Vince Wilfork...on WEEI...

[mgteich]

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

Tear up what contract?

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.

 

[BionicPatriot]

I agree. This upcoming year, all the previous rules are gone. there is no reason not to front load contracts while you CAN. Wilfork has been a good soldier and deserves 8 m. You let Samuel go to sign THIS guy. If they let Wilfork go I just don't know what to think about BB the GM anymore.

 

[tobias funke]

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

Tear up what contract?

His rookie contract, if a new deal is reached before the beginning of free agency on 2/27, or the franchise tag contract, if it's tendered before 2/25.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

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?

I don't believe that its going to work out that way. again, wilfork is all about principle. he fulfilled his contract, and he already stated that he wants a long term deal or let him go.

the rhetoric in this issue is going south really fast. by the time he is tagged and the pats get back to him, he will have already convinced himself and others that he is done here. he is one guy who could shoot his way out of town on principle and look good doing it. and then just watch as he replaces jenkins for the jets.

in my opinion, if the pats don't extend wilfork, then BB will have outlived his usefulness. Pete Carroll took an 11-5 team and in 3 years had an 8-8 team with Bobby Grier doing the shopping. in 2 years, BB has taken a 16-0 team and turned them into a 10-6 team. what if year 3 produces an 8-8 team? will BB's current 3 year performance be viewed differently than Carroll's? will the pats be subjected to BB the same way the dolphins were subjected to don shula? will we have to watch 25 years of floundering while continuing to revere him as a god because what he did over a 4 year period?

 

[Rob0729]

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

When was the last time a franchised player sat out the season. Here is a list of players who got franchised last year and played under their franchise tender:

Julius Peppers
Karlos Dansby
Bo Scaife
Antonio Bryant
Dunta Robinson
Shayne Graham
Michael Koenen
Oshiomogho Atogwe,
Darren Sproles

That is nine players who were signed to a franchise tender and did not get a long term deal. Peppers, Robinson, Dansby, and Bryant were all very vocal about being upset about being franchised and none of them missed a game eventhough several sat out of camp. It is very possible that several of these players will be franchised again.

Wilfork has also threatened to sit out this past preseason and then didn't follow through with his threat.

Wilfork has little options here. No one has sat out while under the tag since the 90s and I don't expect anyone to do it this year.

 

[upstater1]

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

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.

The up front bonus could figure into the salary structure. Say you want to give him half his money up front including a signing bonus.

This contract, for instance, would be viable.

Let's say the total is for $40 million over 4 years (hypothetical, not about Wilfork).

Now, again hypothetical, let's say the player wants $20 million up front in the first year.

You can then do this:

Year 1: $10 million salary + $10 million signing bonus
Year 2: $5.75 million salary ($8.25 million toward salary cap)
Year 3: $6.75 million salary ($9.25 million toward salary cap)
Year 4: $7.75 million salary ($10.25 million toward salary cap)

 

[Jangles]

I don't believe that its going to work out that way. again, wilfork is all about principle. he fulfilled his contract, and he already stated that he wants a long term deal or let him go.

the rhetoric in this issue is going south really fast. by the time he is tagged and the pats get back to him, he will have already convinced himself and others that he is done here. he is one guy who could shoot his way out of town on principle and look good doing it. and then just watch as he replaces jenkins for the jets.

in my opinion, if the pats don't extend wilfork, then BB will have outlived his usefulness. Pete Carroll took an 11-5 team and in 3 years had an 8-8 team with Bobby Grier doing the shopping. in 2 years, BB has taken a 16-0 team and turned them into a 10-6 team. what if year 3 produces an 8-8 team? will BB's current 3 year performance be viewed differently than Carroll's? will the pats be subjected to BB the same way the dolphins were subjected to don shula? will we have to watch 25 years of floundering while continuing to revere him as a god because what he did over a 4 year period?

Interesting thought

I still think BB is a genius although I scratch my head more often than I used to over some of his decisions

Perhaps like most geniuses he is now overthinking himself and making costly errors

 

[tobias funke]

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

That also makes sense, upstater. I'll be very interested to see the first big contracts written up this offseason... should be some interesting stuff.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

When was the last time a franchised player sat out the season. Here is a list of players who got franchised last year and played under their franchise tender:

Julius Peppers
Karlos Dansby
Bo Scaife
Antonio Bryant
Dunta Robinson
Shayne Graham
Michael Koenen
Oshiomogho Atogwe,
Darren Sproles

That is nine players who were signed to a franchise tender and did not get a long term deal. Peppers, Robinson, Dansby, and Bryant were all very vocal about being upset about being franchised and none of them missed a game eventhough several sat out of camp. It is very possible that several of these players will be franchised again.

Wilfork has also threatened to sit out this past preseason and then didn't follow through with his threat.

Wilfork has little options here. No one has sat out while under the tag since the 90s and I don't expect anyone to do it this year.

yeah, so???? deion branch shot his way out of town and his contract wasn't even up.

if wilfork stands up and says "I will never play for the pats again" then what are the pats options? would BB be putting the pats in the best position to win by calling his bluff and letting him sit? what if wilfork decides 'hey, I'll just show up 4 or 6 weeks into the season (or whatever the deadline is), and then dare them to tag me again.

I don't believe wilfork is anything like the guys you have mentioned. If the pats want him, they should extend him. If they don't, then they should get what they can for him.

 

[pabst37]

I doubt that Wilfork and the Pats will come to an agreement given that they have been negotiating on and off for probably a year. Wilfork is in a tough position because even if he signs the franchise tag like Samuel did (ie. with the Pats agreeing not to franchise him again) he faces the potential of a lockout next year and thus would have to wait another year to sign a contract at which point he would be 30 years old and at his size there may not be a lot of teams that would be willing to give him a big deal. On the other hand, if Wilfork is asking for more than the Pats are willing to pay him then they have to franchise him and try to get something in a trade.

 

[PowerRunRevival]

yeah, so???? deion branch shot his way out of town and his contract wasn't even up.

if wilfork stands up and says "I will never play for the pats again" then what are the pats options? would BB be putting the pats in the best position to win by calling his bluff and letting him sit? what if wilfork decides 'hey, I'll just show up 4 or 6 weeks into the season (or whatever the deadline is), and then dare them to tag me again.

I don't believe wilfork is anything like the guys you have mentioned. If the pats want him, they should extend him. If they don't, then they should get what they can for him.

You realize that for every day Wilfork misses he will not get paid, but he will also get fined by the team. Someone who cares about his family would not walk away from an entire years pay to prove a point.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

the other thing to note is that if there actually was a cap, only 3 or 4 teams would currently have more cap space going into next season (I think the pats would be 45M or something below the cap if there would be one)....and you can add another 10M in cap savings if the pats cut thomas

$$$$ from the pats end is in no way any kind of excuse to not be signing wilfork.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

You realize that for every day Wilfork misses he will not get paid, but he will also get fined by the team. Someone who cares about his family would not walk away from an entire years pay to prove a point.

no....he will show up in week 6 and play out the string. he can do that

as for caring about family and return on investment, waiting until week 6 and then playing out the string would be exactly what I would do to protect myself from injury and not getting an extension

 

[chevss454]

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 thoroughly 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.

Good post, Mo.

Vince is between a rock and hard place for sure. If I were Vince, I would be worried about an injury while franchised during the 2010 season and the potential of a lockout the next year. In that case, again, if I am Vince, I might take somewhat less money for a long term contract (if some is guaranteed) rather than risk a career threatening injury.

If franchised and he holds out in 2010 and if there is a lockout in 2011, he loses 2 years of a big payday. Doesn't make sense for him to holdout, since he could get insurance against injury.

If franchised, he could also hope another team trades for him and ponies up the huge contract money he wants.

I hope cool and rational heads prevail on both sides because, as of now, there are really no good alternatives to a negotiated contract for either of them.

 

[Jangles]

[/B]

Good post, Mo.

Vince is between a rock and hard place for sure. If I were Vince, I would be worried about an injury while franchised during the 2010 season and the potential of a lockout the next year. In that case, again, if I am Vince, I might take somewhat less money for a long term contract (if some is guaranteed) rather than risk a career threatening injury.

If franchised and he holds out in 2010 and if there is a lockout in 2011, he loses 2 years of a big payday. Doesn't make sense for him to holdout, since he could get insurance against injury.

If franchised, he could also hope another team trades for him and ponies up the huge contract money he wants.

I hope cool and rational heads prevail on both sides because, as of now, there are really no good alternatives to a negotiated contract for either of them.

I just hope that the Pats don't try to take advantage of his difficult situation

The only winning strategy is to resign him at a fair price. Anything short of that would be upsetting

 

[makoute]

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

His rookie contract, if a new deal is reached before the beginning of free agency on 2/27, or the franchise tag contract, if it's tendered before 2/25.

I thought his rookie contract was finished.

 

[Rob0729]

yeah, so???? deion branch shot his way out of town and his contract wasn't even up.

if wilfork stands up and says "I will never play for the pats again" then what are the pats options? would BB be putting the pats in the best position to win by calling his bluff and letting him sit? what if wilfork decides 'hey, I'll just show up 4 or 6 weeks into the season (or whatever the deadline is), and then dare them to tag me again.

I don't believe wilfork is anything like the guys you have mentioned. If the pats want him, they should extend him. If they don't, then they should get what they can for him.

I am sure the Pats won't tell Wilfork to shop for a deal with another team like they stupidly did with Branch which basically gave Branch a loophole to file a grievance vs. the Pats which forced the Pats to trade Branch because the league didn't want to lose the grievance. Totally different situations.

If Wilfork says he will never play for the Pats again, they say " have a nice year off and we'll see you next year and do this dance all over unless there is no football and wel'll see you in 2012". Could you please inform me who is going to pay Wilfork to sit out? So he sits out until the end of the year and loses $6 million and risks not being able to get a new deal until 2012 when he will be over 30. Yeah, I see that happening.

Again, no player has sit out since either Joey Galloway or Sean Gilbert (I can't remember who did it last) way back in the 90s. There is too much money to leave on the table. The franchise tender for a DT is $6 million. Wilfork isn't going to lose $4 million by sitting out for 2/3 of the year. Wilfork has no choice but to play for his franchise tender or lose millions out of principle.

The Pats will not trade Wilfork for less than a first rounder. I don't know if anyone will give a first rounder for Wilfork with uncertainty of a 2012 season.

 

[Rob0729]

the other thing to note is that if there actually was a cap, only 3 or 4 teams would currently have more cap space going into next season (I think the pats would be 45M or something below the cap if there would be one)....and you can add another 10M in cap savings if the pats cut thomas

$$$$ from the pats end is in no way any kind of excuse to not be signing wilfork.

I agree the Pats have plenty of cap space. Thomas will only free up $5.8 million in cap space though.

Again, you are assuming the Pats are not offering Wilfork a market or an above market deal. Maybe Wilfork is ridiculous in his demands.

Also, there is no cap and we do not know what a future cap will be. If the league gets their way, the cap growth is going to slow or stop all together. The Pats have to be careful.

 

[BradyFTW!]

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).

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).

That contract wouldn't work, because, for cap purposes, the money would not be reflected as such- much of that first-year salary would be converted to a pro-rated bonus for accounting purposes. In the last scenario that you gave, I'm pretty sure that that means that of his $10M Y1 salary, some portion of it would be converted to signing bonus. I *believe* (not sure, Miguel would know) that the rule is that a player's salary can't decline by more than 20% in one year, so if he was being paid 5.75M in Y2, then his Y1 salary would be $7.2M, and the remaining $2.8M would be prorated.

 

[chevss454]

The Pats will not trade Wilfork for less than a first rounder. I don't know if anyone will give a first rounder for Wilfork with uncertainty of a 2011 season.

Someone will.