Breaking news: Dawkins signs four year deal worth $60 mill

[DrDawkinstein]

1 hour ago, ColoradoBills said:

Dawkins contract came in today on Spotrac.

6 million jump in 2020 cap hit front loaded.

I like it!

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/dion-dawkins-21805/

 

Thanks for staying up on this. I'm still a little confused by Spotrac's reporting though.

 

They can say it's 4yr/$58.3M and a $14.75M average, but that's not how the numbers actually work out.

 

It's really a 5yr/$59.5M deal, averaging about $12M/yr.

 

 

 

[Aussie Joe]

50 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Thanks for staying up on this. I'm still a little confused by Spotrac's reporting though.

 

They can say it's 4yr/$58.3M and a $14.75M average, but that's not how the numbers actually work out.

 

It's really a 5yr/$59.5M deal, averaging about $12M/yr.

 

 

 

He was already contracted this year at $1.2m...

 

He is getting another $58M for 2021-24 ( an extension) however as you said the money will be paid over 5 years including 2020 so it does make the averages look better if that means anything..

 

If you look at Poyer and Hughes they have something similar going on with their extensions...

[Doc]

17 minutes ago, Aussie Joe said:

He was already contracted this year at $1.2m...

 

He is getting another $58M for 2021-24 ( an extension) however as you said the money will be paid over 5 years including 2020 so it does make the averages look better if that means anything..

 

If you look at Poyer and Hughes they have something similar going on with their extensions...

 

Yeah was contracted at $1.2M this year.  He's now getting another $7M.

[GunnerBill]

7 hours ago, atlbillsfan1975 said:

Pretty close. I think some fans see Tre like Dawkins, this isn’t going to be the case. Tre is waiting because he believes every year he waits means a bigger deal. The new adjusted salary cap is going to make everything interesting. 

 

He is waiting because his camp would like Jalen Ramsey to reset the market first. He is gonna smash the Slay numbers by about $2m a year. Then Tre will ask for a small bump on top. 

[GunnerBill]

6 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

I have been curious about it so I have been checking Spotrac every day and it just came in.

Yes it is a little under but he has a bunch of incentives he will likely hit to increase it to the 60 million.

 

Just a personal thing, I find the money side of football interesting.  Beane has said he wants to build a competitive team for the

long haul and IMO contracts like these proves it.  He's not pushing contract out in the future that could cause problems signing other players.

 

I think it's not only responsible for the team and the fans but for the players too! 

 

You always front load unless you need to backload.... if that makes sense. That normally happens when you are already paying an older guy at a spot and wanna extend a younger guy. Imagine for a moment Gabe Davis's contract comes up and you still have two years of top end money on the books for Stefon (as things stand their deals actually come up at the same time but let's say between now and then the Bills do a short extension with Diggs give him a bit of extra $$ up front and sign him through 2025, which is feasible because he would only be 31 at that point). Then on 2023 Gabe Davis becomes due and he has established himself as your undisputed #2 receiver and is looking like he could almost rival Diggs for the #1 role. In that scenario you try and give Davis a decent prorated bonus but backload the real big money to start kicking in at the point that Diggs comes off the books. Would be a nice problem to have. The only previous time I can recall the Bills facing it was when it came to exentending Jerry Hughes in 2015 and we already had Mario and Kyle earning big money as older guys on the line. 

[Thurman#1]

6 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Thanks for staying up on this. I'm still a little confused by Spotrac's reporting though.

 

They can say it's 4yr/$58.3M and a $14.75M average, but that's not how the numbers actually work out.

 

It's really a 5yr/$59.5M deal, averaging about $12M/yr.

 

 

 

Yeah, they never used to do it this way, but it almost seems like a new policy. I don't think anyone bought them or anything, but for some reason they seem to have started reporting these things in ways that distort the reality of what the guy is paid.

 

They seem to be reporting things based on "the contract," rather than on what money the guy is now contracted to receive, regardless if he's receiving money from two contracts. Again, it's a weird way to report it, a distortion. But even though they have all of the data for Dawkins now, on his page, all of the main metrics are listed for the contract, the extension. So he's listed as "Contract Terms: 4 yrs $58,.3M, Average Salary $14.575,000" ... and yet also "Free Agent: 2025 / UFA," meaning what we already knew, that he is now under contract for five years, not four. 

 

Why the switch? More, Dawkins is still listed as 6th for OLTs in average salary. And his "Average Salary" is listed as $14.575,000. But again, that's NOT his average salary. It's the average of extra money given in the extension divided by new years given in the extension. But those shouldn't be considered together, since $8.6M of the new money, the signing bonus, is NOT paid during the new years given in the extension.  

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/average/left-tackle/

 

Why do it this way? It distorts what he's really getting paid. 

 

 

 

[GunnerBill]

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yeah, they never used to do it this way, but it almost seems like a new policy. I don't think anyone bought them or anything, but for some reason they seem to have started reporting these things in ways that distort the reality of what the guy is paid.

 

They seem to be reporting things based on "the contract," rather than on what money the guy is now contracted to receive, regardless if he's receiving money from two contracts. Again, it's a weird way to report it, a distortion. But even though they have all of the data for Dawkins now, on his page, all of the main metrics are listed for the contract, the extension. So he's listed as "Contract Terms: 4 yrs $58,.3M, Average Salary $14.575,000" ... and yet also "Free Agent: 2025 / UFA," meaning what we already knew, that he is now under contract for five years, not four. 

 

Why the switch? More, Dawkins is still listed as 6th for OLTs in average salary. And his "Average Salary" is listed as $14.575,000. But again, that's NOT his average salary. It's the average of extra money given in the extension divided by new years given in the extension. But those shouldn't be considered together, since $8.6M of the new money, the signing bonus, is NOT paid during the new years given in the extension.  

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/average/left-tackle/

 

Why do it this way? It distorts what he's really getting paid. 

 

 

 

 

So on the contract they are right.... that is the extension he signed to - 4 years, $58.3m. He signed for 4 new years and $58.3m in new money. So the way they describe the new contract is correct. It isn't a new 5 year deal. They didn't touch his base salary for 2020. What they did was add four new years and pay him his bonus now. For cap purposes that money gets accounted for in this year but it isn't a 5 year contract, that bonus doesn't become part of his rookie deal, they are two different contracts.

 

Once you start talking about averages though, you are right. As soon as the the Bills account for the bonus money on the 2019 cap ie. the last year of his old contract then you can't simply work the average salary out of the basis of dividing $58.3m by 4. It makes a bit of a mockery when you are looking at his yearly breakdowns and every year is below the supposed average. The yearly average has to account for the way the money is accounted for on the cap.

 

It's tricky because the contract is the contract that is a legal fact once both sides have signed it. But the cap is not. The cap is an NFL construction. It is basically an NFL money management system. The way teams account for their spending has to comply with the NFL's money management system but it also doesn't change the legal fact of the contract.

[Thurman#1]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

So on the contract they are right.... that is the extension he signed to - 4 years, $58.3m. He signed for 4 new years and $58.3m in new money. So the way they describe the new contract is correct. It isn't a new 5 year deal. They didn't touch his base salary for 2020. What they did was add four new years and pay him his bonus now. For cap purposes that money gets accounted for in this year but it isn't a 5 year contract, that bonus doesn't become part of his rookie deal, they are two different contracts.

 

Once you start talking about averages though, you are right. As soon as the the Bills account for the bonus money on the 2019 cap ie. the last year of his old contract then you can't simply work the average salary out of the basis of dividing $58.3m by 4. It makes a bit of a mockery when you are looking at his yearly breakdowns and every year is below the supposed average. The yearly average has to account for the way the money is accounted for on the cap.

 

It's tricky because the contract is the contract that is a legal fact once both sides have signed it. But the cap is not. The cap is an NFL construction. It is basically an NFL money management system. The way teams account for their spending has to comply with the NFL's money management system but it also doesn't change the legal fact of the contract.

 

 

Yeah, on averages, I'm right, as clearly are you.

 

But I'd even say that on the new contract alone they're a bit dodgy. Certainly not 100% right. You can't divide new money that is paid not over four years but over five by only the four new years. Doesn't make sense. If they were receiving all of the new money during the new years, then yeah, it'd be fair to just divide the two and say you've summed up the new contract, which covers five years, though only four of those years are new.

 

You say the new contract isn't a five-year deal? I think it is. He's already received money from it. The period he'll receive money from that contract is five years. This isn't a four year contract. It's a contract which extends his time under contract with the Bills from one to five years. That's not a four-year contract. It's a contract with four new years. More evidence? Here are three things that changed for Dawkins and the Bills - in 2020 - when the contract was signed

1)  In 2020 he received $8.6 mill from that new contract.

2)  In 2020, the Bills cap figure went up by $1,720,000 when that contract was signed. It's calculated by dividing his signing bonus by FIVE YEARS, not four, $8.6M divided by five years. (I know you're aware it works this way, Bill, but when you're dividing the signing bonus by five years that's yet another bit of proof that it's not a four-year contract.)

3)  In 2020, Dawkins' salary (set in his rookie deal) went from unguaranteed to guaranteed when he signed the new  contract.

 

It's NOT a four-year contract. It affects both Dawkins and the Bills over the course of five years. It does extend the contract for four years. But it's not a four-year contract.

 

"That bonus doesn't become a part of his rookie deal," you say? Yeah, correct, but the new deal DOES have effects in 2020. It can't be looked at in any way as money which just is paid or has cap effects in 2021 - 2024, the contract's new years. It will have a cap effect this year and it hit his bank account this year. Trying to sequester it from 2020 simply doesn't make sense ... except as a P.R. ploy. In that way, it makes total sense, as it spins the contract as more impressive than it really is, which blows smoke up the player's ... ego.

 

 

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by Thurman#1

[GunnerBill]

37 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yeah, on averages, I'm right, as clearly are you.

 

But I'd even say that on the new contract alone they're a bit dodgy. Certainly not 100% right. You can't divide new money that is paid not over four years but over five by only the four new years. Doesn't make sense. If they were receiving all of the new money during the new years, then yeah, it'd be fair to just divide the two and say you've summed up the new contract, which covers five years, though only four of those years are new.

 

You say the new contract isn't a five-year deal? I think it is. He's already received money from it. The period he'll receive money from that contract is five years. This isn't a four year contract. It's a contract which extends his time under contract with the Bills from one to five years. That's not a four-year contract. It's a contract with four new years. More evidence? Here are three things that changed for Dawkins and the Bills - in 2020 - when the contract was signed

1)  In 2020 he received $8.6 mill from that new contract.

2)  In 2020, the Bills cap figure went up by $1,720,000 when that contract was signed. It's calculated by dividing his signing bonus by FIVE YEARS, not four, $8.6M divided by five years. (I know you're aware it works this way, Bill, but when you're dividing the signing bonus by five years that's yet another bit of proof that it's not a four-year contract.)

3)  In 2020, Dawkins' salary (set in his rookie deal) went from unguaranteed to guaranteed when he signed the new  contract.

 

It's NOT a four-year contract. It affects both Dawkins and the Bills over the course of five years. It does extend the contract for four years. But it's not a four-year contract.

 

"That bonus doesn't become a part of his rookie deal," you say? Yeah, correct, but the new deal DOES have effects in 2020. It can't be looked at in any way as money which just is paid or has cap effects in 2021 - 2024, the contract's new years. It will have a cap effect this year and it hit his bank account this year. Trying to sequester it from 2020 simply doesn't make sense ... except as a P.R. ploy. In that way, it makes total sense, as it spins the contract as more impressive than it really is, which blows smoke up the player's ... ego.

 

 

So let me deal with the 1, 2 and 3.

 

1) That is the difference between the contract being signed and taking effect. The contract will have some very standard terms right up front. Those will be that the contract takes effect on the 1st day of the 2021 league year and with a bonus of $13.5m payable upon signing (Note: upon signing, not upon the contract taking effect).

 

2) That is cap stuff. That isn't the contract. I think sometimes fans look at the Spotrac table and think that is what agents and teams sit down with and they move numbers about and say "would you take this?" or "what about that?" That isn't in reality how it works. That $13.5m becomes payable upon signing. The Bills pay it to Dion, Dion pays a bit to his agent and then goes and has a night in the casino (or whatever he does with it). How the Bills then account for that money is their problem, not Dion's and certainly not his agent's. That is where the Bills work out (and obviously they do this before they agree on the $13.5m figure in reality) how they are going to manage that money on the cap. The fact that they put $1.72m signing bonus and $4.85m roster bonus on the 2020 cap ledger matters not one jot to Dion and his agent. They care about the bonus number. They don't care about how the Bills account for it. This is where I say you have to divide the CONTRACT from the CAP.

 

3) That is a fair point - that is a proper impact of the second contract on the prior contract, although in reality it makes little practical difference - but they are still two separate contracts legally. It is entirely fair to say it is 4 years, $58.3m. That is a legal fact. That is what the contract is worth. What it means in terms of average salaries for Dion Dawkins going forward is different, what it means in terms of impact on the Bills cap is different. But you have to divorce the contract from the cap. One is a legal fact that cannot be manipulated. The other, as I have said a million times this summer, is an NFL construct that is as elastic and as malleable as a team are willing to make it. Where the money goes in the Spotrac table is a different issue compared to what legal value of that contract is.

[Thurman#1]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

So let me deal with the 1, 2 and 3.

 

1) That is the difference between the contract being signed and taking effect. The contract will have some very standard terms right up front. Those will be that the contract takes effect on the 1st day of the 2021 league year and with a bonus of $13.5m payable upon signing (Note: upon signing, not upon the contract taking effect).

 

2) That is cap stuff. That isn't the contract. I think sometimes fans look at the Spotrac table and think that is what agents and teams sit down with and they move numbers about and say "would you take this?" or "what about that?" That isn't in reality how it works. That $13.5m becomes payable upon signing. The Bills pay it to Dion, Dion pays a bit to his agent and then goes and has a night in the casino (or whatever he does with it). How the Bills then account for that money is their problem, not Dion's and certainly not his agent's. That is where the Bills work out (and obviously they do this before they agree on the $13.5m figure in reality) how they are going to manage that money on the cap. The fact that they put $1.72m signing bonus and $4.85m roster bonus on the 2020 cap ledger matters not one jot to Dion and his agent. They care about the bonus number. They don't care about how the Bills account for it. This is where I say you have to divide the CONTRACT from the CAP.

 

3) That is a fair point - that is a proper impact of the second contract on the prior contract, although in reality it makes little practical difference - but they are still two separate contracts legally. It is entirely fair to say it is 4 years, $58.3m. That is a legal fact. That is what the contract is worth. What it means in terms of average salaries for Dion Dawkins going forward is different, what it means in terms of impact on the Bills cap is different. But you have to divorce the contract from the cap. One is a legal fact that cannot be manipulated. The other, as I have said a million times this summer, is an NFL construct that is as elastic and as malleable as a team are willing to make it. Where the money goes in the Spotrac table is a different issue compared to what legal value of that contract is.

 

 

1) OK, first, are you a lawyer? Are you that familiar with NFL contracts? Sounds like maybe you are? I'm neither, so maybe it really will say that. Point is that if it does, that doesn't actually mean the effects of the contract really start on the day it "takes effect." Obviously, if that language is there, it doesn't affect the fact that some of the contract's terms take effect before the magical "take effect" day. So, they're using legal language to smear reality? Yeah, if that language is there, then fair enough.

 

Assuming it's true, it has nothing to do with the rules of mathematics and how averages are computed.

 

2) Yeah, I get all that, how the cap works. I understand that it doesn't matter to Dion how the cap amortization works. That's irrelevant to my point, which was precisely that BOTH Dawkins AND the Bills are affected by provisions of that contract as of the 2020 season. The Bills available cap figure changed when the contract was signed. That is how it works with signing bonuses. The provisions of this contract - practically and without question - affect 2020.

 

Calling it a four-year contract be how it's legally referred to. But in reality, it affects both parties over the course of five years. This contract actually extends parties' agreement from one year to five years. That's the reality, regardless of the legal verbiage.

 

3) You're absolutely right that the difference between that money being guaranteed and unguaranteed will likely have no practical effect, though there are a few bizarre situations like Dion's sudden retirement or sudden vast skill decline to the point where they'd want to cut him over the next couple of months, where it could theoretically come into play. But all of those are very unlikely. Still, it has legal effect. Over not four years, but five.

 

And even if it is legally reasonable to say it is 4 years, $58.3 mill, it is otherwise completely unreasonable. It's certainly not reasonable in cap terms (which is after all most of the point of Spotrac and of course overthecap.com as well). It isn't reasonable in terms of the actual money paid out by the Bills or to Dawkins, as in both cases that money is paid over five years not four. And it certainly isn't reasonable simply in terms of logic. In three ways the contract is affecting the Bills or Dawkins this year. In practical terms its provisions having effects before the "take effect" day you talk about make it clear that jargon and phrasing aside, the provisions and effects take place over five years, not four. And it certainly isn't reasonable mathematically, where nobody would argue that money paid over five years should be divided by four years to find an average per year.

 

 

Interesting point about what you're saying about an official date when it takes effect, though. It would help explain why people are buying in to the bafflegab and that even Spotrac is trying to say that Dawkins is the 6th highest paid LT in terms of average salary, when it's not true. I still don't understand Spotrac's response.

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by Thurman#1

[GunnerBill]

14 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

1) OK, first, are you a lawyer? Are you that familiar with NFL contracts? Sounds like maybe you are? I'm neither, so maybe it really will say that. Point is that if it does, that doesn't actually mean the effects of the contract really start on the day it "takes effect." Obviously, if that language is there, it doesn't affect the fact that some of the contract's terms take effect before the magical "take effect" day. So, they're using legal language to smear reality? Yeah, if that language is there, then fair enough.

 

Assuming it's true, it has nothing to do with the rules of mathematics and how averages are computed.

 

2) Yeah, I get all that, how the cap works. I understand that it doesn't matter to Dion how the cap amortization works. That's irrelevant to my point, which was precisely that BOTH Dawkins AND the Bills are affected by provisions of that contract as of the 2020 season. The Bills available cap figure changed when the contract was signed. That is how it works with signing bonuses. The provisions of this contract affect

 

Calling it a four-year contract be how it's legally referred to. But in reality, it affects both parties over the course of five years. This contract actually extends parties' agreement from one year to five years. That's the reality, regardless of the legal verbiage.

 

3) You're absolutely right that the difference between that money being guaranteed and unguaranteed will likely have no practical effect, though there are a few bizarre situations like Dion's sudden retirement or sudden vast skill decline to the point where they'd want to cut him over the next couple of months, where it would come into play. But all of those are very unlikely. Still, it has legal effect. Over not four years, but five.

 

And even if it is legally reasonable to say it is 4 years, $58.3 mill, it is otherwise completely unreasonable. It's certainly not reasonable in cap terms (which is after all the whole point of Spotrac). It isn't reasonable in terms of the actual money paid out by the Bills or to Dawkins, as in both cases that money is paid over five years not four. And it certainly isn't reasonable simply in terms of logic. In three ways the contract is affecting the Bills or Dawkins this year. In practical terms its provisions having effects before the "take effect" day you talk about make it clear that jargon and phrasing aside, the provisions and effects take place over five years, not four. And it certainly isn't reasonable mathematically, where nobody would argue that money paid over five years should be divided by four years to find an average per year.

 

 

Interesting point about what you're saying about an official date when it takes effect, though. It would help explain why people are buying in to the bafflegab and that even Spotrac is trying to say that Dawkins is the 6th highest paid LT in terms of average salary, when it's not true. I still don't understand Spotrac's response.

 

 

I studied law and I work in a legal environment. I am not, however, a practicing lawyer. I also have a former colleague who now works out on the west coast of America who has represented both NFL players and coaches in legal matters including contract negotiations. It is not a big part of his practice but he tends to get retained a few times a year by agents seeking legal advice for their clients on contractual matters. Trust me it is a 4 year deal. Yes it extends on from an already existing 1 year deal but this contract is 4 for 58.3. It is team friendly in the sense it allows the Bills to account for the money over 5 years and thereby manage the cap hits. It is Dion friendly by putting money in his pocket now, especially given the uncertainty we are all living with. Dion would have got a similar number in normal times had he waited a year but I think given where we are it was a good deal for both parties. 

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

I studied law and I work in a legal environment. I am not, however, a practicing lawyer. I also have a former colleague who now works out on the west coast of America who has represented both NFL players and coaches in legal matters including contract negotiations. It is not a big part of his practice but he tends to get retained a few times a year by agents seeking legal advice for their clients on contractual matters. Trust me it is a 4 year deal. Yes it extends on from an already existing 1 year deal but this contract is 4 for 58.3. It is team friendly in the sense it allows the Bills to account for the money over 5 years and thereby manage the cap hits. It is Dion friendly by putting money in his pocket now, especially given the uncertainty we are all living with. Dion would have got a similar number in normal times had he waited a year but I think given where we are it was a good deal for both parties. 

 

It's a 5-year deal.  If there had been no new money this coming season (and almost $7M new is pretty significant) I'd agree with you.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Doc

[Thurman#1]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

I studied law and I work in a legal environment. I am not, however, a practicing lawyer. I also have a former colleague who now works out on the west coast of America who has represented both NFL players and coaches in legal matters including contract negotiations. It is not a big part of his practice but he tends to get retained a few times a year by agents seeking legal advice for their clients on contractual matters. Trust me it is a 4 year deal. Yes it extends on from an already existing 1 year deal but this contract is 4 for 58.3. It is team friendly in the sense it allows the Bills to account for the money over 5 years and thereby manage the cap hits. It is Dion friendly by putting money in his pocket now, especially given the uncertainty we are all living with. Dion would have got a similar number in normal times had he waited a year but I think given where we are it was a good deal for both parties. 

 

 

So, legally it really is called a 4 year deal, hunh? Interesting. Logically, though, calling it that doesn't mean it's a deal that only affects 4 years. It's a case where legal language distorts reality, and works nicely to paint a nice P.R. picture as well.

 

That certainly works to the player's advantage as it is really positive spin, and I can't understand why Spotrac would buy in and use the contract numbers rather than the real numbers for his five year Bills commitment.

 

Agreed it's a nice deal for the Bills and Dion getting money earlier will benefit him too. Seems like Dion really wants to be here.

[Logic]

Should I take this contract extension to mean that we WON'T be moving him to guard?

Edited August 27, 2020 by Logic

[Matt_In_NH]

This is a good deal for Dawkins, he is very likely to see most of this deal. I am ok with that as a fan from what I can tell. The guy has played 48/48 games in his career, that is hard to do in the NFL. He loves Buffalo and seems sincere in his desire to get better and help this team achieve something. He may not be the best LT out there but in a couple years the contract will look like a good deal for a LT and he can still get better. He seems to genuinely want to improve.

[GunnerBill]

13 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It's a 5-year deal.  If there had been no new money this coming season (and almost $7M new is pretty significant) I'd agree with you.

 

It isn't. It is a 4 year deal. The new money coming this season is just accounting purposes. The contract is 4 years. The Bills have accounted for it over 5. 

[Doc]

17 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

It isn't. It is a 4 year deal. The new money coming this season is just accounting purposes. The contract is 4 years. The Bills have accounted for it over 5. 

 

Is Dawkins getting that ($7M in) new money this year?  Then it's really a 5-year deal.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Is Dawkins getting that ($7M in) new money this year?  Then it's really a 5-year deal.

 

He is getting $13.5m in new money this year. $7m counts against this year's cap. 

 

That is the point. There is the contract and then there is the cap accounting. The two are different. 

[BarleyNY]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Is Dawkins getting that ($7M in) new money this year?  Then it's really a 5-year deal.

5 years total deal or a 4 year extension, depending on how you want to look at it.  It’s pretty common to do deals like this at Thai point.  Player gets some cash early and team locks him up early.  The player gets a lucrative deal and security, but doesn’t maximize his earning like he could if he forced a franchise tag.
 

I don’t have any issue with the length and value of the deal, but I wonder why the Bills chose to do a roster bonus for so much rather than making it all a signing bonus.  Not a huge deal, but I would have preferred them to keep the additional flexibility of doing that. 

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

5 years total deal or a 4 year extension, depending on how you want to look at it.  It’s pretty common to do deals like this at Thai point.  Player gets some cash early and team locks him up early.  The player gets a lucrative deal and security, but doesn’t maximize his earning like he could if he forced a franchise tag.
 

I don’t have any issue with the length and value of the deal, but I wonder why the Bills chose to do a roster bonus for so much rather than making it all a signing bonus.  Not a huge deal, but I would have preferred them to keep the additional flexibility of doing that. 

 

I think paying a big roster bonus does keep the flexibility. It means you are prorating less into future years. They could feasibly get out 2 years into the 4 year extension if they needed to. 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

He is getting $13.5m in new money this year. $7m counts against this year's cap. 

 

That is the point. There is the contract and then there is the cap accounting. The two are different. 

 

Every contract has cap accounting.  That he received $13.5M in new money and $7M of it is tacked-onto what he was scheduled to make this year means it's effectively a 5-year deal.

 

1 hour ago, BarleyNY said:

5 years total deal or a 4 year extension, depending on how you want to look at it.  It’s pretty common to do deals like this at Thai point.  Player gets some cash early and team locks him up early.  The player gets a lucrative deal and security, but doesn’t maximize his earning like he could if he forced a franchise tag.
 

I don’t have any issue with the length and value of the deal, but I wonder why the Bills chose to do a roster bonus for so much rather than making it all a signing bonus.  Not a huge deal, but I would have preferred them to keep the additional flexibility of doing that. 

 

They had the cap room this year to accommodate the roster bonus and that reduces the amortized signing bonus they otherwise would have had to pay.

[billsfan89]

17 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Definitely, and a nice job by Dion and his agent.  All these decent contracts need compromise and that seems like a good thing to me.

 

Dawkins could have gotten more money if he played out the 2020 season well and the cap doesn't take too bad of a hit. BUT the Bills got him to take a "friendly" deal in two ways. One is that players who have one year left always are willing to take a little bit less than they would make in free agency to avoid injury risk. Dawkins could have played in 2020 and gotten a bad injury and been stuck on a one year "prove it" deal. Taking the money now is always a luxury that you pay for a bit. Secondly the cap volatility is a factor to an agent possibly advising a client to take the bag. 

 

The Bills finally have the luxury of high performing players with a year or two left on their rookie deals in a winning situation as leverage. In a bad situation players were more willing to want to be traded/hold out (Peters) or get paid top dollar to stay (Evans, Fitz, Mcgee, Glenn, or many others) or take a risk to get out on a big deal in a better situation (Byrd and Levitre.) Now high end players are willing to take a decent discount because they have performed early in the contract and the team is viewed as a winning situation. 

[BarleyNY]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think paying a big roster bonus does keep the flexibility. It means you are prorating less into future years. They could feasibly get out 2 years into the 4 year extension if they needed to. 

With carryover it’s better to defer with a signing rather than a roster bonus.  Think about it this way: Let’s say $5M of Dawkins’ roster bonus was changed to a signing bonus on his 5 year deal.  With the roster bonus the team take the full hit this season. With it as a signing bonus they would have taken a $1M hit this season and carried $4M over to 2021.  Then $1M would come off each season until all $5M is accounted for.  There is typically the added bonus for the team that the $1M each year would be discounted by the percentage the cap would rise.  Next year might have a decrease, but it would still be a help overall - and it would have given us more space next season.

 

The argument that if he’s cut before the end of the deal that the team would take a bigger hit misses the fact that the team would have already carried that much cap space forward  

[GunnerBill]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Every contract has cap accounting.  That he received $13.5M in new money and $7M of it is tacked-onto what he was scheduled to make this year means it's effectively a 5-year deal.

 

I don't care for "effectively". It is factually a 4 year deal..

[Doc]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

I don't care for "effectively". It is factually a 4 year deal..

 

Likewise for "factually," especially when the facts are that he was paid $13M of that contract upon signing and $7M of it is being charged to this year's cap.

[ColoradoBills]

3 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Dawkins could have gotten more money if he played out the 2020 season well and the cap doesn't take too bad of a hit. BUT the Bills got him to take a "friendly" deal in two ways. One is that players who have one year left always are willing to take a little bit less than they would make in free agency to avoid injury risk. Dawkins could have played in 2020 and gotten a bad injury and been stuck on a one year "prove it" deal. Taking the money now is always a luxury that you pay for a bit. Secondly the cap volatility is a factor to an agent possibly advising a client to take the bag. 

 

The Bills finally have the luxury of high performing players with a year or two left on their rookie deals in a winning situation as leverage. In a bad situation players were more willing to want to be traded/hold out (Peters) or get paid top dollar to stay (Evans, Fitz, Mcgee, Glenn, or many others) or take a risk to get out on a big deal in a better situation (Byrd and Levitre.) Now high end players are willing to take a decent discount because they have performed early in the contract and the team is viewed as a winning situation. 

 

If members of this board truly listened to the realistic paths that both players and management need to wade through in "real life" there

probably would be a lot less "tension" when it comes to these topics.

 

You did a great job in listing a lot of the the considerations that both sides have to take into account!

[Aussie Joe]

Is the argument over whether it’s  a 4 or 5 year deal primarily over the fact we can feel better that “we” didn’t overpay him?

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Likewise for "factually," especially when the facts are that he was paid $13M of that contract upon signing and $7M of it is being charged to this year's cap.

 

Welcome to the modern world. But facts matter.

[Doc]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

Welcome to the modern world. But facts matter.

 

Yeah and I just gave them. 

[Warcodered]

2 hours ago, Aussie Joe said:

Is the argument over whether it’s  a 4 or 5 year deal primarily over the fact we can feel better that “we” didn’t overpay him?

Pretty sure at this point it's got to about someone's favorite number being "4" and someone else's being "5".

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Aussie Joe said:

Is the argument over whether it’s  a 4 or 5 year deal primarily over the fact we can feel better that “we” didn’t overpay him?

 

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

Pretty sure at this point it's got to about someone's favorite number being "4" and someone else's being "5".

 

How many more years is he signed for and did he get a decent amount of money from the extension this year?

[GunnerBill]

5 hours ago, Doc said:

 

 

How many more years is he signed for and did he get a decent amount of money from the extension this year?

 

More years? 4. He was signed for 1 before and he signed for 4 more. It is 4 years $58.3m.

 

You can pretend it is whatever makes you feel good. But those are the facts.

[Stank_Nasty]

https://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/story/_/id/29745286/nfl-execs-pick-most-underrated-players-2020-cooper-kupp-jonnu-smith-dion-dawkins-more

 

Discussing the best players in the game with NFL evaluators always elicits a few surprises. There are the obvious superstars, then there are the players who elicit an "oh, really?"

Our summer project ranking the top 10 players at each position -- with help from nearly 60 NFL execs, coaches, players and scouts -- produced several players who might not be top tier yet but are poised to get there soon.

This is where the strength of rosters truly comes to life. No team can touch the top-end talent of the New Orleans Saints, who have nine top-10 players on our lists, with the Kansas City Chiefs and Dallas Cowboys trailing with six apiece.

But teams such as the Buffalo Bills, Minnesota Vikings and Green Bay Packers dominated the 11-to-15 range, which is an ode to their impressive balance overall.

For every $100 million player, there's a low-key riser on a rookie deal who doesn't resonate with the casual fan but is a legitimate weapon in the eyes of the league's coaches and decision-makers as well as their peers. Here are some of those players.

 

 

Dion Dawkins, OT, Buffalo Bills

Landing a four-year, $60 million contract this month gave Dawkins the kind of attention he was already receiving from many NFL people. Dawkins' name came up several times in conversation about the game's best tackles.

Inconsistency is the knock. But once he cleans that up, watch out.

"He's got everything -- nimble feet, anchor, punch," said an NFC exec. "Can be premier."

Dawkins earned a respectable 73.4 Pro Football Focus grade last season, but expect that to rise in his fourth year as he gets more comfortable in Brian Daboll's system

[Doc]

10 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

More years? 4. He was signed for 1 before and he signed for 4 more. It is 4 years $58.3m.

 

You can pretend it is whatever makes you feel good. But those are the facts.

 

Yes, 4 more years added onto the final year of his rookie contract.  And $7M of that $58.3M is being charged to this year.  It's not hard to figure out.

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Yes, 4 more years added onto the final year of his rookie contract.  And $7M of that $58.3M is being charged to this year.  It's not hard to figure out.

 

I agree it really isn't. Where the Bills account for money on the cap is different from the contract. The contract is 4 years, $58.3m. If you want to see it as a five year deal because it is cap friendly in the sense that it allows the Bills to spread the hit, fine - and you would be right. But it is factually a 4 year contract. 

[Doc]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

I agree it really isn't. Where the Bills account for money on the cap is different from the contract. The contract is 4 years, $58.3m. If you want to see it as a five year deal because it is cap friendly in the sense that it allows the Bills to spread the hit, fine - and you would be right. But it is factually a 4 year contract. 

 

Fair enough.

[without a drought]

23 hours ago, Warcodered said:

Pretty sure at this point it's got to about someone's favorite number being "4" and someone else's being "5".

It might be an odd and even thing.

[Warcodered]

7 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I agree it really isn't. Where the Bills account for money on the cap is different from the contract. The contract is 4 years, $58.3m. If you want to see it as a five year deal because it is cap friendly in the sense that it allows the Bills to spread the hit, fine - and you would be right. But it is factually a 4 year contract. 

I mean isn't a contract extension by definition a modification to the contract. So his current contract would be for 5 years. Or are you saying he's on one contract for one year and second one for the next four?

[GunnerBill]

7 hours ago, Warcodered said:

I mean isn't a contract extension by definition a modification to the contract. So his current contract would be for 5 years. Or are you saying he's on one contract for one year and second one for the next four?

 

Yes that is what I am saying. Sometimes a team will rip up the final year of a rookie deal when they sign a guy long term. That isn't what has happened here you can tell that by the fact his base salary for 2020 is unchanged. The second contract will just follow on from the first. Where bonus money sits is just a cap issue for the team. That isn't something that really matters to Dawkins and his agent. They got paid $13.5m the day the contract was signed. That the Bills want to account for $7m of that on the final year of the old deal is neither here or there to Dawkins. 

[Doc]

14 hours ago, Warcodered said:

I mean isn't a contract extension by definition a modification to the contract. So his current contract would be for 5 years. Or are you saying he's on one contract for one year and second one for the next four?

 

You could look at it as a 1-year $8.166M deal followed by a 4-year $51.465M ($12.866M/year) deal.  Or as a 5-year $59.631M deal. ?