Here Comes The Ugly: Packers Restructure Bakhtiari's Contract
In a widely anticipated maneuver, the Packers restructured David Bakhtiari's contract to reduce his cap number by $9.264 million. They reduced his base salary to the minimum (from $3.2M to $1.12M) and converted all of his $9.5M roster bonus while adding two void years. The total amount converted was $11.58M over 5 years.
The Packers left his $700K workout bonus alone, and did nothing with his $600K game active bonus, probably because he only played one game last year so only $35,294 counts against the cap as likely-to-be-earned. Note that when Bakhtiari plays his second game and every game after that, the Packers cap space will be reduced by that $35,294 figure immediately, not after the season.
Bakhtiari's new cap number will be $12.939M. The restructure kicks $9.264M into the out years of the contract and will add $2.316M to his cap numbers in 2023. Last year, the Packers converted Bakhtiari's $11.072M roster bonus to a signing bonus to free up $8.304M while adding $2.768M to his cap numbers in 2021 through 2024. The Packers did not add any void years to his deal last year.
Bakhtiari's original contract looked like this:
| YR | Base | SB | Roster | GA | WO | Cap | Dead | Save |
| 21 | 1.075M | 6.0M | 11.072M | .6M | .7M | 19.447M | ||
| 22 | 3.20M | 6.0M | 9.5M | .6M | .7M | 20.0M | 18.0M | 2.0M |
| 23 | 6.70M | 6.0M | 9.5M | .6M | .7M | 23.5M | 12.0M | 11.5M |
| 24 | 22.0M | 6.0M | .6M | .7M | 27.5M | 6M | 21.5M | |
Bakhtiairi's contract after two restructures that converted $22.57M and kicked $17.568M into the out years of the contract looks like this now:
| YR | Base | SB | Roster | Restr | GA | WO | Cap | Dead | Save |
| 21 | 6.052M | 9.2M | .5M | .5M | 16.252M | ||||
| 22 | 1.12M | 6.0M | 0 | 5.08M | .6M | .7M | 12.939M | 37.88M | (24.94M) |
| 23 | 6.70M | 6.0M | 9.5M | 5.08M | .6M | .7M | 28.58M | 26.80M | 1.78M |
| 24 | 20.2M | 6.0M | 0 | 5.08M | .6M | .7M | 32.58M | 15.71M | 16.86M |
| 25 | Void | 2.316M | 4.632M | 4.632M | |||||
| 26 | Void | 2.316M | 2.316M |
His dead money is now $37.88M, so he cannot be traded or released. Should the Packers desire to trade or release Bakhtiari in 2023, there would be less than $2M in cap relief if executed prior to the payment of his $9.5M roster bonus.
So far, the Packers have restructured the contracts of Kenny Clark, Aaron Jones, and David Bakhtiari. Here is a tracker:
| Player | Total Saved | 2023 | ||
| Bakhtiari | 9.264M | 2.316M | ||
| A. Jones | 3.05M | 763K | Likely all $3.05M hits 2023 cap | |
| K. Clark | 10.892M | 2.723M | ||
| TOTAL | 23.206M | $5.802M | ||
The underlined number is the one I am keeping an eye on. It would be nice if the cap for 2023 increases by more than the underlined number, which is the amount of cap the Packers pushed into the 2023 year so far. These restructures might not mean the release of current Packer players, though Aaron Jones is set up to be a cap casualty in 2023, but the moves that do not get made due to lack of cap space, or even the Packers shopping in a less expensive area of the market.
Losing any players in 2023 will be quite visible, but the moves that don't get made or the Unrestricted Free Agents from other teams who are not pursued due to a lack of cap space will be impossible to quantify or identify. I have seen estimates suggesting that the cap will increase in 2023 by anywhere from $12M to $20M. It looks like the moves the Packers make in the next three weeks will eat all of that increase and more.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Comments (46)
Coldworld
February 27, 2022 at 05:17 pm
As you said before, these aren’t pretty in isolation, but they will become hideous when aggregated. Well, with much more to come it’s already looking forbidding. Of course, math is frustratingly immutable and this was all foreseeable.
Not the most popular task for which to be the herald or the least distasteful to compile, but I for one much appreciate you doing so with such depth and clarity.
Pack88
February 27, 2022 at 06:15 pm
I liked the last analogy the best but one fact muddies up the equation- comparing it to a home owner who hopes that his salary will increase- the cap will double over the life of the CBA so who cares. Eventually GB will hit a dry spell and you bite the bullet when you do. This is a juggling act and you have to go till the balls start to drop! Astute drafters can push this off quite a while as long as you don't miss on a QB. We will see where the failure occurs!!
Thegreatreynoldo
February 27, 2022 at 08:51 pm
Correct. The Packers FO would not be doing this if it were doomed to fail miserably. Of course this plan can work out for the Packers, depending on one's definition. For me, getting to a Super Bowl would be success. Winning a Lombardi would be icing on the cake.
I can take two years sorting the cap later.
No question, good drafting will solve a lot of other problems. It should solve all problems unless the GM makes a habit of signing Haynesworth and Johnson types in free agency.
Navigating article 12 to guess how much the cap might increase is so difficult. I do think it is going to increase, probably double. However, it looks like the big increases won't hit until 2024 and really 2025. Remember, the owner loaned money to the cap in 2021 and will be repaid in 2022, 23 and 24. So for those years the cap will be artificially suppressed - by how much, no one seems to know or report. My guess was $40M over three years, so the cap should be $13M more in each of those years than it will end up actually being. 2025 is the first year that won't be suppressed, and we can see what the natural increases due to the big TV deals result in as to the cap.
murf7777
February 28, 2022 at 07:32 am
TGR….if you don’t win the SB its will be a similar disappointment to losing the NFL Champ game. Yes, I would also like to get to the sB, but the feelings in a loss won’t make it better for me. I suppose we could ask our friends up North for their opinion:)
Guam
February 28, 2022 at 08:08 am
I read an interesting article in the local Madison (WI) newspaper this morning - it was an interview with Gutekunst. Gute stated that he believes the first significant increase in the cap from the new television contract will occur in 2023 with additional increases over the next several years. He did not forecast a specific amount of increase for 2023, but he clearly stated that the 2023 increase will help cover some of the restructured deals he is doing today. If he is correct, that will give the Packers more room to push money into 2023 than we (CHTV commenters) previously thought possible.
Thegreatreynoldo
March 01, 2022 at 03:18 am
Yes, that is widely expected. The new TV deal for Thursday Night games and some ancillary deals goes into effect for the 2022 season, IIRC, and then that revenue will be used to calculate the 2023 salary cap.
The big deals (Sunday Afternoon, night, Monday night) go into effect during the 2023 season. The revenue from that deal will be used to calculate the 2024 salary cap. So, an increase (I hope it looks like a leap) for 2023 and then a leap in 2024 or failing that, 2025.
Coldworld
February 28, 2022 at 10:22 am
“Correct. The Packers FO would not be doing this” IF THEY THOUGHT “it were doomed to fail miserably.”
Remarkable deference to leadership in the modern world and one also seemingly contrary to the last decade of Packer history specifically.
Thegreatreynoldo
March 01, 2022 at 03:26 am
I suppose so. The other main possibility is keeping their jobs. I wasn't in a cynical mood, I guess.
I think Gute's original contract was for four years, so he is up for renewal. I suspect he has already been renewed or they are talking about it. [Check Spotrac's NFL free agents for 2023 and they list Gute.]
Per Rapoport's original tweet, LaFleur signed for four years with an option for a fifth year and Pelisero indicated that it was a team option.
I remember when GB extended McCarthy so he wouldn't be a "lame duck" but did not announce it until later. MM was still a lame duck and it looked like a golden parachute to me, but I don't care too much about GB's profit.
murf7777
February 28, 2022 at 07:27 am
Hey for those who hated TT and wanted “all-in” for the past three years this is what it looks like. After they signed the big 4 FA’s three years ago and signing Arod to a big contract I projected this salary cap hell. Many on this site disagreed. Many will use the COVID as an excuse to why the SC is so bad, but that’s only partially the problem, even without the reduction of SC due to Covid they would still be in SC hell. Even thou they hit on all 4 FA’s it still didn’t do the job.
I personally loved the way TT and management ran the team in the past. Take an occasional big FA, but stay true to draft and develop and always stay above the SC line. My only complaint with them is they didn’t go after some “value” FA, Ala Patriots more often.
splitpea1
February 27, 2022 at 05:39 pm
I'm generally not too astute at comprehending these things, but yes, it looks like we're opting to put the franchise in medieval shackles for the foreseeable future.
Fubared
February 27, 2022 at 05:59 pm
This is simple. You owe 200 k on your house on a 20 year loan. You want money for a boat (Adams), clothes for the kids( mvs, bakh), new truck ( Amos, Douglas, Campbell). Your wife says she may leave you (Rodgers) if you dont start spending money on these things. So you go to the bank and take out a new mortgage for 30 years. Your hoping for a pay increase to make the payments ( cap increase).
Now your in bigger debt for a longer period. Longer then the life of truck, boat, carpeting. All will wear out but your debt will still be there.
Doesn't sound like a plan does it.
MainePackFan
February 27, 2022 at 06:48 pm
Pretty good analogy if the Packers were your every day household. Unlike we common folk, the Packers have plenty of money to buy whatever they want and pay cash.
The difference is, unlike the Packers, we don't have a government (NFL) imposed spending limit.
The Packers know that the government (NFL) will raise the Debt (Cap) limit the same way our "real government" does. That's just a fact.
The $h*T hits the fan when the value of our dollar can no longer sustain the insanity of professional sports. Only then will it matter what the Green Bay Packers spend on Aaron Rodgers.
Thegreatreynoldo
February 27, 2022 at 09:04 pm
I agree with all of this. The long-term financial health of the NFL looks downright rosy (through 2033, barring some nasty lawsuits or a tragedy on the field). The Packers will make money.
The Packers cap issues are probably short-term: 2022, 23, and 24. The cap should increase in 2024 and jump in 2025, but I could be wrong about the timing or wrong altogether. Getting accurate numbers is very difficult and perhaps impossible.
The Owners and the Union can alter the formula in the CBA at any time. Raising the salary cap limit by definition decreases the profits of the owners. It could be that the owners are making so much that some adjustment is reasonable, or keeping labor peace is worth it since the Owners even with concessions are still making lots of money.
Not all franchises are rolling in dough. That said, the owners of those franchises are likely to receive excellent overall compensation when the sell the team, assuming no lawsuits or on the field tragedies.
Coldworld
February 28, 2022 at 08:46 am
“ The Packers cap issues are probably short-term: 2022, 23, and 24” and maybe in 2025 at the rate we are going.
So our cap issues end after the period for which it is mooted that we might retain Rodgers. That’s the pin to the bubble.
Thegreatreynoldo
March 01, 2022 at 03:32 am
Unless somehow the Packers remain playoff contenders for a longer period of time. That could be because AR remains an elite QB for a longer period and wants to continue to play, Love is indeed the answer, or they have some great drafts.
The bubble is simply when the expectations lower enough to address the cap problems.
Koepk
February 27, 2022 at 08:52 pm
What you are missing is that the cap space is going up a lot in the future with the new media contract- so the pack will be able to handle all of this. The other part of your analogy- you can always sell your house with appreciation and then downsize. Rodgers is really the house not the wife. You redo the mortgage on him and eventually you will have to sell and move on-
Coldworld
February 28, 2022 at 10:23 am
The cap space will go up a lot in the future, which is good, because if you read what TGR (and other analysts) have explained, we are already well on the way to having spent that increase into 2025 through void years. The other thing to point out is that player costs rise proportionally with these increases. After last time, the players negotiated an increased share for this round as well, which likely increases that effect.
Starrbrite
February 28, 2022 at 12:30 am
It’s the American way.
barutanseijin
February 28, 2022 at 06:16 pm
Said a famous economist once: in the long run, we’re all dead.
Money in all its forms is just a way to get things done.
thequick12
March 01, 2022 at 02:28 pm
Except when the cap is likely going to increase by a record amount, then its a calculated risk
jhtobias
February 27, 2022 at 06:56 pm
Ya not sure why fans worry about the cap more than management but whatever.. I say heck let's cut everyone then we will have a very low cap number with only rookies and free agents playing that should make everyone happy.
You want elite players you have to pay elite salaries and know these players should not take pay cuts as they should get paid as the market allows .
Well if Gutey, murphy, Lafluer are willing to work for 50 percent below market value than they would have ammo to talk to players seeking top dollar until then they should zip it .
Qoojo
February 27, 2022 at 07:21 pm
People worry about the cap because it can limit FA signings. Then the dead money can really screw over a team if the player is no longer on the team.
Coldworld
February 28, 2022 at 08:40 am
And these deals make it harder to lose players who no longer are able to play up to their contract, due to acceleration on retirement.
canadapacker
February 27, 2022 at 08:33 pm
There is one thing that people need to know - first there is the CAP and there is the team profit. Now GB the team will always turn a profit because they always sell out. But what is the value of a playoff game - both to the team and to Green Bay the city. Well the NFL gets the playoff game gate receipts but Green Bay the city and the team get ALL the other revenue - hotels parking concessions etc etc which is big bucks - so take the average season game and if one gets the number 1 seed and wins that first game - that is 20% or so. So when the team cuts winners due to being over the Cap then the team will not make the playoffs - so there may be one or two games worth of profit down the tube. I think that the biggest issue here is that the Pack is number 28 in the least amount of dead cap money - and that is a big deal.
stockholder
February 27, 2022 at 09:06 pm
I would have dumped him. I say he's washed up. Injuries take their toll. He will never be the all- pro Lt we so dearly loved.
The_Baloney_Stops_Here
February 28, 2022 at 01:26 pm
It wouldve cost a ridiculous amount in dead cap money to get rid of him and all of it wouldve accelerated into this year's cap had they done so. The smart move is to bring him back and hope he returns to form. He'll get the money either way so they might as well try to get something in return.
Crockett3663
February 27, 2022 at 10:13 pm
While I'm pleased to hear all of this, I won't truly be happy until the man himself, Aaron Rodgers, agrees to re-work HIS deal!! He wants this player and that player, and yet he's not the least bit interested in ponying up some money to sign these guys. Instead, he's watching one teammate after another giving up much of THEIR hard earned money to help the organization while he sits there, offers NOTHING, and then bitches when the front office is handcuffed by the league and the players union with contract details.
BirdDogUni
February 27, 2022 at 11:22 pm
Lol... They aren't giving up money. None of them. They're just converting it from salary to signing bonuses to get around the cap. SMH
Minniman
February 28, 2022 at 02:24 am
Not quite.
TGR has been through the details of this previously in his cap tutorial posts, but basically, when a player gets cut the base salary is the only large number that evaporates with the 'cut'. Roster, signing and workout bonuses can be amortized (spread) over the life of the contract while a player is still playing for a team (making them cap friendly numbers) - but as soon as a player is cut, these numbers become payable in entirety in the next cap year.... and they're normally fully guaranteed.......... so the team has to pay the player AND account for the number.
Players actually LOVE these deals --> more guaranteed money for them.
TarynsEyes
February 27, 2022 at 11:31 pm
Selling your tomorrows is a risk that needs to be done at times, but how many and how secure is the return on that selling of tomorrows.
The FO is selling a lot of tomorrows to retain a product that has suffered a production collapse too often. It's like buying a used car today for a cost that is severely over its real value and you can't fix it when it breaks down.
Starrbrite
February 28, 2022 at 12:33 am
Take the kids on a vacation you can’t afford…
Johnblood27
February 28, 2022 at 07:19 am
...and to level out the economics, leave them there when you come home...
Coldworld
February 28, 2022 at 08:58 am
Hypothetically, if one could retain exactly the roster and coaching staff (other than Drayton) from last year, what chance would you give the Packers of winning it all?
That’s really the only question that matters here. If you think it’s a good enough chance, then maybe putting the future severely in hock could be worth it. Then consider that we will lose some key pieces (Campbell, Z) and will be less deep.
I do not think the result is likely to justify the investment. I know some differ, fair enough, I don’t see it. Therefore I do not believe the very real price that we will pay for the gamble is even remotely worth it. By the time the cap rises outweigh what we’ve already committed it’s almost certain Rodgers is retired.
TarynsEyes
February 28, 2022 at 09:43 am
"Hypothetically, if one could retain exactly the roster and coaching staff (other than Drayton) from last year, what chance would you give the Packers of winning it all?"
I give them less and less a chance each time the same is put on the field. What amazes me is how so many here speak to the need to change this and that elsewhere, and they believe keeping the same will change what has been repeated more than once, twice, three times not a charm.
The base structure of this team is being weakened by the restructuring of a base team that will need replacing ASAP after this season. Spending so much future money to save what' has passed is foolish at best, and the three recent losses need to be put to rest, not resurrected again, and again.
Minniman
February 28, 2022 at 02:30 am
It's the equal gamble to betting on the draft year-in-year-out
Not that I'm diminishing it though.
Bakh's contract worries me though - I was expecting him to play last year.
Coldworld
February 28, 2022 at 09:04 am
Shareholder is right. There is a legitimate chance that Bakh is either not the player he was or isn’t as resilient and able to be healthy as much. He is highly reliant on mobility and always has been, that’s a risk on older linemen anyway. That’s not inevitable, but it’s a significant gamble and one we could be paying for well after he has gone now.
barutanseijin
February 28, 2022 at 06:21 pm
That was not a reasonable expectation. He’s a big guy, not a receiver or a running back.
croatpackfan
February 28, 2022 at 05:20 am
TGR, can you please explain what cap hit will be this new deal with David Bakhtiari if David never recover to the ability to play football at NFL level, and be forced to retire during 2022 or at the beginning of 2023. When that cap amount hit the Packers Salary Cap? I believe that many counts how David is one months away of playing football again. What worries me is that nobody knows (by his own words here on CHTV) why he still have so much problems with healing.
What if Packers had to keep him on the roster to lower his cap hit and thus he will take one usefull position from some young promising player. Basically, Packers will have 52 players on the roster, instead of 53.
Thegreatreynoldo
March 01, 2022 at 04:15 am
Keep an eye on the $9.5M roster bonus due on the 3rd day of the 2023 league year and whether it gets paid, deferred, or Bakh removes it. It is not guaranteed, so the Packers have to decide whether to pay it before the new league year.
If he can't play this year (2022) and elects to retire, or GB decides to move on, GB can release him in February of 2023 (after this year's super bowl), take a $26.8M dead money hit, but his cap number is so large that the release would still generate $1.78M in cap relief.
If he can't play and elects to retire, Bakh has a good relationship with GB: I'd bet he defers payment of the $9.5M until June 4th or so (or otherwise agrees not to ever receive that money), and retires on June 2. That would split the dead money into two years: $11.08M in 2023 and $15.6M in 2024. That scenario yields $17.5M in cap savings for GB in 2023 and a dead money hit of $15.6M in 2024.
croatpackfan
March 01, 2022 at 07:22 am
Thank you. I really appreciate this answer...
Johnblood27
February 28, 2022 at 07:25 am
Lets keep this simple...
If you pay it, you cap it. Thanks Vic.
Bonus money does NOT count against the cap UNLESS YOU PAY IT. That is why roster bonus dates are cut or keep dates.
Signing bonus money is ALL PAID UP FRONT, with the cap hit amortized over the length of the contract, it is all capped, but only in the year it is allocated to, UNLESS the player is cut and his contract is accelerated (needs to be paid off and capped), so all of the signing bonus money is capped when the contract is off the books. This can be placed into 2 years instead of 1 IF the player is cut on or after June 1.
TGR, if I have misspoke please correct me.
murf7777
February 28, 2022 at 07:39 am
You guarantee it, you capped it.
Thegreatreynoldo
March 01, 2022 at 04:00 am
Sounds good.
@Murf: Guaranteed money in the future (has not yet been paid) can be traded, otherwise it generally is going to count, except for retirements. That is, if GB guaranteed a base salary in 2024 for a player but traded that player in 2023 (thus never paid it out), the acquiring team would have to account for that on their cap and actually make the payment.
If a player has future guaranteed money but gets hurt and can't play, that is going to count. If he retires, usually that won't count against the cap because it won't be paid, but the team might pay the player anyway and have it count against the cap. It depends on why the money was guaranteed. Teams don't always try to get signing bonus prorations back for future years if a player retires if the signing bonus was really in lieu of salary for a season in which the player actually played.
murf7777
March 01, 2022 at 06:35 am
Thanks for the clarification…..I’d say on a trade you basically still capped it as the team who gets the player puts it into their cap, thus creating a negative value within the trade.
PeteK
February 28, 2022 at 10:06 am
If we cut/trade Zadarious and trade Rodgers and other players(Cobb, Burks etc) , we will be under the cap and able to sign most of our valuable free agents and draft picks. Bak is with us for two more seasons, in 2024 we could cut him with a 15 mill cap hit but save 16 mill, a post June 1 2024 release could save us 21 mill but cap hits 11mill in 24 , 5mill in 25. The real damage could occur by extending older very expensive veterans Rodgers/Adams with large future contracts and having worse results without some players that helped us this past season. It's time for a change/gamble, and if Love doesn't work out in 2022 a veteran free agent could in 2023. The Niners were 20-17 loss away from a SB with Jimmy G at QB, Titans, Colts, Steelers, and eagles made the playoffs with poor QBs.
canadapacker
March 01, 2022 at 12:40 pm
You obviously didnt read my post from up above. Without AR as QB1 - we will not make the playoffs - not only this upcoming season but for a few more seasons after . With AR we will probably have at least 1 home playoff game and likely 2 - and if it is a 2 year deal as reported maybe more. Over the past 3 years we have had 5 home playoff games. Now there is the CAP - which is a league rule and there are home playoff games - Now the amount of money in a home playoff game ( minus the lack of fans issue due to Covid) is pretty good both for the team - concession and parking etc - and the City ( and it is hard to believe that some of that money doesnt flow back from GB the city to the team). So when one looks at the financials - one needs to look at ALL the impacts not just the CAP. Now despite what people are saying about AR's declining skills - that has NOT been shown on the field - arm strength has still been good as well as his mobility. And he has had 3 less hard years on his body than Brady Peyton Rivers and Brees. And PS I am not a fan of his antivaxxing BS nor the leak last year - and I think that he can be kind of arrogant at times - but I am not a fan of Jennings spouting off either.