Givens Contract Offer
If you were BB/Pioli, what sort of offer would you be willing to make to Givens?
I'd probably offer something along the lines of
$10 million signing bonus
average salary of $1.25 million per year
average salary cap hit - $3.75 million per year
total contract value = $15 million
Givens of course would laugh at this offer on his way out the door to Cleveland.
Regardless, in a year when there are not many WRs available - and in a year when a team like Cleveland is $20 million under the cap now, and $30 million if there's a CBA, there is no way the Pats win, or even try to compete in a bidding war.
The Pats have likely already made their offer and will see what other offers Givens gets. I can't imagine we'll give Givens his highest offer.
Your analysis is correct. Having made the same analysis as you, bb and pioli apparently would rather not even make an offer.
demand for WRs is very high ...
while the supply, both in free agency and in the draft, is unusually low.
If we do not make David the "best" offer he receives (including some low value for intangibles)
then we must make HIS REPLACEMENT the best offer HE receives.
Pay me now ... or pay me later.
It makes me wonder whether (assuming a new CBA) overpaying on a short-term deal for Moulds might be a better solution than overpaying on a long-term deal for Givens. That could reduce the long-range impact of the overpayment, and leave more flexibility for future signings...including extending Branch.
If BB values Givens as highly as the other team making an offer then BBs offer will be about the same.
I hate this impression thrown around here all the time that BB doesnt pay value for players.
He does. Its just that his value and other teams value is different on different players.
For every player that we think another team overpaid for, there is a player that another team thinks WE overpaid for. It has to be because we are using up the cap. While this may not show up in FA, its still irrelevant. What is the difference between 'overpaying' a guy who is already yours or overpaying for one who isnt?
Many other franchises would argue BB overpaid for McGinest, Vrabel, Ted Johnson, Dillon, and of course Harriosn and Colvin because we DID outbid.
The difference is that the abilities and characteristics that BB values are different than other teams.
For years everyone thought Law would be cut because of his cap number. Isnt that a case of overpaying? Every draft BB "reaches" for players. Why is that? Its because his value in looking at a player is not the conventional norm. Of course he is reaching if the characteristics he wants are there making the guy a 2ndf rounder to him, but the characteristics that other teams value more highly and BB does not are lacking. The consensus is the guy is a 3rd, in BBs crtieria he is a 2nd.
The correct terminology in my opinion isnt no way we will be the highest bidder. The correct terminology is no way BB thinks Givens is better than what all of the other 31 GMs do, or if he does, he places less value on the WR position than the others do. If not, Givnes remains a Patriot.
The draft can uncover some hidden gems - but don't bank on that - and most often even those gems need some time to develop.
As we've seen, teams that are willing to trade aren't usually offering top tier players at bottom basement prices either (look at the Starks trade last year)
What we're left with is an assortment of 2nd tier FAs - maybe a 2nd or 3rd round draft choice - and the hope that Branch can stretch the field enough to free up some space for our TEs and RBs to catch the ball in the open field.
That's the way our passing game appears to be shaping up, though leave it to the Pats to pull a rabbit out of their hat when you least expect it.
Yes, and there is one more.
I think it is very safe to say that over the past 5 years the Patriots have had the best players cumulatively in the NFL.
If you are playing every player exactly what he is worth, the team with the best players must pay more than the team with the worst.
When players then become free agents, the money available under the cap says that the worst team can afford more players at their value than the best team can. So the best team loses players because it must make decisions about which ones are most important because your players are too good to afford all of them.
When you add in the rookie contract factor, you see that the best teams have bargains in thier young players. When those players reach free agency the sum total of their market value exceeds the cap. It has to because your players have more value than anyone elses.
This brings up an interesting point:
The success of the Patriots in managing the cap is not based primarily on good FA decisions, frugal contracts, or players taking less than value. It is based upon DRAFTING, and having a strong group of players making contributions far and above their cost (outplaying their rookie contract) thereby freeing up more money for other players.
Lets assume a team has 33 key players and 20 jags
From the last 4 drafts, every team has 20 players left in their rookie contract.
Those players count an average of 800k vs the cap
Jags cost and average of 1mill
You have 90 mill on yur cap
Team X has 15 key players in the 'rookie contract' status, and 5 that are jags
Team Y has 5 keys and 15 jags.
Each team has spent 16mill on the rookie contract guys.
Team X needs 15 additional jags costing 15mill, They have now tied up 31 mill and have 59mill left to spend on the remaining 18 key players. (that is 3.28 mill per player)
Team Y needs 5 more jags at a cost of 5mill. They now have 69mill to spend on the other key players, but need 28 of them. The money available to spend for those other key players is only 2.46mill per player.
Which team will have a better group of key players? Team X is able to spend 33% more on its key players that are not in their rookie contracts.
(Team X may also choose to spend just the 2.46, but but upgrade their jags to key player levels)
This is how the Pats have done what they have done. They have gotten more from the 'cheap' players within their rookie contracts, by a long margin than any team has. (I think they fall in between better key players and better jags when spending the difference)
In the end you have a team (X) that has the ability to afford better players because their young players fill larger roles.
The rub? Look at that scenario and make all 20 player in their rookie contracts Free Agents. Team X doesnt have the cap room to keep them because a key player makes 4 times as much as a guy in his rookie contract, and you have 15 of them. If they leave, you have many holes, and not much money to fill them with. Team Y wouldn't be too concerned, because they are losing mostly jags. They should have much less problem retaining most of their key players.
David Givens has helped us win Championships in more ways than 1. His play has helped, but his play compared to his cap # (ie outplaying his contract) has reduced the big contract key players we need by 1, and freed up more money to upgrade the rest of the other 52.
At this point he would become one of high paid guys, that we do not need as many of, but do have top $$ to spend on, but already have a lot of.
Ironically, Givens, at least from this perspective, helped us win a lot more from 2002-2005 than he possibly could going forward, factoring in what paying him would cost us in what is available to other players.
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 © Copyright 2000-2012. PatsFans.com Is a Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties. This site is owned and operated by I&K Internet Design Enterprises, LLC
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
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