tobias funke
Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,328
- Reaction score
- 43
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.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.
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
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
I don't think that 2009 compensation affects 2010 compensation since they are part of 2 separate contracts.
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
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?