Accelerated Inflation: Long-term = better?

Discussion in ' - Patriots Fan Forum' started by PatsFanInVa, Mar 11, 2007.

  1. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa Supporter Supporter

    Mar 19, 2006
    Likes Received:
    +1,624 / 18 / -11

    I just read the rumored "details" of the Stallworth contract, and of course, this whole post is pending actual details. But I noticed with Welker, Stallworth, and AD, the contract details discussed here were longer deals, not 1-2 year deals.

    Question: what's beent the trend elsewhere in FA?

    It would seem to me, that contracts can now be locked up, so you're paying today's price for good-to-primo pickups, and paying that price for longer, knowing that tomorrow's price goes bonkers...

    In other words, you pay the ADs and Dauntes of the world a nice little sum up-front, because the risk of poor performance and injury is countered, to an extent, by the known pressure on the FA market to go nuts in the next few years.

    Any validity to this? Or do we all just overthink these things and read too many tea leaves? Discuss.

  2. khayos

    khayos In the Starting Line-Up

    Apr 19, 2005
    Likes Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I haven't heard anything about fluff years for any of the FA signings which I think signals two things: 1.) the FO has looked at salary inflation over the next five years and believes that they are getting good value for the entire length of the contract and 2.) our ability to convince FAs to come here especially after the Branch fiasco is probably due in part to veterans respecting "real" contracts so they can plan their private lives for the next five years with relative stability.
  3. RayClay

    RayClay Hall of Fame Poster

    Nov 14, 2005
    Likes Received:
    +2,479 / 29 / -24

    #75 Jersey

    I'm not a numbers guy, but there seems like a pile of money to get top talent now before all salaries catch up with the cap in the future.

    The Pats collected their war chest and picked their targets.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>