Calvin Johnson signs $64 mil deal, $27 mil guaranteed

[QuiGon]

Am I the only guy who thinks that rooking money is out of control?

That since a third of first round rookies never live up to their hype, the money is a huge risk?

Few people have been more critical of Matt Millen through the years than I, but I think in this case he did the smart thing in 2 ways:

1) He ignored past WR mistakes (and a certain amount of media ridicule) and he did the smart thing by taking Johnson.

2) Signing a contract which is pretty much in line with what a top pick is expected to get these days. Maybe rookie salaries are getting a bit out of hand, but there's plenty of people to blame for that (not just Millen).

I hope the Pats do not find themselves with a #2 or #1 pick.

Yeah... sure... going deep into the playoffs and then having the top pick in the draft the next year would be just horrible...

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

For lack of a better adjective, this is ******ed. Rookies are being paid what only the very best players make while they have proven nothing. Add onto that the relatively high failure rate of these guys and it makes even less sense. Even if he's "very good" it's a bad deal.

When a team picks a player in the top 10, they are announcing their belief that the prospect will be a multi-year probowl player. The salary they pay him is commensurate with that expectation. Usually more than half of the teams are wrong, and deserve ridicule. In the case of Calvin Johnson, I happen to agree with the Lions. Johnson is special.

Where did you get that from? This sounds like pure speculation on your part. So the expectation is that each top 10 pick is Richard Seymour? Shouldn't the expectation be lowered when it is consistently missed?

 

[spacecrime]

Johnson is worth it.

How do you know? Did you predict Rogers would be worth it? That other first round WR who is not Roy Williams, whatever his name is?

That's my point. A couple years ago were were all slobering over that Penn State DL (Kennedy?) that went to the Rams. Most of us were bummed when Jonathon Smith went to the Saints. I didn't say and don't recall any of us saying, "Whew, we got the best DL in the draft, Ty Warren."

I'm not opposed to high salaries. I think it is ridiculous to pay the top five picks the way we do. A team picks that high because it sucked. Now they have to commit a significant hunk of the cap on a player that might not do a thing for them. Ryan Leaf set the Chargers back for years.

It is crazy to make a guy who never played a down the highest paid player at his position.

I don't know how to fix the problem. But I thing the system as it stands is skewed so badly I hope the Pats never again have to pick in the top five.

 

[outhere]

How do you know? Did you predict Rogers would be worth it? That other first round WR who is not Roy Williams, whatever his name is?

That's my point. A couple years ago were were all slobering over that Penn State DL (Kennedy?) that went to the Rams. Most of us were bummed when Jonathon Smith went to the Saints. I didn't say and don't recall any of us saying, "Whew, we got the best DL in the draft, Ty Warren."

I'm not opposed to high salaries. I think it is ridiculous to pay the top five picks the way we do. A team picks that high because it sucked. Now they have to commit a significant hunk of the cap on a player that might not do a thing for them. Ryan Leaf set the Chargers back for years.

It is crazy to make a guy who never played a down the highest paid player at his position.

I don't know how to fix the problem. But I thing the system as it stands is skewed so badly I hope the Pats never again have to pick in the top five.

Completely. When the money start out pacing the salaries of top 10 players WHO HAVE PLAYED DOWNS, you scratch your head.

 

[QuiGon]

For lack of a better adjective, this is ******ed. Rookies are being paid what only the very best players make while they have proven nothing. Add onto that the relatively high failure rate of these guys and it makes even less sense. Even if he's "very good" it's a bad deal.

I think some of you guys are being a bit harsh... a quick check says Marvin Harrison's contract is 7 years, $67 million... so it's fairly comparable to Johnson... except Harrison's was signed in 2004. The salary cap has risen significantly since then so $65 million today isn't really as much as as $65 million 3 years ago...

Bottom line is this... if Johnson's the real deal, it was a smart signing. If he ain't, it isn't. Time will tell.

 

[spacecrime]

Yeah... sure... going deep into the playoffs and then having the top pick in the draft the next year would be just horrible...

It has nothing to do with going deep in the playoffs. It has everything to do with having a top pick in the draft.

What would be horrible is to have the top pick in next year's draft, give the guy a $75 mil contract with $35 mil guaranteed (estimated based on what the #2 pick got this year, and adding 10% for next year), and have the guy to turn out to be the next Courtney Brown, Ki-Jana Carter or Tim Couch. You've just totally screwed your team for the next three years, and worse.

Before the draft, everyone is in awe of a top ten pick. Very few pick a top ten pick to be a bust. Guys we drooled after last April will become insurance salesmen in a few years.

Our last top ten pick was in 2001, and we did well with it. So how many of the 2001 top ten picks would you give a $30 mil signing bonus today:

1 Michael Vick, Falcons, QB, Virginia Tech
2 Leonard Davis, Cardinals, T, Texas
3 Gerard Warren, Browns, DT, Florida
4 Justin Smith, Bengals, DE, Missouri
5 LaDainian Tomlinson, Chargers, RB, Texas Christian
6 Richard Seymour, Patriots, DT, Georgia
7 Andre Carter, 49ers, DE, California
8 David Terrell, Bears, WR, Michigan
9 Koren Robinson, Seahawks, WR, North Carolina State
10 Jamal Reynolds, Packers, DE, Florida State

Three, if you count Michael Vick based on the fact that he wasn't a bust. Three players out of ten were worth what they were paid. Now look at the teams that got the losers. How many of them have been perennial playoff contenders from 2001 on? Having the second, third and fourth pick in the draft not only didn't help the Cards, Browns and Bengals, it HURT them because the money that could hav gone to Free Agent signings to bridge the gap went to Leonard Davis, Gerard Warren, and Justin Smith.

(Davis is a marginal call. For my money, he would have been a great mid-secnd round pick, but as the second player taken overall, he was a bust.)

 

[QuiGon]

It has nothing to do with going deep in the playoffs. It has everything to do with having a top pick in the draft.

What would be horrible is to have the top pick in next year's draft, give the guy a $75 mil contract with $35 mil guaranteed (estimated based on what the #2 pick got this year, and adding 10% for next year), and have the guy to turn out to be the next Courtney Brown, Ki-Jana Carter or Tim Couch. You've just totally screwed your team for the next three years, and worse.

Well, I guess I have more faith in Belichick and Pioli than you do. I believe that no matter where they draft, they will get a player and then get a fair contract. Just because other teams overpay for their rookies doesn't mean Belichick will.

Our last top ten pick was in 2001, and we did well with it. So how many of the 2001 top ten picks would you give a $30 mil signing bonus today:

1 Michael Vick, Falcons, QB, Virginia Tech
2 Leonard Davis, Cardinals, T, Texas

It is intellectually bankrupt to compare a #2 selection to the top-10. In order to be consistent, you really can only compare him to other top-2 picks, so I have snipped 80% of your list... as for the above 2, I would never see or advocate a lineman getting that much money... but by your own admission, Vick would deserve such a rookie contract... so is the Johnson contract really that much out of line..?

 

[JoeSixPat]

I think some of you guys are being a bit harsh... a quick check says Marvin Harrison's contract is 7 years, $67 million... so it's fairly comparable to Johnson... except Harrison's was signed in 2004. The salary cap has risen significantly since then so $65 million today isn't really as much as as $65 million 3 years ago...

Bottom line is this... if Johnson's the real deal, it was a smart signing. If he ain't, it isn't. Time will tell.

That's the thing - IF... and IF they are wrong they just squandered MORE guaranteed money than went to the top veteran free agent CB who signed THIS YEAR for a paltry $22 million guaranteed that made everyone gasp.

Recognizing that any player can be injured and there's a chance being taken, would you rather spend your money as a team on a proven commodity or someone who has never played a down in the NFL?

So recognizing that top WRs and top CBs both command about the same amount of money (franchise tag amouns for both are around the same) I'd say its an apples and apples comparison when you consider that a proven veteran CB is getting LESS than an unproven rookie WR.... and that, I think, is not healthy for any team.

The dropoff out of #1 and #2 however is pretty steep. I never felt as though Seymour's rookie contract at #6 was too high (relative to when it was signed) and indeed he outplayed his rookie contract... but that really shows the difference between #1 and #6 in terms of value.

Now as far as Johnson himself, all the numbers are there - 6'5", 240 lbs, jumps like an NBA forward, and runs a 4.3 in the 40

All he hasn't done is caught a ball against NFL caliber hard hitting CBs and Safeties. So I'm not predicting he'll be a bust.

But I also happen to know that the GM who drafted Charles Rogers (#2 overall) didn't predict he'd be a bust either... same with Peter Warrick (#4)... same with David Terrell (#8)... same with Koren Robinson (#9) same with Desmond Howard (#4)...

 

[QuiGon]

Recognizing that any player can be injured and there's a chance being taken, would you rather spend your money as a team on a proven commodity or someone who has never played a down in the NFL?

I don't think it has to be regarded strictly as an either-or decision. A smart GM can combine good draft picks with wise free agent aquisitions. If you draft losers, then any amount of money will be considered "overpaying". If you draft future Pro-Bowlers, then no rookie contract will be considered "overpaying".

5 years from now when evaluating the Lions' move, people are going to look at the quality of the player. No one is going to mention the signing bonus or the guaranteed money.

But very few also predicted that Charles Rogers (#2 overall, Lions) would be a bust... same with Peter Warrick (#4)... same with David Terrell (#8)... same with Koren Robinson (#9) same with Desmond Howard (#4)...

None of those guys were as highly touted anywhere remotely as much as Johnson. IMHO, the Lions made a great pick and that's the bottom line. The specific dollars and cents is just a footnote.

 

[PonyExpress]

For lack of a better adjective, this is ******ed. Rookies are being paid what only the very best players make while they have proven nothing. Add onto that the relatively high failure rate of these guys and it makes even less sense. Even if he's "very good" it's a bad deal.



Where did you get that from? This sounds like pure speculation on your part. So the expectation is that each top 10 pick is Richard Seymour? Shouldn't the expectation be lowered when it is consistently missed?

I guess you think it's "******ed" that 32 general managers in the NFL felt Calvin Johnson was not only the best player in this draft, but the best WR prospect in a decade. There is nothing outlandish or even controversial about the following statement: When a team drafts a player in the top 10, they expect that player to be pro-bowler. They pay him commensurate with that expectation. If he fails, it's usually their fault for being stupid. The problem is not that rookies are getting big contracts. It's that teams are giving big contracts to the wrong rookies. That's the teams' fault. IMO the risk/reward scenario at the top of the draft adds to the excitement and drama of the NFL.

 

[PonyExpress]

How do you know?

Ask the 32 GMs who feel he's the best WR prospect in a decade.

Question: Isn't the problem that clueless GMs select the wrong players in the top 10, not that big contracts are awarded? In every draft you can find about 15 players who deserve top money. Some of those players get selected in rd 4, like Asante Samuel; some in rd 6 like Tom Brady. The problem isn't that big money is awarded, it's that GMs give it to the wrong players. What people are really asking for is to limit the consequences of bad drafting by dumb GMs. Why should we do that? The pressure on front offices is part of the drama of the draft, and story of each NFL season. One mistake can doom a franchise. Personally, I like that and see no reason to limit risk. it's like saying, Let's play poker for peanuts, because if we play for real stash someone might lose big. Isn't the risk of losing big, and the reward of winning big, the drama and intrigue of high stakes gambling? Why limit risk when competitive risk is the essence of the game?

 

[spacecrime]

How do you know (Johnson will not be a bust)?

Ask the 32 GMs who feel he's the best WR prospect in a decade.

How do you do know all 32 GMs felt he was the best prospect in the decade? And even if they did think that, that doesn't make it so. Didn't they (and everyone else in the world) feel the same about Courtney Brown? I wasn't asking what the concensus was about Johnson. You said YOU knew he wouldn't be a bust, and I asked how did YOU know. If your answer is because everyone thinks he'll be as great as they thought Courtney Brown and David Carr were going to be, that isn't knowing, not in my book.

Question: Isn't the problem that clueless GMs select the wrong players in the top 10, not that big contracts are awarded? In every draft you can find about 15 players who deserve top money. Some of those players get selected in rd 4, like Asante Samuel; some in rd 6 like Tom Brady. The problem isn't that big money is awarded, it's that GMs give it to the wrong players. What people are really asking for is to limit the consequences of bad drafting by dumb GMs. Why should we do that? The pressure on front offices is part of the drama of the draft, and story of each NFL season. One mistake can doom a franchise. Personally, I like that and see no reason to limit risk. it's like saying, Let's play poker for peanuts, because if we play for real stash someone might lose big. Isn't the risk of losing big, and the reward of winning big, the drama and intrigue of high stakes gambling? Why limit risk when competitive risk is the essence of the game?

Never said GMs were clueless. Never said they drafted poorly. There is a general concenessus among football experts as to who is most likely to be good, within a pretty close range. They aren't right, of course, and two thirds of top ten picks turn out to be junk, but the GMs make the best decision based on the best information. A few years ago pre-draft, BB said he would draft Robert Gallery in a heartbeat.

The problem is NOT that GMs make bad decisions. The problem IMO is that the tons of money is guaranteed to players, most of whom will not earn it. This is not a problem for later rounds (second on) and even the last two-thirds of the first round. It is a problem for top ten players because so much money is involved a franchise can be wrecked for years. I hear you like that, that it adds drama. Okay, maybe that is our basic difference. I don't.

I don't understand why Vernon Davis got more for signing his name than Heap, Gates, Gonsalez, Crumpler, Graham, etc etc earned for proving on the football field year after year that they were top TEs. You do, that's fine.

I like your card game analogy, though. If you think it though, it shows why it is nonsense to bet everything you own in a card game BEFORE THE CARDS ARE DEALT, and you know what the value of the hand you will get.

But then, this is what you like about the draft, as you said. It adds to the drama if a top drafted player with $30 mil in guarantees turns out to be worthless.

We'll just agree to disagree on this one subject, as I agree most of what you post on this site.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I guess you think it's "******ed" that 32 general managers in the NFL felt Calvin Johnson was not only the best player in this draft, but the best WR prospect in a decade. There is nothing outlandish or even controversial about the following statement: When a team drafts a player in the top 10, they expect that player to be pro-bowler. They pay him commensurate with that expectation. If he fails, it's usually their fault for being stupid. The problem is not that rookies are getting big contracts. It's that teams are giving big contracts to the wrong rookies. That's the teams' fault. IMO the risk/reward scenario at the top of the draft adds to the excitement and drama of the NFL.

The problem with your argument is that Johnson didn't get $27 million guaranteed because he's a much better WR prospect than Charles Rogers was when the Lions drafted him #2.

He got $27 million guarnteed because that's what this year's rookie salary inflation comes in at for the #1 pick. The #2 pick will get slightly less than Johnson, the #3 pick slightly less etc...

So take Johnson out of the equation - it would hardly matter who the #1 pick was... IMO the rookie salaries for the top picks are out of control, giving guys more for potential than proven veteran free agents. That's just wrong in my book, and not very healthy for football.

 

[PonyExpress]

How do you do know all 32 GMs felt he was the best prospect in the decade? And even if they did think that, that doesn't make it so. Didn't they (and everyone else in the world) feel the same about Courtney Brown? I wasn't asking what the concensus was about Johnson. You said YOU knew he wouldn't be a bust, and I asked how did YOU know. If your answer is because everyone thinks he'll be as great as they thought Courtney Brown and David Carr were going to be, that isn't knowing, not in my book.

Never said GMs were clueless. Never said they drafted poorly. There is a general concenessus among football experts as to who is most likely to be good, within a pretty close range. They aren't right, of course, and two thirds of top ten picks turn out to be junk, but the GMs make the best decision based on the best information. A few years ago pre-draft, BB said he would draft Robert Gallery in a heartbeat.

The problem is NOT that GMs make bad decisions. The problem IMO is that the tons of money is guaranteed to players, most of whom will not earn it. This is not a problem for later rounds (second on) and even the last two-thirds of the first round. It is a problem for top ten players because so much money is involved a franchise can be wrecked for years. I hear you like that, that it adds drama. Okay, maybe that is our basic difference. I don't.

I don't understand why Vernon Davis got more for signing his name than Heap, Gates, Gonsalez, Crumpler, Graham, etc etc earned for proving on the football field year after year that they were top TEs. You do, that's fine.

I like your card game analogy, though. If you think it though, it shows why it is nonsense to bet everything you own in a card game BEFORE THE CARDS ARE DEALT, and you know what the value of the hand you will get.

But then, this is what you like about the draft, as you said. It adds to the drama if a top drafted player with $30 mil in guarantees turns out to be worthless.

We'll just agree to disagree on this one subject, as I agree most of what you post on this site.

I can see you feel very strongly about this issue. For me, the money involved is monopoly money, and therefore I feel little moral outrage. If entry level employees where I work were getting 5 times my salary, I would no doubt feel differently. As far as disagreements... the give and take on this site between fellow Pats fans is always more interesting than singing along with the choir. IMO we are all part of an extended family, and families are prone to misunderstandings easily forgiven.

 

[Miguel]

Ask the 32 GMs who feel he's the best WR prospect in a decade.

Question: Isn't the problem that clueless GMs select the wrong players in the top 10, not that big contracts are awarded? In every draft you can find about 15 players who deserve top money. Some of those players get selected in rd 4, like Asante Samuel; some in rd 6 like Tom Brady. The problem isn't that big money is awarded, it's that GMs give it to the wrong players. What people are really asking for is to limit the consequences of bad drafting by dumb GMs. Why should we do that? The pressure on front offices is part of the drama of the draft, and story of each NFL season. One mistake can doom a franchise. Personally, I like that and see no reason to limit risk. it's like saying, Let's play poker for peanuts, because if we play for real stash someone might lose big. Isn't the risk of losing big, and the reward of winning big, the drama and intrigue of high stakes gambling? Why limit risk when competitive risk is the essence of the game?

Very well said. IMO, if you limit the risk of having a top pick, you will only encourage bad teams to dump games at the end of the season as it happens in the NBA.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Very well said. IMO, if you limit the risk of having a top pick, you will only encourage bad teams to dump games at the end of the season as it happens in the NBA.

But the question is, whether a system in which unproven rookies get more in signing bonuses than proven, veteran free agent players at comparable positions (say CB) do suggests an imbalance.

As I said before - Johnson got his money because that's what this year's rookie salary inflation dictated.

Do you think Johnson's bonus is a one time thing, because he's a monster candidate - or will it increase slightly next year regardless of who is #1.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

I don't have a lot of issue with the "Johnson is special" defense, because he very well might be. What I have a problem with is the fact that whoever was drafted at #2 was going to make silly money. The fact he might be special ends up being immaterial, because most guys aren't the best WR prospect in 10 years.

My other problem is blaming all failures in the draft on GM stupidity. These guys are unproven and you don't know who will work hard, take their job seriously, etc. You can have an idea from talking to college coaches and others who know them but there's really no way to know. You can draft an athletic QB and watch him grow as a real QB or you can watch him coast on his athletic ability and never really "get it." I know we like to hold up the NEP as a team which could predict Tom Brady's future stardom but they basically got lucky. Also, holding every team to the standards of the very top teams when it comes to drafting isn't really fair.

Basically, it's the high failure rate that bothers me. A 50% failure rate might be ok, but they're paying these guys to be future stars and maybe 20-33% (warning: number pulled out of nowhere) actually are. It's a very expensive lotto ticket.

The obvious answer to this is what the NBA does. A rookie salary scale means that a top pick failing doesn't overly punish the team because it's an inexpensive commitment. You limit all rookie deals to 3 or 4 years so that those rookies who pan out get the big payday they were deprived as a rookie without having to wait too long. It also means their first big payday is based on NFL performance, not where they were drafted. A high pick like Johnson would still make enough to be set for life in his rookie deal, but not enough to cripple his team is he fails.

 

[Miguel]

But the question is, whether a system in which unproven rookies get more in signing bonuses than proven, veteran free agent players at comparable positions (say CB) do suggests an imbalance.

Did not mean to hijack this thread but just wanted to add to it.

As I said before - Johnson got his money because that's what this year's rookie salary inflation dictated.

Do you think Johnson's bonus is a one time thing, because he's a monster candidate - or will it increase slightly next year regardless of who is #1.

The latter.

 

[Seven Nation Army]

A high draft pick and the large salary that comes with it are not necessarily a bad thing, just a greater risk/reward ratio.