- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 15,532
- Reaction score
- 27,568
This will be Welker's 3rd contract with the Pats. Given his production he's been a bargain at around $4MM/yr for the past 5 years. No question about that. Given how often players who have signed multiple contracts DON'T live up to the money, its not a bad thing for a team to have one that does.
Richard Seymour is STILL one of the top defensive linemen in the league, but does anyone believe that he's played to the level of that massive contract he got from Oakland? Of course not, he'd literally have to be the defensive player of the year....every year to live up to it. To a lesser degree this is the position the Pats are in with Welker.
Again its the conundrum of do you pay for the production that Welker has given you over the past 5 years, or do you pay him for what you can expect over the next 2-4 years. And its not just based on the player himself. It has a lot to do with the position he plays, and how the Pats value that position within the offense they expect to be playing in the next 2-4 years. (ie the number of snaps he's expected to be on the field, the number of looks he's expected to get given the other targets, etc)
Again I'm not one who will join with the majority and demand the Pat's pay Welker the "market rate" for someone of his production. No pity party here. First of all, most of the "market rate" contracts were for receivers who are much bigger and younger than Welker. They were paid a premium because of extreme need, age, size AND potential.
Secondly, even at $6MM/yr its not like the Pats are telling Welker FU. They are essentially giving him a 33% raise, even though his expected production is very likely to decline over the length of the contract. To put it another way, its like a company giving one of their top salesman a 33% raise, even though its likely his sales are going to decrease by 20-30% over the course of the contract.
IF its true that the Pats are at $6MM/yr and Welker is at 8MM/yr, then I'd be willing to pay him $7MM/yr on a 4 year deal with about $16-18MM guaranteed over the first 2 years. I'd also be willing to add incentives that could add as much as another 2MM/yr if he keeps giving us 100+ catches and 1100yd seasons.
If he truly is a freak of nature and his age, size, and wear and tear, don't effect him as expected during over the life of the contract, then, by all means, there should be provisions in the contract that get him to that $9-10MM level. That would only be fair.
However it would be equally fair for the Pats to have provisions in his contract that limit their risk, if his production should decline. Giving him that $8-9MM/yr guaranteed, rewards him for past production, and commits the Pats only for the 2 years he's more likely to be playing at an elite level. After that he his pay should be a function of his production
The lesson here is that you should never pay for past production, only future expected results....plus incentives.
Richard Seymour is STILL one of the top defensive linemen in the league, but does anyone believe that he's played to the level of that massive contract he got from Oakland? Of course not, he'd literally have to be the defensive player of the year....every year to live up to it. To a lesser degree this is the position the Pats are in with Welker.
Again its the conundrum of do you pay for the production that Welker has given you over the past 5 years, or do you pay him for what you can expect over the next 2-4 years. And its not just based on the player himself. It has a lot to do with the position he plays, and how the Pats value that position within the offense they expect to be playing in the next 2-4 years. (ie the number of snaps he's expected to be on the field, the number of looks he's expected to get given the other targets, etc)
Again I'm not one who will join with the majority and demand the Pat's pay Welker the "market rate" for someone of his production. No pity party here. First of all, most of the "market rate" contracts were for receivers who are much bigger and younger than Welker. They were paid a premium because of extreme need, age, size AND potential.
Secondly, even at $6MM/yr its not like the Pats are telling Welker FU. They are essentially giving him a 33% raise, even though his expected production is very likely to decline over the length of the contract. To put it another way, its like a company giving one of their top salesman a 33% raise, even though its likely his sales are going to decrease by 20-30% over the course of the contract.
IF its true that the Pats are at $6MM/yr and Welker is at 8MM/yr, then I'd be willing to pay him $7MM/yr on a 4 year deal with about $16-18MM guaranteed over the first 2 years. I'd also be willing to add incentives that could add as much as another 2MM/yr if he keeps giving us 100+ catches and 1100yd seasons.
If he truly is a freak of nature and his age, size, and wear and tear, don't effect him as expected during over the life of the contract, then, by all means, there should be provisions in the contract that get him to that $9-10MM level. That would only be fair.
However it would be equally fair for the Pats to have provisions in his contract that limit their risk, if his production should decline. Giving him that $8-9MM/yr guaranteed, rewards him for past production, and commits the Pats only for the 2 years he's more likely to be playing at an elite level. After that he his pay should be a function of his production
The lesson here is that you should never pay for past production, only future expected results....plus incentives.
