Contracts - Welker vs. Samuel - New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard
NEWS
|
FORUM
|
PHOTOS
|
VIDEOS
|
FULL STATS DATABASE
|
PODCAST
|
RUMOR MILL
Get Social With PatsFans.com
Early Roster Projection
Ryan's Journey Started Early
POST DRAFT PODCAST

Go Back   New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard > PatsFans.com Forums > PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum
Forgot Password? Join PatsFans.com!
Register Blogs FAQ Members List Calendar Arcade Mark Forums Read Chat Room

WELCOME TO OUR FORUM HERE AT PATSFANS.COM!
ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW

Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-08-2007, 10:19 PM   #1
Rookie
 

Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 36
Default Contracts - Welker vs. Samuel

Can somebody tell me what kind of gauranteed money did Welker get in his contract? Wasn't it like 10M - 12M? I would like to know what he got to get an idea for what Samuel should at least get. Thanks!
Terence is offline   Reply With Quote
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!

Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account
including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.

NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98

Updated 07/08/11

Help Us Reach Our Goal!

Old 07-08-2007, 10:42 PM   #2
PatsFans.com Supporter
 
ctpatsfan77's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Fairfield County, CT
Posts: 17,566
My Mood: Grumpy
Default Re: Contracts - Welker vs. Samuel

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terence View Post
Can somebody tell me what kind of gauranteed money did Welker get in his contract? Wasn't it like 10M - 12M? I would like to know what he got to get an idea for what Samuel should at least get. Thanks!
Terence:

Take a look at the top of this page. Click on the Miguel's Salary Cap Page link. You'll learn everything you want to know about Welker's contract there.

[I'm not sure, though, how Welker's contract tells you what Asante gets.]
__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
ctpatsfan77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2007, 03:50 AM   #3
All Pro Poster
 
PatsFanInVa's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,627
My Mood: Angelic
Default Re: Contracts - Welker vs. Samuel

I agree, it's not very useful for examining the Samuel situation, but it gives you an idea of what a lower-risk "keeper" looks like. 5.5M this year, 3.5M next year, in bonuses, for example. That's 9M out of 18M, without taking into account for those years' salaries.

What's striking to me is looking at the various receivers' contracts. Welker obviously has the "trust" factor. There's a lower ceiling but also there's no "prove-it" year, where the temptation is to cut bait after 2007. (Stallworth, for example, will be almost impossible to justify unless he really produces. Moss only has one year on his deal.)

PFnV
PatsFanInVa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2007, 09:29 AM   #4
In the Starting Line-up
 
Oswlek's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,389
Default Re: Contracts - Welker vs. Samuel

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa View Post
I agree, it's not very useful for examining the Samuel situation, but it gives you an idea of what a lower-risk "keeper" looks like. 5.5M this year, 3.5M next year, in bonuses, for example. That's 9M out of 18M, without taking into account for those years' salaries.

What's striking to me is looking at the various receivers' contracts. Welker obviously has the "trust" factor. There's a lower ceiling but also there's no "prove-it" year, where the temptation is to cut bait after 2007. (Stallworth, for example, will be almost impossible to justify unless he really produces. Moss only has one year on his deal.)

PFnV
This is the common opinion, but it is a misconception. After this season, Stallworth has 5 years at $27mm, with $11mm due in bonuses at the beginning of the second year. The question I continue to ask is: How is this any different than going into the FA market and signing a lower tier #1 WR? It is less guaranteed and total money than Branch received last year. If Stallworth plays only 80% as well as he did in Philly and he stays healthy (that's the big question) he will most certainly come back for his second season.

It has a prove it year, but it is still very reasonable afterward for a player of Stallworth's calliber, assuming he stays healthy. Admittedly, I was not very high on Donte going into last year, but he played very well in Philly, IMHO.
__________________
"They have one objective," said Washington cornerback Shawn Springs. "They whoop people's [backsides]. If you understand that, it answers all your questions. They might not lose [this year]."
Oswlek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2007, 09:58 AM   #5
Second Team and Threatening Starter's Job
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,474
Default Re: Contracts - sorry to hijack, but WR contracts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oswlek View Post
It has a prove it year, but it is still very reasonable afterward for a player of Stallworth's calliber, assuming he stays healthy. Admittedly, I was not very high on Donte going into last year, but he played very well in Philly, IMHO.
I agree. If you read Miguel's notes on Stallworth and his salary spreadsheet, it's a reasonable contract for a #1 WR going forward. I've heard rumbling (certainly not from you) that this is a great year for Pats WRs but they're in trouble again next year. I disagree with that sentiment.

While they don't have the stable of long-term signed talent that some teams have, they're better off than most. They have Welker through 2011, a proven player. They have CJ signed for 2009. Wrong to write him in and wrong to write him off. They will battle-test two superb WRs: Moss and Stallworth. Maybe Moss blossoms again and they re-sign him and let Stallworth go. Maybe Stallworth blossoms again and Moss wants too much money and Stallworth is the future #1 at $6.x million.

Two great options so far, plus a lot of injury insurance for the Patriots (esp. given the $100K per game bonus for Stallworth).

Personally, I think Caldwell makes the roster, Brady loves this guy. A solid #2, will not need much money to re-sign. Then maybe Washington, who could be a #2 and possibly a #1 in the making, will not see enough balls to earn a big payday but enough to be tested. Maybe re-signs for reasonable money. If the Pats are well ahead, maybe they pull Stallworth and Moss and let Washington and Caldwell play as a preview of 2008.

Before 2/25/2008, when Stallworth's option bonus is due, the Pats have time to review film, self-scout, talk to agents and decide what to do. They'll have a lot of flexibility. They F.O. did an outstanding job.
PatsFan37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2007, 05:45 PM   #6
All Pro Poster
 
PatsFanInVa's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,627
My Mood: Angelic
Default Re: Contracts - Welker vs. Samuel

Owslek, I don't see where we differ. I said "unless he really produces." You counter with the opinion that he has a very reasonable "#1 receiver salary."

Is the intent to pay a #1 receiver salary, reasonable or otherwise, to a guy who does not produce? $11M for the year, or around $16M for 08 and 09 (once the die is cast,) for a guy playing middling wideout? No. The annual per year over three years of $6+M. But when the decision is made, it's a decision of whether to spend about $8M/year for two remaining years. He's got to be a little more than a Reche Caldwell 06 to merit that. You are correct, however, that he does not have to be Steve Smith 05.

Admittedly, my phrasing left a lot of wiggle room. To clarify: I'm not insisting on 1500 yards and 12 TDs; these are not very achievable in NE's spread attack, as we know it. They seem even less likely in the presence of a Moss. But I don't think he goes forward with that price tag with 600 yards and 5 TDs. Somewhere in the middle, he crosses the threshold where those contract numbers become real.

PF37, I agree with you that the Moss/Stallworth choice is a great one to have to make -- if indeed we even have to make it -- come 2008. I too disagree with anyone who says the receiver position upgrade is a one-year deal. I do think they'd love CJ to show signs of apprenticing successfully to Moss/Stallworth, so they fill their "#2" position at a decent cost. I don't understand the theory that the Pats will have decent receivers "one season only." I do understand the theory that Moss and Stallworth are likely an either/or proposition, going forward. A big-time contract for a resurgent Moss, in addition to the Stallworth deal, seems like it might put a bit more into the WR basket than the Pats would assign.

OTOH... BB has raved about Moss many times. It seems that Stallworth was meant to be a young/"poor man's" Moss (speaking of the "former" Moss.) BB having both playing well and minding their manners? Here's an idea to strike fear in everybody's heart except ours: what if Moss just really, really likes rings, and already feels okay about the money he's earned?

What if Stallworth gets his remaining $16M, and Moss signs at $6M/APY over 3 years? Sure, we have issues with the big D Line contracts... but no law says we have to pick up the slack at WR. It's just what we've done in the past.

For my money, it's a scary proposition, in a way... but if Moss likes it here, we'll have to face it. The problem is that we're building a large tier of $6M+ guys, something we've historically kept to 1 or 2 players, and that's going to thin our depth (even with new cap inflation every year.) This does bring up the prospect that buying now is buying cheap, given the next few years' cap inflation... but the bull in me says don't go nuts at any one position. Then again, we've been spoiled (cap-wise) at many positions. Most FOs don't bat an eye at 2 wideouts making 6M/year.

Whew. I'm so jonesing for 2007 I'm already making up issues for 2008.

PFnV
PatsFanInVa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 08:42 AM   #7
Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
 
JoeSixPat's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,345
Default Re: Contracts - Welker vs. Samuel

Looking over the various responses here I think its worthwhile to chime in that "#1 WR" is a relative term in New England.

While other teams have a #1 & #2 WR that catch the vast majority of passes, in NE the desire is to spread the ball around much more - and while that's included TEs & RBs in the past it seems that the new depth at WR points to multiple WR sets.

As such, in NE the #1 WR is a role player - a dependable WR who can stretch the field deep and ideally, run good routes as well.

Both Stallworth and Moss (I was surprised to see he's actually a good route runner) will fill this role nicely and out of the two, I'd expect that Stallworth has a better chance to be back next year.

Stallworth doesn't need to catch 80 passes to be our #1 WR - he needs to do only what he did in Philly last year (and hopefully remain healthy)

If he does that will he be worth an $11 million signing bonus next year? I'd say absolutely yes... his impact in averaging 19 ypc goes FAR beyond the number of receptions he has.

Last year's WR corps proved the downside of that - with only 2 passess ALL SEASON going for 40 yards or more, safeties were moving up to the line of scrimmage and many aspects of our game were adversely affected. A guy like Stallworth opening the field for our RBs, TEs, QB, & WRs would easilly be worth $5.5 million a year - which is what I see with an $11 million signing bonus prorated over a minimum 2 years of effectiveness.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
JoeSixPat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 03:12 PM   #8
PatsFans.com Supporter
 
Box_O_Rocks's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 20,550
Default Re: Contracts - Welker vs. Samuel

To play off Joe's NE use's #1 differently argument: Andrea Kramer was on the Jul 4 NFL Total Access program and brought up the point that Bill Belichick is just as good an offensive coach as he is defensive. She stressed how the new WR corps gives Bill more 'mad wizard' options to change the look of his offense week to week.

During the Wildcard game with the Jets I believe it was Phil Simms reporting how Gaffney had been prominent during the week's practices...look how Gaff surprised folks and caught around 10-11 that day. Look how TE and RB appear then disappear week to week. How Minnesota went from front runner to whodat? after BB/JM showed the league how to spank them.

Andrea's point seems well made when you look at how this offense has been developing over the off-season and how the Pats spread it around approach catches teams off guard often enough.
__________________
"Avert thine eyes! You're not hot enough to be looking at me."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Box_O_Rocks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2007, 06:09 PM   #9
All Pro Poster
 
PatsFanInVa's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,627
My Mood: Angelic
Default Re: Contracts - Welker vs. Samuel

Yes, the "mad wizard" with more toys is the way to look at this; no, we do not see Donte next year if he does not produce. The attack will be balanced, since the stretched field threat means nothing if you never throw to it. 19.1 YPC? Fine, the number of receptions will not be the determinent. 60 for 1100+ yards will probably do the trick. Again, going by numbers runs smack into the BB approach of using them all as ingredients in a big pot of whoopass stew; but at some juncture, you have to assess value to the team. Again, I don't think Caldwell numbers keep Stallworth's job for him, no matter how well he plays his role. I also don't think Randy gets a very sexy contract if he puts up Caldwell numbers.

Interestingly, if "keep one but not both" is even an option, the two are inherently pitted against one another. Just in case they need fires under their respective buttocks. Of course, in Randyland a fire under the buttocks might produce a flaming fartstorm, to stretch the metaphor ridiculously.

But if they end up in "friendly competition," this goes beyond scary. It's not just Stallworth and Moss and Brady together at last, it's Stallworth and Moss incentivized together with Brady. Oh yeah, and Welker and whoever else. Just for kicks let's say CJ really shapes up midway through the year.

Okay, just typed myself into a lather again. So tired of speculation, so ready for September...

PFnV
PatsFanInVa is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Sponsored Links



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

© Copyright 2000-2012. PatsFans.com Is a Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.
The opinions posted in this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of our staff at PatsFans.com or USA Today.
We are not affiliated with the New England Patriots™ or the NFL™. The Photo Used In the header was taken by Ian Logue.

This site is owned and operated by I&K Internet Design Enterprises, LLC


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563