Bedard: Pats and Welker $6 mill apart

[BradyFTW!]

The problem is that it gives him no security whatsoever, and while business may be business there is also something to be said for giving it their all, playing hurt and going well beyond expectations, and Welkert has done all of that. I make exceptions for certain players who go way beyond and exemplify everything a team would ask for, an d Welker, like Brady, bruschi, Faulk, and others is one of those cases. For people to act like the team should simply play pure hardball is a disgrace to me and I have little to no respect for that. I'm not saying that's your position TS but it certainly the position of many here who fancy themselves as faux GM's. Managing money well is very important, being bastards to their best players may be penny wise but overall it is really stupid. The players know it and will react to it down the line.

When did a $10 million guaranteed one-year contract become "no security whatsoever"? How many tens of millions does a player have to be guaranteed before it counts as even a tiny amount of security?

 

[Deus Irae]

When did a $10 million guaranteed one-year contract become "no security whatsoever"? How many tens of millions does a player have to be guaranteed before it counts as even a tiny amount of security?

Being more than one year would be a pretty good start, and the amount involved is meaningless in the context.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Being more than one year would be a pretty good start, and the amount involved is meaningless in the context.

So a player who signs for three years, $10M guaranteed has plenty of security, but a player who signs for 1 year, $10M guaranteed has none?

Or, since the amount of money is apparently irrelevant, a one year, $30 million guaranteed contract would still equal no security whatsoever?

 

[Deus Irae]

So a player who signs for three years, $10M guaranteed has plenty of security, but a player who signs for 1 year, $10M guaranteed has none?

Sure, if you don't make the mistake of confusing the straight number with the security of a multi-year contract. You've gotten sidetracked by the dollar amounts. You usually don't allow yourself to do that.

 

[mgteich]

How could a 3-year contract with $10M guaranteed (including this year's salary) be more secure that a one year deal with $10M guaranteed?

A 3-year deal simply gives the team a free option, unless Welker is given guaranteed compensation for the additional years.

Sure, if you don't make the mistake of confusing the straight number with the security of a multi-year contract. You've gotten sidetracked by the dollar amounts. You usually don't allow yourself to do that.

 

[Deus Irae]

How could a 3-year contract with $10M guaranteed (including this year's salary) be more secure that a one year deal with $10M guaranteed?

A 3-year deal simply gives the team a free option, unless Welker is given guaranteed compensation for the additional years.

Because what is meant by security, in the context of football contractual discussions from the point of view of the player, is a multi-year deal at a reasonably agreeable contractual number. Both you and BradyFTW! are familiar enough with football to know this, so I don't see what the issue is here.

 

[patfanken]

Being more than one year would be a pretty good start, and the amount involved is meaningless in the context.

I don't know which is more astonishing The ludicrousness of your initial opinion, or your decision to try and defend it.

 

[smg93]

I don't know which is more astonishing The ludicrousness of your initial opinion, or your decision to try and defend it.

Too bad he's not WW's agent. The Pats would just offer a 5 year contract at $3 mil per and all would be done.

 

[Ring 6]

So a player who signs for three years, $10M guaranteed has plenty of security, but a player who signs for 1 year, $10M guaranteed has none?

Or, since the amount of money is apparently irrelevant, a one year, $30 million guaranteed contract would still equal no security whatsoever?

Actually a 1 year deal with 10 mill guaranteed has more security than a 3 year deal with 10 mill guaranteed, because I would consider being locked into those 2 years at the clubs choice, where they keep you if you are underpaid and cut you if you are overpaid, to be a hinderance on security.
If the team added 2 years salary with no additional guaranteed money to the tag, there would be no reason at all for Welker to take it.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Seems to me like the Patriots have already decided what his long-term worth is. And it's a lot less than Welker thinks it should be. Remember, though, the Pats stick to their assigned value of a player more closely than just about anyone else in the league. If Welker thinks he's worth $2-3M per year more than the Pats do, then a new deal is extremely unlikely. I know a bunch of people here don'e like that, since it's Welker and all, but they're not treating him any differently than they've treated pretty much everyone else when their contract came up.

The universal affinity for WW does play a major part.

Also, there seems to be a complete lack of consideration by some that the Patriots might be evolving the offense and that would de-emphasize WW and therefore lessen his value.

 

[Kontradiction]

The universal affinity for WW does play a major part.

Also, there seems to be a complete lack of consideration by some that the Patriots might be evolving the offense and that would de-emphasize WW and therefore lessen his value.

Please explain any way that the Patriots could evolve the offense that wouldn't include plans for the best slot receiver in the game, especially in the Erhardt-Perkins system.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

So I guess Brady's last 4 year $72M extension should have been plenty secure had they only guaranteed him $18M rather than the $48M they inexplicably opted to guaranteed. And Mankins should have settled for $8.5M guaranteed on his 6 year $51M deal as opposed to the $30M he's guaranteed. And Wilfork should have considered himself lucky to get $8M guaranteed on his 5 year $40M deal as opposed to the $20M that was. And Ocho's 3 year $12M restructure at 33 coming off two down years...well, we won't even go there.

The way it works is somewhere between 30-50%+ of the AAV of a long term deal is incrementally guaranteed up front for some combination of skill, injury and cap. Otherwise a player who is worth X dollars in present market value would be an idiot to risk losing what makes him worth that going forward in exchange for 1 year of his market value. Which btw is why players aren't as crazy as fans and owners would like them to be about the franchise tag. In a sport that is physically violent to the point you are always just one hit away from potentially being out of it if not worse. Now some claim that's tough noogies, why should teams risk paying you only to have that happen. While others claim it's a travesty that as in other professional sports contract aren't fully guaranteed. The truth and a reasonable compromise lies somewhere in the middle... and that is what we increasingly see in NFL contracts, partial guarantees that split the risk between the player and the team.

Welker is presently worth at least $9.5M per year by all accounts. Now the discussion becomes how much is he worth going forward given his age and position. How steep a projection in reduction in value is reasonable factoring in the market value of the position will increase across the league over the life of any deal. The tradeoff for the more you opt to project a reduction in value going forward is the greater the % of that value you guarantee. That is why they tried the 2 year $16M guaranteed deal (albeit tried when he had a year left at $2.75M during which he once again...well, you know. So say he's worth $9.5M this year but option to re-tag aside you aren't sure he will be worth quite that much (although he well may be and the value at the position will be greater than $9.5M) the following year at the advanced age of 32. And you project that he might only be worth half as much as top market value three years out at age 33, although he may well still be worth 1.5-2 times that. And possibly half as much again by year 4 when he's being fitted for a walker at 34, although again he may still be worth 2-3 times that because he's disproved his doubters throughout his career.

So you're looking to discount what would otherwise be at least a 4 year $38M deal for say a 28 year old into a 4 year deal that allows you to retain his rights while not potentially overpaying for production due to age. Lets get out the old calculators. $9.5M + $8.5M + $5.25M + $2.75M = $26M over 4 years. Since the deal value is already deeply discounted and the first year's salary is already fully guaranteed, a 60% guarantee of the remaining 3 years ($16M) would not be excessive - Mankins after all got 60% of an undiscounted deal. $9.5M + $9.6M = $19.1M guaranteed on a 4 year $38M deal (half the max value of the deal). You can do the same deal on a 3 year term although the backend guarantee should increase since the years decreased, so the guaranteed amount doesn't change, or 3 years, $28.5M, $19.1M guaranteed. You gain nothing in the process of shortening the deal because the guaranteed money remains the same. You lose cap flexibility via a year less of amortization.

His guaranteed money is all accounted for in the first year (or two if you don't choose to increase his 2012 cap hit by frontloading roughly $2M), and thereafter you have all the leverage back because your dead cap is minimal ($2.4M per). And if you choose or feel you have to for cap purposes or if it's warranted due to decreasing production, you can make him reduce his remaining unguaranteed salaries to whatever suits you or you can cut him. And he knows it. And he knows at 33-34 hitting FA after you've cut him probably isn't going to net him much more than you are offering under the circumstances. So maybe his 4 year $38M deal ultimately ends up being a 4 year $27.5M deal or a 3 year $22M deal with $19.1M guaranteed...and a $2.4M dead cap hit in 2015.

Beats 1 year $9.5M and he's gone (maybe down I-95 South or off to KC or Baltimore (doubling $7M Boldin's lack of production) on a 3 year $27M deal with $14M guaranteed) or 2 years $21M and he's gone. I think the odds are greater that he's worth at least $6.5M between 2014-2015 than he's suddenly worthless in 2014 at age 33. And obviously so does Wes. In fact he's betting he's still worth $9M or so in two years time. Heck, if they re-sign Edleman it's likely he's making that or more for half the production, and you're hoping that's enough and Hernandez isn't injured or holding out for his market value and all the other 30 something receivers haven't fallen off their own cliff and a 7th rounder has developed like no draft pick has here in a decade...

Had they overpaid him on his last deal or had he not produced until late in it, you could make the case that he somehow owes them a solid. Under the circumstances though you can't. There remain those who insist that Brady made Welker. I bet Brady would disagree. They made each other better, and we aren't discounting Brady's or Mankins contracts to account for the had X factor. At least not yet...

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Douche

This is post is a product of basic logic.

Notice this type of post has zero in common with your posts.

Not sure who you're calling a douche although I assume it's Deus. Thing is, he and Andy are saying the same thing in a different way. I could suggest anyone who doesn't grasp that is a moron, but then that would just be a broader form of personal insult which is against Ian's board conduct rules.

:bricks:

 

[Ring 6]

Douche

This is post is a product of basic logic.

Notice this type of post has zero in common with your posts.

Once more in English please?

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Please explain any way that the Patriots could evolve the offense that wouldn't include plans for the best slot receiver in the game, especially in the Erhardt-Perkins system.

Well.....let's see

Football is an inherent game of of adjustments. Offenses become innovative and defenses catch up to offenses. If this wasn't true, players would still be wearing leather and the forward pass would look alien.

The Patriots wouldn't rank 32nd in many ways but if a "do what we do" measure was ever instituted, they would be at the bottom.

Ask Randy Moss about the idea of the Patriots evolving an offense......and if that has any factor in contract proceedings.

Anyone somewhat awake the past 12 years would have noticed that this franchise does tend to change.

What's happened in a year on offense?

Two high draft pick RB's vs two mainstay UDFA RB's
Two all world TE's starting to peak.
Substantial overhaul of the WR corps.

Does this usually happen because things will be exactly as they were before?

Ofcourse, if someone wants to believe that an organization that constantly evolves, decides to materially overhaul offensive personnel, AND play "hardball" with the past mainstay of the offense because they like to "screw" with the mainstay just because things will be exactly like before...well that's also possible.

How about seeing what TC and preseason holds and then figuring out why management and player are apart on their interpretation?

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Once more in English please?

Your post sums it up.

The guy you responded to...........responded to the Douche.

The Douche is the one who thinks that years are "security" vs guareented money.

 

[Kontradiction]

Well.....let's see

Football is an inherent game of of adjustments. Offenses become innovative and defenses catch up to offenses. If this wasn't true, players would still be wearing leather and the forward pass would look alien.

Well, like so many of your counter arguments, this point is completely irrelevant to the question I asked you. Here's a couple of reasons...

1. This offense, even without a deep threat, really has not been caught up to.

2. This offense, like the league, also depends on adjustments. They depend on adjustments pre-snap and post-snap. Much of that requires a Vulcan mind lock with Brady. Is there anybody on the team that shares a brain with Brady more than Welker?

3. Much of this offense's success over the last two seasons, post Moss, can be directly attributed to Welker.

The Patriots wouldn't rank 32nd in many ways but if a "do what we do" measure was ever instituted, they would be at the bottom.

Can anybody decipher this for me? Unfortunately, I am not fluent in inbred.

Ask Randy Moss about the idea of the Patriots evolving an offense......and if that has any factor in contract proceedings.

It had absolutely no factor in the contract proceedings. The fact that Moss aged, lost a step, and was becoming a distraction by talking openly to the press about his displeasure over not receiving a new contract before the old one was up had more to do with it. If what you're saying was the case, Moss would have been gone in the 2010 offseason.

Anyone somewhat awake the past 12 years would have noticed that this franchise does tend to change.

What's happened in a year on offense?

Two high draft pick RB's vs two mainstay UDFA RB's
Two all world TE's starting to peak.
Substantial overhaul of the WR corps.

1. Welker has a better connection with Brady when it comes to route adjustments than any of the above.

2. The RB's were drafted due to significant turnover at the position and not some made up notion that the offense is evolving in such a way that we're pushing out one of The Franchise's closest friends and the best slot receiver in the game.

3. None of these reasons address the question. They're essentially a best guess.

Does this usually happen because things will be exactly as they were before?

Even though you clearly can't answer the first one, I'll raise you another question: If the Pats offense is evolving in the way you're grasping at straws at to describe, then why have the Pats even bothered offering Welker a contract already?

How about seeing what TC and preseason holds and then figuring out why management and player are apart on their interpretation?

The problem with this argument is twofold. One, we already know what we have in Welker so it's fundementally unnecessary to wait until TC. Second, if we do that, we lose the ability to negotiate with him until 2013, which would make the notion that we're "screwing" with him that much more likely.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Sure, if you don't make the mistake of confusing the straight number with the security of a multi-year contract. You've gotten sidetracked by the dollar amounts. You usually don't allow yourself to do that.

I think it's safe to say that our opinions on the matter are far enough apart that no amount of discussion will resolve them. If you think it's self-evident that dollar amount is irrelevant to the notion of security, then that's that. Clearly, I disagree.

As far as not usually allowing myself to do this, I've always regarded the abstract notion of 'security' as largely a function of guaranteed money. $10M guaranteed isn't as much as he wants, but it's certainly not nothing, especially when he'll get another crack at a contract in one year.

 

[BradyFTW!]

The problem with this argument is twofold. One, we already know what we have in Welker so it's fundementally unnecessary to wait until TC. Second, if we do that, we lose the ability to negotiate with him until 2013, which would make the notion that we're "screwing" with him that much more likely.

That's definitely worth emphasizing. Of all of the reasons why Welker doesn't have a contract, having to prove what he's capable of clearly can't be one of them. He's caught 600 balls for us: the Patriots know exactly what they have in him, because he's been producing consistently, even when coming off an ACL tear, for five years now. Even without Brady, he did what he does just fine.

 

[Ivan]

Even by the Douche's own standard, this is absolutely stupid.

This coming from the one and only fan on this site who argued vehemently that the Patriots had a GOOD defense last season.


The reason players hate franchise tag is because it denies them the long term security they need playing pro football. This is exactly why Brees fought so hard against his tag, and he was vocal that it was about the long term security that a long term deal with guaranteed money provides. I'd tell you to get back to us when youj can grasp that basic concept but i know you are far to dense for that to ever happen. Welker has earned a long term deal and the Patriots won't provide it, he should play out his tag and move on because he certainly isn't appreciated in NE.