Pay Gronk?

[BUSTAMOVE]

I love the guy and player. Then again. Nobody forced him to sign that last contract. Caving to players demands after they signed a contract for long term security because of injury history. Only to want more money on top of it after a healthy productive season is dangerous.

 

[libra957]

hasn't he been paid enough?

 

[rochrist]

Why? He signed the contract he's playing under and at the time it paid him very well. He traded security for extra dollars and it's paid off for him considering how much time he's missed. Why would you invest top dollars in a guy you can't be sure will survive the season?

 

[Gronk]

Why? He signed the contract he's playing under and at the time it paid him very well. He traded security for extra dollars and it's paid off for him considering how much time he's missed. Why would you invest top dollars in a guy you can't be sure will survive the season?

Counterpoint.....Because the alternative is losing him. And he’s not replaceable. Agreed on his original deal being somewhat of a compromise based on injury history but to consider the team beneath renegotiating a deal for a generational player is silly. The chip in the Pats corner is that they won the SB without him. But esp with the Cooks trade and Dola leaving, his importance has only grown over the last few weeks.

I think the forum overrates his “missed time” due to injury. Lots of guys miss time and lose parts of whole seasons. Gronk turned an ankle in ‘11 which screwed up one game (albeit the SB), broke his arm in ‘12, got his knee blown up in ‘13 (both of which screwed NE, sure), and finally had a long-feared back injury in a herniated disk in ‘16, after which he played almost all of ‘17 none of which was related to prior injury. He’s played in 80% of regular season games in his career, which given what we know about NFL careers and injury....is pretty damn good.

 

[rochrist]

Counterpoint.....Because the alternative is losing him. And he’s not replaceable. Agreed on his original deal being somewhat of a compromise based on injury history but to consider the team beneath renegotiating a deal for a generational player is silly. The chip in the Pats corner is that they won the SB without him. But esp with the Cooks trade and Dola leaving, his importance has only grown over the last few weeks.

I think the forum overrates his “missed time” due to injury. Lots of guys miss time and lose parts of whole seasons. Gronk turned an ankle in ‘11 which screwed up one game (albeit the SB), broke his arm in ‘12, got his knee blown up in ‘13 (both of which screwed NE, sure), and finally had a long-feared back injury in a herniated disk in ‘16, after which he played almost all of ‘17 none of which was related to prior injury. He’s played in 80% of regular season games in his career, which given what we know about NFL careers and injury....is pretty damn good.

Of course he's replaceable. NE won 3 SBs without him. Hell, they won a SB with Jerome Freaking Wiggins at TE.

Yes, he played 14 games last year, but he wasn't really very good for the first few. There's no way to spin Gronk as being particularly reliable in terms of missing games.

Travis Kelce has missed 1 game in his four year career. Greg Olsen played 9 straight seasons without missing a game. Jimmy Graham has missed 7 games in 8 seasons. Ben Watson has missed 10 games in the last 10 seasons. Gronk has missed 26 games in 8 seasons.

Addendum: He's under contract for two more seasons. Do you really see him lasting much beyond that?

 

[supafly]

Of course he's replaceable. NE won 3 SBs without him. Hell, they won a SB with Jerome Freaking Wiggins at TE.

Yes, he played 14 games last year, but he wasn't really very good for the first few. There's no way to spin Gronk as being particularly reliable in terms of missing games.

Travis Kelce has missed 1 game in his four year career. Greg Olsen played 9 straight seasons without missing a game. Jimmy Graham has missed 7 games in 8 seasons. Ben Watson has missed 10 games in the last 10 seasons. Gronk has missed 26 games in 8 seasons.

Addendum: He's under contract for two more seasons. Do you really see him lasting much beyond that?

Throwing him an extra 1-1.5m this year in exchange for adding on a year to the deal (making it 3 more seasons) shouldn’t be that big of a deal for a player who has the opportunity to go down as the best TE to ever play the game. This isn’t exactly rocket science.

To take it a step further, it’s instrumental in keeping a certain pissed off QB happy, and that goes a long way towards improving our odds over the next 2-3 years, too.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

No

 

[SammyBlueCat]

I for one did not know that he played pro ball for free. Astonishing...

 

[supafly]

I for one did not know that he played pro ball for free. Astonishing...

He plays strictly for the chicks.

 

[SammyBlueCat]

He plays strictly for the chicks.

Sure.. Plus occasionally some food.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Pay Trey.

Regards ,
Chris

 

[Jackson 2]

I'm not sure the OP knows what the word polarizing means.

Hence, see post #9 and the reason for my question. You are spot on, in my opinion.

 

[Jackson 2]

He plays strictly for the chicks.

Money for nothing and chicks for free...

 

[Jackson 2]

Sure.. Plus occasionally some food.

and warm beer...

 

[maineman209]

Not sure why it would take that much cap room to add on some incentives. If anything, they could just give him some extra money, but how much would that cost? 1-1.5m?

An extension that converts some of his salary to signing bonus would give Gronk some new guaranteed cash while reducing his 2018 cap hit.

 

[supafly]

An extension that converts some of his salary to signing bonus would give Gronk some new guaranteed cash while reducing his 2018 cap hit.

Right. Depending upon how they’d do it, it would either be a savings (my preference in adding a year on to the deal + the conversion that you mentioned) or a minimal increase (if like last year). I don’t see any relationship to saving money from the Cooks trade.

 

[maineman209]

I love the guy and player. Then again. Nobody forced him to sign that last contract. Caving to players demands after they signed a contract for long term security because of injury history. Only to want more money on top of it after a healthy productive season is dangerous.

Gronk's per game production has been consistently in the top ten among all receivers. Plus, he run-blocks on pulls and traps as well as some starting OG.

Meanwhile, over the past couple seasons, WRs who have been far less productive catching the ball (and who can't block like Gronk) have been getting contracts paying them up to 50% more than Gronk, with guaranteed cash averaging around $18M. Gronk has no further guaranteed cash coming to him on his current contract.

If Gronk and his agent are arguing for a restructure that increases his guaranteed cash, they have some pretty good justification.

 

[supafly]

Gronk's per game production has been consistently in the top ten among all receivers. Plus, he run-blocks on pulls and traps as well as some starting OG.

Meanwhile, over the past couple seasons, WRs who have been far less productive catching the ball (and who can't block like Gronk) have been getting contracts paying them up to 50% more than Gronk, with guaranteed cash averaging around $18M. Gronk has no further guaranteed cash coming to him on his current contract.

If Gronk and his agent are arguing for a restructure that increases his guaranteed cash, they have some pretty good justification.

Absolutely. I recently read that 16 WRs (and 2 RBs) will be making more than him, this year. Rob Gronkowski is certainly not the 19th best skill position player in the league, especially when you take out rookie contracts for guys like Elliot, OBJ, etc.

He has most definitely outplayed his current deal. Just one more reason why I’ve been pounding the table to work something out. I think it’s imperative. As mentioned in other posts, there’s also a bit of the Brady tie-in, and I don’t think that should be overlooked, here.

 

[maineman209]

Of course he's replaceable. NE won 3 SBs without him. Hell, they won a SB with Jerome Freaking Wiggins at TE.

Yes, he played 14 games last year, but he wasn't really very good for the first few. There's no way to spin Gronk as being particularly reliable in terms of missing games.

Travis Kelce has missed 1 game in his four year career. Greg Olsen played 9 straight seasons without missing a game. Jimmy Graham has missed 7 games in 8 seasons. Ben Watson has missed 10 games in the last 10 seasons. Gronk has missed 26 games in 8 seasons.

Addendum: He's under contract for two more seasons. Do you really see him lasting much beyond that?

The Pats can certainly structure a 2-year extension so that, if Gronk isn't going to be sufficiently productive after 2019, there's minimal dead money if he's let go.

Meanwhile, if the extension converts parts of his 2018 & 2019 salaries to signing bonus and incentive bonuses, it actually reduces his cap hits for both years.

 

[DarrylS]

Not sure how Gronk can be labeled, "Polarizing".... unless you believe the bored and idle mediots on the radio who have never dealt with any issue without embellishment and overreaction....

Yesterday was listening to Bertram, a real f..ing idiot, connecting the dots between Gronk being in Fla, Rosenhaus being in Fla, and some other obscure issues related to Fla. as giving credibility to some news report in Miami.. he "believed" his wild imagination to be true.. and of course he beat this dead horse over and over and over again.