Per ESPN/Schefter, Hawks trade for OT Duane Brown

[Anthony!]

Meh, since it's Russ, I'm sure plenty of people will shoot down the idea that he could have suggested it anyway. Let alone just saying that he's somehow doing it for his own good :roll:

Lets be clear -- RW if anything benefits from this. He gets cash quicker. He converts future salary to signing bonus paid now but spread over the cap for multiple years.

This is not criticism - just saying there is zero disadvantage for a player doing this and a slight advantage getting the money quicker so it can earn interest / be invested sooner

Chicago has it in their player contracts that they can do this without even asking their players.....

except he losses, more in taxes as 6.25 in a lump sum is a higher tax bracket. Eh loses about 20% more this way

Not correct

Holy smokes - you take facts as criticism incredible

Do you seriously not think that RW is already in the highest tax bracket?

Do you seriously think that this bumped him 20% in taxes vs getting it over the next few years?

Lets look at taxes shall we

If you get paid salary for games then you pay taxes in the states that you play in. So when RW goes on the road he pays taxes in those states

Suddenly it was turned into signing bonus earned in the state of Washington

HE JUST REDUCED HIS TAXES

This is not a negative, it is not a positive - it is facts. I said the same thing when Brady did it and heck the same when Cutler did it. It is done in the NFL and it most often benefits the player doing it. The only time it would not is if you are in a taxable state and then are traded to a non-taxing state afterwards

wrong lump sums are treated differently and are in a special tax bracket, sorry to tell you he did not reduce his taxes nice try.

 

[Anthony!]

There are a few others who have made light of it, and again yes 2.6 mil today and he loses more in taxes due to the lump sum payment which is at a higher tax rate. So it is a big deal.

It really isn't. The tax implications are small potatoes against time value of money over a year.

LOLwhatever, believe what you want.

 

[mikeak]

wrong lump sums are treated differently and are in a special tax bracket, sorry to tell you he did not reduce his taxes nice try.

I will eat crow if you can give me a link that would support this

 

[Scorpion05]

I don't see why we have to over analyze/nitpick Russell restructuring. He did what other great Qbs do. When Brady restructures he's not making some huge sacrifice either. But the move comes with pros and cons

Russell made a move that has pros and cons, especially given his abilities as a mobile QB. Let's just praise it for what it is and move on. The same a Brady, Manning, or Luck would get praise.

And in the end, let's be real. Russell playing behind the line we've had has been downright criminal. He deserves all the bonuses in the world for that, it's a QB driven league. As our franchise QB, he should NEVER be put behind a line so atrocious again. He deserves that respect, and the franchise needed to do this if they want to stick around for 10-15 more years

 

[Anthony!]

The draft picks are less of an issue for me than the salary cap situation. We'll probably get a compensatory pick back in 2020 if we don't resign Brown. Unfortunately there isn't a way to avoid the salary cap; our 2018 squad will have less resources to work with relative to the rest of the league than our 2017 squad does.

I'm just surprised so many of you are gung-ho with the idea of closing the window on our team. I'd rather we prop it up with youth and keep on winning for the foreseeable future. Maybe it's just the same people who said our window was closing in 2015 and will still claim it is closing in 2020. I don't see why we'd rule out winning down the road with Clark/Reed/Richardson/McDowell/Griffin/Coleman/McDougald/Hill/Thompson and a few more years of draft picks and free agents.

OR maybe it is just those of us who have seen the weakest link on this team is the oline and it is time to address it. I am pretty sure the FO has a plan and has already taken all this into account. I mean we only have about 4 must resigns next year, and the cap will go up some, and we have dead cap space that gets freed up as well

 

[Anthony!]

I don't see why we have to over analyze/nitpick Russell restructuring. He did what other great Qbs do. When Brady restructures he's not making some huge sacrifice either. But the move comes with pros and cons

Russell made a move that has pros and cons, especially given his abilities as a mobile QB. Let's just praise it for what it is and move on. The same a Brady, Manning, or Luck would get praise.

And in the end, let's be real. Russell playing behind the line we've had has been downright criminal. He deserves all the bonuses in the world for that, it's a QB driven league. As our franchise QB, he should NEVER be put behind a line so atrocious again. He deserves that respect, and the franchise needed to do this if they want to stick around for 10-15 more years

GREAT POST!!!!!

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Brady re-structures, he's treated like a hero.
Russ does it, meh...

I've seen like one "meh" this entire thread, so not sure why you're acting like no one's praising Russell.

And it's not like Russell just gave up millions, he got a fat 2.6M bonus check today, and gets the rest deferred.

There are a few others who have made light of it, and again yes 2.6 mil today and he loses more in taxes due to the lump sum payment which is at a higher tax rate. So it is a big deal.

He's already in the highest tax bracket. Getting a lump sum bonus doesn't change that, so not sure where you're coming up with this.

 

[kidhawk]

Either way, my original point on the subject was that moving Lane doesn't clear cap space for Brown. Brown makes too much money. This is why I assumed we'd either extend Graham or Restructure Brown. They chose to go with restructuring Wilson, which works too, but it now has moved that money from this season forward, eating a little more cap room each season moving forward. We're going to have to do some real interesting contracts this off season to keep players here and happy or we'll be making some tough decisions on who not to bring back (or a combination of the two).

Kidhawk - sorry but this is one where you need to accept that you have been incorrect (which happens to all of us). You have been stating that moving Lane doesn't create any cap room which was not correct.

It did create cap room this year and they also re-did RWs contract to create more cap room


https://247sports.com/nfl/seattle-seaha ... -109751052

On Monday, the team traded cornerback Jeremy Lane, a 2018 fifth-round pick and a 2019 second-round pick for Brown but they still were short $1.4 million to fit Brown into their cap situation. Enter Russell Wilson.

He converted $6.26 million of his salary into a bonus and pro-rated over the remaining three years of his contract; although that bonus falls into his hands immediately, per Brandt. The move created an additional $4.1 million for the Seahawks to play with in 2017 and not only lets them complete the deal but gives them breathing room for the remainder of the season.


https://overthecap.com/player/jeremy-lane/1547

Dead Money History

Seahawks
2018 $2,500,000

I stated way up in this thread (maybe the first page....I didn't go back and look) that even if the money goes to next year it doesn't create enough space to bring in Brown's contract. We needed to rework a deal somewhere. That was my original point here. It didn't matter when Lane's money hit was taken because it didn't clear enough cap room for the trade. I see now that his accelerated bonus is set for next year, which I was mistaken about, but I said it earlier that it doesn't matter as far as this trade is concerned because it just doesn't open enough space. Wilson's restructure does open up that extra space we needed for Brown, Lane's trade didn't.

EDIT to add the quote from an earlier post I made on the subject in this thread....

I suppose it may be possible to push half the accelerated cap hit into next season, but we have to eat it one way or the other and either way it's not enough to bring in Brown because we were almost $3 million short of being able to afford him right now.

We needed more money than we were going to get, I thought we'd redo Brown's contract to get that money or maybe extend Graham, but I was wrong. They chose to do Wilson's as it was the quickest and easiest negotiation.

 

[Scorpion05]

Meh, since it's Russ, I'm sure plenty of people will shoot down the idea that he could have suggested it anyway. Let alone just saying that he's somehow doing it for his own good :roll:

Lets be clear -- RW if anything benefits from this. He gets cash quicker. He converts future salary to signing bonus paid now but spread over the cap for multiple years.

This is not criticism - just saying there is zero disadvantage for a player doing this and a slight advantage getting the money quicker so it can earn interest / be invested sooner

Chicago has it in their player contracts that they can do this without even asking their players.....

except he losses, more in taxes as 6.25 in a lump sum is a higher tax bracket. Eh loses about 20% more this way

Not correct

Holy smokes - you take facts as criticism incredible

Do you seriously not think that RW is already in the highest tax bracket?

Do you seriously think that this bumped him 20% in taxes vs getting it over the next few years?

Lets look at taxes shall we

If you get paid salary for games then you pay taxes in the states that you play in. So when RW goes on the road he pays taxes in those states

Suddenly it was turned into signing bonus earned in the state of Washington

HE JUST REDUCED HIS TAXES

This is not a negative, it is not a positive - it is facts. I said the same thing when Brady did it and heck the same when Cutler did it. It is done in the NFL and it most often benefits the player doing it. The only time it would not is if you are in a taxable state and then are traded to a non-taxing state afterwards

Washington does not pay income tax

Also this:

The Percentage Method

"The IRS specifies a flat “supplemental rate” of 25%, meaning that any supplemental wages (including bonuses) should be taxed in that amount. If you receive a $5,000 bonus, under this rule, $1,250 (25% of $5,000) goes straight to the IRS. Using this approach, the amount of your bonus, whatever it is, is “singled out” from the rest of your income and taxed directly. Employers frequently choose the percentage method because it’s easy and mindless to tax the entire bonus at a uniform rate. In most cases, this is ideal from your standpoint as the bonus receiver and taxpayer, too. The aggregate method (described below), in addition to being more time-consuming and laborious for employers, can take a bigger tax bite out of your bonus payments."

Source: https://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/income ... -irs-8003/


You're talking state taxes. The main point is Federal.

 

[RussB]

I just hope duane brown doesnt get injured, he missed games last year.

 

[NJlargent]

I can't fathom not being excited about this trade.

Ditto.

 

[Anthony!]

Brady re-structures, he's treated like a hero.
Russ does it, meh...

I've seen like one "meh" this entire thread, so not sure why you're acting like no one's praising Russell.

And it's not like Russell just gave up millions, he got a fat 2.6M bonus check today, and gets the rest deferred.

There are a few others who have made light of it, and again yes 2.6 mil today and he loses more in taxes due to the lump sum payment which is at a higher tax rate. So it is a big deal.

He's already in the highest tax bracket. Getting a lump sum bonus doesn't change that, so not sure where you're coming up with this.

see 2 posts higher

 

[mikeak]

Washington does not pay income tax

Also this:

The Percentage Method

"The IRS specifies a flat “supplemental rate” of 25%, meaning that any supplemental wages (including bonuses) should be taxed in that amount. If you receive a $5,000 bonus, under this rule, $1,250 (25% of $5,000) goes straight to the IRS. Using this approach, the amount of your bonus, whatever it is, is “singled out” from the rest of your income and taxed directly. Employers frequently choose the percentage method because it’s easy and mindless to tax the entire bonus at a uniform rate. In most cases, this is ideal from your standpoint as the bonus receiver and taxpayer, too. The aggregate method (described below), in addition to being more time-consuming and laborious for employers, can take a bigger tax bite out of your bonus payments."

Source: https://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/income ... -irs-8003/


You're talking state taxes. The main point is Federal.

I will try to take it slow because the points are apparently not understood

Federal -- this does take it out directly. It does NOT change your tax bracket. It is just an immediate pay estimate for that amount. Then you should pay an additional estimated amount for what tax bracket you should be in

RW is in the top tax bracket

Federal taxes PAID per dollar is UNCHANGED

State taxes

It applies. Read this part again -- as a professional player you pay taxes in the states WHERE YOU PLAY THE GAMES

So when RW goes to California he pays 1/16 of his salary to the state of California. When he plays in other states with income tax he pays income tax there. It is the same for all professional athletes

By moving salary to signing bonus he should be able to avoid this. This is now money earned in Washington which is NON TAXABLE money so he saves this money when he plays in states with income tax

AGAIN THIS IS NOT NEGATIVE AGAINST RW - EVERYONE WOULD DO THE SAME

EDIT -- if the IRS took 25% as the rate for bonus payment it would be less than his 39% tax rate so clearly that won't be it

 

[Anthony!]

Washington does not pay income tax

Also this:

The Percentage Method

"The IRS specifies a flat “supplemental rate” of 25%, meaning that any supplemental wages (including bonuses) should be taxed in that amount. If you receive a $5,000 bonus, under this rule, $1,250 (25% of $5,000) goes straight to the IRS. Using this approach, the amount of your bonus, whatever it is, is “singled out” from the rest of your income and taxed directly. Employers frequently choose the percentage method because it’s easy and mindless to tax the entire bonus at a uniform rate. In most cases, this is ideal from your standpoint as the bonus receiver and taxpayer, too. The aggregate method (described below), in addition to being more time-consuming and laborious for employers, can take a bigger tax bite out of your bonus payments."

Source: https://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/income ... -irs-8003/


You're talking state taxes. The main point is Federal.

I will try to take it slow because the points are apparently not understood

Federal -- this does take it out directly. It does NOT change your tax bracket. It is just an immediate pay estimate for that amount. Then you should pay an additional estimated amount for what tax bracket you should be in

RW is in the top tax bracket

Federal taxes PAID per dollar is UNCHANGED

State taxes

It applies. Read this part again -- as a professional player you pay taxes in the states WHERE YOU PLAY THE GAMES

So when RW goes to California he pays 1/16 of his salary to the state of California. When he plays in other states with income tax he pays income tax there. It is the same for all professional athletes

By moving salary to signing bonus he should be able to avoid this. This is now money earned in Washington which is NON TAXABLE money so he saves this money when he plays in states with income tax

AGAIN THIS IS NOT NEGATIVE AGAINST RW - EVERYONE WOULD DO THE SAME

And I will also go slow and just show one thing
"in addition to being more time-consuming and laborious for employers, can take a bigger tax bite out of your bonus payments."


So in other words it can and will take a bigger bite out of his bonus.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I've seen like one "meh" this entire thread, so not sure why you're acting like no one's praising Russell.

And it's not like Russell just gave up millions, he got a fat 2.6M bonus check today, and gets the rest deferred.

There are a few others who have made light of it, and again yes 2.6 mil today and he loses more in taxes due to the lump sum payment which is at a higher tax rate. So it is a big deal.

He's already in the highest tax bracket. Getting a lump sum bonus doesn't change that, so not sure where you're coming up with this.

see 2 posts higher

I'm a financial adviser Anthony, I'm pretty familiar with the tax code.

All that happens is Russell gets to pay tax on the 2.6M bonus now for the calendar year 2017, as opposed to it being spread out in his base salary over the next three years like it was suppose to be. But it's not more taxes.

It doesn't CHANGE his tax bracket, he's already in the highest bracket. So same tax rate, just now as opposed to the next three years.

 

[mikeak]

So in other words it can and will take a bigger bite out of his bonus.

https://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/income ... -irs-8003/

What about high-end corporate bonuses, like those exceeding $1 million or more? These are singled out for higher taxes. If you receive a bonus of more than $1 million, your employer must withhold 39.6% of the amount above $1 million, as well as the standard 25% of the amount below $1 million.

He is charged the highest tax rate - there is no extra fee. It is way to have people not run with the money and not pay taxes

/ done

 

[Scorpion05]

Washington does not pay income tax

Also this:

The Percentage Method

"The IRS specifies a flat “supplemental rate” of 25%, meaning that any supplemental wages (including bonuses) should be taxed in that amount. If you receive a $5,000 bonus, under this rule, $1,250 (25% of $5,000) goes straight to the IRS. Using this approach, the amount of your bonus, whatever it is, is “singled out” from the rest of your income and taxed directly. Employers frequently choose the percentage method because it’s easy and mindless to tax the entire bonus at a uniform rate. In most cases, this is ideal from your standpoint as the bonus receiver and taxpayer, too. The aggregate method (described below), in addition to being more time-consuming and laborious for employers, can take a bigger tax bite out of your bonus payments."

Source: https://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/income ... -irs-8003/


You're talking state taxes. The main point is Federal.

I will try to take it slow because the points are apparently not understood

Federal -- this does take it out directly. It does NOT change your tax bracket. It is just an immediate pay estimate for that amount. Then you should pay an additional estimated amount for what tax bracket you should be in

RW is in the top tax bracket

Federal taxes PAID per dollar is UNCHANGED

State taxes

It applies. Read this part again -- as a professional player you pay taxes in the states WHERE YOU PLAY THE GAMES

So when RW goes to California he pays 1/16 of his salary to the state of California. When he plays in other states with income tax he pays income tax there. It is the same for all professional athletes

By moving salary to signing bonus he should be able to avoid this. This is now money earned in Washington which is NON TAXABLE money so he saves this money when he plays in states with income tax

AGAIN THIS IS NOT NEGATIVE AGAINST RW - EVERYONE WOULD DO THE SAME

EDIT -- if the IRS took 25% as the rate for bonus payment it would be less than his 39% tax rate so clearly that won't be it

I was referring to the IRS and their specific bonus guidelines, so it is Federal

Bro, I am in no way here to say Russell Wilson is somehow suffering. You can put a bunch of financial advisors/accountants in a room and they'll have disagreements. The only thing I disagree with you on is that "everyone" would do this. I disagree, the history of the league has shown the minority of top players do this. There are pros and cons

Russell has an elite team around him. Whatever money he loses this year he'll make back through investments, the growth of his TraceMe app, etc. Overall, I just find this whole back and forth silly. We should be happy about this trade and that's the bottom line. And we should be able to discuss basic contract stuff instead of simply trying to win an argument. I don't pretend to be a financial expert, or a contract expert. But from even the basic information I've read there are pros and cons to what he did. Which is why not everyone does it. That's it


Side Note: And quite frankly, his contract was already friendly in the first place. Even when he got his contract, it wasn't Derek Carr/Matthew Stafford type ground breaking. So he has already shown he's willing to think of the team first. I hope we can all at least agree with that

 

[bigskydoc]

Clearly there are some people here who have no clue how taxes work. Lump sum distribution is a retirement concept, and has nothing to do with this kind of payout, which would probably be best described as a bonus supplemental pay in IRS parlance.

This does nothing but benefit Wilson. He gets his money now. He saves money on state taxes in 3 of the remaining 9 games.

As someone who occupies the top tax bracket, and deals with state taxes, and has dealt with income from multiple states including Washington, I can accurately say that this is a fairly significant income boost even before considering the time value of money.

Russell will pay 39.6% of this to the IRS, whether payed out in a single payment or over the next 9 weeks. By getting the single payment he will avoid paying additional taxes in Arizona, and California

 

[Anthony!]

I was referring to the IRS and their specific bonus guidelines, so it is Federal

Bro, I am in no way here to say Russell Wilson is somehow suffering. You can put a bunch of financial advisors/accountants in a room and they'll have disagreements. The only thing I disagree with you on is that "everyone" would do this. I disagree, the history of the league has shown the minority of top players do this. There are pros and cons

Russell has an elite team around him. Whatever money he loses this year he'll make back through investments, the growth of his TraceMe app, etc. Overall, I just find this whole back and forth silly. We should be happy about this trade and that's the bottom line. And we should be able to discuss basic contract stuff instead of simply trying to win an argument. I don't pretend to be a financial expert, or a contract expert. But from even the basic information I've read there are pros and cons to what he did. Which is why not everyone does it. That's it


Side Note: And quite frankly, his contract was already friendly in the first place. Even when he got his contract, it wasn't Derek Carr/Matthew Stafford type ground breaking. So he has already shown he's willing to think of the team first. I hope we can all at least agree with that

For me, the whole thing is laughable and is yet another reason I stopped posting here for a while. I remember a few years ago Brady did this, back when Wilson was doing his first contract after being a rookie. Everyone said look Brady does whats best for the team etc, etc. Yet the reality was he was still getting his, only paying taxes differently. Now that it is Wilson we have a small group making lite of it like it is no big deal. I bet if it was Sherman they would be like see he is such a team guy etc. The reality is it is a big deal, he did not have to do it, and yes there is going to be some extra tax issues despite what some here are trying to say, the one rule stated here even says "can take a bigger tax bite out of your bonus payments." I just got off the phone with my Tax guy who is also a Hawks fan, and he said there are other taxes and penalties that are involved, In the end this will cost Wilson about 18% more in taxes in the end. People seem to think it is as simple as a tax bracket but it's not, different types of income have different rules, and different guidelines.

All that said, in the end, it really does not matter the reality is he did it, and it is something that a lot of people don't do, so instead of making lite of it or downplaying it, we should be embracing that he did this. As I said it if were almost anyone's on this team you guys would be all over it, when it was Brady you were all over it, Now that its Wilson you make lite of it, it's pathetic and shows whats wrong with this forum. You have a small group of people and their many aliases who attack, minimize and strike down anything positive about Wilson. How much better it would it be if we could all celebrate good things by any player on this team without having a small group ruin it. The question now is, did I actually get through to anyone or waste my time. I think I know I just hope I am wrong

 

[bigskydoc]

Get a new tax guy.