McKinnie’s pay cut – more than meets the eye?

mckinnie1

I’ve been trying to track down some more info on this, but if Bryant McKinnie’s $1M incentive is truly based on 50% playing time only (i.e. there’s not some other qualifier), then that $1M would still count against the Cap this year.  So, if the reported information is correct, this move was not done for Salary Cap purposes.

Basically, incentives are either “likely to be earned” or “not likely to be earned”.  If they are LTBE, they count against the present Cap (and if unearned, are credited against the following year’s Cap).  If they are NLTBE, they don’t count this year, but would count next year, if earned.

The difference between the two types of incentives is that an incentive is considered to be LTBE if it would have been earned in the prior year.  For McKinnie, he obviously played more than 50% of the offensive plays last year, so this new incentive (if as reported) would be LTBE and that $1M would still count against this year’s Cap.

So, based on that, it doesn’t appear that this move was made for Salary Cap purposes, as it created no additional Cap space for this year.  Seen in that light, it looks more like the Ravens want to save money if he doesn’t play as much as expected.  After all, if they expect him to be their starting LT all season, then why go through this exercise, especially when it’s saved them nothing this year.

So, what does that mean?  Does that mean they are expecting to see him play less?  Does it mean that they don’t trust McKinnie?  Or that they don’t expect him to hold onto the LT job for the entire season?  Could we see Michael Oher as the starting LT?  Or how about Kelichi Osemele at LT?

At this point, it’s all just speculation – and perhaps the reports, so far, are missing some important facts – but it does appear that the front office’s motives for reducing McKinnie’s pay may have had less to do with the Salary Cap and more to do with other factors.

 

3 Raves on “McKinnie’s pay cut – more than meets the eye?

  1. Brian on said:

    No, they got rid of them as a method of carrying Cap space from one year to the next, but they otherwise still exist. Now, teams are simply allowed to elect to carry over Cap space from one season to the next without having to use the old “phony” incentives routine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Hot off the street

Long Snappers Seem Boring…Until You Need One

It may not be the sexiest position on an NFL roster, but the long snapper is certainly one of great importance in an all too often forgotten part of the game. A good long snapper is the kind of pla...read more

PREDICTIONS RECAP: Drew Nails the Point Differential

1. Remember that courtroom scene in A Few Good Men? “You see, sir, there was a blow out…” Ravens do what they always do to NFC teams at home…Flacco throws 3 TD’s, Steve Smith catches 2 of t...read more

SPEED BAG: Trade Winds Blowing?

Arthur Brown is a perfect 7 for 7 this season in healthy scratches. The highly touted linebacker is the only member of the team’s 53-man squad not to dress on game day in 2014. Meanwhile undrafte...read more

RAVENS LINKS: Ravens NFL’s Stingiest Defense?

Ravens are stingiest defense in the NFL ESPN writer, Jamison Hensley discusses the re-emergence of the Ravens' defense and how it may be the best in the NFL despite the yardage total being in the m...read more

THE GOOD, BAD & UGLY: Ravens 29, Falcons 7

Last week I opined about the Ravens and their developing identity along with the progressions made on both sides of the football. They aren’t quite where they are capable of being yet as a team but ...read more

View More