Bedard: Pats and Welker $6 mill apart

[Huckleberry1]

When did a $10 million guaranteed one-year contract become "no security whatsoever"? How many tens of millions does a player have to be guaranteed before it counts as even a tiny amount of security?

When a deal on the open market would bring far more than that, however the Patriots have tagged him to deny him that market. Deus was right, he never should have signed that tag and should have sat out the season. Welker's mistake, he shouldn't repeat it next season.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think it's safe to say that our opinions on the matter are far enough apart that no amount of discussion will resolve them. If you think it's self-evident that dollar amount is irrelevant to the notion of security, then that's that. Clearly, I disagree.

I think that, when a player is going to get 10 million per year (just an easy number for an example, not meant for this case) if he signs a 3 year deal, and he's going to get 12 million for one year on a franchise tag, it's pretty clear that the 3 year deal is the one offering the security.

As far as not usually allowing myself to do this, I've always regarded the abstract notion of 'security' as largely a function of guaranteed money. $10M guaranteed isn't as much as he wants, but it's certainly not nothing, especially when he'll get another crack at a contract in one year.

The 10 million is nothing moving forward. It's great for one year. Given that Welker would get more than 10 million into his bank account year one on a multi-year deal, though, the notion that playing on the franchise tag is security is incorrect in context.

Frankly, given the Brees contract, I'm stunned that anyone would even think to argue against this.

Edit:

Ok, given what I've seen quoted by others, PFIP apparently is arguing against my position, making it about 100% certain that I'm correct, regardless of any other aspect of the discussion.

So, to sum up...

Players comments back what I'm stating
Brees' contract backs what I'm stating
PFIP disagrees with that I'm stating

Short of God telling everyone I'm right, I don't know if it's possible for me to have stronger backing of my position.

 

[smg93]

I think that, when a player is going to get 10 million per year (just an easy number for an example, not meant for this case) if he signs a 3 year deal, and he's going to get 12 million for one year on a franchise tag, it's pretty clear that the 3 year deal is the one offering the security.



The 10 million is nothing moving forward. It's great for one year. Given that Welker would get more than 10 million into his bank account year one on a multi-year deal, though, the notion that playing on the franchise tag is security is incorrect in context.

Frankly, given the Brees contract, I'm stunned that anyone would even think to argue against this.

Edit:

Ok, given what I've seen quoted by others, PFIP apparently is arguing against my position, making it about 100% certain that I'm correct, regardless of any other aspect of the discussion.

So, to sum up...

Players comments back what I'm stating
Brees' contract backs what I'm stating
PFIP disagrees with that I'm stating

Short of God telling everyone I'm right, I don't know if it's possible for me to have stronger backing of my position.

Delusional at best considering you refuse to acknowledge this post of yours:

"Being more than one year would be a pretty good start, and the amount involved is meaningless in the context."

 

[ivanvamp]

I think that, when a player is going to get 10 million per year (just an easy number for an example, not meant for this case) if he signs a 3 year deal, and he's going to get 12 million for one year on a franchise tag, it's pretty clear that the 3 year deal is the one offering the security.



The 10 million is nothing moving forward. It's great for one year. Given that Welker would get more than 10 million into his bank account year one on a multi-year deal, though, the notion that playing on the franchise tag is security is incorrect in context.

Frankly, given the Brees contract, I'm stunned that anyone would even think to argue against this.

Edit:

Ok, given what I've seen quoted by others, PFIP apparently is arguing against my position, making it about 100% certain that I'm correct, regardless of any other aspect of the discussion.

So, to sum up...

Players comments back what I'm stating
Brees' contract backs what I'm stating
PFIP disagrees with that I'm stating

Short of God telling everyone I'm right, I don't know if it's possible for me to have stronger backing of my position.

Sorry I'm just jumping into the conversation now, and please forgive me if this has already been covered in this thread. But what is it that gives players a sense of security? Is it the length of the contract? Is it the guaranteed money? A combination of both? Because let's compare two contracts:

Contract A:
- yr 1: $12 million ($12 million guaranteed)

Contract B:
- yr 1: $10 million ($5 million guaranteed)
- yr 2: $10 million ($4 million guaranteed)
- yr 3: $10 million ($2 million guaranteed)

I don't know if a contract would ever be structured like that, but just for the sake of discussion let's look at that. Contract A is like playing for the franchise tender. The player is *guaranteed* to receive $12 million, even though it's just for one year. Contract B is like re-signing a guy for 3 years, $30 million, but just $11 million is guaranteed.

If you're Wes Welker, which contract would you rather have? Which one would give you more "security"?

Again, I don't expect that Contract B is what the Pats are offering...it's just an example, because I want to know what the key to "security" is...guaranteed money or years and *potential* money.

 

[Deus Irae]

Sorry I'm just jumping into the conversation now, and please forgive me if this has already been covered in this thread. But what is it that gives players a sense of security? Is it the length of the contract? Is it the guaranteed money? A combination of both? Because let's compare two contracts:

Contract A:
- yr 1: $12 million ($12 million guaranteed)

Contract B:
- yr 1: $10 million ($5 million guaranteed)
- yr 2: $10 million ($4 million guaranteed)
- yr 3: $10 million ($2 million guaranteed)

I don't know if a contract would ever be structured like that, but just for the sake of discussion let's look at that. Contract A is like playing for the franchise tender. The player is *guaranteed* to receive $12 million, even though it's just for one year. Contract B is like re-signing a guy for 3 years, $30 million, but just $11 million is guaranteed.

If you're Wes Welker, which contract would you rather have? Which one would give you more "security"?

Again, I don't expect that Contract B is what the Pats are offering...it's just an example, because I want to know what the key to "security" is...guaranteed money or years and *potential* money.

Here's the thing....

If you slant the contracts, you can make it look the way you have. The reality, though, is that Welker would not have had to settle for $11 million guaranteed on the open market (or the $9.5 franchise number in this case). People seem to be arguing that the $9.5 million is better than $0, but that's not at issue. Again, the Brees contract talks, and his final contract, lay it out pretty well.

 

[Deus Irae]

Delusional at best considering you refuse to acknowledge this post of yours:

"Being more than one year would be a pretty good start, and the amount involved is meaningless in the context."

Nothing delusional about it, but thanks for your take.

 

[ivanvamp]

Here's the thing....

If you slant the contracts, you can make it look the way you have. The reality, though, is that Welker would not have had to settle for $11 million guaranteed on the open market. People seem to be arguing that the $9.5 million is better than $0, but that's not at issue. Again, the Brees contract talks, and his final contract, lay it out pretty well.

I hear you. I'm just wondering what it is that gives players "security". Is it more guaranteed money or a longer deal that offers (if he plays out the entire contract) a lot more money? Obviously a player would prefer more years and more guaranteed money, that goes without saying. But given the option of guaranteed money vs. years/potential money, which do they prefer?

 

[Deus Irae]

I hear you. I'm just wondering what it is that gives players "security". Is it more guaranteed money or a longer deal that offers (if he plays out the entire contract) a lot more money? Obviously a player would prefer more years and more guaranteed money, that goes without saying. But given the option of guaranteed money vs. years/potential money, which do they prefer?

Your question has too many unanswered variables for me to give a fully thought out answer. Here's what we know, as a general rule, about football contracts:

In a long term deal, the most important numbers are bonuses, guarantees and first 3 year payouts.

 

[Kontradiction]

I hear you. I'm just wondering what it is that gives players "security". Is it more guaranteed money or a longer deal that offers (if he plays out the entire contract) a lot more money? Obviously a player would prefer more years and more guaranteed money, that goes without saying. But given the option of guaranteed money vs. years/potential money, which do they prefer?

Think of it as being hired on as a temp at your job. They'll pay you $1 per hour more but you're only guaranteed that job for a year. Wouldn't you rather be hired on full time with the security that you have a job for a few years at $1 per hour less?

 

[mgteich]

Where did you read that Welker was offered $1 ($1M) less. In your example, I would take the 3 year deal if the money were guaranteed.

What your implying is that Welker should take a 3 year contract at $8.5M per year with no change in guarantees. Apparently the team is still offering $16M guaranteed over 2 years, although it is possible that they have raised the second year salary, with the new amounts not guaranteed.

Think of it as being hired on as a temp at your job. They'll pay you $1 per hour more but you're only guaranteed that job for a year. Wouldn't you rather be hired on full time with the security that you have a job for a few years at $1 per hour less?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I'm not even sure what some of you are trying to convey to each other...so I'm not going to wade in.

But mg, Welker stated that this year the 2/$16m guaranteed wasn't on the table any more and there was less guaranteed money being offered. Probably because absent a 3rd year (the year remaining on his original deal) to spread some of the hit to they didn't really want to pay him $8M per. Added to the $2.5M in 2011 salary, that deal would have really been a 3 year $18.5M deal...or $6.2M per.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Raiders have reached agreement on a 4 year deal with their franchise tagged safety, Tavon Branch. No details on the agreement yet. His tag was $6.2M so it will be interesting to see the total deal value and guaranteed money on his long term deal.

OK. Per NFL.com the deal is for $26.6M, more than 4 times the tag, and $17.1M is guaranteed...or 65%.

 

[smg93]

Raiders have reached agreement on a 4 year deal with their franchise tagged safety, Tavon Branch. No details on the agreement yet. His tag was $6.2M so it will be interesting to see the total deal value and guaranteed money on his long term deal.

OK. Per NFL.com the deal is for $26.6M, more than 4 times the tag, and $17.1M is guaranteed...or 65%.

Purely on a mathematical basis, if the Pats and WW are talking about a 3 year deal then a deal like this would translate to a contract of $30m total with about $19m to $20m guaranteed.

 

[West Philly Patriot]

I was glad Welker signed the tag, however now that I have seen the attitude so many fans have against Welker and the way the team is treating him I have come to believe Deus was right, he never should have signed the tag and he should have held out. In the future I hope all their free agents bust their balls for every dime and never give a home team discount because it's abundantly clear that it is never going to be appreciated. If they don't give him at least 3 years with at least 21 million guaranteed then Welker should play the season out and refuse to sign with them again. It's a real shame they don't have more respect for a player who gives them his absolute best at all times and produces like few ever have. Much as I love the Patriots this is one of those times where I am disgusted with them.

This is where I am pretty much.

 

[Ring 6]

I think that, when a player is going to get 10 million per year (just an easy number for an example, not meant for this case) if he signs a 3 year deal, and he's going to get 12 million for one year on a franchise tag, it's pretty clear that the 3 year deal is the one offering the security.



The 10 million is nothing moving forward. It's great for one year. Given that Welker would get more than 10 million into his bank account year one on a multi-year deal, though, the notion that playing on the franchise tag is security is incorrect in context.

Frankly, given the Brees contract, I'm stunned that anyone would even think to argue against this.

Edit:

Ok, given what I've seen quoted by others, PFIP apparently is arguing against my position, making it about 100% certain that I'm correct, regardless of any other aspect of the discussion.

So, to sum up...

Players comments back what I'm stating
Brees' contract backs what I'm stating
PFIP disagrees with that I'm stating

Short of God telling everyone I'm right, I don't know if it's possible for me to have stronger backing of my position.

My objective opinion from the outside of this discussion is that of course your take that a long term contract provides more security, your specific post that is being responded to implied that 'regardless of the money' a long term deal is more secure, leading to the argument that a 3 year deal with 10mill guaranteed is more secure than being under the tag for 10mill. Of course its not because there is no security in 2 non-guaranteed years, but this appears to be a case where you are taking the alternatives that would actual exist into consideration and your solitary comment that created the debate left that open.
Just my 2 cents, everyone can carry on.

 

[Ring 6]

Your post sums it up.

The guy you responded to...........responded to the Douche.

The Douche is the one who thinks that years are "security" vs guareented money.

Making your point without name calling and personal attacks is appreciated by Ian and Patsfans.com. Please attempt to respect that.

 

[patman52]

IMO Welker will be a FA next year, the Patriots will have the opportunity to let the market gauge his value as a 32 YO wr. Love the guy but I don't see him being as effective in other systems as he is in this one. And I think a lot of GMs will feel the same enough so the the number of teams that will be willing to pay him 8 mill a year wont materialize. .

I think a fair offer to him would be 3 and 25 with 18 in guarantees.

 

[LuthierJr]

Rumors Welker is signing a 3 year extension....

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Rumors Welker is signing a 3 year extension....

link? Heard they won't be reaching a deal.. as of 11 on espn

 

[LuthierJr]

link? Heard they won't be reaching a deal.. as of 11 on espn

I heard it on ESPN news radio.... Called a friend... He said there was no 3 year extension... I guess I had wishful ears... I just heard three year extension... DOH