Seahawks Salary Cap & Contracts - Q&A

[original poster]

Any other questions chaps?

I haven't talked about the cap in almost 3 days now, I'm starting to shake a little.

I have another.

Rapoport reported that we may release Malik in hopes that another team clears him. Why? Specifically, what is the cap savings of cutting Malik, and how would another team clearing/playing him impact our cap hit?

There are certain clauses in the CBA whereby players can forfeit money due to NFI injuries, but they must be written into the contract.

As it stands, assuming the team are not on the hook for his guaranteed base salaries on future years -

normal cut -

2018 cap hit - $2,398,857
2019 cap hit - $0

Post June 1 cut -

2018 cap hit - $799,619
2019 cap hit - $1,599,238

However, if the team are on the hook for his guaranteed P5 base, things will get a whole lot more expensive.

The guarantees in his P5 base salary are -

2018 - $781,155 (all of it)
2019 - $471,843 (42.99%)
2020 - $0 (nothing guaranteed)

In my opinion, the Malik news isn’t about the salary cap, it’s avout ridding the team of distractions and if that ends up costing the teams cap, so be it.

I think the team know Cliff isn’t coming back so they’ve got ample cap space to deal with Malik this year and get the distraction off the team.

 

[jammerhawk]

If he were still designated NFI wouldn't the team be able to avoid paying any of his 2018 base salary, or a very reduced amount?

 

[original poster]

If he were still designated NFI wouldn't the team be able to avoid paying any of his 2018 base salary, or a very reduced amount?

That's whats throwing me, I cannot find a specific mention in the CBA.

I suspect, despite all of his 2018 and about 50% of his base salary in 2018 and 2019, that the team won't be on the hook for it.

They will almost certainly be on the hook for his signing bonus, though. That has very likely already been paid to him unless they staggered it into 4/8/12 payments over the year.

They are 100% within their rights to try and get it back, though.

 

[mikeak]

^ even Seattle Times has stated that they don’t know the details on Malik’s contract and specifically as it relates to activities allowed / not allowed.

So to speculate that they are within their rights to try and get money back or on the hook for anything paid is just that - pure speculation.

If his contract didn’t allow certain risky activities they would have a case. If it did not then they have no case as signing bonus is just that - payment for getting under contract.

 

[original poster]

^ even Seattle Times has stated that they don’t know the details on Malik’s contract and specifically as it relates to activities allowed / not allowed.

So to speculate that they are within their rights to try and get money back or on the hook for anything paid is just that - pure speculation.

If his contract didn’t allow certain risky activities they would have a case. If it did not then they have no case as signing bonus is just that - payment for getting under contract.

I'm querying his P5 base salary, not the signing bonus.

The CBA is very clear about recouping signing bonuses, and Seattle will be well within their rights to get that back.

 

[jammerhawk]

His base salary is not guaranteed, thus if he is released the team has zero responsibility to pay it to him.

In fact at present his contract tolled for 2017 and he is still under contractual obligation to Seattle for 4 seasons. If he's still PUP there is no duty to pay the base salary as he isn't playing even though his contract tolls and could toll again. The issue of whether the team could recover the prorated portion of his bonus is the big question here. I agree with the opinion the team likely could recover a portion of it they have not acquiesced to pay i.e.: last years portion. I don't think he got paid any base salary last season but could be wrong on that.

 

[original poster]

His base salary is not guaranteed, thus if he is released the team has zero responsibility to pay it to him.

In fact at present his contract tolled for 2017 and he is still under contractual obligation to Seattle for 4 seasons. If he's still PUP there is no duty to pay the base salary as he isn't playing even though his contract tolls and could toll again. The issue of whether the team could recover the prorated portion of his bonus is the big question here. I agree with the opinion the team likely could recover a portion of it they have not acquiesced to pay i.e.: last years portion. I don't think he got paid any base salary last season but could be wrong on that.

No I don't think he got any base salary last year, either. Think they gave him something like $5K a week as a gesture of goodwill.

I'm fairly sure a good portion of his base was guaranteed, though.

IIRC it was all of 2017, all of 2018, 41% of 2019 and 0% of 2020.

 

[JerHawk81]

It's sad to ask this question (and ask it this way), but what do we gain when we cut Jon Ryan? Cap savings in 2018 and 2019? Any/How much dead money?

And, how much do we pay a rookie punter taken in the 5th? What does that contract look like?

 

[original poster]

It's sad to ask this question (and ask it this way), but what do we gain when we cut Jon Ryan? Cap savings in 2018 and 2019? Any/How much dead money?

And, how much do we pay a rookie punter taken in the 5th? What does that contract look like?

Cutting Jon Ryan saves $2M in 2018 with $1.2M dead money.

His contract will be as follows -

Total value of $2,751,444 including a signing bonus: $291,444.

2018 cap hit is $552,861 so the true cap savings, once the regular season starts and assuming he makes the team are $1,447,139.

During the off-season his cap hit will be a mere $72,861.

 

[chris98251]

Well for now it's all gravy we will be fine and any Vets that get beat out by our younger players will add to it, next year will be a much easier management I think. That and only the top 52 I think count against the cap.

 

[jammerhawk]

With both Kam and McDowell wouldn’t it be the top 53?

 

[chris98251]

No Wilson is 1 and the 52 below him

 

[jammerhawk]

Not sure Richard Sherman or Michael Bennett agree they were part of the 52 below him. Perhaps that’s why they aren’t here any more.