Diggs restructure back in March?

[mrags]

Just curious and maybe someone more in tune with nfl contracts and restructures/extensions can answer. 
 

back in March, when the Bills restructured Diggs contract, converting salary to bonuses, do the Bills have the right to just restructure in any way chose to make it work? Or is that something Diggs had to approve? 
 

reason for my thought on this, is if Diggs possibly was disgruntled since the Bengals game, and was maybe expecting or hoping to be traded, and now with the restructure it essentially eliminates any possibility that he would be traded due cap/dead cap. 
 

I thought this deserved its own thread instead of getting completely lost in the other Diggs threads. 

[Reed83HOF]

They can restructure anytime they like,  it's in almost 100% of the contracts, team can do it whenever they want.  

[mrags]

4 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

They can restructure anytime they like,  it's in almost 100% of the contracts, team can do it whenever they want.  

Did the player have to agree with that and sign off in that in the original contract? Or do teams just have the right of restructure? 
 

based on the link below, it shows that there are 2 different types of restructures, where one is not needed for the team to do it on their own. Where is with the other it is needed for the player to agree to the terms. 

https://overthecap.com/restructure

 

was it a simple restructure or a max restructure?

 

 

[Reed83HOF]

It's agreed to and signed off in the original contract. The player and agent never really care in the long run since restructures require paying money sooner rather than later. 

 

How do I know this?  Wgr and Sal beat it in my head every morning for 45 minutes on my way to work everytime making cap space is being discussed...Lol 

[BuffaloBillyG]

4 minutes ago, mrags said:

Did the player have to agree with that and sign off in that in the original contract? Or do teams just have the right of restructure? 
 

based on the link below, it shows that there are 2 different types of restructures, where one is not needed for the team to do it on their own. Where is with the other it is needed for the player to agree to the terms. 

https://overthecap.com/restructure

 

was it a simple restructure or a max restructure?

 

 

If it's a simple restructure almost every contract has the language baked in that the team can do it. Pretty standard.

 

If the team wishes to alter the deal by adding void years and such then they need consent 

[Big Turk]

29 minutes ago, mrags said:

Just curious and maybe someone more in tune with nfl contracts and restructures/extensions can answer. 
 

back in March, when the Bills restructured Diggs contract, converting salary to bonuses, do the Bills have the right to just restructure in any way chose to make it work? Or is that something Diggs had to approve? 
 

reason for my thought on this, is if Diggs possibly was disgruntled since the Bengals game, and was maybe expecting or hoping to be traded, and now with the restructure it essentially eliminates any possibility that he would be traded due cap/dead cap. 
 

I thought this deserved its own thread instead of getting completely lost in the other Diggs threads. 

 

It's in the contract they can restructure whenever they want and it's very rare to talk to a player prior to doing it. Why? Because it accelerates the money the player receives so what player is going to refuse more up front money?

[MJS]

27 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

They can restructure anytime they like,  it's in almost 100% of the contracts, team can do it whenever they want.  

I think the players have to agree. Tyreek Hill refused to let the Chiefs do it a couple of years ago.

[mrags]

1 minute ago, Big Turk said:

 

It's in the contract they can restructure whenever they want and it's very rare to talk to a player prior to doing it. Why? Because it accelerates the money the player receives so what player is going to refuse more up front money?

This is why I brought it up. 
 

let’s just say that in the event that Diggs was disgruntled after the Bengals game. And legitimately was hoping for a trade, maybe wanted to play with his brother in Dallas, Who knows, anything is possible. But maybe he was hoping for this to happen. Maybe not this year, maybe he wanted to give it one more year. But wanted the option to be there. And after this restructure it pretty much guarantees that he will not be traded because of cap/dead cap hit. Maybe, just maybe that’s why he’s against disgruntled and not at camp. 
 

I'm not implying anything. Not saying it is the case. I’m looking for reasons that might make sense. 
 

and, I was arguing with someone (shocker right?) about the specifics of restructuring and they said that Diggs never should have signed the restructure then if that’s what he wanted. And I argued that he probably didn’t have an option, that the Bills did it on their own without his say in the matter. They disagreed and said he had to agree to it. I said they were wrong, and now I’m here for confirmation. 

[Allen2D̶i̶g̶g̶s̶TBD]

I have no idea why Diggs would want to be traded. He's making great money with a great team with a great qb who targets him a ton.

 

He's not gonna have higher pay or production elsewhere 

[NoSaint]

11 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

It's in the contract they can restructure whenever they want and it's very rare to talk to a player prior to doing it. Why? Because it accelerates the money the player receives so what player is going to refuse more up front money?

I would assume it’s very rare not to talk to the player. Just because it fits your plans doesn’t mean it fits theirs long term. Making 7 figure (occasionally 8 figure) decisions is something you chat about. 
 

if nothing else a chance to say “we see you as a cornerstone, thank you, your cash is headed your way early”

[Beck Water]

50 minutes ago, mrags said:

Just curious and maybe someone more in tune with nfl contracts and restructures/extensions can answer. 
 

back in March, when the Bills restructured Diggs contract, converting salary to bonuses, do the Bills have the right to just restructure in any way chose to make it work? Or is that something Diggs had to approve? 
 

reason for my thought on this, is if Diggs possibly was disgruntled since the Bengals game, and was maybe expecting or hoping to be traded, and now with the restructure it essentially eliminates any possibility that he would be traded due cap/dead cap. 
 

I thought this deserved its own thread instead of getting completely lost in the other Diggs threads. 

 

My understanding is that there are team-option restructures where salary is converted to signing bonus, in almost all the top contracts with significant salary.

 

Team option, meaning for those specific restructures, the player does not have to approve.  Diggs almost certainly had one of those.

 

There are other contract restructures which the player must approve - either because their contract wasn't at a level where team-options to restructure were written in, or because an actual pay cut in exchange for guaranteed money was involved.

 

The team-option restructures where salary is converted to signing bonus, are usually not a problem for the player, since normally salary is paid in weekly chunks during the season so it just means the guy got paid early and the money is in his pocket, giving him a positive NPV.

 

12 minutes ago, mrags said:

and, I was arguing with someone (shocker right?) about the specifics of restructuring and they said that Diggs never should have signed the restructure then if that’s what he wanted. And I argued that he probably didn’t have an option, that the Bills did it on their own without his say in the matter. They disagreed and said he had to agree to it. I said they were wrong, and now I’m here for confirmation. 

 

He may have had to agree to it, but it's often written into the contract and just happens.  We bystanders really don't know but probability favors "just happens" for the type of restructure that happened for Diggs.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Beck Water

[Beck Water]

42 minutes ago, mrags said:

Did the player have to agree with that and sign off in that in the original contract? Or do teams just have the right of restructure? 
 

based on the link below, it shows that there are 2 different types of restructures, where one is not needed for the team to do it on their own. Where is with the other it is needed for the player to agree to the terms. 

https://overthecap.com/restructure

 

was it a simple restructure or a max restructure?

 

It was a simple restructure.  Diggs had $6.75M of his 2023 salary converted into a bonus and split over the remaining length of his contract.

Look at the "transactions" tab and then look at the restructure column; Diggs had $1.35M added this year and to the next 4 years - but keep in mind the amortization is just an accounting procedure for the cap, and the player gets all that money up-front.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

20 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

My understanding is that there are team-option restructures where salary is converted to signing bonus, in almost all the top contracts with significant salary.

 

Team option, meaning for those specific restructures, the player does not have to approve.  Diggs almost certainly had one of those.

 

There are other contract restructures which the player must approve - either because their contract wasn't at a level where team-options to restructure were written in, or because an actual pay cut in exchange for guaranteed money was involved.

 

The team-option restructures where salary is converted to signing bonus, are usually not a problem for the player, since normally salary is paid in weekly chunks during the season so it just means the guy got paid early and the money is in his pocket, giving him a positive NPV.

 

 

He may have had to agree to it, but it's often written into the contract and just happens.  We bystanders really don't know but probability favors "just happens" for the type of restructure that happened for Diggs.

Players already agreed to it in the contract. 

[mrags]

29 minutes ago, Allen2Diggs said:

I have no idea why Diggs would want to be traded. He's making great money with a great team with a great qb who targets him a ton.

 

He's not gonna have higher pay or production elsewhere 

Because maybe he wanted to be traded to Dallas to play with his brother. Or maybe he isn’t a fan of the direction of the team and wants to be traded. End of the day, he may have his reasons and now because of the restructure it’s not possible for more than 2 years. 

[K-9]

42 minutes ago, MJS said:

I think the players have to agree. Tyreek Hill refused to let the Chiefs do it a couple of years ago.

This is true. Any change to the terms of a contract must be agreed to by all parties to the contract. 

[Beck Water]

5 minutes ago, mrags said:

Because maybe he wanted to be traded to Dallas to play with his brother. Or maybe he isn’t a fan of the direction of the team and wants to be traded. End of the day, he may have his reasons and now because of the restructure it’s not possible for more than 2 years. 

 

It really wasn't too possible before the restructure.  He had $21.76M of signing and restructure bonus on the Bills books even prior to his $16M fully guaranteed option bonus and his $6.745 salary to bonus restrcuture.

[StHustle]

49 minutes ago, Allen2Diggs said:

I have no idea why Diggs would want to be traded. He's making great money with a great team with a great qb who targets him a ton.

 

He's not gonna have higher pay or production elsewhere 

Joe is that you? 🤔

[mrags]

12 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

It really wasn't too possible before the restructure.  He had $21.76M of signing and restructure bonus on the Bills books even prior to his $16M fully guaranteed option bonus and his $6.745 salary to bonus restrcuture.

Well. It was more possible than it is now. 

[Beck Water]

4 minutes ago, mrags said:

Well. It was more possible than it is now. 

 

That's kind of like saying it would only chemically castrate a guy instead of removing his testicles.  To the guy, both are pretty dismal outcomes.

[JESSEFEFFER]

My theory.  Josh was bypassing the gimme layups and taking many more deep shots.  It was a trend the last part of the season.  One might think that Diggs was pissed that Josh kept taking those shots which, for the most part, were not to him very often.  The offense was having protection problems and Josh was not attempting to get the ball out any quicker.  One might call that stubborn or even selfish in some respects.  But, this trend seemed connected close in time to his elbow injury which might have made certain types of throws more problematic.

[pennstate10]

This was discussed in another thread. 
 

Converting salary to bonus can lead to a loss of money for the player. 
 

The bonus is taxed at NYS marginal income rates. About 11%. Whereas salary is taxed at the rate of the state where the game is played. So when Bills play in Texas, which has 0% marginal income tax rate, he keeps more money. 
 

At least that’s how I think it works. 
 

[mrags]

5 minutes ago, pennstate10 said:

This was discussed in another thread. 
 

Converting salary to bonus can lead to a loss of money for the player. 
 

The bonus is taxed at NYS marginal income rates. About 11%. Whereas salary is taxed at the rate of the state where the game is played. So when Bills play in Texas, which has 0% marginal income tax rate, he keeps more money. 
 

At least that’s how I think it works. 
 

Not sure if true but could make a case for being upset that even though he gets more of his money up front, he might lose some money overall and be upset about it. 

[SectionC3]

5 minutes ago, mrags said:

Not sure if true but could make a case for being upset that even though he gets more of his money up front, he might lose some money overall and be upset about it. 

If that’s the issue, then he should have thought of that when he signed the contract.  

[mrags]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

If that’s the issue, then he should have thought of that when he signed the contract.  

🤦‍♂️

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

2 hours ago, mrags said:

Just curious and maybe someone more in tune with nfl contracts and restructures/extensions can answer. 
 

back in March, when the Bills restructured Diggs contract, converting salary to bonuses, do the Bills have the right to just restructure in any way chose to make it work? Or is that something Diggs had to approve? 
 

reason for my thought on this, is if Diggs possibly was disgruntled since the Bengals game, and was maybe expecting or hoping to be traded, and now with the restructure it essentially eliminates any possibility that he would be traded due cap/dead cap. 
 

I thought this deserved its own thread instead of getting completely lost in the other Diggs threads. 

 

All they're doing is taking salary and turning it into a bonus - thus guaranteeing future earnings.  

[mrags]

2 minutes ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:

 

All they're doing is taking salary and turning it into a bonus - thus guaranteeing future earnings.  

So, to the original question. Does Diggs have to approve of the change? Is he even asked about it or can the team just do it at their own will. 

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

Just now, mrags said:

So, to the original question. Does Diggs have to approve of the change? Is he even asked about it or can the team just do it at their own will. 

 

He has to sign it as its a restructure of his contract and how he is paid.  

[mrags]

6 minutes ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:

 

He has to sign it as its a restructure of his contract and how he is paid.  

And according to the link provided it states he doesn’t need to if it was a minimal restructure. 
 

so I guess the question is, does anyone know, or did anyone document back in March if Diggs was approached about the restructure, or if he did approve of it? 

[UConn James]

1 hour ago, NoSaint said:

I would assume it’s very rare not to talk to the player. Just because it fits your plans doesn’t mean it fits theirs long term. Making 7 figure (occasionally 8 figure) decisions is something you chat about. 
 

if nothing else a chance to say “we see you as a cornerstone, thank you, your cash is headed your way early”

Unless you’re talking to Stephon Gilmore. The Pats* did a restructure on him a few years ago and then he started a sulk-fest about how he was not being paid that year. 
 

Pats*: You got your money early. It’s all there.

StephG: Yeah, but I’m not being paid as much now.

Pats*: But you ALREADY GOT IT! We just paid it to you this spring as a bonus conversion to save cap space.

StephG: But I’m not being paid as much this year.

Pats*: We literally just gave you like $25M. Instead of paying you later, we just paid it to you now.

StephG: But I’m not going to be paid later.

Pats*: That’s because we paid it to you NOW.

StephG: But I want to be paid later too.

Pats*: OhFFS 🤦🏻‍♂️

 

Maybe it’s a thing with people named Stephon that they don’t understand how the whole money thing works?

 

[John from Riverside]

2 hours ago, JESSEFEFFER said:

My theory.  Josh was bypassing the gimme layups and taking many more deep shots.  It was a trend the last part of the season.  One might think that Diggs was pissed that Josh kept taking those shots which, for the most part, were not to him very often.  The offense was having protection problems and Josh was not attempting to get the ball out any quicker.  One might call that stubborn or even selfish in some respects.  But, this trend seemed connected close in time to his elbow injury which might have made certain types of throws more problematic.

I would hope that Diggs is smarter than this whenever Josh heard that elbow the shorter stuff became painful. Well as the longer throws did not cause as much pain

 

Extremely pissed at diggs right now. You don’t give a huge contract to a player like this and have them be a non-leader like he’s being right now he should be with his teammates, even if he isn’t on the field practicing he should be right there with them.

[BringBackFergy]

Ridiculous. So the “no show” theory in this thread is: he was paid some of the money up front instead of being paid over the next few years. So he’ll be taxed at a higher rate. LOL. 
 

Meanwhile, if he cracks a femur this season, he’ll be quite happy with an extra $6 mill in his pocket. 😂 

 

Poor Lamar. Poor Stef. 
 

Pre-Madonnas that don’t understand the time value of money. 

[JoPoy88]

47 minutes ago, BringBackFergy said:

Ridiculous. So the “no show” theory in this thread is: he was paid some of the money up front instead of being paid over the next few years. So he’ll be taxed at a higher rate. LOL. 
 

Meanwhile, if he cracks a femur this season, he’ll be quite happy with an extra $6 mill in his pocket. 😂 

 

Poor Lamar. Poor Stef. 
 

Pre-Madonnas that don’t understand the time value of money. 

“pre-madonnas” - nice callback.

[Aussie Joe]

3 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

“pre-madonnas” - nice callback.

Diggs is setting himself up to be the escape goat this year 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Aussie Joe

[JoPoy88]

1 minute ago, Aussie Joe said:

Diggs is setting himself up to be the escape goat this year 

Perfect 👍 

3 hours ago, mrags said:

And according to the link provided it states he doesn’t need to if it was a minimal restructure. 
 

so I guess the question is, does anyone know, or did anyone document back in March if Diggs was approached about the restructure, or if he did approve of it? 

doesn’t matter. They were doing it either way. He “approved” it when he signed his deal.

[Jerome007]

3 hours ago, pennstate10 said:

Converting salary to bonus can lead to a loss of money for the player. 
 

The bonus is taxed at NYS marginal income rates. About 11%. Whereas salary is taxed at the rate of the state where the game is played. So when Bills play in Texas, which has 0% marginal income tax rate, he keeps more money. 
 

At least that’s how I think it works. 

Hum. Never thought of this. Possible. But till Diggs actually, you know, publicly adresses this, we will never know what the reason is. I never went for the "Diva" tag he got from his time in Minnesota, but it's looking as he had just found a way to contain this till last game... and since...

 

He's paid very well, is a prime target in a passing team, has got JA17 throwing it to him. What more does he want?

Edited June 13, 2023 by Jerome007

[mrags]

7 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

Perfect 👍 

doesn’t matter. They were doing it either way. He “approved” it when he signed his deal.

That’s not an answer to the question I asked. Thanks for the input 

1 hour ago, BringBackFergy said:

Ridiculous. So the “no show” theory in this thread is: he was paid some of the money up front instead of being paid over the next few years. So he’ll be taxed at a higher rate. LOL. 
 

Meanwhile, if he cracks a femur this season, he’ll be quite happy with an extra $6 mill in his pocket. 😂 

 

Poor Lamar. Poor Stef. 
 

Pre-Madonnas that don’t understand the time value of money. 

https://www.walmart.com/browse/health/latex-disposable-gloves/black/976760_2571007_6523208/Y29sb3I6QmxhY2sie

[JoPoy88]

2 minutes ago, mrags said:

That’s not an answer to the question I asked. Thanks for the input 

https://www.walmart.com/browse/health/latex-disposable-gloves/black/976760_2571007_6523208/Y29sb3I6QmxhY2sie

Didn’t several people already answer your question? And you keep repeating it? Like what aren’t you getting?

Edited June 13, 2023 by JoPoy88

[mrags]

4 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

Didn’t several people already answer your question? And you keep repeating it? Like what aren’t you getting?

Actually nobody answered if Diggs signed his restructured deal. People actually didn’t confirm anything that was asked. Only the possibility of what could have happened. Thanks for your input again. I’m not sure what you aren’t getting by continuing to come back to this thread and not answer the question that was asked. But thanks again for playing. 

[JoPoy88]

4 minutes ago, mrags said:

Actually nobody answered if Diggs signed his restructured deal. People actually didn’t confirm anything that was asked. Only the possibility of what could have happened. Thanks for your input again. I’m not sure what you aren’t getting by continuing to come back to this thread and not answer the question that was asked. But thanks again for playing. 

Playing what? We’re playing the game of trying to explain something to you that you clearly can’t understand. So, you’re welcome?

[maddenboy]

3 hours ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:

 

He has to sign it as its a restructure of his contract and how he is paid.  

except, the contract itself can provide, for valuable consideration, that it is a team option to restructure. 

 

ex:  Addendum Q.  player herein agrees that CLUB may, at anytime and for any reason, with or without notice to Player, restructure the payments due under this contract, according to the following formula:

 

blah blah blah.

 

---

Phone call to Agent:  "hey Agent, just letting you know we're gonna go ahead and exercise Addendum Q.  We're gonna do it March 15.  We'll give you a reminder on the day before we do it.  Thanks buddy"

 

Agent: "thanks Beane.   We'll go ahead and announce that we have agreed to restructure"

 

Beane:  "sure.  fine.  whatever."   [even though technically, you 'agreed' to this when you signed the original contract]

 

Edited June 14, 2023 by maddenboy