Vince Wilfork...on WEEI...

[tobias funke]

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

You're right, I confused the 120% increase for the franchise tag and the "50% decrease reverts to a prorated bonus" things.

The fact remains the same: frontloading a contract in the uncapped year is not nearly as easily done as it is said, because of that rule.

 

[GostkowSKI]

Here's the quote Rotoworld pulled from his last interview:

"It’s just basically a slap in my face and it’s insulting to me to tell me I’m an okay player," said Wilfork, 28. "(The franchise tag) is decent money for most people out there. What I do, it’s okay. I don't look at myself as an okay player. I want a long-term deal or I want to be free. Point blank."

Vince Wilfork

 

[Sicilian]

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.

This is partially related, but I think it speaks to a mentality that leads to a lot more complaints than are justified. People view the game of football (including the management side) as us against the world:

If a FA leaves, it's because we let him walk. Not because he chose to walk.

If we don't trade up to draft a top prospect, it's because we chose not to. BB is too arrogant to think top level talent could help, or something like that. It's never because the teams ahead of us maybe valued their picks highly as well and were unwilling to accept a fair deal.

If we give up a first down, it's because we failed to make the play. The other team never succeeds. Microcosm example, when someone like Wilhite is blanketing a receiver and the ball grazes by his fingertips into the arms of the receiver, that's not a perfect throw and great concentration by the receiver. That's Wilhite "getting beat".

There's this idea that if we just tried harder we could never lose in any aspect of the game. It's a very video game mentality actually, where as the player in a game the only time you fail is if YOU do something wrong... the computer very rarely varies and forces you to fail. Life doesn't work that way. The other guys get paid too.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Life is all about choices. Some guys opt for early security. They do so at a discount. Some guys aren't willing to. They takes their chances. Vince is between a rock and a hard place. So too to some extent is the team. His is of his own making. Their's is not since as part of the collective NFL they can't control how this landscape has unfolded. They've been working on a contract for over a year per Jonathan. The problem isn't do they want him, it's at what price.

They will certainly tag him and he knows it. No team is going to roll up the brinks truck for him in 2010 heading into a potential lockout. Agents have likely remained in lockstep denial about that for the last year or so, convincing their clients the uncapped season would be their panacea. It's increasingly obvious to everyone lately that isn't going to be the case.

It's going to be a matter of whether they sense there is any common ground going forward. They can tag him and let him shop himself. They can exclusive tag him and preclude him from shopping himself this season. If there is a lockout in 2011 he would be throughly screwed. Because they could always tag him again once the league gets back to work. By then he could be on the wrong side of 30 with a cap back and the heyday of exploding cap increases could be history.

Vince has a decision to make and he has virtually no leverage because not only do we know he won't hold out, he knows he can't afford do because in the face of a looming lockout he gains nothing and possibly loses the ability to ever recoup what he's lost.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Here's the quote Rotoworld pulled from his last interview:

"It’s just basically a slap in my face and it’s insulting to me to tell me I’m an okay player," said Wilfork, 28. "(The franchise tag) is decent money for most people out there. What I do, it’s okay. I don't look at myself as an okay player. I want a long-term deal or I want to be free. Point blank."

Vince Wilfork

Sounds like this is starting to slide down the slippery slope to nastiness and hurt feelings. Not a pleasant situation to say the least.

 

[mgteich]

Players rarely like franchise tags. I see no reason to believe that Wilfork should like it, sign it and smile and be friendly to the patriots in the media.

The franchise tag is a team's right over those free agents who they are unable to deal with. The player can then use his rights. The process is rarely pleasant, except for 7 riound draft choices who are being guaranteed $14M for one year.

There will be a hundred posts in the few months saying that Wilfork should just accept the tag and shut up. It happens every year.

 

[Rob0729]

Here's the quote Rotoworld pulled from his last interview:

"It’s just basically a slap in my face and it’s insulting to me to tell me I’m an okay player," said Wilfork, 28. "(The franchise tag) is decent money for most people out there. What I do, it’s okay. I don't look at myself as an okay player. I want a long-term deal or I want to be free. Point blank."

Vince Wilfork

Well, there is the problem. The franchise tag tender is not ok money. It is the average of the top 5 players at your position. So in theory, it will make him the third highest paid player at his position.

I am beginning to wonder if Wilfork is the unreasonable one in the negotiations.

 

[upstater1]

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

You're right, I confused the 120% increase for the franchise tag and the "50% decrease reverts to a prorated bonus" things.

The fact remains the same: frontloading a contract in the uncapped year is not nearly as easily done as it is said, because of that rule.

Let's try this again.

Say Vince wants $8 million a year.

Previously that might have been difficult.

But in an uncapped year, you can do this:

$12 million in the first year, $6 million in the second, third and fourth.

That literally means that because of the uncapped year, you managed to keep Vince within your salary cap budget of $6 million (assuming the Patriots had his value pegged at $6).

The uncapped year allows the Patriots to meet their objectives and it doesn't fall afoul of the uncapped year's 50% rule.

UPDATE: all it really means is that Kraft shells out more money up front. I am of the opinion that the Patriots should be aggressive with their own FAs and any FA they deem fits the Patriots' style. You can project a future salary cap number (say, $160 million) and then make sure that in future years all contracts stay below it, so that you don't get in trouble, but that means you can still take advantage of an uncapped year by frontloading all contracts.

Pretend that no one was signed onto the Patriots for next year. You could sign players for a $320 million payroll next year, and then the year afterward you could be below $160 million, and you'd never get in trouble with going over the cap. (This is a hypothetical, I'm not interested in discussing whether it would be prudent to spend $320 million, its impact on players, blah blah).

 

[upstater1]

Well, there is the problem. The franchise tag tender is not ok money. It is the average of the top 5 players at your position. So in theory, it will make him the third highest paid player at his position.

I am beginning to wonder if Wilfork is the unreasonable one in the negotiations.

I wouldn't be so hard on Vince on this one. The franchise tag for DTs is so low compared to DEs, and Haynesworth's contract blew things all out of proportion. Not enough DTs have signed big contracts in recent years as they keep getting released or traded (i.e. like Marcus Stroud). That means that in the case of DTs, it could very well be that the franchise tag is below current market value. Well, that's the agreement that the player's signed, but Vince might be thinking, I want 80% of what Haynesworth got, and that 80% is still 33% higher than the franchise tag.

 

[mgteich]

A top NT is worth more than the average of the top DT's.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

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

The fact remains the same: frontloading a contract in the uncapped year is not nearly as easily done as it is said, because of that rule.

Does anyone know what they did with signing bonuses from established contracts when they first introduced the salary cap?

We're presuming that the new salary cap would include prorations from the uncapped year exactly as before, but the NFL and NFLPA could decide to treat them differently. [For example, they could theoretically grant an exemption for a certain amount per player or team, or spread all bonuses out as if they were a year longer or something.]

Please note I'm not saying that uncapped contracts will get special treatment, merely that saying point blank they won't is making an assumption that may not hold.

 

[tobias funke]

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

Let's try this again.

Say Vince wants $8 million a year.

Previously that might have been difficult.

But in an uncapped year, you can do this:

$12 million in the first year, $6 million in the second, third and fourth.

That literally means that because of the uncapped year, you managed to keep Vince within your salary cap budget of $6 million (assuming the Patriots had his value pegged at $6).

That makes sense, but isn't then the issue (for the player) that the future years are not guaranteed against injury, making this process work in theory to stay under the cap, but not work in the sense that the contract may never get signed. Haynesworth got $40 million guaranteed. Under this bonus-free scenario, only the first year would be guaranteed, correct?

Then there is this problem:

The 30% increase rule restricts salary increases from 2009 to 2010. For example: a player with a $500,000 Salary in 2009 would be limited to annual salary increases of $150,000 ($500,000 x 30%) beginning in 2010.

Vince's salary in 2009 was $2.2 million. This rule would restrict his 2010 base salary to $2.86 million, correct?


I'm not saying frontloading isn't possible, but it really doesn't seem nearly as easy as you're suggesting.

 

[mgteich]

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

I don't think that 2009 compensation affects 2010 compensation since they are part of 2 separate contracts.

That makes sense, but isn't then the issue (for the player) that the future years are not guaranteed against injury, making this process work in theory to stay under the cap, but not work in the sense that the contract may never get signed. Haynesworth got $40 million guaranteed. Under this bonus-free scenario, only the first year would be guaranteed, correct?

Then there is this problem:



Vince's salary in 2009 was $2.2 million. This rule would restrict his 2010 base salary to $2.86 million, correct?


I'm not saying frontloading isn't possible, but it really doesn't seem nearly as easy as you're suggesting.

 

[tobias funke]

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

I don't think that 2009 compensation affects 2010 compensation since they are part of 2 separate contracts.

I guess it would make sense that if they tear up the contract, the 30% rule wouldn't be in effect.

But you still have the issue of convincing the player to sign a contract without a large guarantee.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

people who think its not up to vince are fools

he's a guy who can get by on character and principle alone. he can choose to sit. and the pats can choose to get tough with him. the pats flat out lose in that situation. if they can't do the right thing by arguably the most upstanding and principled guy on the team (and a probowler at that), then any notion of 'the patriot way' is dead.

they threw his buddy (seymour) to the curb (they are closer friends than anyone realizes), so they should not expect ANY discount from him now.

wilfork can be a much bigger disruption to a team trying to build a defense out of youth than anyone realizes.

I, for one, believe that wilfork could easily shoot his way out of town and make the pats look bad in the process....

and if wilfork is not here, then it won't matter who we have in the secondary, and it won't matter what kind of paass rush we have because teams will simply run at will

 

[Jangles]

and if wilfork is not here, then it won't matter who we have in the secondary, and it won't matter what kind of paass rush we have because teams will simply run at will

that's how I feel

Sure the Pats might not sign him if he demands too much, but really with the defensive line and LB corp where it's at right now Wilfork is worth every penny he asks for IMO. Maybe we can't pay it, but he deserves it

If he leaves town, the front 7 at this point will be all but crippled

 

[PowerRunRevival]

I bet Wilfork gets franchised, then holds out. Finally he either signs a one year contract that makes sure the Pats can't franchise him again, sits out an entire year without pay (unlikely) or gets traded.

If he gets traded what do you think his value is? One first? Two first rounders? Could we get two from the Broncos, this year? Opinions?

 

[patsinthesnow]

Vince Wilfork MUST be resigned.

The ONLY option if he walks is draft a NT with our 1st round pick. Who's the best one behind Suh?

 

[Jangles]

I bet Wilfork gets franchised, then holds out. Finally he either signs a one year contract that makes sure the Pats can't franchise him again, sits out an entire year without pay (unlikely) or gets traded.

If he gets traded what do you think his value is? One first? Two first rounders? Could we get two from the Broncos, this year? Opinions?

Not two firsts

His value is to the Patriots. He is a great player but nobody needs his presence more than this team

 

[MoLewisrocks]

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

Perillo is on with WEEI today talking about Vince. He is concerned about the players condition and size and thinks that is what concerns the team too long term. Paul also questions what he wants, Ordway thinks he wants at least $30M guaranteed and may want Haynesworth money and Perillo said if he does he isn't getting it anywhere... They are also discussing how he is in a tough position because of the potential lockout and concerns about what he might look/project like following a tag holdout let alone a lockout...