You see repeated by media and the fans (including myself) that for all the Bucs problems, Mike Greenberg has done a great job managing the cap through well structured contracts.
And it certainly seems to make sense - even though the Bucs have been heavy spenders in free agency for a number of years, they've avoided dead cap and have been free to cut most players in Year 3 of their deal.
Sounds good, right?
Except.....
No other good team takes this approach.
I examined the contracts of the top 6 players for the Patriots, Ram, Seahawks and Eagles. These are all known as forward-thinking organizations with a lot of success. And guess what?
None of them structured contracts like the Bucs. All those teams listed hand out big signing and other bonuses and have a lot of guaranteed money well into Year 4 of deals. And considering the Bucs have been doing this at least since the Dominik days, they've had a chance to adopt the Bucs strategy.
For example: Ali Marpet had a 5 years/$54 mill contract with a $2 mill signing bonus and $10.3 mill guaranteed. Brandon Banks (Eagles) had a 5yr/$40m contract with $11m signing bonus and $21 guaranteed. Lane Johnson had 5yrs/$56m with a $10m signing bonus and $35m guaranteed. And both those contracts were in 2016 with 2-3x the guaranteed dollars.
So why might the Bucs be making a MISTAKE by structuring the cap this way?
First, you have to pay a higher total salary. If a player is taking less guaranteed money then they need a higher base salary. If they're really signing a 2 year contract with team options, the team pays for a team-friendly flexible contract with cap dollars. Which feeds into...
Second, because you're paying a higher salary for team-friendly contract the player is more likely to under-perform his contract. A 5 year $40 million contract might become a 5 year $50 million with lower guarantees. Think of how the Bucs have been a revolving door of FAs.
Third, it likely makes the team a less desirable location for desirable free agents. Given that players are only signing a 2 year deal (with team options), that's a clear negative to signing with Tampa.
Fourth, it probably doesn't give you the cap flexibility that other teams have. Yes, you don't have the downside of a lot of dead cap space, but you also don't have the upside. What's a disaster for a bad manager can become a positive with a good one. Looking at dead cap space the Bucs are always in the bottom, but all the good teams yo-yo with some years of low dead cap and some of high.
--------------------
I'm curious what you guys think. What am I missing? Is Mike Greenberg's contracts a boon to the Bucs? Or do the seeming cap savings actually hurt in the long run?
