Random Salary Cap Musings and Questions

[The Cooler King]

The lineman thread was getting off course, so I think it makes sense to just have a separate thread for salary cap questions, as well as my musings

@dplank

Follow up question lol: We redid Mack last year to make space. Is Mack now no longer an option for us to use to create space again?

Short answer: up to 13.144M. Long answer below for anyone who wants to know the mechanics.

Most obvious place to defer some 2022 cap space for Mack is a 5.5M roster bonus he has which becomes due March 11. Without any extra void years, it can be restructed over 4 years @ 1.375M, opening up 4.125M space in 2022 and increasing the cap hit for 2023-2025 @ 1.375 per year. There is no real risk to this IMO, and I think its a no brainer move, personally.

If they can add an additional void year, they can spread it over 5 years, opening up 4.4M in 2022 and increase cap hits of 1.1M in 2023 & 2024 and 2.2M in 2025*

He also has a 12.05M base salary, that is unguaranteed. Teams don't typically like to restructure unguaranteed salaries, but you can. Once week 1 starts however most veteran contracts become fully guaranteed. You saw a lot of teams restructure contracts like this during the year this year. The Bears notably did it with about half of Quinn's base salary this year to give them extra breathing room, about half of which they did end up needing for in season moves.

If the Bears did restructure the full base salary of 12.05M they could defer 8.197M (no extra void years) or 8.744 (add max void years). To be clear, that can be done in addition to the roster restructure mentioned above. Keep in mind if you do these moves in season you lose 1/18 of your ability each week as weekly salary is paid and can then no longer be converted.

*NOTE. Any void years after the final contract year automatically vest (unless extended,) in the year after the last contract year. Right now Mack's last contract year is 2023 and he already has a void year in 2024, but they can add void years only with the player's approval, as its considered an extension. A normal restructure can normally be done without a players approval if they have "automatic conversion" language, which I understand most veteran contracts do. Automatic conversion language is not allowed in rookie scale contracts FWIW. So you rarely see rookie scale restructures, FYI.

[The Cooler King]

As a follow onto that, I want to address risk/downside of these restructures.

The immediate reaction is often that the team has reduced spending power with these restructures. This is functionally, basically true, but the really technical answer is that until the team goes use the space it doesn't really cost anything, it literally just defers the cap hit, and with the cap's rollover feature, you could actually defer the cap hit, not spend the money, and the rollover will offset the future deferred hits. This is why I state above that I see a Mack bonus restructure as a no-brainer. Might as well create the space on March 11, because after March 12, its too late. And you'd rather create the space and not use it, then want the space and not be able to access it later.

What is the minimal risk of restructures? Restructuring base salaries. The first downside scenario is that in a trade, the other team would absorb base salaries. As soon as you convert salary to a bonus, you will absorb the cap hit in a trade. However, as we saw with the Rams-Broncos trade of Von Miller, the Broncos ate salary so that the Rams could fit it in their cap, and they likely got much better picks than they otherwise would have: turning cap space into draft picks.

So if you were of mind to trade Mack or Quinn, it is a nice bargaining chip you have, though its likely a chip you want to hold in your back pocket for negotiations. "Okay, I know you don't wanna part with the extra pick, but how about I eat 8M of salary and get this done". So that's the one downside. The other downside is restructuring unguaranteed money and then being in a position where you end up cutting the player. Where before you would have gotten out of the non-guaranteed portion, now you are stuck eating that cap money, for nothing.

[The Marshall Plan]

As of right now we are $42.8M under the cap for next season with 32 players under contract.

We have $47M in cap space tied up at OLB between Mack and Quinn.

EJax is a bargain bin player at $15M.

So Pace gave us a nice middle finger for next season.

I then released Foles, Dalton and Cohen to get another $5.25M in savings.

But otherwise not sure what else can be done. You can restructure contracts, but there is no free lunch.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/chicago-bears/cap/2022/

[Z Bear]

You can't release Dalton, that is just a dead cap hit from this year. He is one of 6 players who have dead cap hits next year but will not be on the team. There are only 26 players signed that will be with the team next year. That number will go up to about 40 when they sign the practice squad to futures contracts and then tender guys like Mustipher, Bars, and Hosted who are exclusive rights free agents that just need to be tendered at league minimum since they were UDFAs.

[The Cooler King]

As of right now we are $42.8M under the cap for next season with 32 players under contract.

We have $47M in cap space tied up at OLB between Mack and Quinn.

EJax is a bargain bin player at $15M.

So Pace gave us a nice middle finger for next season.

I then released Foles, Dalton and Cohen to get another $5.25M in savings.

But otherwise not sure what else can be done. You can restructure contracts, but there is no free lunch.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/chicago-bears/cap/2022/

While it's true there's no free lunch the Bears are in a pretty flexible position to restructure or backload. I haven't updated in a couple months as it's a little tedious to pull the data, but the Bears were ranked 14 as far as their total future dead hits and guaranteed contracts. However outside of the like top 5 teams it's all pretty closely bunched and there isn't significant difference. So they have some comfort to backload and defer space. Should help that most of their FA in the next two years really don't include a ton of huge losses, despite the large volume. Several positions have ready to go young replacements. It's definitely manageable.

Pace giving the finger would have been saddling us with tons of multi year commitments. As it stands he neither totally rebooted (duh), but nor did he go all in. They really kind of operated like the mid-road team they've been the last several years.

[The Cooler King]

As an additional fyi, when looking at projected spending, at least look at "Effective" Cap space. This helps account for those open roster spots that need to be filled by allocating a minimum salary hold. Directionally accross teams things stay pretty stable, but is all things considered a better number.

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/

Obviously there's tons of flexibility past "available space", but it's the better number to use. Right now Bears have 28M in available effective space. Again, though, their future liabilities are such that they can definitely defer some and still maintain a healthy position. The thing is there's definitely diminishing returns once you start freeing up excess amounts of money. All else being the same I'd probably prefer to spend a constant stream each year in New money rather than have huge cycles where I have like 70% of the cap open as free space.

[Moriarty]

What is the minimal risk of restructures? Restructuring base salaries. The first downside scenario is that in a trade, the other team would absorb base salaries. As soon as you convert salary to a bonus, you will absorb the cap hit in a trade. However, as we saw with the Rams-Broncos trade of Von Miller, the Broncos ate salary so that the Rams could fit it in their cap, and they likely got much better picks than they otherwise would have: turning cap space into draft picks.

So if you were of mind to trade Mack or Quinn, it is a nice bargaining chip you have, though its likely a chip you want to hold in your back pocket for negotiations. "Okay, I know you don't wanna part with the extra pick, but how about I eat 8M of salary and get this done". So that's the one downside. The other downside is restructuring unguaranteed money and then being in a position where you end up cutting the player. Where before you would have gotten out of the non-guaranteed portion, now you are stuck eating that cap money, for nothing.

YES

And this is exactly what the Bears should be trying in 22 (& maybe 23) - "selling" players & cap space for picks.
Whitehair, Jackson, Goldman, Mack, Quinn, and maybe Foles ought to be prominent considerations.
I'm not sure which ones they've restructured out of possibility.

[dplank]

Quinn has been an up and down player his whole career it seems. He has 5 years with under 6 sacks, and 5 years with over 10. We've seen him in two years have 2 sacks, then 18. Playing the odds here, I'd sell high on Quinn. Mack I'd keep, we'd be selling low on him. Whitehair I'm on the fence on, Goldman I'd flat out cut if we can't find a trade for him. I like him but he's fallen off and isn't worth what he's paid. EJax has played well lately and I think will have a very strong year next year.

[Grizzled]

I'd explore what Mack and Quinn would bring in trades. Most likely 2nds, maybe a 4th or 5th also. Concur on Goldman and Ejax, put him in the slot. Daniels - depends on high much it will take. I like him but don't think $10+ M would be the best use of money. The Bears need to decide on Nichols, I'd bring him back for a reasonable contract ($7 to $8M). I don't think the Bears can trade Foles so he'd have to be cut.

[malk]

As an additional fyi, when looking at projected spending, at least look at "Effective" Cap space. This helps account for those open roster spots that need to be filled by allocating a minimum salary hold. Directionally accross teams things stay pretty stable, but is all things considered a better number.

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/

Obviously there's tons of flexibility past "available space", but it's the better number to use. Right now Bears have 28M in available effective space. Again, though, their future liabilities are such that they can definitely defer some and still maintain a healthy position. The thing is there's definitely diminishing returns once you start freeing up excess amounts of money. All else being the same I'd probably prefer to spend a constant stream each year in New money rather than have huge cycles where I have like 70% of the cap open as free space.

The dead space figures from that link are a little funky. Just looking for us they don't account for any of the void year cap hits we're eating in 2022. The overall cap space figures are correct as they're accounted for in regular cap spending but, I think, it makes the effective cap space number wrong as it doesn't assign the $705k minimum salary where Dalton, Graham, Gipson, James and Williams are taken as on the roster. I also don't like using 51 players rather than 53, the first week of the season will happen eventually!

If I'm not making some elementary error our effective cap space at the moment is $24,720,664.

[The Cooler King]

As an additional fyi, when looking at projected spending, at least look at "Effective" Cap space. This helps account for those open roster spots that need to be filled by allocating a minimum salary hold. Directionally accross teams things stay pretty stable, but is all things considered a better number.

https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/

Obviously there's tons of flexibility past "available space", but it's the better number to use. Right now Bears have 28M in available effective space. Again, though, their future liabilities are such that they can definitely defer some and still maintain a healthy position. The thing is there's definitely diminishing returns once you start freeing up excess amounts of money. All else being the same I'd probably prefer to spend a constant stream each year in New money rather than have huge cycles where I have like 70% of the cap open as free space.

The dead space figures from that link are a little funky. Just looking for us they don't account for any of the void year cap hits we're eating in 2022. The overall cap space figures are correct as they're accounted for in regular cap spending but, I think, it makes the effective cap space number wrong as it doesn't assign the $705k minimum salary where Dalton, Graham, Gipson, James and Williams are taken as on the roster. I also don't like using 51 players rather than 53, the first week of the season will happen eventually!

If I'm not making some elementary error our effective cap space at the moment is $24,720,664.

Yea I did notice the void year issue from their link. I did try cleaning up for that in my own analysis, but my data gets stale quickly. Still a much clearer number. I'll run my own figures. Today for Bears only and see what I come up with.

[Z Bear]

Minimums go up every year. Someone like Thomas Graham or Dazz Newsome will have to be tendered at $825k since they have one year of service. Mustipher with 2 years will be $895k, etc. These amounts are way up from the last CBA, 2011 was $450k for 1 year while 2019 it had only gone up to $495k. It will be up to over a million for a rookie in 2029. You eat into your cap room quickly when the bottom of the roster guys are all making over $1M a year.

NFL CBA: Minimum Salaries

Year 2022
1 $825k
2 $895k
3 $965k
4 $1.035M

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cba/minimum/

[malk]

Minimums go up every year. Someone like Thomas Graham or Dazz Newsome will have to be tendered at $825k since they have one year of service. Mustipher with 2 years will be $895k, etc. These amounts are way up from the last CBA, 2011 was $450k for 1 year while 2019 it had only gone up to $495k. It will be up to over a million for a rookie in 2029. You eat into your cap room quickly when the bottom of the roster guys are all making over $1M a year.

NFL CBA: Minimum Salaries

Year 2022
1 $825k
2 $895k
3 $965k
4 $1.035M

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cba/minimum/

That's a good point, I was using the $705k rookie minimums as an absolute min, but obviously we're not going to have the current roster plus 23 rookies!

[The Cooler King]

Good little exchange here on Twitter. Real NFL player talking about years/$ trade offs. Fits as well in this thread as anywhere, but it's a topic I've seen broached here before.

I know some on here have argued against short contract structures v long ones, but obviously negotiations go both ways, so there's a reason possible high upside signings (like the original Hicks deal) aren't getting 4-5 years for example.

[crueltyabc]

Thanks to the posters for laying out the options with detail. It's good to have numbers attached to the discussion. The next step, as I see it, is building out your shopping list so you can consider how soon you can put together a Super Bowl team around Justin Fields. If your list is small enough that (given quality play from your QB) you think the Bears can be a top 10 team in 2022 and a top 5 team in 2023, then you're making a case to keep Mack and Quinn, otherwise - who do you trade?

My List:
2x starting quality WRs = $20m maybe more
2x starting quality interior oline = $11m
1 starting quality CB = $5m maybe more if you don't like Graham
1 decent quality OT = $4m
1 decent quality ILB = $2m
1 decent quality SS = $2m

I've spent my cap and that's before re-signing guys like Jesse James, Jakeem Grant, and Megapunt who could cost a couple million each and could be considered "starters". That's too much for one off-season with very few young players who could potentially emerge to become starters in training camp and very little capital to add quality rookies. Even if you put this team together it's very thin and will not hold up without incredible injury luck. Thus I'm on the Trade An Edge plan and would trade whichever got the best return. I like them both but I could say goodbye for some early draft picks now and cap relief down the road.

[Z Bear]

Interestingly enough teams that trade for Mack or Quinn will be a pretty good bargain since they will only be on the hook for base salary and workout bonuses. Both are signed for 3 more years, Quinn is only owed $40M ($13.33M per year) and Mack is owed $47.3M ($15.67 per year). Either one also nets the Bears around $5M in cap room if traded. Even if they trade one they will still have an OLB room of Mack/Quinn, Gipson, Attaocho, and Snowden. With Gipson coming on it really does makes sense to move one.

[RichH55]

As a follow onto that, I want to address risk/downside of these restructures.

The immediate reaction is often that the team has reduced spending power with these restructures. This is functionally, basically true, but the really technical answer is that until the team goes use the space it doesn't really cost anything, it literally just defers the cap hit, and with the cap's rollover feature, you could actually defer the cap hit, not spend the money, and the rollover will offset the future deferred hits. This is why I state above that I see a Mack bonus restructure as a no-brainer. Might as well create the space on March 11, because after March 12, its too late. And you'd rather create the space and not use it, then want the space and not be able to access it later.

What is the minimal risk of restructures? Restructuring base salaries. The first downside scenario is that in a trade, the other team would absorb base salaries. As soon as you convert salary to a bonus, you will absorb the cap hit in a trade. However, as we saw with the Rams-Broncos trade of Von Miller, the Broncos ate salary so that the Rams could fit it in their cap, and they likely got much better picks than they otherwise would have: turning cap space into draft picks.

So if you were of mind to trade Mack or Quinn, it is a nice bargaining chip you have, though its likely a chip you want to hold in your back pocket for negotiations. "Okay, I know you don't wanna part with the extra pick, but how about I eat 8M of salary and get this done". So that's the one downside. The other downside is restructuring unguaranteed money and then being in a position where you end up cutting the player. Where before you would have gotten out of the non-guaranteed portion, now you are stuck eating that cap money, for nothing.

Thank you for these

[The Cooler King]

Thanks to the posters for laying out the options with detail. It's good to have numbers attached to the discussion. The next step, as I see it, is building out your shopping list so you can consider how soon you can put together a Super Bowl team around Justin Fields. If your list is small enough that (given quality play from your QB) you think the Bears can be a top 10 team in 2022 and a top 5 team in 2023, then you're making a case to keep Mack and Quinn, otherwise - who do you trade?

My List:
2x starting quality WRs = $20m maybe more
2x starting quality interior oline = $11m
1 starting quality CB = $5m maybe more if you don't like Graham
1 decent quality OT = $4m
1 decent quality ILB = $2m
1 decent quality SS = $2m

I've spent my cap and that's before re-signing guys like Jesse James, Jakeem Grant, and Megapunt who could cost a couple million each and could be considered "starters". That's too much for one off-season with very few young players who could potentially emerge to become starters in training camp and very little capital to add quality rookies. Even if you put this team together it's very thin and will not hold up without incredible injury luck. Thus I'm on the Trade An Edge plan and would trade whichever got the best return. I like them both but I could say goodbye for some early draft picks now and cap relief down the road.

Fwiw, 50M AAV in non-minimum spending is my baseline for a reasonable but still agressive approach, so your estimates for those wants do work. That's also a number I'm using assuming a Roquan extension too, but not any other resigning, so they'd come out if the $50M budget.

[RichH55]

I think there is flexibility generally - You could add a bunch this offseason no problem

You'd need to be smart - and get good football players - that oversimplifies it of course

But you also are relatively open in 2023, 2024 as well (with a full cadre of draft picks) -

The key is and will be - Is Justin Fields going to be good - If he is - we are golden - if he isn't then we aren't. Salary Cap isn't really impacting that either way

[crueltyabc]

Yeah ok thanks CK I guess that might work with $50m. Wow! Ok then I guess I'm good with keeping both EDGE stars and just hope to find contributors or decent depth with 3-of-5 2022 draft picks and start backfilling declining vets with the 2023 draft.

[Z Bear]

Contracts typically escalate in cap hit each year as the initial signing bonus is the same but the salaries go up. You could very easily give a guy a 4 year $40M contract, guarantee $20M at signing, and still only count $7M against the cap in year one with base salaries of $2M, $4M, $6M, $8M. That still gives you wiggle room in the future with converting the salary to bonus and adding void years.

[The Cooler King]

Alright, here's a spit-take measure of their flexibility.

I'm gonna make some conservative cut estimates over the next few years
22: Goldma, Trevathan, Cohen
23: Quinn, Whitehair
24: Jackson

I'm also going to assume the bottom 20 roster spots are minimum type salaries each year, using a 2 year vet salary per spot, which should be a healthy estimate to include draft budgets too. I'll also use 55 spots which should account for at least some of the practice squad and in season flexibility.

Assuming the above, the combined flexibility is spending about 336M of cap over the next 3 years (above minimum roster spots). Cap over that time should average about 225M/year so if all they did was hand out single year contracts, over the next 3 years they have about 50% of their aggregate cap capacity available. Thats using no backloads or other gimmicks. Obviously that would include no resignings, but it's also a very conservative estimate of space creation.

That number obviously changes over time. It would only be about 2.7M per spot in 22, 5.8M/spot in 2023, 6.5M/spot in 2024. Assuming they could average out the next three years hits, which they probably can, the "big" contracts they hand out could average 5.6M/year. Obviously it would get skewed toward the high end. Your median NFL salary today is something like a 1.25M AAV salary. Your 25th percentile salary is something like 3.9m AAV. By the time you get into the top 10% of salaries are you in the 10M range.

So I feel pretty good about their ability to do something like extend Roquan and hand out multi year contracts in the 50M AAV range each year over the next several (if all their deals were 3+ year deals, it would be 300M total spending at 50M/year. No gimmicks. No backloads. Leaves a buffer still of 5M/year. Granted, with the rising cap spending 50M in 2014 will be like spending 40M in 2022, but that's where some moderate back loading of salary comes in too.

[The Cooler King]

Contracts typically escalate in cap hit each year as the initial signing bonus is the same but the salaries go up. You could very easily give a guy a 4 year $40M contract, guarantee $20M at signing, and still only count $7M against the cap in year one with base salaries of $2M, $4M, $6M, $8M. That still gives you wiggle room in the future with converting the salary to bonus and adding void years.

Definitely. Part of me estimating 50M in new AAV spending is assuming there will be multi year deals that ramp cap hits so the Y1 hits will be less than 50 as 50 would be tough to defer in total for 2022. This isn't necessarily assuming anything overtly goofy either, just the nature of signing bonuses.

My post above this explains it a little more, but I'm totally comfortable with 50M each year over the next few years in multi-year AAV. It's basically 50% of total cap projections over the next 3 years.

[The Cooler King]

Alright so I know there have been some debates among Bears Fandom about efficient cap spending. Many are for good reasons wary of consistently spending big money in FA. Risk of overpaying for mid-tier guys and wasting resources that could be saved for a better window. I think everyone more or less knows the general debate I'm talking about.

There is one troubling issue for the Bears between now and the end of the 2023 League year though. That is the Minimum Team Cash Spending provision in the CBA. It is not directly a cap floor but an actual cash floor which requires each team to spend a preset % of the cap over a certain time period. The current period will cover 2021 through 2023. And teams must spend, in cash, 90% of the Salary Cap over those years.

Okay, so what does that mean.

Cap was 182.5 in 2021, is 208.2 in 2022 and estimates put 2023 @ 225. Total cap over those years = 615.7. Thus each team must spend, in cash, 554M over those league years.

Okay, so where are the Bears at right now and where do they project to be?

Sources can be a little tough here, but they should be fairly accurate.

They spent 193M in 2021. If they spend only up to the cap on 1-2 year deals like have have so far they'll only spend 138M in 2022. In 2023 they currently have 63M in spending on schedule, mostly unguaranteed salaries.

Sooo, at their current pace and to meet minimum spending by end of 2023, they figure to need to spend (554 - 193 - 138 - 63) = 160M in 2023.

Further, they are projected to have cap space of about 130M in 2023.

You can perhaps see the issue. They have a 160M obligation for a 130M hole. They cant just "pay as they go" without falling 30M short of their spending obligations. And that still involves handing out 130M in short term contracts.

For reference the Jaguars 2022 spending flurry, which many have found grossly overpaying projects to pay about $110M for 7 big FA signings and franchise tagging Robinson in the first year.

So how do you NOT "spend like the Jags" and still spend efficiently. Easy to say sign better players, but your a maybe not very good team competing against 31 others. And even if you can spend only on "smart" deals, you still need 30M of all that spending to be in the form of signing bonuses on long term deals which can be extended out past the 2023 cap while counting towards your current spending obligation.

It's part of the reason I've said they should spend with some aggression in 22. If they have to sometime between now and 2023, might as well split the difference and make an effort over both years. Critically in order to support Fields.

No pitchforks for Poles and there's time for an Armstead + other signing to start chipping at that minimum, but it's a consideration to keep in mind.

[southdakbearfan]

You take a guy like roquan, extend him early and move the bonus up to the first two seasons. Make the first part of the deal expensive while the back half get's cheaper. Mooney, Monty and other talent plus any FA's extended or brought in could be done the same.

You do that until you are close and then you still have a boatload of cap to spend on an all in year without all the void year/dead cap contract hell.

Basically its a frontload so you can continue to spend or extend guys every year.

[The Cooler King]

You take a guy like roquan, extend him early and move the bonus up to the first two seasons. Make the first part of the deal expensive while the back half get's cheaper. Mooney, Monty and other talent plus any FA's extended or brought in could be done the same.

You do that until you are close and then you still have a boatload of cap to spend on an all in year without all the void year/dead cap contract hell.

Basically its a frontload so you can continue to spend or extend guys every year.

Well minimally the have to kick out at least 30M in deferred bonuses to fit the 160M spending in the 130M cap hole.

[The Cooler King]

So hypothetically let's give Roquan a Darius Leonard (top LB contract) plus 15% growth on total and 1/3 guaranteed

5/113 and 38 gtd. Make that entire guarantee a signing bonus and min base in Y1 and Y2. That would pay him 40M before 2023, 35% of his total contract value. Leonard only got about 27% of his extension in first 2 years. So altogether a more agressive deal.

That leaves Bears needing to spend another 120M in cash before 2023. It defers 23M of the needed 30M in deferrals that would be needed.

Let's give DM the Joe Mixon deal with boost. 4/55 ext with 12M guaranteed, as signing bonus. Est paid 23M (41% of contract!) over first 2 years and defers about 7M.

Still need to spend 97M in basically all current spending, but I've at least closed my cap:cash hole and taken on a ton of risk by forwarding all that cash to those two, especially DM, a RB.

I don't love it. I haven't improved my team and taken significant risk to do so all to avoid what?

[Moriarty]

There is one troubling issue for the Bears between now and the end of the 2023 League year though. That is the Minimum Team Cash Spending provision in the CBA. It is not directly a cap floor but an actual cash floor which requires each team to spend a preset % of the cap over a certain time period. The current period will cover 2021 through 2023. And teams must spend, in cash, 90% of the Salary Cap over those years.

Why on Earth would they do something so insanely complicated?

Just require 90% of the cap, instead of fucking around with cash calculations. You can't have your cap over 90% without the cash being spent, whether it's spent in that same year or not.

[The Cooler King]

There is one troubling issue for the Bears between now and the end of the 2023 League year though. That is the Minimum Team Cash Spending provision in the CBA. It is not directly a cap floor but an actual cash floor which requires each team to spend a preset % of the cap over a certain time period. The current period will cover 2021 through 2023. And teams must spend, in cash, 90% of the Salary Cap over those years.

Why on Earth would they do something so insanely complicated?

Just require 90% of the cap, instead of fucking around with cash calculations. You can't have your cap over 90% without the cash being spent, whether it's spent in that same year or not.

Wage suppression (the one true purpose of the cap) causes complicated issues I guess lol.

[southdakbearfan]

So hypothetically let's give Roquan a Darius Leonard (top LB contract) plus 15% growth on total and 1/3 guaranteed

5/113 and 38 gtd. Make that entire guarantee a signing bonus and min base in Y1 and Y2. That would pay him 40M before 2023, 35% of his total contract value. Leonard only got about 27% of his extension in first 2 years. So altogether a more agressive deal.

That leaves Bears needing to spend another 120M in cash before 2023. It defers 23M of the needed 30M in deferrals that would be needed.

Let's give DM the Joe Mixon deal with boost. 4/55 ext with 12M guaranteed, as signing bonus. Est paid 23M (41% of contract!) over first 2 years and defers about 7M.

Still need to spend 97M in basically all current spending, but I've at least closed my cap:cash hole and taken on a ton of risk by forwarding all that cash to those two, especially DM, a RB.

I don't love it. I haven't improved my team and taken significant risk to do so all to avoid what?

Bonus is bonus, guaranteed is guaranteed regardless of what year you pay it or if you front load it or back load it. The risk is the same but the benefit of paying it up front is you don't get into the cap hell years in the following years and you always have money to chase guys the next season if needed. It also free's up future space for that HUGE QB contract.