Keeping the Defense Together

[mgteich]

It seems to me that both the Patriots and Revis would be motivated to do a longer term deal. It's obvious from the Pats's perspective, but Revis will be 30 years old at the start of next season. If he were to play for a one year deal at $20 million, he'd be a free agent at age 31. Now is his best time maximum leverage to do a long term deal with guaranteed money.

Ty Law apparently said recently that $15 million average per year would do it. Whether he was speaking for Revis or not, the parameters have been pretty well established by the Sherman deal. I honestly don't think it's going to be that hard for the Pats and Revis to get a deal done. I'm thinking something in the 4 year $60 million to 6 year $90 million range. The key will be a structure that protects the Pats after three years should Revis decline after age 32.

I think from a performance standpoint, the Pats should be confident for three more seasons, even if Revis loses a step. He's pretty wiley.

I don't think they have any concerns about work ethic, leadership, etc.

Are you suggesting that patriots would pay Revis $20M for this year. If not, Revis doesn't need to worry about his market value decreasing to only $12.5M a year by next season (for the same $45M/3 total).

 

[mayoclinic]

Are you suggesting that patriots would pay Revis $20M for this year. If not, Revis doesn't need to worry about his market value decreasing to only $12.5M a year by next season (for the same $45M/3 total).

Exactly. . If Revis continues to play at this level next year, he can probably get $45M guaranteed again. For a player who has been willing to "bet on himself" in the past, I can see him doing so again. I can also see him taking the guaranteed money and being happy here, but it's not a sure thing by any means.

 

[hwc]

I don't think the Pat's want to pay Revis $20 million for 1 year. I don't think that Revis wants to play year by year at age 30. He's then assuming the entire risk of injury. Another ACL and his payday is over. At his age, year to year is NOT guaranteed.

Any reasonable offer with more than $20 million guaranteed is a better deal for Revis from the Pats than a one-year deal at $20 million.

So it's the Pats' offer versus digging in and going to free agency. The parameters have been set by the Sherman and other CB signings. Revis knows the parameters. The Pats know the parameters. Good teams all know the parameters. Revis can only beat those parameters by signing with some crap franchise. I think he'd rather play for NE at $15 million a year than the Raiders at $16 million a year.

 

[mayoclinic]

I don't think the Pat's want to pay Revis $20 million for 1 year. I don't think that Revis wants to play year by year at age 30. He's then assuming the entire risk of injury. Another ACL and his payday is over. At his age, year to year is NOT guaranteed.

Any reasonable offer with more than $20 million guaranteed is a better deal for Revis from the Pats than a one-year deal at $20 million.

So it's the Pats' offer versus digging in and going to free agency. The parameters have been set by the Sherman and other CB signings. Revis knows the parameters. The Pats know the parameters. Good teams all know the parameters. Revis can only beat those parameters by signing with some crap franchise. I think he'd rather play for NE at $15 million a year than the Raiders at $16 million a year.

I hope you are correct. As I've said, I think a $15M AAV with 3 years pretty much guaranteed is a solid deal. I certainly hope the Pats don't try to lowball him.

 

[hwc]

I just don't seen any point in the Pats trying to low ball him. They aren't stupid. They know a low ball offer will just piss him off. They are better off trying to do a market price deal (the market has been set) and focus on out-year protection for the team (i.e. no massive cap hit if they cut him at age 32 or 33. The Pats don't generally low ball players they want to keep. They usually make competitive market-based offers.

Now, maybe the Pats simply don't value him as the top CB in the NFL. That's a player evaluation and cap allotment issue that I can't judge or argue with (certainly not at the level of a Belichick). If that's the case, I just have to accept it.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Wilfork's words and actions have answered this many times. The answer is "no". Actually the answer to being asked to reduce his compensation to $3M would be likely be that the offer wouldn't even get a response.

Being 34 years old might change his mind...

 

[mgteich]

Being 34 years old might change his mind...

Why would Wilfork accept $3M a year? Has he played so badly this year? I understand and he understands that he might not get much more elsewhere. However, IMHO, Wilfork would rather be cut by the patriots than accept a $5M cut is salary. And we'll all sway that he made a terrible decision as he plays a couple of years for someone else.

I think that we should remember that Wilfork and team re-negotiated a new contract just last year which called for $8M in compensation this year.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Why would Wilfork accept $3M a year?

IMO that is what the market will pay a 34 year old DT in 2015.

I think that we should remember that Wilfork and team re-negotiated a new contract just last year which called for $8M in compensation this year.

Dummy deal. He won't see it.

 

[meatface]

If we can keep Mayo, Revis and McCourty I will be so happy. Extend Hightower and Jones too while you are at it

 

[mayoclinic]

Just as a general observation. I think the whole concept of "keeping a team together" in the NFL is a flawed concept. The turnover (free agency, injury, cap casualties, age) means that, to stay on top, a team has to be constantly churning the roster -- and churning it by moving on from very good players.

I think Belichick has it right. Every year in the NFL is a new year, a new team. The fact that the Seahawks have signed players to extensions doesn't mean that the Seahawks will even make the playoffs in two years.

For example, can Wilson continue to run 750+ yards per season and not get injured? What happens if Marshawn Lynch's replacement doesn't have a "beast mode"?

There is always roster turnover. But there's also tremendous value to continuity, especially on a defense as complex as ours. It takes time to develop cohesion, and the defense generally requires different units to work well in sync. The Pats have added Revis, Browner, Easley, Ayers, Branch and Casillas this year. That's a lot of new parts. They're working well together after taking a little time to gel. They haven't allowed more than 26 points in a game since the KC debacle, and are averaging 16.4 PPG over the past 5 games.

I know some people don't like the Seattle comparison, but that defense has had a lot more time for the players to develop cohesion. Earl Thomas (2010), Kam Chancellor (2010), Richard Sherman (2011), Byron Maxwell (2011), JK Wright (2011), Malcolm Smith (2011), Bruce Irvin (2012), Bobby Wagner (2012) and Jeremy Lane (2012) have all had 3 full seasons together. Cliff Avril and Michael Bennett are finishing up their second season. They can continue to play on a high level because they know the defense inside-out and understand their roles and how they fit together. There is always turnover and new additions, but only in the context of a stable base.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Interesting apparent dichotomy in philosophies about contracts.

On the one hand, there is the point of view that (I believe) MGT cited (specifically in Brady's case), which is that front-loaded contracts are so structured to create decision points once the big paydays are over. On the other hand, hwc brings into play the notion that a 30-year-old+ CB takes on the entirety of the injury risk himself if he plays on a year-to-year deal.

Now granted they have very different injury risks (though 2008 Tom Brady may disagree.) But this brings up the different logic about contracts we see here for different situations, and taking different "sides," during different points in a deal...

- From the player point of view, they've bought insurance in previous years, not used it, and then - if they are renegotiating in the cheap years - they are essentially trying to recoup the backside "premiums" they've promised to pay but have not paid yet (i.e., not as much money on the back end of the contract).

- From the team point of view, yes, the decision AT THAT POINT has repercussions for both the team and the player. But they have already provided the insurance up-front.

Each side has a last resort "hammer" if the player is already signed. The team can say hey, play, don't play, we don't care, your name is signed on this contract. You're playing here if anywhere. The player can say fine, I'm not playing anywhere.

Now granted, Brady is a bad case, because as has been pointed out, the up-front compensation for the time the contract was signed was not exorbitant.

But I don't know of many agents who say "what really counts is the non-guaranteed money the player might make!" It's the guaranteed money that matters, and agents press to build that in. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem easier for $ to be guaranteed front-end than back-end (as in, well, your big chance to cut him is before the first season of the deal, otherwise you're locked in for half the full deal at least... that sort of thinking).

Och, this is why I leave the contract talk to the smaht guys.