The NFL trade deadline is swiftly approaching, and we are already starting to see major deals around the league. On October 27, we saw All-Pro guard Quenton Nelson get traded from Indianapolis to Seattle in exchange for a 2027 third-round pick and a 2028 fifth-round pick. On October 29, we saw All-Pro defensive tackle Jeffery Simmons (plus a 2028 fifth-round pick) traded from Tennessee to Chicago in exchange for two first-round picks and a 2027 fourth-round pick. According to the NFL, the trade deadline for this season is November 10 at 4 p.m. Eastern time, a hard deadline that teams may not make trades after until the next league year. Less than two weeks out from the trade deadline, franchises must decide whether to acquire established players to compete immediately or exchange veterans for future draft capital. This time of the season is often a fork in the road moment for a lot of franchises as far as which direction they want to go in. The trades we saw this week demonstrate that general managers around the league must consider more than player performance. The NFL’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), salary cap, and contract structures often determine the financial implications of acquiring or trading a player.
What sort of hidden salary cap implications can come from making trades, and what is dead money? Under Article 13 of the NFL CBA, a player’s salary-cap charge can include base salary, prorated signing bonuses, roster bonuses, and other compensation. The team that is acquiring a player and his contract typically assumes the player’s unpaid salary and applicable future contractual obligations of their current deal. The original team that the player was on typically remains responsible for cap charges attributable to signing bonuses it previously paid to the player. NFL players usually have their signing bonuses prorated across the applicable years of their contract, up to five years, even if the player actually receives the money immediately. Dead money comes into play when a player is traded, as remaining signing bonus charges may accelerate against the trading team’s salary cap. Under Article 13, Section 6(b)(ii) of the NFL CBA, a trade made after June 1 in the league year generally causes future-year unamortized signing-bonus charges to accelerate into the following league year, while current-year proration remains on the original team’s books. According to Over the Cap, this means that trading a player does not necessarily eliminate his salary-cap impact. A franchise may save money on unpaid actual salary while still absorbing millions of dollars in “dead” cap charges. The obligation of the team acquiring the player, as far as the current year goes, is generally prorated based on how much of the season remains at the time of the deal. NFL teams must also account for future salary guarantees, roster bonuses, and contract extensions that may affect their cap flexibility beyond the current season and league year.
Those who are hockey fans and understand the way the salary cap works in the NHL are probably familiar with the idea of salary retention. This is a loophole feature that some teams use where, when making a trade, they can continue to pay a portion of a player’s salary. It is used as a negotiation technique when a certain player may be considered overpaid. For example, according to the NHL, in February 2026, the New York Rangers traded Artemi Panarin to the Los Angeles Kings while retaining 50% of his $11.64 million annual cap hit, allowing Los Angeles to acquire him at a reduced cap hit of approximately $5.82 million. This negotiation tactic is not available for NFL teams. The NFL rules do not permit teams to simply retain a negotiated percentage of a player’s salary through a formal retained-salary trade. However, there is a technique that is available for NFL teams to circumvent the salary cap in a comparable way to the NHL rule. NFL teams can achieve a similar result by converting a player’s unpaid salary into a signing bonus before completing a trade, subject to the player’s contractual rights and CBA requirements. In a situation like this, the original franchise pays that bonus and retains the associated cap charges, while the acquiring team assumes the reduced remaining salary. This allows teams with limited cap space, who may be Super Bowl contenders with lots of high-paid players, to acquire expensive veterans, potentially in exchange for surrendering even more draft picks. A good example of this came in 2021 when the Denver Broncos converted approximately $9 million of Von Miller’s remaining salary into a signing bonus right before trading him to the Los Angeles Rams. This tactic allowed the Rams, who were “all-in” that season and already a very expensive team relative to the salary cap, to get away with a reduced salary cap obligation of approximately $722,222, according to Over the Cap. This was a perfect “win-win” situation, and it is a prime example of the interesting negotiating opportunity that comes into play when a trade negotiation involves a rebuilding team and a contender. A rebuilding team can effectively use its financial flexibility to obtain better draft compensation, while a contender acquires talent at a reduced immediate cap cost. NFL teams can also negotiate contract extensions or restructure existing contracts to create cap space, something we often see with teams that are going into “all-in” mode, although doing so may increase future cap charges and potential dead money. Two different leagues, two different techniques to circumvent the salary cap for championship contenders that would use every single dollar of the cap in order to field the best roster if they could.
There are also additional rules and considerations that general managers must be aware of when making trades. NFL teams can trade draft picks up to three drafts into the future, including conditional picks based on factors such as playing time or performance. Teams trading players on expiring contracts must also consider whether the immediate draft compensation is more valuable than potentially receiving a compensatory pick if that player leaves in free agency. On the other side of the deal, acquiring teams must account for future contract guarantees, potential extensions, and the risk of losing a player to free agency after the season. Teams must also have sufficient salary cap space and an available roster spot to complete a trade. These rules add another layer of strategy to the trade deadline, as general managers must balance immediate roster improvements with long-term financial and organizational flexibility.
Let’s apply these rules to the Jeffery Simmons trade. According to Reuters, Simmons signed a three-year, approximately $105.8 million extension with the Tennessee Titans over the 2026 offseason, which created substantial long-term contractual obligations. According to ESPN, the Chicago Bears, who acquired Simmons, are expected to assume approximately $7.94 million in remaining 2026 salary, while Tennessee is projected to carry approximately $14.12 million in 2026 salary cap charges and $21.21 million in dead money in 2027, mainly because of previously paid bonuses. This is an example of Chicago sacrificing significant draft capital and assuming future financial commitments to acquire an established defensive star who can help them significantly in the short term. From Tennessee’s perspective, they are accepting substantial dead-money obligations tied to Simmons, but they also receive significant draft capital to support future roster construction. This transaction demonstrates how a team can absorb considerable salary-cap charges while still benefiting from the draft capital and future financial flexibility obtained through the trade.
Another example is the recent trade sending Quenton Nelson from the Indianapolis Colts to the Seattle Seahawks. Nelson was traded during the final season of his four-year, $80 million extension signed in 2022. Seattle assumes his remaining unpaid salary obligations, but not the signing-bonus charges previously paid by Indianapolis. Meanwhile, the Colts receive future draft compensation while removing Nelson’s remaining salary obligations. Unlike Simmons, Nelson is approaching free agency, meaning Seattle must consider extending his contract or risk losing him after the season. This trade highlights the different considerations involved in acquiring a player on an expiring contract, rather than one with long-term obligations.
Ultimately, the NFL trade deadline requires front offices to balance immediate roster improvements with future draft capital, salary cap restrictions, and contractual obligations. Factors such as dead money, signing bonus proration, and contract restructuring can make the financial implications of a trade more complicated than they initially appear. The Simmons and Nelson trades demonstrate how teams with different competitive goals can use these rules to their advantage. As the deadline approaches, understanding the NFL’s financial system is just as important to successful roster construction as evaluating the players themselves.