Bills restructure Ryan Bates contract

[Rochesterfan]

7 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

There are other factors, sure. But the harder you make it for a new club to prize away an RFA the less inclined they will be to try which disadvantages future RFAs. Personally I think allowing existing teams to immediately take advantage of cap relief options in contracts does that. I'd change the rules personally. If you match an RFA deal you can do nothing to that contract at all until the opening of the following league year. So if a roster bonus is due on 1 June it gets paid on 1 June. 

 

I am not saying it would be the first rule I'd try and change as the Head of the NFLPA but it would be on my list. 

 

I would totally be on board with that as long as you made that the rule for all contracts not just RFA tenders.  
 

 

[Tuco]

5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Roster bonuses normally trigger on 1st June and in the overwhelming majority of cases they are simply paid as an in-year bonus. It was the Bills choice to kick the can on that money and pro-rate it, essentially pay it 6 weeks early for some cap relief. The Bears could have just been planning to pay it on June 1 and count it against this year's cap. I don't accept that having it in there forced a decision point. It didn't. The Bills proactively took that decision.

 

My concern with the system as it stands is that it skews the RFA system too far towards the existing team. Bates was the only RFA league wide to get an offer. And by nature the guys who become RFAs are late round picks and UDFAs who haven't had a payday via their rookie deal. If they get to the point of RFA and there is interest in them you want the interested teams to make offers. Anything that disinclines that should be looked at afresh in my view. 

I'm sorry but I can't agree with most of this. First of all, while I can't go anywhere and find you the actual date that Bates' bonus was due, I can similarly say you can't go to Spotrac or any other site and find me a player's roster bonus that is due on June 1st. While you are looking, however, you will find that roster bonuses are overwhelmingly due within the first 5 days of the new league year every year.

 

Yet roster bonuses that are guaranteed are different. They are only made for one thing and that's for prorating guaranteed money but not until a later date than the actual signing. You say you think it was the Bears intention to give the bonus on June 1st and charge it to this year? If they were going to do that they would have just made the $1.5 mil part of Bates' guaranteed salary. The cap charge would have been the same for them and it wouldn't have given Buffalo the so called advantage you seem to think they had in this deal. Nor would have given Buffalo the opportunity to, as you say, disincline the system. (even though i don't agree they did). Why would they make it an unnecessary guaranteed bonus if the only thing that could possibly come from that would be to give an advantage to Buffalo?

 

The whole free agent system was designed, and agreed to by the players, to give unrestricted free agency to players after 4 years. They put restrictions on players with less than 4 years in order to not give them advantages over players who are contractually restricted by their rookie contracts. Drafted rookies have to sign a 4 year contract. RFAs are either undrafted players or are players who were drafted then released and then signed 1 or 2 year deals, so they had their chance at their rookie "payday."

 

In Bates case, he has 3 years accrued. Even being restricted he was, after only 3 years, allowed to shop himself around and secure a minimum of $8.85 million guaranteed. Mean while a guy like Dawson Knox, who was drafted in the 3rd round, is still playing under his rookie deal where he has only ever made a guaranteed amount of less than a million. Both players are in their 4th year. But tell me which one was the more restricted of the two?

 

Will Dawson Knox be able to negotiate a bigger deal when the time comes as a UFA? Probably. But if disaster should strike and something happens to Knox, or any other player in his situation, and he should suffer a career ending injury, well then tell me which player had the better deal overall. Was it the drafted player bound for 4 years to a contract that guaranteed him less than a million? Or the RFA who was allowed to make his case after only 3 years because of not being drafted?

 

I'm sorry but you are not convincing me that the Bears had some weird idea that giving Bates' half of his first year guaranteed money in the form of a bonus due on June 1st or some other time and simply charging it to the cap this season just like they would if they simply gave it as guaranteed salary was anything but a little extra way to make the number Buffalo had to match a little higher and then let the Bears do the same thing Buffalo did if they didn't match. The Bears could have just as easily made that $1.5 mil guaranteed salary, or if Bates insisted he needed more at signing they could have added it to the signing bonus and prorated it. Anything in between was just the Bears (and the Bills according to you) gaming the system.

 

Respectfully, I just don't buy your theory.

[GunnerBill]

16 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I'm sorry but I can't agree with most of this. First of all, while I can't go anywhere and find you the actual date that Bates' bonus was due, I can similarly say you can't go to Spotrac or any other site and find me a player's roster bonus that is due on June 1st. While you are looking, however, you will find that roster bonuses are overwhelmingly due within the first 5 days of the new league year every year.

 

Yet roster bonuses that are guaranteed are different. They are only made for one thing and that's for prorating guaranteed money but not until a later date than the actual signing. You say you think it was the Bears intention to give the bonus on June 1st and charge it to this year? If they were going to do that they would have just made the $1.5 mil part of Bates' guaranteed salary. The cap charge would have been the same for them and it wouldn't have given Buffalo the so called advantage you seem to think they had in this deal. Nor would have given Buffalo the opportunity to, as you say, disincline the system. (even though i don't agree they did). Why would they make it an unnecessary guaranteed bonus if the only thing that could possibly come from that would be to give an advantage to Buffalo?

 

The whole free agent system was designed, and agreed to by the players, to give unrestricted free agency to players after 4 years. They put restrictions on players with less than 4 years in order to not give them advantages over players who are contractually restricted by their rookie contracts. Drafted rookies have to sign a 4 year contract. RFAs are either undrafted players or are players who were drafted then released and then signed 1 or 2 year deals, so they had their chance at their rookie "payday."

 

In Bates case, he has 3 years accrued. Even being restricted he was, after only 3 years, allowed to shop himself around and secure a minimum of $8.85 million guaranteed. Mean while a guy like Dawson Knox, who was drafted in the 3rd round, is still playing under his rookie deal where he has only ever made a guaranteed amount of less than a million. Both players are in their 4th year. But tell me which one was the more restricted of the two?

 

Will Dawson Knox be able to negotiate a bigger deal when the time comes as a UFA? Probably. But if disaster should strike and something happens to Knox, or any other player in his situation, and he should suffer a career ending injury, well then tell me which player had the better deal overall. Was it the drafted player bound for 4 years to a contract that guaranteed him less than a million? Or the RFA who was allowed to make his case after only 3 years because of not being drafted?

 

I'm sorry but you are not convincing me that the Bears had some weird idea that giving Bates' half of his first year guaranteed money in the form of a bonus due on June 1st or some other time and simply charging it to the cap this season just like they would if they simply gave it as guaranteed salary was anything but a little extra way to make the number Buffalo had to match a little higher and then let the Bears do the same thing Buffalo did if they didn't match. The Bears could have just as easily made that $1.5 mil guaranteed salary, or if Bates insisted he needed more at signing they could have added it to the signing bonus and prorated it. Anything in between was just the Bears (and the Bills according to you) gaming the system.

 

Respectfully, I just don't buy your theory.

 

Likewise you are not convincing me the current system works. I know what RFA is. I know why it exists. Allowing teams to adjust contracts after they have matched is a disincentive for clubs to make offer sheets to players on other clubs. I am not claiming anyone has "gamed the system". They have clearly done something that is allowed by the rules. I haven't disputed that for a second. My argument is it shouldn't be and the rules should be changed. Of course Bates was the less restricted of he and Knox in year 4. No doubt about that. My argument is not that what has happened here is bad for Ryan Bates. Again, never my argument. It is that it produces a perverse disincentive for teams to engage in RFA offers. The people it hurts are every other RFA in the NFL this year who didn't get an offer. Because of the worst happens to them in year 4 playing on an RFA tender they are likely done. 

 

On dates of roster bonuses - yes, it is very common for them to be due in the first few days of the league year. But that couldn't be the case with Bates because he wasn't signed by then. The standard later date tends to be 1 June because that is when the NFL's accounting rules change. It is probably fair to say June 1 has become less important in recent years but it is still a staging point date in the league rules and so generally if bonuses are not payable early in the league year they are 1 June. 

Edited April 10, 2022 by GunnerBill

[Tuco]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Likewise you are not convincing me the current system works. I know what RFA is. I know why it exists. Allowing teams to adjust contracts after they have matched is a disincentive for clubs to make offer sheets to players on other clubs. I am not claiming anyone has "gamed the system". They have clearly done something that is allowed by the rules. I haven't disputed that for a second. My argument is it shouldn't be and the rules should be changed. Of course Bates was the less restricted of he and Knox in year 4. No doubt about that. My argument is not that what has happened here is bad for Ryan Bates. Again, never my argument. It is that it produces a perverse disincentive for teams to engage in RFA offers. The people it hurts are every other RFA in the NFL this year who didn't get an offer. Because of the worst happens to them in year 4 playing on an RFA tender they are likely done. 

 

On dates of roster bonuses - yes, it is very common for them to be due in the first few days of the league year. But that couldn't be the case with Bates because he wasn't signed by then. The standard later date tends to be 1 June because that is when the NFL's accounting rules change. It is probably fair to say June 1 has become less important in recent years but it is still a staging point date in the league rules and so generally if bonuses are not payable early in the league year they are 1 June. 

If you give a player a guaranteed roster bonus, it counts the same against the cap on day one of the contract as it does on June 1st. If you change that bonus to a signing bonus and prorate it, it still doesn't matter if it's before or after June 1st. There is no distinction. The only thing June 1st matters for is prorated signing bonus on a released player. And the only reason you worry about June 1st is if you want to be able to use the rules when cutting a player. And if you're worried about cutting the player in the first year of the contract you don't give him $8.85 million fully guaranteed, nor do you guarantee the roster bonus. And even if you did, it doesn't do any good to use the roster bonus as a reason to make sure the player is still on the team by June 1st. For one you can always use the June 1st rule. And for two, since the bonus is guaranteed, it creates no incentive either way for the player to "make the team." 

 

The Bills didn't adjust the contract. They matched it just exactly as the Bears wrote it. And there was no reason for the Bears to make it a guaranteed bonus other than to make the initial amount Buffalo had to have in cap space be $3.5 million. The Bears could have just given the $1.5 million in guaranteed salary making the cap hit $3.5 million or they could have given the extra $1.5 million as signing bonus making the cap hit $2.375 million. Instead they made it with a cap hit of $3.5 with a guaranteed roster bonus, which is ALWAYS converted to signing bonus. They had no plausible reason to do that other than to make the cap hit a little bigger initially hoping Buffalo wouldn't match.

 

Restricted free agency isn't about finding ways for players to get offers. It is, and always has been about the team being able to keep a worthwhile player for at least the same 4 years that all other players have to put in before becoming unrestricted. There's nothing wrong with the system and the Bills didn't adjust the contract. They matched exactly what the Bears made them match.

 

There is only one reason teams put guaranteed roster bonuses in contracts. That reason is so the bonus can be prorated but at a later date than the original signing. The Bears did that, not Buffalo. And you can't show me any player anywhere who ever had a guaranteed roster bonus in the first year of the contract due on or around June 1st. That doesn't happen.

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, Tuco said:

If you give a player a guaranteed roster bonus, it counts the same against the cap on day one of the contract as it does on June 1st. If you change that bonus to a signing bonus and prorate it, it still doesn't matter if it's before or after June 1st. There is no distinction. The only thing June 1st matters for is prorated signing bonus on a released player. And the only reason you worry about June 1st is if you want to be able to use the rules when cutting a player. And if you're worried about cutting the player in the first year of the contract you don't give him $8.85 million fully guaranteed, nor do you guarantee the roster bonus. And even if you did, it doesn't do any good to use the roster bonus as a reason to make sure the player is still on the team by June 1st. For one you can always use the June 1st rule. And for two, since the bonus is guaranteed, it creates no incentive either way for the player to "make the team." 

 

The Bills didn't adjust the contract. They matched it just exactly as the Bears wrote it. And there was no reason for the Bears to make it a guaranteed bonus other than to make the initial amount Buffalo had to have in cap space be $3.5 million. The Bears could have just given the $1.5 million in guaranteed salary making the cap hit $3.5 million or they could have given the extra $1.5 million as signing bonus making the cap hit $2.375 million. Instead they made it with a cap hit of $3.5 with a guaranteed roster bonus, which is ALWAYS converted to signing bonus. They had no plausible reason to do that other than to make the cap hit a little bigger initially hoping Buffalo wouldn't match.

 

Restricted free agency isn't about finding ways for players to get offers. It is, and always has been about the team being able to keep a worthwhile player for at least the same 4 years that all other players have to put in before becoming unrestricted. There's nothing wrong with the system and the Bills didn't adjust the contract. They matched exactly what the Bears made them match.

 

There is only one reason teams put guaranteed roster bonuses in contracts. That reason is so the bonus can be prorated but at a later date than the original signing. The Bears did that, not Buffalo. And you can't show me any player anywhere who ever had a guaranteed roster bonus in the first year of the contract due on or around June 1st. That doesn't happen.

 

I am sorry the Bills did adjust the contract. They pro-rated money that would otherwise count against the 2022 cap. That is an adjustment. Whether the Bears would have made the same adjustment or not is irrelevant to my point. 

[Warcodered]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I am sorry the Bills did adjust the contract. They pro-rated money that would otherwise count against the 2022 cap. That is an adjustment. Whether the Bears would have made the same adjustment or not is irrelevant to my point. 

I'd say it's on the Bears to set up the contract so the unavoidable cost is something the Bills won't match.

[GunnerBill]

18 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

I'd say it's on the Bears to set up the contract so the unavoidable cost is something the Bills won't match.

 

Of course it is. But the harder you make that.... by allowing the existing team to match the contract and then immediately adjust so it works for them, the more you disincentivise other teams from even getting involved. The Bears new GM is getting killed by his fan base for not getting this done. And if teams - as they have started to league wide - get to the point where they just ignore RFAs then I don't think that is right for the players long term. Which is why, personally, I'd tweak the rules.

[Tuco]

18 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I am sorry the Bills did adjust the contract. They pro-rated money that would otherwise count against the 2022 cap. That is an adjustment. Whether the Bears would have made the same adjustment or not is irrelevant to my point. 

 

Okay, so you're saying if the Bills declined the offer, the Bears got Bates and a week later they converted the guaranteed roster bonus to lower the cap hit - the same cap hit they tried to make the Bills accept - that would have been okay? Or you're saying they shouldn't be allowed to do it either? I mean, the latter could be a valid point I suppose. But I don't see it as an issue or anything that needs to be changed. And I still maintain the bonus and the decision were due earlier rather than later, though I doubt I can prove it any more than you can prove it wasn't. Nor do I see how it in any way favored the Bills and gave them an edge in signing Bates other than the edge that is purposely built into the system. Or rather, I don't see that it restricted Bates or the Bears any more than it's supposed to. But sure we can differ on that. But I'll maintain my original point that I don't think Beane went out of his way to convert salary (in fact I know it wasn't salary) like so many people think. And I do believe the bonus was put there by the Bears for the same reason.

 

 

 

 

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Tuco said:

 

Okay, so you're saying if the Bills declined the offer, the Bears got Bates and a week later they converted the guaranteed roster bonus to lower the cap hit - the same cap hit they tried to make the Bills accept - that would have been okay? Or you're saying they shouldn't be allowed to do it either? I mean, the latter could be a valid point I suppose. But I don't see it as an issue or anything that needs to be changed. And I still maintain the bonus and the decision were due earlier rather than later, though I doubt I can prove it any more than you can prove it wasn't. Nor do I see how it in any way favored the Bills and gave them an edge in signing Bates other than the edge that is purposely built into the system. Or rather, I don't see that it restricted Bates or the Bears any more than it's supposed to. But sure we can differ on that. But I'll maintain my original point that I don't think Beane went out of his way to convert salary (in fact I know it wasn't salary) like so many people think. And I do believe the bonus was put there by the Bears for the same reason.

 

 

I know it is purposely built into the system this way. That is exactly my point. I'd change it. 

[Tuco]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I know it is purposely built into the system this way. That is exactly my point. I'd change it. 

And I wouldn't. And neither, apparently, would the majority of the players or owners. I do wish you a good day.

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, Tuco said:

And I wouldn't. And neither, apparently, would the majority of the players or owners. I do wish you a good day.

 

Well it can't be changed until the next CBA now. But if the pattern of RFA offers declining continues then you can expect the NFLPA to look at it. Whether it is this element of the process or another. 

[Warcodered]

25 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Of course it is. But the harder you make that.... by allowing the existing team to match the contract and then immediately adjust so it works for them, the more you disincentivise other teams from even getting involved. The Bears new GM is getting killed by his fan base for not getting this done. And if teams - as they have started to league wide - get to the point where they just ignore RFAs then I don't think that is right for the players long term. Which is why, personally, I'd tweak the rules.

I would think there's a part of the contract that effects the cap hit that can't be changed and that's where the poison pill should be, otherwise this would seem to be more of a situation with bad faith negotiating on the part of Bates and the Bills.

[Tuco]

8 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Well it can't be changed until the next CBA now. But if the pattern of RFA offers declining continues then you can expect the NFLPA to look at it. Whether it is this element of the process or another. 

LOL they change the CBA on the fly all the time. Especially during pandemics. But okay, I get your point and we will see.  But in a league which finishes each season with around 2,000 players and starts the next year with over 2,900 under contract, just as with the franchise tag that most players hate when it's applied, I doubt there are too many on either side worrying changing anything for the very few who are affected by the RFA rules.

[Coach Tuesday]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Well it can't be changed until the next CBA now. But if the pattern of RFA offers declining continues then you can expect the NFLPA to look at it. Whether it is this element of the process or another. 

Couldn’t the Bears have just given him a fully guaranteed contract if they wanted to make it restructure-proof?

[GunnerBill]

56 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

Couldn’t the Bears have just given him a fully guaranteed contract if they wanted to make it restructure-proof?

 

They absolutely could have done. But if that is what it takes not sure there will be loads of folks queuing up to offer RFA deals that are fully guaranteed. 

[Coach Tuesday]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

They absolutely could have done. But if that is what it takes not sure there will be loads of folks queuing up to offer RFA deals that are fully guaranteed. 

Right but my point is the Bears knew the rules (one assumes) and if they wanted him badly enough, they could’ve made it harder on Buffalo.

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

Right but my point is the Bears knew the rules (one assumes) and if they wanted him badly enough, they could’ve made it harder on Buffalo.

 

Yea I don't disagree with that. My point is not really what has happened here but more what I would change going forward.

[eball]

On 4/8/2022 at 10:06 AM, Coach Tuesday said:

Honestly it's news to me that you can do this - I thought you were "stuck" with the contract an RFA signs once you match it.

 

The team can’t force anyone to restructure…but they can ask, and if the player agrees why would the league want to prevent that?

[No_Matter_What]

@Tuco

 

You seem to have some understanding of salary cap issues, so maybe you will be able to answer following questions (anybody else feel free to help me out):

 

1. How do void years work if there is more of them? I mean Hyde was restructured so his salary/bonus was spread over 5 years, 3 of them being void. He has 1,13M dead cap each year. In reality this means:

a) dead cap will be spread over those 3 years in any case and Bills cannot affect it; or

b) dead cap will be accounted for in full amount of 3,4M in 2024 (first void year) and Bills cannot affect it; or

c) at some point (when?) Bills can decide which way to go?

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/micah-hyde-12440/ Sportrac shows it in very confusing manner, showing 3,4M in 2024 but also 1,13M in both 2025 and 2026 (which is mutually exclusive imo).

 

2. Right now cap is calculated as top51. However, when season starts it will be for full roster, which is 53 players. If I understand it correctly cap stays the same, which means that we our cap situation is actually worse and we need to have in fact 1,8M more cap space just to facilitate two new (roughly 900M each) contracts?

 

3. PS players - same question. Do they count against the same cap (208,2M), so we need to create additional space for them? If yes, how much is that?

 

4. Star Lotulelei issue. To me it doesn't make sense how it is shown on Sportrac. He was supposed to have 5,2M dead cap if cut post June 1 and 7,8M if cut outright. Sportrac shows his dead cap as 5,2M. However, if this was the case, and he was really designated as post June 1 cut, then he needs to be in the books right now, doesn't he?

 

Or does it mean that he actually is kept in the books right now, but Sportrac shows him as cut already for some reason?

[Tuco]

8 minutes ago, No_Matter_What said:

@Tuco

 

You seem to have some understanding of salary cap issues, so maybe you will be able to answer following questions (anybody else feel free to help me out):

 

1. How do void years work if there is more of them? I mean Hyde was restructured so his salary/bonus was spread over 5 years, 3 of them being void. He has 1,13M dead cap each year. In reality this means:

a) dead cap will be spread over those 3 years in any case and Bills cannot affect it; or

b) dead cap will be accounted for in full amount of 3,4M in 2024 (first void year) and Bills cannot affect it; or

c) at some point (when?) Bills can decide which way to go?

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/micah-hyde-12440/ Sportrac shows it in very confusing manner, showing 3,4M in 2024 but also 1,13M in both 2025 and 2026 (which is mutually exclusive imo).

 

2. Right now cap is calculated as top51. However, when season starts it will be for full roster, which is 53 players. If I understand it correctly cap stays the same, which means that we our cap situation is actually worse and we need to have in fact 1,8M more cap space just to facilitate two new (roughly 900M each) contracts?

 

3. PS players - same question. Do they count against the same cap (208,2M), so we need to create additional space for them? If yes, how much is that?

 

4. Star Lotulelei issue. To me it doesn't make sense how it is shown on Sportrac. He was supposed to have 5,2M dead cap if cut post June 1 and 7,8M if cut outright. Sportrac shows his dead cap as 5,2M. However, if this was the case, and he was really designated as post June 1 cut, then he needs to be in the books right now, doesn't he?

 

Or does it mean that he actually is kept in the books right now, but Sportrac shows him as cut already for some reason?

 

1) As we know, the $5.68 mil was converted to bonus and 3 dead years added so the cap charge would only be the $1.136 mil we see for each year. At the end of 2023 when the contract void kicks in, the final 3 years will accelerate and all be charged as the $3.408 mil in dead cap in 2024. Once a bonus is prorated the only thing that can change it is the player leaving the team, in which case it accelerates the remaining years to the next year.

 

The only way the Bills can stop the final 3 years from accelerating to $3.408 mil in dead cap in '24 is to reach a new extension that turns the voided years into real years. Even doing so, the $1.136 million figures will stay for each year and any new prorated bonus will be added on accordingly.

 

Also, if after this year the Bills decide to part ways and cut or trade him, the final 4 years would be subject to acceleration. If they simply cut him before June 1st in '23 the final 4 years would accelerate and count $4.544 million dead cap in '23. If they cut him after June 1st it would then be $1.136 mil dead in '23 and $3.408 mil dead in '24.

 

2) Right. There really isn't a lot of difference between the top 51 and 53. I suppose it was made just to give the teams more wiggle room during the off season. Either way,m you generally need more room at the start of the season as, (3) yes the PS guys do count However much they are paid X whatever the number is - I think it's up to 16 now). Plus any player that goes on IR and has to be replaced and both count. Pretty much when they get to the 53 cut down date every player under contract counts against the cap except players on the commissioner's suspended or exempt list.

 

4) Good question and I'm glad you noticed this. Shortly before Star was actually cut both Spotrac and OTC included a guaranteed $2.5 million in '22 salary in their figures for Star. He also had $2.6 million in prorated bonus for both '22 and '23. That meant if they cut him after June 1st his cap charge would be $5.1 mil dead ($2.6 prorated + $2.5 million guaranteed salary) in '22 the other $2.6 mil dead in '23. Likewise, if they didn't use the June 1st rule, the whole $7.7 mil ($2.6PR + $2.6 PR + $2.5 guaranteed) would be dead cap in '22.

 

That is what the Bills did. And I remember previously seeing the $7.7 million dead cap charge listed. Now there were some conversations (by cap nerds like me, not any of the TV guys or sports bloggers) that the guaranteed $2.5 million salary could have offset language that would relieve the Bills of that $2.5 mil obligation (or a portion of it) and also give them the $2.5 mil (or a portion) back in cap space in the event Star signed with a new team.

 

I don't believe Star signed anywhere else. But I do remember the guaranteed $2.5 mil salary only showing up on the cap tracking sites a couple weeks before Star was released. So it's possible that guarantee was never real. Or maybe it was voided for some reason we'll likely never know about. Those sites rely on 3rd party info for everything and while they do a good job, they do have inaccuracies.

 

Regardless, it certainly looks like the expected dead cap charge for Star's $2.5 mil guaranteed salary is no longer being charged and that's why it's only $5.2 instead of $7.7. And that's $2.5 mil that has at some point been rather silently added back to the Bills cap space.