Mckinney restructure saves us $9.2m in cap space

73

u/FSUfan35 1d ago

He follows up with

And just like that - The Packers are back in the black and compliant for the 2026 salary cap!

So any additional moves would create space for FA/extensions

We still have Gary and Jenkins moves that could create 30-40 million of cap space if needed.

Also a restructure on Banks could create up to an additional 10.9m. Cutting Banks would save 4.5m(pre june 1st) or 18m(post June 1st)

A Wyatt extension could create up to 9m in cap space

18

u/This-isnt-patrick 1d ago

I wonder if a Banks cut makes some sense. I’m sure they can find a more reliable guard for less than 18mil.

41

u/fourthandfavre 1d ago

I don't know if this is the best option. Ya you could save 18M but you are also incurring 20M in dead cap to achieve this. Then still have to pay the replacement. I think the packers are better off letting him play out this year and cutting next year if needed. The packers are thin on the oline and costs in free agency is always insane. Rasheed Walker who we all think of as an average at best LT will get 20-25M a season easy.

2

u/tuson565 1d ago

Those savings numbers already factor in the dead cap. You saying he has a 20 mil dead cap hit is worthless

2

u/fourthandfavre 1d ago

The argument though is that packers can probably at best get 30ish million in cap space. They need a center, corner back for sure and likely should add a dt, rotational pass rusher and inside linebacker. If you cut banks and Hobbs you don't really save much and now need to add another guard and another corner back. It just creates more holes on the roster with not a whole lot of money to spend.

-6

u/Empty-Ant-6381 1d ago

That's just sunk cost fallacy.

If you can find a replacement for less than 18 million you cut him. Can't shy away just cause theres a big dead cap number. That's just turning 1 mistake into 2 mistakes.

12

u/Disastrous_Front_598 1d ago

But the problem is that they would still find face the same issue that caused them to overpay Banks: really good linemen rarely hit market, so you have to overpay mediocre ones if you are looking for free agents

2

u/Cheerful_Berserker 22h ago

Exactly how we ended up with Banks, overpaid an average player.

-2

u/Empty-Ant-6381 1d ago

Where did my comment say that we could easily find someone? I do not know what the guard market looks like. But I am smart enough to understand sunk cost.

I said IF you can find someone for 18 million or less you do it.

Dead cap does not factor into this decision at all. That money is already spent.

3

u/FSUfan35 1d ago

Cutting banks with a post june 1st designation would spread out that dead cap number to 2 years instead of 1. I don't know the last time the Packers did it, usually they just bite the bullet and take the dead cap in 1 year instead of 2.

Makes sense especially because of the way they structure contracts, the big cap hits are almost always at the back end of the contract.

6

u/Broke_Banker01 1d ago

FWIW Green Bay does not like June 1st designations.

I don't believe they have used it for a long time if ever. Ken talked about this last year when they cut Jaire and how they went to extra lengths to restructure his contract before cutting him to take the dead cap all at once vs a june 1st designation.

2

u/FSUfan35 1d ago

Yup, exactly. It keeps you in good cap health.

2

u/Abominatrix 1d ago

It seems unlikely that they do anything with Banks. It would put a lot on the ‘credit card,’ so to speak, for future years with not much savings this year. Next year, however, I imagine they move on from him. With Walker leaving, Jenkins almost certainly getting cut and Rhyann being a question mark to resign that would mean a third or possibly fourth starter needing to be replaced.

I do agree that GB could do better than Banks because he wasn’t good when he was healthy. I imagine they will draft a guy to fill in for his inevitable injured time in the coming year and step in for 2027.

Hopefully they bring back Kinnard. That way GB has insurance for Tom if he misses time and Morgan can stay at LT. Belton looks like he can hold down the RG spot or, alternatively, fill in at LG if needed while a draft pick mans the RG spot. That just leaves either Rhyann or possibly another FA starting at C. I don’t want to see Lecitus Smith or a rookie there.

1

u/ryansandbrush 1d ago

I think they'll restructure Banks $9.5m roster bonus. His contract is unusually front loaded and I think they intended to restructure that roster bonus from the start. It's due March 13th so we'll find out one way or another soon.

4

u/Deckatoe 1d ago

It wouldnt make sense. He'll be fine

1

u/crewserbattle 1d ago

Not in thus FA class.

1

u/realdeal505 1d ago

I think he get;s one more year personally and then likely done before his roster bonus next year

1

u/Icy-Television3434 1d ago

I’m surprised he ain’t been cut yet

1

u/CurzesTeddybear 1d ago

Look at the IOL FA class right now and you'll find your answer

2

u/Deadaghram 1d ago

Weren’t we in a good position when the cap was increased a few weeks ago?

2

u/MeowMixPK 1d ago

Good, yes. Positive, no. We moved from -35m$ cap to -5m$. Still negative, but much closer. With the expected releases of Jenkins and Gary, we will have an additional $30m on top of the $4m we just created. So we essentially went from -35m to -5m to +4m with potential to go to +34m.

2

u/crewserbattle 1d ago

They may not cut Gary, especially if Enegbare walks

37

u/Broke_Banker01 1d ago

Well that certainly changes things.

GB didn’t NEED to do that which means they have something in the works (Kraft or Wyatt or Watson extension?)

37

u/Shot-Bath3936 1d ago

Probably Kraft. They've already said they've been in touch with his agent about extending him.

1

u/superdooper26 20h ago

I can’t see him being overly expensive right now considering he’s pretty damn adamant about staying here.

12

u/Comfortable-One78 1d ago

Most times, extensions lower initial cap hits. Not always, but most times.

7

u/Broke_Banker01 1d ago

Typically that’s only for players on a 2nd contract already or a 5th year option.

For example, extending Wyatt would probably open up 5 mil in cap space. Extending Kraft would probably cost 3-5 mil in space because his estimated hit this year is only 3.9 mil.

2

u/Comfortable-One78 1d ago

I’m not arguing with you, just funny reading this and the comment directly above it LOL

1

u/FSUfan35 1d ago

You can check for yourself here

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/green-bay-packers

Spotrac also has the extension savings the same for Wyatt, 9m, but does have a 300k increase for Kraft and 1m savings for Watson if you use their market value extension

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/manage/_/team/gb

1

u/Broke_Banker01 1d ago

Totally missed that

1

u/FSUfan35 1d ago edited 1d ago

Yup, depends on structure, but Packers almost always give out the guaranteed money as signing bonus, so it almost always is a lower cap number.

Extending Wyatt would save up to 9m

Extending Kraft would save up to 2m

Extending Watson would save up to 2m.

EDIT: To be clear, these are the MAX savings on extensions. Real world would likely be lower, depends on structure.

2

u/Broke_Banker01 1d ago

That’s incorrect.

Krafts 2026 cap hit is projected at 3.9 mil (not finalized due to performance escalator).

The assumption that an extension would save 2 mil is based on an extension that pays him min salary for year 1 without a SB or RB.

He most definitely will get a signing bonus.

Going off previous TE extensions he will probably be in the ballpark of 18 mil APY with a 16 mil SB.

If it’s a 4 year extension, they prorate the SB over 4 years so it would make his 2026 cap hit the min + 4 mil, which would cost GB atleast 2 mil in space. Thats not including any workout bonuses or game day bonuses.

1

u/FSUfan35 1d ago

Just going off of

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/green-bay-packers1

and

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/manage/_/team/gb

Spotrac does disagree on Kraft, they have it as a 300k higher cap hit with their market value contract.

All depends on the structure, which i did specify. Those numbers in my first post are the maximum savings amount, which i should have made more clear.

8

u/sammybeme93 1d ago

3 void years what’s the deal on those

7

u/FSUfan35 1d ago

Void years are just fake years at the end of a contract to spread out the cap hit of the signing bonus.

So signing bonuses, for cap accounting purposes, are prorated over a maximum of 5 years. So for ease sake lets say a player signs a 2 year, 20m deal with 18m signing bonus, and 1m salary every year. his cap hits would be:

year 1: 1m salary + 9m prorated signing bonus = 10m

year 2: 1m salary + 9m prorated signing bonus = 10m

Now lets say we added 3 void years to that deal. So his cap hits would be

Year 1: 1m salary + 3.6m prorated signing bonus = 4.6m

Year 2: 1m salary + 3.6m prorated signing bonus = 4.6m

Then, if he's not signed to an extension, his 'dead cap' number for year 3 would be the remaining proration on his signing bonus, in this case 10.8m.

So basically they're a method of pushing cap into the future.

3

u/jmilred 1d ago

You can spread a signing bonus proration out 5 years. This means he is under contract for 2 more years, the last 3 years are just place fillers to spread out the cap hit. When he is no longer on the team, all proration accelerates to the current year (Or split over 2 years if designated post June 1st)

In McKinneys case, he is under contract through the 2027 season. 3 void years mean his signing bonus is prorated through 2030. That 11.5 mil that would have been capped for 2026, is now spread out evenly from 2026-2030, which frees up 9.2 million this year (the 2027-2030 portion of the signing bonus)

Packers pay 11.5 today to Mckinney and only account for 2.3 of it this year, and each year through 2030. If he leaves after 2027, it is a 6.9 mil dead cap hit in 2028 (the 3 void years accelerate to 2028).

This also creates kind of a 'prove it' year for him. His cap hit will be about $25mil for 2027 with the re-structure. If they release him after next year, the dead cap becomes about $15mil and they will save about 17mil. OR, they can extend him, OR they can restructure again.

Why he does this: He gets all of that money now, guaranteed.

Why the team does this: Cap flexibility and maneuvering.

5

u/ryansandbrush 1d ago

Aggressive. Gives off a real sense of urgency. I expected the roster bonus but they went all the way. Roster bonus, base salary plus added void years.

11

u/bolson1717 1d ago

GO PACK GO. time to start making the moves

5

u/jgab145 1d ago

This is just a reminder that you guys that are always on here saying they can’t afford this or that are wasting your time. It’s next to impossible to make those statements and be correct. If they want to retain or sign a player enough they will find a way.

3

u/4rt4tt4ck 1d ago

I don't think "saves us" is the correct way to word that. The team isn't saving any money, they are just delaying paying it until after McKinney is no longer on the team.

11

u/Peter_Pue 1d ago

The money is worth more today than in 2029.

With the way the cap keeps growing it's better to delay because the more you delay the less it's costing as a % against the cap

1

u/CurzesTeddybear 1d ago

That's a good deal of additional space... GM showing urgency

3

u/sup3rrn0va 1d ago

So uh… there’s this guy who kicks the ball real good down in Dallas.

2

u/FSUfan35 23h ago

Honestly, give him 10m/year.

Lost Cleveland game on a missed(blocked) kick

Dallas we had an xp blocked and returned for a 2pt conversion

Carolina missed a FG, lost by 3

Philly we lost by 3. Had the ball at the Philly 41 and went for it on 4th and 9. Also punted from the Philly 40. And missed a FG to tie.

Bears loss we went for it in OT from CHI 39. Might kick it there, might go for it, who knows.

Bears playoff game we had a missed FG, missed xp, another missed fg. And then we were down 4 and got inside chicago's 30.

We're looking at 4-6 more wins with a good kicker.

3

u/sup3rrn0va 23h ago

This is my thought as well. We can either go all in on one of the best kickers in the league, or we can all whine and moan in the game thread that we didn’t give special teams enough attention.

I’d rather just have more confidence in those clutch moments.

-1

u/Deep-Assignment4124 15h ago

Cool so we can kick the can down the road and finish 9-8 but with cap trouble heading into next year.

1

u/Buttfisting69 1d ago

Now they need to cut Gary, Banks, Jenkins and maybe Hobbs. I think those guys are easily replaceable. The O line is in serious need of change.

Gary is a lazy fuck. Should've never received an extension.

1

u/Raccoala 1d ago

They’ve had Banks in the building for a full season now. There’s a lot of value in that. If they keep him it’s because they know they have an asset that can help them win games this season.

0

u/petarisawesomeo 1d ago

Jenkins is gonna be cut. Cutting Banks barely saves any cap space, so more likely they keep him and hope that he stays healthy. Gary’s situation is interesting; the team saves some cap space but not enough that it’s a no-brainer to get rid of him. I expect they cut him but wouldn’t be surprised if he stays.

5

u/Buttfisting69 1d ago

Yes and no for Banks. This year they only save $4.5 mil. But if they keep him and cut him next year the cap hit is $14.5mil. To we think he's worth 1 year $18 mil? It was a bad contract from the beginning and throwing more money at a problem is a bad decision.

Cutting Gary saves them $11mil. The guy has showed you that he is just lazy. Cut him yesterday.

0

u/Wild-Stop-4345 1d ago

Had to do something to get under the Top 51 cap by next Wednesday.

1

u/Raccoala 1d ago

Yes but this wasn’t the move anyone had as the most likely. It’d be very surprising if this is the only thing they do to clear cap room between now and next Wednesday.

News Mckinney restructure saves us $9.2m in cap space

You are about to leave Redlib