Vince Wilfork...on WEEI...

[R_T26]

Re: Vince Wilfork....on WEEI...

Did that actually make any sense to you when you typed it?

makes perfect sense, if another team wants you and your a young patriot, your gone.

Sanders was on the open market last year and no one wanted him.
Dont get so protective about your patriots, the ones who defend every player are the same ones to bash them when they leave. Just like the threads trying to compare wright to seymour.

 

[Jangles]

Re: Vince Wilfork....on WEEI...

You know what? No player is happy to be franchised. Every year 6-12 or more players are franchised and unhappy. It is a fact of life of the NFL. I don't get how this is different than any other player that gets franchised.

The fact of the matter is that Vince is getting up there in age and many NTs tend to break down in their early 30s because of their weight. I don't know if it is a bad thing to have Vince play under the franchise tag the next two years and then let him walk.

The point is that these guys aren't machines. You don't lock him up and automatically get the same ability out of them

I know where I work if I feel undervalued or mistreated I'll do my job but there might be a tendency to just do my job and not go the extra mile. This guy deserves to be paid and shown that the organization values him as much he feels they should.

 

[NEPatriot]

Re: Vince Wilfork....on WEEI...

When Vince is talking about a long term contract, does he want another 6 year deal?

If so, BB doesn't like it. I think that BB will accept another 3 year deal.

 

[upstater1]

Re: Vince Wilfork....on WEEI...

I love Vince but it's unfortunately not up to him.

The guy obviously deserved a long-term contract 1-2 years ago, but the team missed the boat when he could have been cheaper, and now is afraid to give him a deal with the labor uncertainty.

The guy is going to get franchised, and he'll probably hold out of training camp, but I think we'll see him on the field for week 1.

It's a sad state of affairs for a team that ought to be making its best players happy at this point in time, but they got on this road a while ago and it doesn't seem like there are any detours left.

They have been talking to him all along, it's not like they didn't try to exrtend him, but he didn't want a contract like Ty Warren's. That being said, this year is the perfect year to sign him to a market rate contract because you can frontload the contract and get close to market rate without killing your salary cap in future years.

There is still a lot of room for them to give Vince a contract.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Vince Wilfork....on WEEI...

The point is that these guys aren't machines. You don't lock him up and automatically get the same ability out of them

I know where I work if I feel undervalued or mistreated I'll do my job but there might be a tendency to just do my job and not go the extra mile. This guy deserves to be paid and shown that the organization values him as much he feels they should.

Unlike you, if Wilfork doesn't go the extra mile, he loses millions. Again, Wilfork is in a contract year if he plays under his franchise tender. That means he is playing for a new contract whether it is with the Pats or someone else. That is motivation to do well. He has a down year, the market for him may dry up and he might lose several million dollars.

 

[Franchise12]

If we do not give Wilfork the security of a long term contract and franchise him, expect the worst from an already unstable locker room dynamic. Especially if they bring in some high profile free agent and not take care of their own guys.

losing wilfork literally, or losing him from a figurative (no longer dedicated to the team) stantpoint, will ultamately put the seymour trade in perspective no longer favorable to the pats.

Simply put... Sign the man, hes the last true playmaker on the team, the only one that opposing teams gameplan for and have to truely account for. Why take ten steps back to take 2 steps foward. the team has gotten a bargain given his 6 year rookie contract compared to his output.

 

[Jangles]

Re: Vince Wilfork....on WEEI...

Unlike you, if Wilfork doesn't go the extra mile, he loses millions. Again, Wilfork is in a contract year if he plays under his franchise tender. That means he is playing for a new contract whether it is with the Pats or someone else. That is motivation to do well. He has a down year, the market for him may dry up and he might lose several million dollars.

I understand

I'm just saying when you get passed up time and time again it starts to get old

And you begin to question if it's worth it to keep going at the level you do when you still aren't guaranteed squat from it

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Vince Wilfork....on WEEI...

They have been talking to him all along, it's not like they didn't try to exrtend him, but he didn't want a contract like Ty Warren's. That being said, this year is the perfect year to sign him to a market rate contract because you can frontload the contract and get close to market rate without killing your salary cap in future years.

There is still a lot of room for them to give Vince a contract.

Yeah, everyone assumes the Pats are the ones not holding up their ends. Wilfork in the interview sounded like a guy who expects to be paid handsomely. Maybe his contract demands are out of whack. Since the Pats don't discuss contract negotiations, we will never get their side of the story.

They did make Richard Seymour the highest paid defensive players in league on a per year basis. Maybe they were willing to do the same for Wilfork, but are unwilling to give Wilfork the number of years he wants.

 

[Rob0729]

If we do not give Wilfork the security of a long term contract and franchise him, expect the worst from an already unstable locker room dynamic. Especially if they bring in some high profile free agent and not take care of their own guys.

losing wilfork literally, or losing him from a figurative (no longer dedicated to the team), will put the seymour trade in perspective no longer favorable to the pats.

Simply put... Sign the man, hes the last true playmaker on the team, the only one that opposing teams gameplan for and have to truely account for. Why take ten steps back to take 2 steps foward. the team has gotten a bargain given his 6 year rookie contract compared to his output.

That would be a smart move for Wilfork. He wants to be one of the highest paid defensive players in the league. He becomes a cancer in the lockerroom in 2010 so he can decrease his value on the open market in 2011. Yes, because teams play extra for players who become disruptive in the lockerroom because of their contract situation.

Again, the Pats may be willing to pay the man, but Wilfork may have ridiculous contract demands. Why do everyone think the Pats are always the ones who are wrong in contract talks? We have no idea if the Pats are being cheap, Wilfork is being greedy, or that they aren't really that far apart and once we have more clarity on the possibilities of a new CBA that there will be a deal done.

 

[pabst37]

Re: Vince Wilfork....on WEEI...

makes perfect sense, if another team wants you and your a young patriot, your gone.

Sanders was on the open market last year and no one wanted him.
Dont get so protective about your patriots, the ones who defend every player are the same ones to bash them when they leave. Just like the threads trying to compare wright to seymour.

Actually 2 other teams wanted Sanders.
Scout.com: S James Sanders: Safety Back in the Fold

 

[Tunescribe]

The only things a player misses if franchised are the contract signing bonus and long-term security. Otherwise, it's usually a big leap in pay for one year. All Vince has to do is keep performing at a high level and he'll be taken care of one way or the other, even if they franchise him every year (which won't happen). The only real downside to being franchised is suffering a career-threatening injury. So, I can see how a player would be disappointed at being franchised vs. getting a new contract, but being angry, holding out, etc., makes little sense.

I agree that Vince should be locked up long term, but it wouldn't surprise me if BB has other plans for that position (drafting a rookie) and doesn't want to invest a huge sum at nose tackle. He's rented players there in the past who've done OK.

 

[Jangles]

The only things a player misses if franchised are the contract signing bonus and long-term security. Otherwise, it's usually a big leap in pay for one year. All Vince has to do is keep performing at a high level and he'll be taken care of one way or the other, even if they franchise him every year (which won't happen). The only real downside to being franchised is suffering a career-threatening injury. So, I can see how a player would be disappointed at being franchised vs. getting a new contract, but being angry, holding out, etc., makes little sense.

My point is just that he wants the security and the respect.

Just a little validation from the team that we think he is the best man for the job and it doesn't help the teams situation to have him anywhere but starting for us.

 

[Tunescribe]

My point is just that he wants the security and the respect.

Just a little validation from the team that we think he is the best man for the job and it doesn't help the teams situation to have him anywhere but starting for us.

And I also believe he deserves all that. We just don't know what monetary value the Patriots have assigned to that position and whether Vince would accept it.

 

[Rob0729]

My point is just that he wants the security and the respect.

Just a little validation from the team that we think he is the best man for the job and it doesn't help the teams situation to have him anywhere but starting for us.

Again, Wilfork's idea of "security and respect" may be way out of whack. What if he wants 20% more than Haynesworth got last year assuming that the cap is going to grow at a 10-20% rate every year. What if the cap stops growing for a few years under a CBA? Then the Pats risk having to let other players go including possibly Brady because of an ill conceived deal with Wilfork.

I am sure the Pats have offered Wilfork some attractive offers. My guess, based on contracts to players like Moss and Seymour, that their offer would make Wilfork among one of the highest paid defensive players on a per year basis, but only offering him a 3 year deal. My guess is he wants the same or more money per year over 5-6 years.

 

[Jangles]

And I also believe he deserves all that. We just don't know what monetary value the Patriots have assigned to that position and whether Vince would accept it.

I guess

Although I just would like to see the team break their back in an attempt to keep him

It would really irritate me for a report to come out that they made some weak offer, he rejected and they said k thanks bye to him

 

[tobias funke]

Re: Vince Wilfork....on WEEI...

They have been talking to him all along, it's not like they didn't try to exrtend him, but he didn't want a contract like Ty Warren's. That being said, this year is the perfect year to sign him to a market rate contract because you can frontload the contract and get close to market rate without killing your salary cap in future years.

There is still a lot of room for them to give Vince a contract.

This is a complete misnomer, unfortunately.

1. Player salaries must increase by at least 20% in a succeeding year. Meaning if they give Vince a base salary of 6 million for 2010, his 2011 salary would have to be at least 7.2 million.

2. Bonuses in the uncapped year will continue to be spread out over the life of the deal.

I'm sure there are techniques they can use, but it's not nearly as simple as "oh this year is uncapped so we can frontload the salary."

I wish it was, though.

 

[satz]

He is not stepping on the field unless a contract is signed here or somewhere else.

For him if he does not sign a contract this year he will play this year and look to be unemployed in 2011 if the lockout happens. Then lets say we have a delayed season or lost season then he will be looking to sign a contract /job for 2013 season.

Makes no sense to step in to play even in the franchise tag.If its an ugly hold out he might come back at week 6 to play 10 weeks to make sure the franchise tag does not restart agian when CBA is reached.

 

[Jangles]

Again, Wilfork's idea of "security and respect" may be way out of whack. What if he wants 20% more than Haynesworth got last year assuming that the cap is going to grow at a 10-20% rate every year. What if the cap stops growing for a few years under a CBA? Then the Pats risk having to let other players go including possibly Brady because of an ill conceived deal with Wilfork.

I am sure the Pats have offered Wilfork some attractive offers. My guess, based on contracts to players like Moss and Seymour, that their offer would make Wilfork among one of the highest paid defensive players on a per year basis, but only offering him a 3 year deal. My guess is he wants the same or more money per year over 5-6 years.

that could be

I'd just hate to see him go, even if it is because he wanted some ridiculous sum of money and had nobody to blame but himself for it.

This team has lost enough of it's core

 

[upstater1]

Re: Vince Wilfork....on WEEI...

This is a complete misnomer, unfortunately.

1. Player salaries must increase by at least 20% in a succeeding year. Meaning if they give Vince a base salary of 6 million for 2010, his 2011 salary would have to be at least 7.2 million.

2. Bonuses in the uncapped year will continue to be spread out over the life of the deal.

I'm sure there are techniques they can use, but it's not nearly as simple as "oh this year is uncapped so we can frontload the salary."

I wish it was, though.

Where are you getting this info from?

In the Uncapped Year FAQ on this site, nothing like that is mentioned. We discussed that there is only one rule that says you can't decrease the salary by more than 50% from one year to the next. What you stated has not been part of any discussion in the Uncapped Year FAQ which also has a link to the NFL's uncapped year site.

 

[Jangles]

Re: Vince Wilfork....on WEEI...

Where are you getting this info from?

In the Uncapped Year FAQ on this site, nothing like that is mentioned. We discussed that there is only one rule that says you can't decrease the salary by more than 50% from one year to the next. What you stated has not been part of any discussion in the Uncapped Year FAQ which also has a link to the NFL's uncapped year site.

I was just going to post this

but then I remembered I barely know what I'm talking about when it comes to salary caps so I ducked out of it

I'm glad to see I was on the right track though