The Packers Max Restructure McKinney To Get Under The Cap
The Packers also signed RB Chris Brooks.
Jeremy Fowler of ESPN has reported that the Packers restructured Xavier McKinney's contract and Overthecap has posted the numbers. Per Overthecap, the Packers reduced McKinney's $4.25M base salary to his minimum salary of $1.215M, a difference of $3.035M. The Packers added 3 void years and converted the $3.035M plus McKinney's $8.5M roster bonus ($11.535M total) into a signing bonus. The move provides $9.228M in cap relief. McKinney will have cap numbers of $9.697M in 2026 and $24.908M in 2027, which would make him a prime candidate for an extension or some other move to reduce his cap number in 2027.
This move should get the team to around $5M under the salary cap limit once the team receives credit for Jenkins forfeiting his $700K workout bonus when he held out last spring. Their cap space will be reduced by the deal that Chris Brooks received. The Packers previously signed running back Chris Brooks to a 2 year, $4.85M contract, but the details are not yet known. A cap number between $1.85M and $2M for 2026 would not be surprising. Brooks would offset someone currently with a $1.005M cap number, so it is likely a net reduction of $860K to $1M. Bottom line, the Packers are roughly $4M under the limit. Exercising the three ERFA players would reduce their cap space to perhaps $3.7M.
The big question is why now, and why McKinney? It may be that the Packers are trying to negotiate a pay cut with Gary and the sides are waiting to see if the other blinks. Now that they are under the cap, the Packers could wait until July to release Gary, when many teams will have spent their cap space. I suppose Gary could issue Instagram announcements and write tweets and then delete them.
Maybe they need to keep Gary on the roster into the new league year so they can release him with a June designation. That would increase the cap savings from $10.98M to $19.5M while dumping dead money into 2027. That might mean that Gutekunst wants to take a big swing in free agency, perhaps with a player who does not count against the compensatory draft pick system.
Perhaps they are trying to trade Gary. After Gute got a fourth round pick for Clinton-Dix, I have been a little more cautious about what I write as to the feasibility of trades. That said, I do not think anyone would trade for Gary given his $18M base salary and $1.5M more in workout and game active bonuses. The team might decide to pay part of Gary's salary to make him more attractive to an acquiring team, and perhaps get better draft compensation. It seems reasonable to me that Gary would prefer to be able to choose his own team (as an unrestricted free agent), hence the Instagram and X posts.
It also appears as though the Packers are going to wait until the new league year to do something with Elgton Jenkins. The Packers will still need another $15M in cap relief by the start of the season and a straight release of Jenkins provides $19.5M. Yes, the Packers could restructure or release other players, but I confess I think his release is a foregone conclusion.
Some folks think the Packers will have a lot of cap space in 2027, and it should be much improved. OTC shows Green Bay $82M under the cap (while assuming a healthy $26M increase to $327M), but that is for just 29 players under contract. There will be 51, and the extra players will average at least $1M per player. Think more like an effective cap space of $52M. That is a nice enough number, but remember that the cap was $182M less than 5 seasons ago. OTC does assume that Gary will be on the team in 2027 with a cap number of $31M, although he would have some dead money if he were cut.
Even if the team has $70M to $80M is cap space for 2027, the free agent list is loaded. It includes: Christian Watson, Jayden Reed, Wicks, Kraft, Nixon and Valentine, Van Ness, McDuffie, Wyatt, Wooden, and Karl Brooks. That's both starting perimeter CBs, the top 3 DTs, the top 3 WRs, and the top tight end. Edgerrin Cooper, Bullard, and Evan Williams all become eligible for extensions, though GB will still have team control. I don't know who the center is going to be in 2026, much less in 2027.
Hitting on some draft picks always helps a team's cap situation, both in the upcoming draft and from previous drafts. The Packers also need to get these personnel decisions right along with the corresponding financial consequences.
Photo courtesy of Mark Hoffman, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel/USA Today
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Comments (26)
Coldworld
March 06, 2026 at 10:39 pm
Might there be issues related to Jenkins not being fit that would influence their ability to shed his cap at this point?
As to Gary, I could see sense in designating him post June 1. However, if they are moving on, If a trade is possible, even for a nominal return, then it surely makes sense not to jump before that’s exhausted given we will be under the cap now?
Thegreatreynoldo
March 07, 2026 at 12:07 am
I thought teams could release players who were on IR during the waiver period; that is, after the super bowl and the start of the new league year. I checked and GB released Bakh on March 11, 2024, which was the start of legal tampering that year. He played game 1 and then was on IR, IIRC.
Washington placed Tyler Biadasz on injured reserve on December 31. They released him on 2-27-26. Now, LAC reached an agreement. He is expected to be ready for training camp. I don't know if he can pass a physical.
And of course, GB rather famously released Sam Shields on February 8, 2017, due to his not being able to recover from his 5th concussion (though that was 9 year ago and under a previous CBA). Shields was pissed.
Coldworld
March 07, 2026 at 09:15 am
I know they can release, but I seem to recall something that limits the cap shed or timing thereof for veterans injured in the prior season and potentially out into the next season? It could well be my hazy memory of past compensation claims having become distorted.
Thegreatreynoldo
March 07, 2026 at 10:30 am
Injury protection and extended injury protection is all I can think of. Jenkins is eligible to a $2.1M payout some of which counts against the cap. GB gets it back if Jenkins signs with another team or if he can pass a physical by August. Article 45, Section 2:
A player will receive the Injury Protection Benefit in accordance with Section 3 if the player’s contract was terminated by his Club and he satisfies all of the criteria below:
(a) The player must have been physically unable, because of a severe football injury in an NFL game or practice, to participate in all or part of his Club’s last game;
(b) The player must have undergone whatever reasonable and customary rehabilitation treatment;
(c) A player under contract must have failed a physical examination given by his Club for the purpose of determining his eligibility for the Injury Protection Benefit on or before August 1 of the season following the season of injury.
The max cash payment is $2.1M. $1.26M of that will count against the cap and $840K will be counted as a player benefit. [No way am I going into the weeds to discuss player benefits.]
If a player stays too injured to pass a physical in the next league year (2nd one after the season of injury), he might qualify for extended injury protection. That max cash payment is $1.05M with $605K counting against the cap and $445K counting as a player benefit. Yes, there is a cap on Player Benefits teams have to abide by. Frankly, I decided that I did not have to know any more about Player Benefits than the above.
Coldworld
March 07, 2026 at 11:52 am
Thank you. And I do not blame you for avoiding the weeds of player benefits in the slightest.
TKWorldWide
March 07, 2026 at 06:25 am
Hey Gr8 one!
My 87 year old mother is a huge Packer fan. She has very little interest in the nuances of the salary cap. Yesterday I told her about McKinney and the restructure, and how it got GB under the cap per league rules. She asked WHY would a player agree to that. Tell me if this is true: in a restructure, (not a pay cut) the player gets all the money from the original contract, but they usually get it SOONER. Yes?
Her question made me realize my own limited understanding as well!
Coldworld
March 07, 2026 at 09:27 am
In this restructure, yes. That is not true of all restructures though.
Here they are just using a couple of quirks of the cap process that allows certain bonuses to be spread over the life of a contract and contracts to include years after the same contract stipulates release to free agency.
The player gets his cash now, the cap number gets spread. It’s not a pay cut or extension and, Since vested bets have their pay guaranteed if on the roster for week one, it isn’t even all that much of an additional guarantee.
TKWorldWide
March 07, 2026 at 01:49 pm
Thank you!
TKWorldWide
March 07, 2026 at 06:37 am
Salary vs bonus vs roster bonus vs incentives earned….
It’s all green to me!
Years ago, pre-internet, I told a car salesman I wasn’t going to spend more than 20k total on a car, and I did not give a crap if it was $1 for the car and the rest was interest, or if the car was $19,999 with one dollar interest. As long as the same amount of money was leaving my “wallet”, call it principal, interest, or whatever you like.
Sort of the same deal with these contracts. As long as the cap number is agreeable, and the player gets the same money (or more), knock yourself out, Russ Ball!
Thegreatreynoldo
March 07, 2026 at 09:24 am
Yes, the player gets the same amount in a conventional restructure, just earlier. I am creditably informed that the Packers don't keep their cash in Russ Ball's mattress: they earn interest on it which allegedly exceeds the rate of inflation. That a good thing since keeping it in the mattress could get a little sticky. With the restructure, the player rather than the team can now try to earn passive income on the cash. Most fans only care about the Packers' cap situation and not about the Packers' profit.
[Your follow-up comment in which you indicated that you don't care about when cash leaves you wallet, just the gross nominal amount, suggests that you did not entirely understand what I wrote just above. Timing matters.]
It sounds like your Grandma is a good investor. So is my 94-year old widowed father-in-law. He still drives himself to work 6 days a week. Hey, is your grandma on any of the apps? I mean, life is short....
I guess you don't remember the days when Americans could deduct the interest that they paid, including on credit card debt, from their income taxes. One would think that eliminating the deductibility of interest would deter Americans from overusing their credit cards, but I guess not.
Bitternotsour
March 07, 2026 at 09:45 am
Are you trying to imply the Packers are run like a business?
Thegreatreynoldo
March 07, 2026 at 10:13 am
Well, I mostly was trying to set up my father-in-law.
Don't get me started (it is a beautiful Saturday morning, after all). I read every article I can find about the financial statement the Packers release each summer. Murphy gets massive amounts of credit for Titletown but I can find almost no information about how much was invested or about how much profit has been made on it.
The Packers have said that the total investment is in excess of $300M but there is no breakdown of how much the Packers invested, how much their primary partner, Microsoft, invested, or how much their tertiary partners invested. The Packers do report local income. For years they have been in the top third of the league in terms of local revenue generated, that is true, but I have not see huge increases as Titletown reaches it fruition. I always wondered if there was enough wealth in Wisconsin to justify the investment, but I am not a developer.
LeotisHarris
March 07, 2026 at 10:36 am
Now that's an interesting thread to pull. I had no idea MIcrosoft was the primary investor. I shall join you on this quest, TGR. I'm sure you've turned over all the stones, but I'm motivated to learn more.
Since'75
March 08, 2026 at 10:58 am
"Murphy gets massive amounts of credit for Titletown but I can find almost no information about how much was invested or about how much profit has been made on it."
********
Exactly....Just because you built something, doesn't mean it's successful just because it looks pretty.
It takes a massive investment and depletion of Packer resources to build the 'Titletown District'
That doesn't show a profit right away, and it usually takes multiple years to realize a net profit.
When it was completed, my thinking was, the Packers better keep winning (post Rodgers) for the 'District' to be successful.
So many newer fans under 45, have no clue what losing seasons look like in Green Bay.
TKWorldWide
March 07, 2026 at 01:54 pm
Thanks amigo!
And
😂😂😂😂
TKWorldWide
March 08, 2026 at 02:30 pm
Maybe a clearer way to express it is if I’m making 48 payments of $416, I don’t care if it breaks down to $415 principal and $1 interest or the other way around, bc I didn’t have the cash to pay it off early.
Hell, I wouldn’t care if it was $1 principal, $1 interest, and $414 to ensure that the radio never ever pays interpretive jazz. (Which is all the proof I need that the devil exists.)
Guam
March 07, 2026 at 09:10 am
I assumed Jenkins was gone and would be cut before the start of the new season. The restructure of McKinney's contract took me by surprise and will allow the Packers to start the new season without immediately cutting Jenkins. The question for me is why would they do that if cutting Jenkins was a foregone conclusion? Could the Packers be negotiating a new contract with Jenkins that brings his 2026 pay into line with a typical center's pay ($12-13MM) and gives him the security of a 2-3 year extension? This would save the Packers $7-8MM of cap space in 2026 and gives them a veteran center for the next couple of years.
I have no idea if this is in the works, but the Packers seemingly have made no moves to resign Rhyan so far and Monk is a total question mark. Maybe Jenkins isn't gone????
The Gary situation finally had a little light cast on it with the goofy posting and retraction of his "goodbye". I think you hit the nail on the head TGR when you said the Packers likely want to try and trade Gary. And Gary wants to pick his new team. Either way, it seems Gary is gone from the Packers.
Thegreatreynoldo
March 07, 2026 at 09:57 am
Sometimes I use decisive language even though it may not age well. My neck feels a little exposed by the term foregone conclusion. GB needs $15M more in cap savings by Sept. and more if they want to sign some of their own free agents. They could get ~$9.4M from a max restructure of Wyatt's 5th year option money and they got $9.92M from McKinney, so I guess that would suffice, at least it meets the bare minimum needed. A pay cut from Jenkins would provide a cushion if not a good center.
I published this last night at 10pm but it was warm, and it was a Friday night so I didn't read the CBA or look around at other sites to see if I was missing the forest because of the trees. Yup, I fell asleep in my recliner instead.
But I looked around this morning. I found nothing in the CBA, nor did I see the other packers sites offering any insights on Jenkins. Maybe I should keep researching, but It is 60 degrees on a beautiful Saturday morning, so....
Guam
March 07, 2026 at 10:37 am
The "foregone conclusion" was directed at me, not you TGR. I have assumed for some time that Jenkins was gone with no recourse. I think many others were thinking the same. I am now wondering if that may not be case and my foregone conclusion isn't.
No question that cutting Jenkins is the easy path to cap health, but it will leave a gap at center if they don't resign Rhyan. If they get $7-8MM from Jenkins and another $11MM from trading/cutting Gary, that might be enough.
I'm not promoting this idea, but it just seems odd to me they didn't cut Jenkins outright rather than restructure McKinney. Lots of chess pieces moving here and I am trying to make sense of it from my recliner. Could be completely off base too........
Thegreatreynoldo
March 07, 2026 at 11:06 am
It seems odd to most of us. My neck will be fine, as well. Every once in a while I am going to write something that ages poorly. I remember writing in a snap count that someone played well in a game and then PFF gave the guy a 28 grade.
So, GB needs $19M to just survive. Can't sign anyone for more than $1.005M if that's all the cap they generate. We were figuring $19.5M from Jenkins to meet the bare minimum and $11M from Gary to pay some of our own free agent types and maybe sign someone.
Maybe $280K to $420K to sign the ERFAs (Bo Melton for sure, prob Donovan Jennings, maybe Lecitus Smith, but not Kamal Hadden). $2M(?) for Brooks. Maybe Kinnard and Mosby, probably Whyle and Cox, not Zayne Anderson.
What about Rhyan? Or someone like him. There are actually a lot of not very good free agent centers available in the $5M to $6M area (projected, anyway). Rhyan is projected by Spotrac at $6.5M, so a $5M cap number is possible. Graham Glasgow is out there.....
Now they have $9.92M from McKinney.
Bitternotsour
March 07, 2026 at 10:03 am
Why would you pay an oft-injured, 30 yo, whose last season was marginal (at best), $12M annually? I normally don't care about salaries or the business of football, but that seems insane to me.
Guam
March 07, 2026 at 10:41 am
Not promoting the idea Bitter, just trying to figure out why the Packers didn't take the easy path to cap health by cutting Jenkins and instead opted to restructure McKinney and push cap issues down the road. Something doesn't smell quite right with this and my inadequate nose followed the trail to maybe the Packers want to keep Jenkins. I'm certainly open to better ideas about why the Packers made the first move with McKinney and not Jenkins.
dobber
March 07, 2026 at 01:16 pm
It may be that they figured they were going to do this restructure, anyway, and that they're hoping a trade suitor for Jenkins will still materialize. Now that they're solvent, they can wait to cut (or restructure, which they might do to facilitate a trade) Jenkins whenever they need his money.
That said, I don't see the Packers taking on enough of Jenkins' money or anyone dealing for Jenkins and his contract when they could wait for the Packers to cut him and sign him to a contract on their own terms.
sugarbair
March 07, 2026 at 09:16 am
i am watching the roster bonuses for Banks and Hobbs. Has all the looks of throwing good money after bad. This would be a good off season to get off as many of these bad contracts as we can. Unfortunately, the number of short comings we have is too big for one off season. Bummer. GPG
dobber
March 07, 2026 at 01:29 pm
I think your comment about shortcomings is the pertinent one: they can't afford to blow any more holes in their roster, and they can't get around that bonus on either player except to convert the roster bonus, spread it out over the remainder of the contract, and kick the can a little further down the road in hopes that these guys rebound. That would save about $6M on Banks and $2M on Hobbs in '26.
Thegreatreynoldo
March 08, 2026 at 04:25 am
Off topic, but this link below from Justis Mosqueda explains why ST coordinators come to Green Bay to ruin their reputations. The average team allows its WRs, FBs, and TEs to play 778 snaps on special teams with 525 ST snaps coming from the top 3 ST guys. GB is dead last and by a whopping margin. LaFleur allows his WRs, TEs, FBs, to contribute just 318 snaps. [Looks like they count Bo Melton as a CB, but considering him as a WR moves the Packers to 29th.]
Savion Williams is the top ST snap guy among the WRs at 52 snaps. Whyle is the top TE at 51 ST snaps, followed by Fitzpatrick with 40 snaps.
This helps explain why re-signing Niemann (1412 ST snaps over 5 seasons) and Chris Brooks (230 ST snaps last year) is so important. Some folks have suggested that McDuffie is not suited to the 4-3 that Gannon wants to run in 2026, but he played 302 ST snaps. Maybe they can get a lot of ST snaps from Jamon Johnson, Christian Welch, or a rookie if the team tries to move on from McDuffie, IDK.
https://x.com/JuMosq/status/2027912115072471356/photo/1