bonus of $11 million could be executed as a temporary resolution.



Follow J.I. Halsell on Twitter: @SalaryCap101

What a Donovan McNabb Contract Could Look Like?

Posted to FootballOutsiders.com on 04.14.10
Now that the Redskins have traded for their franchise quarterback in Donovan McNabb, the next item of business as it relates to the McNabb-Redskins relationship is a contract extension. McNabb is in the final year of his contract that was traded from the Eagles. Under this deal he is due a guaranteed $6.2 million roster bonus and a $5 million salary, of which $3.5 million is guaranteed.

The challenge for the Redskins is to come up with a contract that secures McNabb beyond 2010, while at the same time protects the club’s interests from a financial investment and team salary management perspective. Remember that several years ago the Redskins traded for wide receiver Brandon Lloyd, who at the time was under contract for one year. Upon trading for Lloyd, the Redskins promptly signed him to six year extension with $10 million guaranteed. Lloyd lasted only two seasons in Washington.

The lesson learned from the Brandon Lloyd failure is that a club does not want to compound the loss of draft picks for a player who does not fit the organization by additionally making a significant financial investment in said player. Surely, the Redskins would have been disappointed by trading away draft picks for Lloyd, but the mistake would have been easier to stomach had they not made such a significant investment in Lloyd.

Similarly, the Redskins want to mitigate their potential financial and potential salary cap risk in executing an extension with McNabb. To this end, a great structure for a McNabb deal is the “pay as you go” structure. It is this same structure that the Packers used with quarterback Brett Favre in his final years there. The “pay as you go” structure limits the club’s exposure to dead money in the event that the club chooses to terminate the contract, as this structure either does not utilize or minimally utilizes signing bonus that would prorate into future years. Utilizing this structure with McNabb, the Redskins could account for McNabb’s guarantee entirely in the uncapped 2010 league year by virtue of a combination of guaranteed salary and roster bonus, and then in the subsequent years provide McNabb with significant upside in the form of substantial salaries or a combination of salaries and roster bonuses, none of which would be guaranteed. Of course all of these numbers would have to be 30% rule compliant, but by using this structure, if the Redskins find out that McNabb is not the quarterback they expected, then by terminating him they could face limited to no dead money issues.

In terms of the market value of a McNabb contract; from a guarantee perspective, if Kurt Warner and Jake Delhomme in 2009 can get $15 million and $19 million guaranteed respectively, then McNabb can surely expect a guarantee in that ball park, if not, the $20 million to $22 million range. From an average per year perspective, the going rate for elite veteran quarterbacks not named Brady or Manning (Peyton that is) seems to be in that $12 million to $12.5 million range. Quarterbacks in this range include Favre and McNabb’s current contract, so it would make sense that McNabb could receive an extension in that same range, which over five new years equals a total package of roughly $62.5 million.




Follow J.I. Halsell on Twitter: @SalaryCap101

Under the Cap: The Redskins Finally Leverage the Uncapped Year

It took nearly three weeks into the uncapped year, but the team a lot of people suspected to be most likely to leverage the uncapped year has finally done so. However, contrary to popular thought, the Redskins haven’t leveraged the uncapped year by signing Julius Peppers and Karlos Dansby all on the same day; instead, the Redskins have renegotiated the contracts of defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth and cornerback DeAngelo Hall.

As of March 11^th, the Redskins had a total team salary amount of $141.6 million, by virtue of the Haynesworth and Hall renegotiations of March 12th, this number is now roughly $170 million. To put this in perspective, the baseline salary cap in 2009 was $128 million. So what did the Redskins do?

In his infamous $100 million contract of 2009, Haynesworth had a $21 million option bonus. As part of the deal, the Redskins reserved the right to convert that option bonus to signing bonus, and that’s exactly what they did according to league sources. However, they did this conversion with a slight twist. Not only did they convert the option bonus to a $21 million signing bonus, but they also added a voidable provision by which if Haynesworth pays back $16.8 million of the signing bonus, then the 2011 – 2014 contract years void away. From a team salary accounting standpoint, because the voidable is solely in the player’s control, the proration of the signing bonus does not go into 2011 – 2014, meaning all of the $21 million signing bonus counts in the uncapped year of 2010. As a result, Haynesworth’s team salary number in 2010 went from $8.8 million to a whopping $25.6 million. His subsequent team salary numbers are $6.4 million, $8.2 million, $10 million, $10.8 million, and $12.8 million respectively. With this new voidable provision, if Haynesworth decides he's unhappy with his role in the Redskins' new 3-4 defense and he can come to an agreement in principle with a new team that would guarantee him the $16.8 million he'd have to pay back to the Redskins, then in theory 2010 could Haynesworth's last year in Washington.

Similarly, Hall had a $15 million option bonus in his contract signed in the 2009 offseason. The Redskins converted this $15 million to signing bonus and also provided Hall with the voidable clause, whereby the entire $15 million, from a team salary accounting standpoint, stays in 2010. As a result of this maneuver, Hall’s team salary number went from $6.8 million to $18.3 million in 2010. His subsequent manageable team salary numbers are $5.3 million, $6.8 million, $8.3 million, and $9.5 million respectively.

In a December ESPN.com article (http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/news/story?id=4757680 ), I discussed the cap and contracts creativity of Redskins GM Bruce Allen. The Haynesworth and Hall renegotiations illustrate that creativity. The voidable language added to the Haynesworth and Hall contracts are the same device included in the Jeff Faine contract negotiated by Allen in Tampa Bay. Interestingly, I mention this clause in the ESPN.com article, as Allen is known to do, he creatively named the voidable clause the “I-4 Off-Ramp,” named after the highway that joins Tampa to the rest of central Florida.

Some may point to the release of veterans Fred Smoot, Rock Cartwright, Cornelius Griffin, Randy Thomas, and Antwaan Randle El amongst others as a sign of the Redskins taking advantage of the uncapped year. The reality is that those terminations actually saved the Redskins nearly $300,000 in team salary accounting, as had those veterans (inclusive of Ladell Betts, Todd Collins, and Chris Samuels) been on the team they would have counted $30.8 million in team salary. As a result of their terminations, their dead money totals $30.5 million, a savings of $300,000. If anything, the uncapped year allows the Redskins to replace these players without being handcuffed by a salary cap, but these terminations are not as nearly as profound of a leveraging of the uncapped year as the Haynesworth and Hall renegotiations.

The conversion of bonus money to signing bonus is a fairly common practice in the NFL. One presumed advantage to converting an option bonus to signing bonus is the concept of forfeiture. That is, option bonus is not subject to forfeiture; however, signing bonus is subject to forfeiture. Therefore, a team protects its interests in the event a player defaults on the contract (a la shooting themselves in the leg) by converting money to signing bonus. However, the interpretation of the amount of money open to recovery based upon the timing of the default is not clearly defined in the CBA. Meaning, one argument is that the forfeiture amount is prorated over the term of the contract. In the case of Haynesworth, if one were to prorate his $21 million signing bonus over 2010 – 2014, then that equates to $4.2 million in each year. That said, if Haynesworth were to default prior to 2011, then $16.8 million would be subject to forfeiture.

The other argument is that forfeiture is calculated in line with team salary accounting proration. In the case of Haynesworth’s renegotiation, given the voidable provision, team salary accounting places all $21 million in 2010. Using the same example of a Haynesworth default in 2011, because all of the signing bonus was in 2010, there is no money available to forfeiture in 2011. This is an area of ambiguity that would more than likely have to be resolved in arbitration.

As I’ve previously written, given the uncertainty of what 2011 holds, clubs who take advantage of the uncapped year by incurring high team salaries in 2010 run the risk of possibly being penalized in 2011 as part of a new salary cap and CBA. Clearly, this is a risk the Redskins are willing to take, or perhaps they know something the rest of us don’t.

Follow J.I. Halsell on Twitter: @SalaryCap101

Under the Cap: Reviewing the Mega-Money Deals

J.I. Halsell shows how the big contracts from the beginning of free agency don't differ much from years past.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/under-cap/2010/under-cap-reviewing-mega-money-deals

Westbrook, Sharper, & the Upgraded Tender

Why would the Eagles announce the termination of Brian Westbrook over a week before actually terminating him?

On Tuesday, the Philadelphia Eagles announced that they will be parting ways with running back Brian Westbrook; it subsequently was reported that Westbrook’s termination would not be official until March 5^th, the first day of the 2010 league year. My first thought when hearing this peculiar piece of information was that perhaps the Eagles were trying to avoid a Joey Porter situation.

As you may remember, the Miami Dolphins tried to release Porter, but the transaction was reversed by the NFL Management Council. The Dolphins have $4.1 million in 2009 cap room; the Porter termination would have been considered a 2009 league year transaction. Accordingly, by virtue of being terminated in February, the Dolphins would have had to take on an additional $4.8 million in signing bonus acceleration in 2009. Given their $4.1 million cap room, the February Porter termination would not fit under the cap.

With Joey Porter in mind, I thought that perhaps the Eagles did not have enough cap room to take on the acceleration associated with terminating Westbrook in 2009. However, as I found out, the Eagles currently have $4.2 million in cap room, and by terminating Westbrook, would have incurred $1.5 million in acceleration. So the Eagles clearly could have made the termination effective on Tuesday, but it would appear that the Eagles are potentially looking to use that $4.2 million in cap room for other purposes. Perhaps the Eagles are looking to use that cap space to release other players in 2009 or quite simply would prefer to take on Westbrook’s dead money in 2010 rather than 2009.

Why would the Saints hope that Darren Sharper gets a lucrative contract elsewhere?

It appears Saints safety Darren Sharper will hit the free agent market and will not be precluded by the $6.5 million safety franchise tag. Last offseason, 35-year old Denver safety Brian Dawkins signed a five year contract with $5.8 million in guaranteed money and an average per year of $3.4 million. Just as Dawkins, the 33-year old Sharper has remained a productive and impactful player as he approaches his mid-thirties, so it would be reasonable for him to expect at a minimum a Dawkins-like contract. Not to mention, the Super Bowl premium a team may be willing to pay to rile up the fan base by signing one of the key members of the previous season’s Super Bowl champs.

If Sharper were to leave, then one would expect the “Who Dat” nation to question the prudence of such a departure. However, keep in mind that the Saints, Vikings, Colts, and Jets are the most restricted teams in free agency by virtue of the Final Eight Plan (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/under-cap/2009/under-cap-final-eight-plan ). As part of the Final Eight Plan, the Saints cannot sign a UFA until they lose a UFA, and the first year value of the acquired UFA by the Saints cannot exceed the first year value of Sharper’s contract with his new team. That said, absent a new deal with the Saints, the thought could be that the Saints are hoping a team over-pays for Sharper and in turn the Saints then have a lucrative one-for-one UFA match at their disposal. The newly acquired UFA to replace Sharper does not have to be a safety; it could be a linebacker to possibly replace Scott Fujita or if you’re looking for Malcolm Jenkins to replace Sharper at safety, then the UFA could be used on a UFA such as cornerback Dunta Robinson or Leigh Bodden.

Clarifying the “Upgraded Tender”

We recently discussed the upgraded tender’s impact on restricted free agency (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/under-cap/2010/under-cap-front-office-decisions ). One question that came up regarding the upgraded tender was whether or not all former first and second round restricted free agents of a club must receive at least their respective draft round’s tender if one player on their club receives the upgraded tender. The answer is that, if for example the Redskins tender former sixth-round pick defensive tackle Kedric Golston at the first round level, then the Redskins must tender quarterback Jason Campbell and cornerback Carlos Rogers at a minimum of the first round level if they hope to receive a first round pick in return for a Campbell or Rogers departure via restricted free agency. Under the same scenario in which Golston gets tendered at the first round level, despite the upgraded tender, former second round pick linebacker Rocky McIntosh could be tendered at the original round level and the Redskins could still receive a second round pick for McIntosh. Golston’s upgraded tender of a first round pick only impacts the tendering of the club’s former first round picks. If the Redskins were to extend a second round upgraded tender to another one of their RFAs, then McIntosh would have to be tendered at the second round level.

Regarding undrafted players who are restricted free agents and who receive a tender higher than the low level right of first refusal only tender, the CBA is not clear as to whether or not an undrafted player who receives a second round tender equates to an upgraded tender. The language of the CBA in defining the upgraded tender refers to “Restricted Free Agents originally selected in a draft round lower than the first round.” For example, if the Colts tender undrafted safety Melvin Bullitt at the second round level, then the letter of the CBA says that the club could tender former first round pick Marlin Jackson at the original round level and still receive a first round pick in the event of his departure. The interpretation of this scenario will have to be determined by the league, but the spirit of the rule would seem to indicate that, despite the actual language, the Bullitt tender should be considered an upgraded tender and accordingly Jackson should be tendered at a minimum of the first round tender.

Follow J.I. Halsell on Twitter: @SalaryCap101

Upcoming Front Office Decisions

With the Super Bowl now behind us, everyone in the NFL is 0-0 and it’s that time of year for teams’ front offices to earn their keep. As a former front office guy, this may be my favorite time of the year because this is when you truly build your roster. It’s during this time of the year that you get to implement all the research you did during the course of the year and put into action the plans you made in how you envisioned your team to look as you go into the next season.

In the month of February, you’ve got decisions to make on members of your current team. As we saw with the recent terminations of Antonio Pierce, Torry Holt, and Tra Thomas, it’s during this time of year that you decide to cut bait with veterans who you feel aren’t worth their upcoming salaries. In the case of Antonio Pierce as an example, the Giants did not feel comfortable paying Pierce’s $4.75 million 2010 salary. By keeping him on the roster any longer, you run the risk of Pierce incurring a season ending injury in offseason workouts, at which point you’re stuck paying a $4.75 million salary on a player who may or may not have figured significantly into your plans. Also, by releasing him at this point, you’re allowing him to find work at a time when teams are turning over their rosters, thereby helping him find his next opportunity. In the next few weeks, you’ll see LaDainian Tomlinson more than likely meet the same fate.

In addition to veterans with high salaries, front offices have to decide whether or not to pay players with significant roster bonuses that are set to be earned at the beginning of the 2010 league year (March 5^th). Some veterans with interesting roster bonuses due in the early part of the league year are:

UPCOMING 2010 ROSTER BONUSES
Player	Position	Club	Bonus	Date Earned
Lofa Tatupu	LB	SEA	$4,000,000	7th day of league year
Kerry Rhodes	S	NYJ	$2,000,000	7th day of league year
Antrel Rolle	S	ARZ	$4,000,000	Beginning of league year
Jeff Backus	OL	DET	$1,000,000	2nd day of league year
Brian Waters	OL	KC	$1,500,000	10th day of league year
Kareem McKenzie	OL	NYG	$1,000,000	10th day of league year
Thomas Jones	RB	NYJ	$3,000,000	5th day of league year
Lito Sheppard	CB	NYJ	$10,000,000	5th day of league year
Stacy Andrews	OL	PHI	$5,000,000	30th day of league year
Darren Howard	DE	PHI	$1,000,000	15th day of league year
Michael Vick	QB	PHI	$1,500,000	5th day of league year
Jamal Williams	DT	SD	$1,000,000	1st day of league year

Of the above list, the name I find most intriguing is Jets running back Thomas Jones. A lot has been made of the impending departure of safety Kerry Rhodes, but given the playoff productivity of Shonn Greene, I would find it very hard to believe that the Jets will be willing to pay a $3 million roster bonus to Thomas Jones. Jones has been clamoring for a new deal, so I wouldn’t think that Jones would be willing to renegotiate his looming roster bonus and instead would rather be released so that he can try his luck in free agency. Another interesting name on the above list is Cardinals safety Antrel Rolle. Rolle will be 27 years old at the beginning of the 2010 season, and because his free agency would result from the Cardinals terminating his contract instead of it expiring, Rolle would be one of the few unrestricted free agents younger than age 30. Rolle could find himself in a position to earn a lucrative contract that could make him one of the top ten highest paid safeties.

In the month of February, front offices also have to decide at what level to tender their restricted free agents, and as we’ve discussed in previous columns, the tendering of restricted free agents in 2010 takes on even more significance because of the quality of players that are restricted free agents as a result of the uncapped year. For those restricted free agents who are former first round or second round picks, clubs, in deciding what level to tender the player, must keep in mind the rules of the “Upgraded Tender.”

The Upgraded Tender is when a player is tendered at a level higher than the round they were originally drafted. For example, Redskins defensive tackle Kedric Golston is a former sixth round pick and is a restricted free agent. If the Redskins were to tender Golston at the second round level, then Golston has received an Upgraded Tender. This Upgraded Tender then affects the tendering of Redskins linebacker Rocky McIntosh, a former second round pick who is also a restricted free agent. Without the Upgraded Tender, the Redskins could tender McIntosh at the Original Round level and receive a second round pick in return if he were to depart via restricted free agency. However, because of the Upgraded Tender to Golston, the Redskins must tender McIntosh at a minimum of the Second Round level if they want to get a second round pick in return, otherwise, if the Redskins tender McIntosh at the Original Round level, then they would only receive a third round pick in return. The same mechanics apply to former first round picks. Under the same scenario, if they are not tendered at the first round level or higher, then the team will receive a second round pick in return. That said, expect the vast majority of former first and second round draft picks to be tendered at a minimum level of their respective selection round.

In addition to restricted free agent tenders, clubs have until February 25^th to decide on placing the franchise tag and/or transition tag on any looming unrestricted free agents. Remember that in the uncapped year clubs may designate a franchise player and a transition player.

So it’s officially front office season, in addition to the items discussed above you’ve got negotiations on extensions with players you’d like to keep long-term and on top of that you’ve got the Scouting Combine at the end of the month. It’s definitely a busy time for front offices, but if you’re fan of roster building, then there’s no better time of year than right now.

Follow J.I. Halsell on Twitter: @SalaryCap101

Appearance on Washington Post Live, 02.09.10

See the attached link for my appearance on Washington Post Live this past Tuesday; also on the show is former Redskins & Texans GM Charley Casserly. On the show we discuss the Super Bowl, the Saints offseason, Redskins offseason, and the coming uncapped year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzmsKEQc8wA
Video is courtesy of Comcast SportsNet