With respect:
I know how the basic contract works, as do you. I don't, however, agree with your math, so if you're correct you'll have to explain to me how.
It was late and I didn't explain myself very well...
First of all, one of us is misinformed about the tag. Maybe it's me. But where the franchise tag is the average of the top five salaries at the position, that doesn't mean that's what the top 5 players actually brought home. It is exclusive of the signing bonus, correct? So the top five TEs by salary actually made MORE than the franchise cap figure, correct? If not, then I have to adjust my thinking.
The tag figures include all player earnings including bonus and incentives. It is that inclusion that inflates the tag from year to year, although in years where few at the position were signed to new big deals it will go down. The only thing it doesn't include is the figures for a tagged player who by virtue of his tag salary would fall in the group. The top 4 or 5 TE's in the league are currently signed to deals that average less than $4.5M. Most got bonus as part of their deal in the $9-11M range. Gates deal was the most recent and he got 6/$24M. Graham has yet to produce half what any of them have, and some of them can block as well.
Branch under this deal would be paid 15.25 the first year. You can think of it as one year's salary if you wish. I prefer to think of it as the majority of three year's salary.
In 2007, Branch would be slightly underpaid at 5.5 million. I don't know where you're 11 million figure comes from.
Best I can tell, your accounting has Branch making 15.25 the first year, 5.5 the second year, and 5.75 the third year.
My accounting has Bethel making 7.25 the first year, 7.5 the second year, and 7.75 the third year. There's no real difference except in accounting and Branch's checking account.
Let's leave Bethel out of this...
It was late and I'm not sure what I was trying to say but the gold standard for measuring deal is the guaranteed (including implicitly due to dead cap potential) money taken home in the first 2-3 seasons. Another standard is the first year take. By each of those measures you have Branch above, at or close to the highest paid WR's in the league. Harrison's 7 year $67M phony backloaded deal had him getting $23M in the first 2 years. Yours has Branch getting almost $21M. Randy Moss got $18M from the Raiders on his backloaded deal. A better benchmark for Branch would be Ward who got $10M and another $2M in incentives in a 4/$25M deal last season. TO's deal in Dallas pays him $7.5M this year and $25M over 3. Yours would pay $26M to Branch, who just isn't in that league.
Is that slighty over-paying? By 2006 numbers, yeah, probably. But he is a number one receiver still getting better. In 2008, this will most likely be a steal. On my second consideration, I would probably rather lower those annual salaries by maybe a half-mil per year. But as GM, I would overpay to those levels. The reality is we're going to have to slightly overpay to have any chance of retaining him. We might convince him to trade in free agency for contract security, but it will have to be at a price slightly above market in order to give him some incentive.
Branch is our #1 receiver, but his production is not close to the top ten or elite #1 receivers in the game today. And it hasn't gotten much better - it seems to remain fairly level when healthy, and well in the second teir range. If you think a guy might do something you offer incentives, you don't pay for what he might do or you end up overpaying. He is said to be looking for $12M in guarantees - which means he's looking for a deal in the $6M per year range. The team is likely looking for a #1 WR in the $5M range - or what Tennessee overpaid Givens to be. The most they were willing to give Givens was around $18M or $3-3.5M per year with some of that even tied to incentives.
I appreciate everybody's contribution to this thread. Just for kicks, since I'm overpaying, here's my opinion on the importance of players to the Patriots right now. This might be its own thread. By the way, contrary to what seems to be popular belief, I think Watson is more replaceable than Graham. Graham can do Watson's job at probably 85% effectiveness. However, Watson doing Graham's job, IMO, would be somewhere around 65% effectiveness. And Graham absolutely has better hands than Watson.
Watson is freaky talented, moreso than Graham. Whether he develops to his full potential is debateable, as is whether we continue to need TE's primarily as blockers - I think BB his hoping we don't. If both finally pull it all together there is a choice to be made because we won't pay for two stud TE's the way we will pay for two solid TE's. That choice will factor in talent, durability and value where contract demands are concerned. Watson is signed through 2009, but on a 6 year rookie deal he signed under duress. If he fully emerges he will be entering threatening a holdout stage by 2008.
Players most important to Patriots' future success under Belichick, by which I mean will be will be hardest to replace without drastically overpaying...
