Is there a cap hit when you trade a player?

[BillsFever21]

Anybody know?

[madness]

I believe no but the person you are trading with has to take the full contract.

[Forward_Lateral]

We need Eb to explain this asap.

[Devin]

I thought there was a cap hit, this came up earlier.

[Forward_Lateral]

I don't know if Eb ever answered it or not.

[madness]

I thought there was a cap hit, this came up earlier.
Okay, now I'm starting to remember a thread addressing this issue a while back.

[madness]

http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/showthread.php?t=97706&highlight=trade

[SABURZFAN]

that says"after the first game of the season."does it apply before the first game of the season?

[Michael82]

Yes, like I said before...there is the same cap hit if you trade or cut a player.

[L.A. Playa]

in the offseason ther is no cap hit on a trade, reading is fundamental Mikey

[SABURZFAN]

here we go again....

[Michael82]

in the offseason ther is no cap hit on a trade, reading is fundamental Mikey
Really? That's not what I understood. The way Eb put it, he said that he has a feeling there will be a lot less trading because now you will have to eat some of the money on the future years if you trade or cut a player.

[Forward_Lateral]

I guess I won't be trading then.

[Ebenezer]

this was explained in the above mentioned thread...right in #1 but I created some confusion. I consistently used the phrase trade or cut (or cut or trade) except in #1. The hit is the same whether you cut or trade a player. If you trade a player now then you are assessed the cap hit described below. NOTE: the word TRADE has been added in this iteration.

1. Before the start of any season if you cut or trade a player then one half of all their salaries will be assessed against your cap. Example. If you have a player signed for 2 years at $1mil and $1.2 mil and you cut or trade them before the season begins you will be assessed a penalty of $1.1 mil.

[Michael82]

this was explained in the above mentioned thread...right in #1 but I created some confusion. I consistently used the phrase trade or cut (or cut or trade) except in #1. The hit is the same whether you cut or trade a player. If you trade a player now then you are assessed the cap hit described below. NOTE: the word TRADE has been added in this iteration.

1. Before the start of any season if you cut or trade a player then one half of all their salaries will be assessed against your cap. Example. If you have a player signed for 2 years at $1mil and $1.2 mil and you cut or trade them before the season begins you will be assessed a penalty of $1.1 mil.
Thank you for clearing it right. I thought that's what you said to me before. :up:

[L.A. Playa]

color me corrected though that doesnt make any sense to me at all

[Michael82]

color me corrected though that doesnt make any sense to me at all
I agree. I think the cap hit should be lower if you trade compared to just cut the player. But whatever.

[L.A. Playa]

why should there be a cap hit at all to a team that is trading a player ??? that means that there will be virtually no player for draft pick trades at all

player for player shouldnt really matter that much considering that both teams will be taking an equal hit if salaries are equal

[Ebenezer]

why should there be a cap hit at all to a team that is trading a player ??? that means that there will be virtually no player for draft pick trades at all

player for player shouldnt really matter that much considering that both teams will be taking an equal hit if salaries are equal
it is to prevent stashing players and getting around the cap.

[Michael82]

it is to prevent stashing players and getting around the cap.
what do you mean by that? I'm sorry, but I just don't see that happening. And if it is, then there should be rules against it that dont screw other teams from making trades.

[Michael82]

why should there be a cap hit at all to a team that is trading a player ??? that means that there will be virtually no player for draft pick trades at all

player for player shouldnt really matter that much considering that both teams will be taking an equal hit if salaries are equal
That's my problem. I wanted to do a few player for draft picks, but with the cap hit, it totally screws it up. :ill:

[Ebenezer]

what do you mean by that? I'm sorry, but I just don't see that happening. And if it is, then there should be rules against it that dont screw other teams from making trades.
i think it is self evident...

1. if you screw up your cap then you shouldn't be able to get out of it by trading your team away...real NFL teams cannot do that.

2. what would prevent you from signing players to long-term contracts and then trading them to another team in order to make sure that the second owner could get them before free agency??

make sense?

[Ebenezer]

That's my problem. I wanted to do a few player for draft picks, but with the cap hit, it totally screws it up. :ill:
your cap is screwed up because you screwed it up.

[L.A. Playa]

that made sense Eb thanks

[Michael82]

i think it is self evident...

1. if you screw up your cap then you shouldn't be able to get out of it by trading your team away...real NFL teams cannot do that.

2. what would prevent you from signing players to long-term contracts and then trading them to another team in order to make sure that the second owner could get them before free agency??

make sense?
yeah it makes sense...but I think that it shouldn't be the same penalty as a cut. If you trade a player, you should still get a cap hit, but because they are going to be taking on your whole contract, why should you pay half too? That means that player is costing two teams even more money than it cost the one team. I do think that trades should be allowed and the teams shouldn't be punished for wanting to better their teams by making trades and bringing more talent to their team.

[Michael82]

that made sense Eb thanks
:rofl: You were sooo against this in all the threads where I mentioned it and now that Eb said what he said, you back down? :shakeno:

[L.A. Playa]

no his reasoning for it makes sense

[Michael82]

your cap is screwed up because you screwed it up.
oh and for the record, my cap isn't that bad. I have over $6 million left right now and will probably use some of that to fix my long term contracts. I didn't realize all those rules when i made these contracts. Yeah it's my fault, but you don't have to get like that with me.

[Michael82]

no his reasoning for it makes sense
so you support it?

[L.A. Playa]

im neutral, I dont have cap problems so doesnt affect me one way or another

[Michael82]

im neutral, I dont have cap problems so doesnt affect me one way or another
so u will still make trades if u want to?

[Ebenezer]

im neutral, I dont have cap problems so doesnt affect me one way or another
many of the rules exist simply to prevent circumventing the cap and collusion between owners.

[L.A. Playa]

so u will still make trades if u want to?

I will do what I want when I want !!!

[MikeInRoch]

I do like this rule, and there is a need for it - however, I would like it if the cap hit taken by the previous team should reduce the cap hit for the new team.

Maybe it's my need to have the cap be 'zero sum'. :D

[Forward_Lateral]

Meh, I just won't be trading, that's all.

I have a young player, who's base is 500k, and signed to a 5 year deal. I cannot afford the cap hit I will take by trading him, so I won't.

No big deal, I'm not in favour of the rule, but it's been a rule since day 1, and it's my fault for not knowing.

[Michael82]

I do like this rule, and there is a need for it - however, I would like it if the cap hit taken by the previous team should reduce the cap hit for the new team.

Maybe it's my need to have the cap be 'zero sum'. :D
That's what I'm thinking. If the original owner is going to be paying 1/2 of the contract...the new owner shouldn't pay the full contract. Maybe 3/4 of it or 1/2. :up:

[BillsFever21]

When you trade or cut a player in the NFL the team doesn't have half of a cap hit of the total contract. Only the bonus money gets put on the cap.

When a team signs a player to a 4yr-20 million dollar contract they may have 20% of it as a bonus which would be about 4 million dollars. If they cut that player they would only have to pay 4 million dollars and not 10 million dollars.

If we're gonna be exactly like the NFL(which is fine. I like the realism) then the cap hits should be around the same.

The salaries of the players are about as much as the real NFL players yet the cap is only 90 million and you have to pay out half of a contract to get rid of a player.

When you cut a player it shouldn't be half of the contract. It's not like that in the NFL. Around 20% of what's left on the contract should be fair.

If you owe somebody 20 million dollars 20% would be around 4 million. That's about what the cap hit would be in the NFL if you dumped a player with a contract like that.

I take it that's what we're striving for is to have realism and be exactly like the NFL. Half of their contracts doesn't go towards the cap when they get rid of a player.

[Ebenezer]

actually...in the NFL i believe the deion rule prevents teams from giving out more than 50% of the value of the contract as a signing bonus. Thus, very few, if any, actually have half of the contract as a signing bonus. however, there are reporting bonuses, option bonuses and multiple signing bonuses that do push the value of the bonus structure over 50% (for examples see most 1st round draft choices including Mike Williams, JP Losman to name a couple). let me ask clump if there is a relative number as to what is bonus and what is base salary. If there is and it is reasonable maybe we will change to that number. Having said that, if that number exists, it would not surprise me if it is about 30-50%.

[BillsFever21]

There is a big difference between 30% and 50%. If you owed a player 10 million that would make a difference of 2 million dollars.

[Michael82]

There is a big difference between 30% and 50%. If you owed a player 10 million that would make a difference of 2 million dollars.
I agree with you. I understand that it's not Eb's fault that certain teams don't have a good cap future. But why should they be punished that bad for it. We do have the ability to buy out future years of contracts and i like that, but I'm with you on the cut/trade cap hit. If we are trying to cut/trade a player because they lostvalue or whatever, 50% of the cap hit sounds like a little much imo.

[Ebenezer]

OK, i spoke with clump...there is no real number that shows that bonus money is X% of a total contract. for some of the 1st rounders that number, with different bonus structures, is actually over 50% (thus a 1st round bust is very painful) whereas bargain basement guys have 10k bonuses on 300K contracts.

he gave a couple of suggestions and we are on the right track the way it is set up. he suggested a "june 1" rule. If the NFL if you cut a player before June 1 all of the money is escalated into that years cap. In the NFL if you cut a player before June 1 then only that year counts on the cap and the rest is assessed to the following year (much like our current rule). However, when you trade a player, regardless the date, those monies escalate into the current cap year.

Having said all of that - things are going to stay the way they are now. It is too late to try to screw with it. During the offseason we will address it. i am going to come up with a number and change the 50% rule. I am thinking it will be between 35% and 50%. I am also thinking that our "June 1" date will be the FA draft.

1. If you cut or trade a player before the FA draft it will cost you X% of the total remainder of the contract in that cap year.

2. If you cut or trade a player after the FA draft and before the start of the season it will cost you X% of this years salary in this cap year and X% of the remaining contract in the following cap year.

3. After the first game of the season if you cut or trade a player you will be assessed a penalty of X% the amount of remaining salary for that season into that year's cap. The rest of the assessed penalty will be subtracted from next year's cap.

4. Any owner(s) caught colluding will pay substantial salary cap and draft choice penalties.

5. As per the constitution, any player cut after the FA draft would retain his contract upon being signed by a new team. There is no way a 10 mil player would get signed for the minimum.

Right now I would bet that X will end up about 40%; it could be 50%. I am going to look over the Bills salary cap over the last couple of years and try to determine the amount that was bonus and the amount that was base salary. Stay Tuned.

[Forward_Lateral]

I agree with you. I understand that it's not Eb's fault that certain teams don't have a good cap future. But why should they be punished that bad for it. We do have the ability to buy out future years of contracts and i like that, but I'm with you on the cut/trade cap hit. If we are trying to cut/trade a player because they lostvalue or whatever, 50% of the cap hit sounds like a little much imo.

:rofl: I have over 30 million in cap space next year. I have less than 2 this year, the point is, nobody in their right mind would want to take a huge cap hit just to trade a player.

[Ebenezer]

:rofl: I have over 30 million in cap space next year. I have less than 2 this year, the point is, nobody in their right mind would want to take a huge cap hit just to trade a player.
just like the NFL...guys are trying to strip down and rebuild their team in a heartbeat whereas real NFL teams put up with players until their contracts are small enough that the pain from cutting them isn't great.

[Forward_Lateral]

just like the NFL...guys are trying to strip down and rebuild their team in a heartbeat whereas real NFL teams put up with players until their contracts are small enough that the pain from cutting them isn't great.

I'm not cutting them, I'm looking to make a trade that would benefit my team. The cap ramifications are too high, so I won't do it. No big deal.

[Ebenezer]

I'm not cutting them, I'm looking to make a trade that would benefit my team. The cap ramifications are too high, so I won't do it. No big deal.
but that happens in the NFL too.

[L.A. Playa]

Mikey is just upset that he wont beable to make 50 trades the next offseason