Franchise tag and transition tag numbers released

[Deus Irae]

That's not true. I have given you examples of players like Asante Samuel who benefitted long term for being franchised. At least under the new CBA, many players benefitted from being franchised. Both Julius Peppers and Karlos Dansby may be even more compensated from being franchised twice.

The fact of the matter is that Samuel got the same or better contract he would have gotten a year earlier (since the cap has been expanded exponentially, so have the salaries) and got more money as a franchise player than he will get as a player in his early 30s when he is a free agent again. You can ignore the numbers, but most of the players who get franchised do make out in the long run as long as they are not too old, do not have a bad year, and/or do not get injured. That is why players hate it, but a player like Asante Samuel probably will have made $3-4 million in his career because of it when all it is all done.

Julius Peppers got close to $30 million over two years as a franchised player and could get another deal with $20-30 million guaranteed this offseason. So with his two franchised years, Peppers could have gotten the equivalent of upt to a five or six year deal with $50 million guaranteed by the end of the offseason. Do you really think he would have gotten a contract like that two years ago? Two years ago, his guarantee money would have been something like $20 million.

With salaries skyrocketing over the past few years and more players playing under their franchise tender (last year there was a record 9 players playing under the franchise tender), the franchise tender for most positions are really high especially in positions like DE. A franchised player can play for upwards to a seven figure salary for one year and get a seven figure bonus the next year.

This is incorrect, sorry. You're equating the reward for playing well in a contract year under the franchise tag with the reward for the franchise tag. They are two different items.

 

[Rob0729]

This is incorrect, sorry. You're equating the reward for playing well in a contract year under the franchise tag with the reward for the franchise tag. They are two different items.

And so? It still doesn't change the fact that more often than not a player who plays under the franchise tag gets more money over their career than one who gets the deal right away. It might not happen for Wilfork if he plays under the franchise tender, but the odds are good that it will.

There is definitely a reward in this case if the player performs. You seem to be too hung up on the literal meaning of reward. but players who play under a franchise tender and then get a long term deal the following year tend to make more money in the long term than players who just get the long term contract right away. That is a reward in taking a risk in a risk/reward scenario. If you are so hung up on the word reward, we can us benefit, profit, make out, or whatever you want. It doesn't change the fact that guys like Samuel, Peppers, and other franchised players are richer because of being franchised rather than getting a deal right away.

Maybe you aren't in the business world (I have no idea what you do for a living), but risk/reward scenarios are common business measurement and the reward part is not always a literal reward. It means the benefits you get for taking the risk and the risk paying off. If Wilfork risks playing for the franchise tender this year and then ends up making more money in his career because of it, that is the reward or benefit from taking that risk.

 

[Deus Irae]

And so? It still doesn't change the fact that more often than not a player who plays under the franchise tag gets more money over their career than one who gets the deal right away. It might not happen for Wilfork if he plays under the franchise tender, but the odds are good that it will.

There is definitely a reward in this case if the player performs. You seem to be too hung up on the literal meaning of reward. but players who play under a franchise tender and then get a long term deal the following year tend to make more money in the long term than players who just get the long term contract right away. That is a reward in taking a risk in a risk/reward scenario. If you are so hung up on the word reward, we can us benefit, profit, make out, or whatever you want. It doesn't change the fact that guys like Samuel, Peppers, and other franchised players are richer because of being franchised rather than getting a deal right away.

Maybe you aren't in the business world (I have no idea what you do for a living), but risk/reward scenarios are common business measurement and the reward part is not always a literal reward. It means the benefits you get for taking the risk and the risk paying off. If Wilfork risks playing for the franchise tender

1.) I'm not hung up on anything here. People are simply making bad arguments and I'm noting them.

2.) I've been an owner of a business, so I certainly understand risk/reward.

3.) There is no reward for a player under the franchise tag if he would make more money without it. That's just the reality of the situation. It was never intended that there be a reward for such a player in that situation, quite the opposite.

 

[Rob0729]

1.) I'm not hung up on anything here. People are simply making bad arguments and I'm noting them.

2.) I've been an owner of a business, so I certainly understand risk/reward.

3.) There is no reward for a player under the franchise tag if he would make more money without it. That's just the reality of the situation. It was never intended that there be a reward for such a player in that situation, quite the opposite.

1.) I haven't seen you noting one of your arguments yet. So you are doing a bad job at it. I mean you saying the Seymour trade was a bust because Burgess was part of it was probably the worst argument of the day.

2.) Obviously you don't understand it.

3.) So if a player makes more money in his career because of it, he really doesn't because he didn't the franchise year. Better to make $14 million over one year than $21 million over two.

Seriously, I pulled out of the last thread because of your ridiculousness and I will pull out of this one too. I think I am just done with you in general. All you want to do is pick fights with everyone who doesn't agree with your point. I am tired of getting sucked into it.

 

[Deus Irae]

1.) I haven't seen you noting one of your arguments yet. So you are doing a bad job at it. I mean you saying the Seymour trade was a bust because Burgess was part of it was probably the worst argument of the day.

Given that I didn't say that, you should probably go back and try again.

2.) Obviously you don't understand it.

I understand it quite well. You've just gotten it wrong.

3.) So if a player makes more money in his career because of it, he really doesn't because he didn't the franchise year. Better to make $14 million over one year than $21 million over two.

I'm not sure why you can't seem to grasp what I wrote. "There is no reward for a player under the franchise tag if he would make more money without it." That's just a fact. It's not even arguable. Your own response goes precisely to the amount of money earned, which shows you recognize at least the basics of the point.

Seriously, I pulled out of the last thread because of your ridiculousness and I will pull out of this one too. I think I am just done with you in general. All you want to do is pick fights with everyone who doesn't agree with your point. I am tired of getting sucked into it.

It's far more likely that you pulled out of the last thread because you'd been an ass and had been proven wrong time and again, and were just tired of being wrong. In this thread, I didn't even try picking any fights, to use your phrase. I asked you a hypothetical question. You never bothered to answer it, but you jumped onto the same silliness train that Andy decided would be fun to ride.

As for you "getting sucked into it", go back and take a look at both threads. If you take an objective look, you'll find that it didn't happen in anything approaching that fashion.

Also, since you're pulling out the "sucked into it" nonsense, what the hell does the Seymour/Burgess comment you made in your post have to do with anything I wrote in my post or this thread? Answer: not a damned thing.

 

[Miguel]

But the other side of the coin is that if he is franchised and he isn't injured, he gets $7 million this year and then $14 million next year and is far richer long term. If Wilfork got $14 million this year, he would have signed a 4-6 year deal. At age 32-34 when he became a free agent again, do you really think he would recoup that $7 million from this year? There is a risk to playing out a franchise year, but there is also a reward to it.

What no one has mentioned to this point is there is now a risk that the owners may lock out the players in 2011.

If Wilfork gets injured in 2010, there is no chance that he gets $14 million in 2011. If Wilfork signs a long-term deal in 2010, there is a chance that he can sign a third deal. I rather have a chance than no chance. IMO, there are more risks for a 28 year old DT in playing under the franchise tag than not.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

No, he did not.
INSIDE THE CAP with J.I. Halsell: Haynesworth Contract Details...Don't Believe Everything You Hear in the Media

5M signing bonus,6M salary, 21M option bonus.........32M

anyway.....don't believe everything you read/hear........except this.......this you should believe......and why?

 

[Miguel]

What no one has mentioned to this point is there is now a risk that the owners may lock out the players in 2011.

If Wilfork gets injured in 2010, there is no chance that he gets $14 million in 2011. If Wilfork signs a long-term deal in 2010, there is a chance that he can sign a third deal. I rather have a chance than no chance. IMO, there are more risks for a 28 year old DT in playing under the franchise tag than not.

One more risk to consider is the chance that the 2011 cap, if there is one, may be lower than the 2009 cap, which would reduce the chances of Wilfork getting a large signing bonus in 2011.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Well, at least you are consistent, post after post after post.

You don't even know who is on today's team, never mind 2000.

But even wrong, what you posted is better than we had in 2000 (the 5-11 season)

Did you lose a bet in your office or soemthing? A bet that you lost and either had to wear a dress to work or post stuff like this? As McEnroe said, "You CAN'T be serious!"

so who is on today's team mr. expert......according to miguels, they are the only ones under contract

the idiots keep lining up

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Since we dont have a game tomorrow, your post is irrelevant.
If you eliminate every UFA,RFA and ERFA from everyones roster, every team in the league looks like that

ok.....so outside of wilfork, which one of the UFA's,RFA's and ERFA's help the situation out in any way that puts this team in a competitive situation?

guyton.....anyone else?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

What no one has mentioned to this point is there is now a risk that the owners may lock out the players in 2011.

If Wilfork gets injured in 2010, there is no chance that he gets $14 million in 2011. If Wilfork signs a long-term deal in 2010, there is a chance that he can sign a third deal. I rather have a chance than no chance. IMO, there are more risks for a 28 year old DT in playing under the franchise tag than not.

I've mentioned that dynamic several times in other threads but there is more than one way to look at it. It might have been better for Wilfork to have taken the best long term deal he's been offered to date or even negotiated an incremental intermediate deal, even though he apparently felt it was not what he is currently projecting himself to be worth in a perfect scenario. Because now he may not get one before 2012, when he will turn 31 and may be coming off a lockout.

I think if a new CBA isn't forthcoming before this March, there will not be a new CBA before sometime in 2011...and that CBA will return a cap to the league that will be far less expansive going forward (if not scaled back to 2008 levels) and a lot of teams may spend a year or two scrambling to dig out from under contracts signed over the last couple of seasons as opposed to scouring the horizen for big men to lavish double digit millions on.

Now, that would really suck for Vince and might mean he is stuck with $7M in 2010 after only making $12M in his first six seasons. But it would be what his own approach to extending netted him since the team has been trying to get an extension done with him since the start of his 4th season in 2008 only as is often the case he didn't like the discounted terms available on an early deal...which as you have often pointed out in the past are the norm in such cases.

Vince's choices now may be down to $7M more in the bank heading into a lockout, or... There may not be any takers for a big man who reportedly may want something
in the $30-40M guaranteed market heading into said lockout. There may not even be any takers for a big man at $18-20M guaranteed on a 4-5 year deal that was probably doable here back in 2008 with three years left before 2011...

Unless met more than half way by a player willing to make some concessions for the great unknown, there is almost no incentive for teams to enter long term deals with any player at this juncture, as the large contingent of RFA's heading into 2010 will attest. They will commence their wailing shortly as that reality sets in as well and likely drowns franchise tagged players like Vince out altogether...

Vince can always insure himself against career ending injury.

 

[Miguel]

5M signing bonus,6M salary, 21M option bonus.........32M

anyway.....don't believe everything you read/hear........except this.......this you should believe......and why?

Because his numbers are backed up.
USATODAY.com
Scout.com: Dollars and Sense:

 

[PatsChamp88]

Because his numbers are backed up.
USATODAY.com
Scout.com: Dollars and Sense:

His contract is nuts from what I read on rotoworld see 2013

2/27/2009: Signed a seven-year, $100 million contract. The deal contains $41 million guaranteed, including a $5 million signing bonus, a $21 million option bonus, and his 2009-2011 base salaries. Haynesworth is due a $29 million "poison pill" in 2013, effectively making it a four-year, $48.2 million deal. Another $15 million is available through incentives.

2009: $6 million, Cap charge: $7 million
2010: $3.6 million
2011: $5.4 million
2012: $6.7 million (+ $500,000 workout bonus)
2013: $8.5 million (+ $20 million "discretionary signing bonus" + $500,000 roster bonus due 8/31 = Poison Pill Year)
2014: $10.3 million (+ $500,000 roster bonus due 8/31)
2015: $11.5 million (+ $500,000 roster bonus due 8/31)
2016: Free Agent

 

[Rob0729]

What no one has mentioned to this point is there is now a risk that the owners may lock out the players in 2011.

If Wilfork gets injured in 2010, there is no chance that he gets $14 million in 2011. If Wilfork signs a long-term deal in 2010, there is a chance that he can sign a third deal. I rather have a chance than no chance. IMO, there are more risks for a 28 year old DT in playing under the franchise tag than not.

Well, that is the whole thing with risk reward. Yes, the CBA situation makes the risk much greater than a typical year. But the reward would still be greater than if he signs a contract this offseason if everything goes right in terms of his health and a new CBA. Yes, even if the cap shrinks since I still think every team is going to approach deals this offseason in expectation that the cap will either slow growth or shrink.

I never said there wasn't a risk to playing under the franchise tender. Of course there is, but there is no denying there is a reward in doing so either barring injuries or really bad play. The CBA adds an extra level of risk (although I can't see either side letting the cash cow end with a lockout in 2011) and could make the reward a little less.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

His contract is nuts from what I read on rotoworld see 2013

So how does this poison pill work? They are going to cut him in 2013?

 

[Miguel]

I made the comment based upon how Wilfork has played. I dont think I implied it was more than an impression or assumption.
I'm just saying that picking at 21 I dont think what we've gotten is substantially more than I would expect if the pick were a good one.

As far as the list, Sam Baker is a starting LT but is 4 years behind so we will see.
Nate Clements has had a good career. I think you are selling him short.
Jeff Faine has been a starting C for 7 years. He is in the argument against Wilfork. Depends on whether you consider Wilfork a dominant run stopping force or a 2 down player. I have not seen him as dominant, and I do think his inability to contribute on 3rd down severely reduces his value.
I will at some point look at the 2004 draft and give a list of players I consider better or in the neighborhood. The list may not reach 20 but it also wont be as low as 6 or 7 either.

Sporting News' NFL Top 100: Colts QB Peyton Manning voted No. 1 by our panel of experts - Jeff D'Alessio, Sporting News - NFL - Sporting News

Look at how many players from the 2004 list draft on the list.

 

[Miguel]

Depends on whether you consider Wilfork a dominant run stopping force or a 2 down player. I have not seen him as dominant, and I do think his inability to contribute on 3rd down severely reduces his value.

Yet on 2/11/2009 you posted "If we assume Wilfork is a dominant NT (which I would agree with) "

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...going-lose-wilfork-his-prime.html#post1280735

 

[Deus Irae]

Well, that is the whole thing with risk reward. Yes, the CBA situation makes the risk much greater than a typical year. But the reward would still be greater than if he signs a contract this offseason if everything goes right in terms of his health and a new CBA. Yes, even if the cap shrinks since I still think every team is going to approach deals this offseason in expectation that the cap will either slow growth or shrink.

I never said there wasn't a risk to playing under the franchise tender. Of course there is, but there is no denying there is a reward in doing so either barring injuries or really bad play. The CBA adds an extra level of risk (although I can't see either side letting the cash cow end with a lockout in 2011) and could make the reward a little less.

There is no reward for a player under the franchise tag if he would make more money without it.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Because his numbers are backed up.
USATODAY.com
Scout.com: Dollars and Sense:

he is due the option bonus (21M) in march....he gets 32M in the first 13 months of the deal.......so while technically you are correct, it still lends credence to the point

 

[Ring 6]

Yet on 2/11/2009 you posted "If we assume Wilfork is a dominant NT (which I would agree with) "

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...going-lose-wilfork-his-prime.html#post1280735

Did you really read every post I wrote for 11 1/2 months searching for that? Wow.
I'm sorry, I didnt realize I was being graded.
Nice job pulling one sentence out of context though, congrats.