Signing a WR for $6.9M = Senseless

[ctpatsfan77]

You never pay a player for past production. You pay him for expected production.

If you think in 2013-2015, WW will perform at the same level as he has since 2007, then you pay him what you think you shoud. If you don't, you don't pay him just because he performed well in the past...



No question WW has been a steal for the Pats but the team should not pay him for past performance.

Agree on Wallace and Jennings. They are both coming off down years and the team has no idea how they will perform in this offense.

While I understand the maxim, the problem here is that Welker has so vastly outperformed his contract. As long as they're not ridiculously overpaying (>$10M/yr), I'm OK with a contract that effectively "makes up" for the fact that they underpaid him on his first contract.

 

[Brady6]

While I understand the maxim, the problem here is that Welker has so vastly outperformed his contract. As long as they're not ridiculously overpaying (>$10M/yr), I'm OK with a contract that effectively "makes up" for the fact that they underpaid him on his first contract.

I just look at total investment against total results for the entire tenure of a player on the team. How it pays out year by year could vary and can't justify giving Wallace $10M a year and every year he is here and that's how'd this translate.

 

[EwanSellars]

i think the best fits in the draft for the patriots are
keenan allen 1st round
quinton patton or markus wheaton 2nd round
da'rick rogers 3rd round
connor vernon 4-5 round

in free agency i hope we go after david nelson and domenik hixon and then maybe denario alexander probably just 1-2 of those and a draft pick

 

[mgteich]

This analysis is incorrect. Consider that we are judging whether to pay Wallace or Welker $9M a year for three years. It makes no difference what we have paid either player in the past. What matters is the expected value over the next three years (or even two depending on contract structure).

I just look at total investment against total results for the entire tenure of a player on the team. How it pays out year by year could vary and can't justify giving Wallace $10M a year and every year he is here and that's how'd this translate.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I expect Welker to continue to be at his production. My point is you overpay from beginning to end when you bring someone in after their rookie contract from another team if they're good NFL players..

Paying WW if you think he will be productive for years to come is fine.

Overpaying for a player when you know he is worth less that the what you think he is worth or what the market has dictated is not.

 

[Brady6]

This analysis is incorrect. Consider that we are judging whether to pay Wallace or Welker $9M a year for three years. It makes no difference what we have paid either player in the past. What matters is the expected value over the next three years (or even two depending on contract structure).

The Oakland Raiders say hello.

That's a fans view but not a business model view. Companies allocate funds over years and look at overall investment against the overall spend. Thinking BB and Kraft just spend freely hoping that stats duplicate is not giving them the credit they deserve.

 

[Brady6]

Paying WW if you think he will be productive for years to come is fine.

Overpaying for a player when you know he is worth less that the what you think he is worth or what the market has dictated is not.

Take a look at the top 10 WR contracts signed in UFA (not extensions) you tell me how many of those WR have provided a solid return on investment?

 

[mgteich]

I well understand the strategy of the patriots. It is you who suggested that past compensation to Welker is relevant to future contracts. What is relevant is expect production, the guaranteed portion of the contract, and the contract structure.

The Oakland Raiders say hello.

That's a fans view but not a business model view. Companies allocate funds over years and look at overall investment against the overall spend. Thinking BB and Kraft just spend freely hoping that stats duplicate is not giving them the credit they deserve.

 

[Brady6]

This analysis is incorrect. Consider that we are judging whether to pay Wallace or Welker $9M a year for three years. It makes no difference what we have paid either player in the past. What matters is the expected value over the next three years (or even two depending on contract structure).

http://www.overthecap.com/top-player-salaries.php?Position=WR

 

[RobertWeathers]

While I understand the maxim, the problem here is that Welker has so vastly outperformed his contract. As long as they're not ridiculously overpaying (>$10M/yr), I'm OK with a contract that effectively "makes up" for the fact that they underpaid him on his first contract.

I can totally appreciate the fact that WW has outperformed his contract. No debate there. However I'm sure we can all attest to having jobs in our lives and performing at a high level and being underpaid. Thats life.

I've posted endlessly on this topic but my position is that I don't think that the Pats should pay WW for past performance just because he was underpaid from 2008-2012 but what they think he will produce for the team in the future.

I feel bad for the guy. I really think he was in line for an extension after the 2009 season but the ACL injury on Week 17really put a kink in that...

 

[Brady6]

I well understand the strategy of the patriots. It is you who suggested that past compensation to Welker is relevant to future contracts. What is relevant is expect production, the guaranteed portion of the contract, and the contract structure.

No I said you compensate him based on his market value now and even still you got a great deal for his entire 11 years with us. That is what I wrote.. Never did I write or imply to overpay him. His market value is 4-5 years at 30-40 million. Which if you add to what's already been paid makes him a 5.9m a year player over 11 seasons of being a very productive patriots. Now if you sign Wallace you're likely to pay an average of 10-12 million per year for his patriots career because he did not start here and the Steelers received the benefits of his lower priced years. I'm saying in short it is not a good business model to build outside of the draft.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Take a look at the top 10 WR contracts signed in UFA (not extensions) you tell me how many of those WR have provided a solid return on investment?

Define "solid return"? Larry Fitz and Megatron are paid insane amounts of money and they play on losing teams. Was it worth paying/overpaying them that money as opposed to spending it in other areas that inproved the overall talent on the roster?

Santonio Holmes was a disaster.

I'm sure there were a few more...

 

[mgteich]

Let me try again. There are several sources of players.

======
COST EFFECTIVE OPTIONS

One of the most cost effective is rookie contracts. Players who perform well in rookie contracts are the best deal there is.

Another fine source (that Belichick has used well) is aging vets who may have a couple of years left.

Another fine source is players who want a one-year show-me contract.

Another fine source of players is near minimum salary vets (good for backups and end of hte roster players).
===========
EXPENSIVE OPTIONS
There is no way out. Some players will be in the prime of their careers. Unless they play at a discount, it makes no difference whether you find these players in free agency or the draft.
Some positions are easier to fill and develop in the draft; for some, free agency works best.

The advantage of signing your own is that you know what you are getting. Beyond that the money is the same. Paying Welker $20M for two years is the same as paying Wallace $20M. It makes no difference at all that Welker has been a bargain in the past. He will NOT be a bargain in the future. It makes no difference if you can go back and included past contracts to compute long-term costs. The DECISION is today's decision to pay for future performance.

This principle was greatly misunderstood when Brady restructure the rest of his present contract and extended for $9M a year. Brady's new money was $27M over 3 years. a tremendous discount.
===========

BOTTOM LINE
I suspect that most of our disagreement is semantics. We agree that we shouldn't overpay anyone. And we agree that getting value out of rookie contracts is critical to a team's success.

No I said you compensate him based on his market value now and even still you got a great deal for his entire 11 years with us. That is what I wrote.. Never did I write or imply to overpay him. His market value is 4-5 years at 30-40 million. Which if you add to what's already been paid makes him a 5.9m a year player over 11 seasons of being a very productive patriots. Now if you sign Wallace you're likely to pay an average of 10-12 million per year for his patriots career because he did not start here and the Steelers received the benefits of his lower priced years. I'm saying in short it is not a good business model to build outside of the draft.

 

[patsinthesnow]

Take a look at the top 10 WR contracts signed in UFA (not extensions) you tell me how many of those WR have provided a solid return on investment?

2012 WR free agents that didn't resign with same team:

Vincent Jackson 5 years 55 million Buccanneers. A ton of money but he surprisingly panned out. 72 receptions 1,384 yards 8 TDs

Brandon Lloyd 4 million a year-Great value.

Pierre Garcon 5 years 42.5 million Redskins-stupid signing.

Mario Manningham 2 years 7.375 million 49ers-inexpensive, solid signing.

Laurent Robinson 5 years 32.5 million Jaguars-terrible signing.

Robert Meachem 4 years 25.9 million Chargers-terrible signing.

Eddie Royal 3 years 13.5 million Chargers-terrible signing.

Jacoby Jones 2 years 7 million Ravens-most underrated signing of the year.

Very mixed bag.

 

[Brady6]

Let me try again. There are several sources of players.

======
COST EFFECTIVE OPTIONS

One of the most cost effective is rookie contracts. Players who perform well in rookie contracts are the best deal there is.

Another fine source (that Belichick has used well) is aging vets who may have a couple of years left.

Another fine source is players who want a one-year show-me contract.

Another fine source of players is near minimum salary vets (good for backups and end of hte roster players).
===========
EXPENSIVE OPTIONS
There is no way out. Some players will be in the prime of their careers. Unless they play at a discount, it makes no difference whether you find these players in free agency or the draft.
Some positions are easier to fill and develop in the draft; for some, free agency works best.

The advantage of signing your own is that you know what you are getting. Beyond that the money is the same. Paying Welker $20M for two years is the same as paying Wallace $20M. It makes no difference at all that Welker has been a bargain in the past. He will NOT be a bargain in the future. It makes no difference if you can go back and included past contracts to compute long-term costs. The DECISION is today's decision to pay for future performance.

This principle was greatly misunderstood when Brady restructure the rest of his present contract and extended for $9M a year. Brady's new money was $27M over 3 years. a tremendous discount.
===========

BOTTOM LINE
I suspect that most of our disagreement is semantics. We agree that we shouldn't overpay anyone. And we agree that getting value out of rookie contracts is critical to a team's success.

I'm just against spending in UFA. It's like 10-12 million and you have no idea what Wallace is going to show up and do. And can you change Mike Wallace if he doesn't fit? Not likely he is to old and to established at this point to mold. I'd prefer we resign Welker and draft a WR that we can get his rookie contract and then extend early at a lower cost.

But I certainly see what you are saying and I think we agree on most points. I'm just looking at total life against total spend and Welker is a great deal even if his salary has to increase moving forward in my eyes.

 

[Brady6]

2012 WR free agents that didn't resign with same team:

Vincent Jackson 5 years 55 million Buccanneers. A ton of money but he surprisingly panned out. 72 receptions 1,384 yards 8 TDs

Brandon Lloyd 4 million a year-Great value.

Pierre Garcon 5 years 42.5 million Redskins-stupid signing.

Mario Manningham 2 years 7.375 million 49ers-inexpensive, solid signing.

Laurent Robinson 5 years 32.5 million Jaguars-terrible signing.

Robert Meachem 4 years 25.9 million Chargers-terrible signing.

Eddie Royal 3 years 13.5 million Chargers-terrible signing.

Jacoby Jones 2 years 7 million Ravens-most underrated signing of the year.

Very mixed bag.

Jackson really worthy of $11m a year though. 1.375m per touchdown..

 

[RobertWeathers]

2012 WR free agents that didn't resign with same team:

Vincent Jackson 5 years 55 million Buccanneers. A ton of money but he surprisingly panned out. 72 receptions 1,384 yards 8 TDs

Brandon Lloyd 4 million a year-Great value.

Pierre Garcon 5 years 42.5 million Redskins-stupid signing.

Mario Manningham 2 years 7.375 million 49ers-inexpensive, solid signing.

Laurent Robinson 5 years 32.5 million Jaguars-terrible signing.

Robert Meachem 4 years 25.9 million Chargers-terrible signing.

Eddie Royal 3 years 13.5 million Chargers-terrible signing.

Jacoby Jones 2 years 7 million Ravens-most underrated signing of the year.

Very mixed bag.

I think the Garcon signing was a lot of money but for a 26 year old WR that was productive who had the respect of Peyton Manning wasn't that stupid. If he plays 16 games he catches 70 balls for 1000 yards from a rookie QB. If it wasn't for the price I'd want him as he reminds me a ton of David Givens.

 

[Brady6]

I think the Garcon signing was a lot of money but for a 26 year old WR that was productive who had the respect of Peyton Manning wasn't that stupid. If he plays 16 games he catches 70 balls for 1000 yards from a rookie QB. If it wasn't for the price I'd want him as he reminds me a ton of David Givens.

But 8+ million a year? That's a lot of money for 70 catches

 

[zoostation]

One of those three didn't play in the Super Bowl. We need him to stay healthy for the postseason this year, even if it means giving him fewer reps during the regular season.

actually, three of those three didn't

 

[RobertWeathers]

But 8+ million a year? That's a lot of money for 70 catches

Perhaps. WAS ran the ball more than they passed last year too. Shanny likes his WRs.