Vince Wilfork...on WEEI...

[VrabelMayeWin]

These threads crack me up. It's always the same.

One of these will happen :

- He'll sign long term with the Patriots.

- He'll be Franchised and traded.

- He'll be Franchised and will play for the Patriots in 2010, most likely with a promise not to be Franchised again (like Samuel).

That's it. All that matters is we'll get the player next year or significant value in draft choices. All the chat about holdouts and hissy fits and not playing hard is just silly.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

First, you have been on the ESPN board forever. Just because I post here doesn't mean I don't read the other boards.

As for how Wilfork has reacted, you have no clue how he would react if they gave him a market deal. I am betting that Wilfork and his people are working off Hanyesworth deal and wants more. That deal was so out of whack with reality, it is stupid. If that is his starting point, then the Pats could easily have offered him a market deal and still insulted Wilfork.

The Pats are not in decline until they go several years of decline with Brady as a starter. The Pats took a step back this year, but they did that in 2002 too and it worked out for them. The next few years will tell if they are in decline or they had a transition year.

that makes no sense..........your references to past history are a joke......are you telling me the pats have the guys on defense that if they get 3 guys (like warren,washington,harrison in 2003) that the pats will have a #1 defense? oh yeah, because we have the LB's, right? your analogy is a joke

at the end of the 2002 season, the pats had pleasant/seymour/hamilton on their DL........right now, they have warren/pryor/wright......in 2002 at LB, they had vrabel,bruschi,phifer,mcginest......right now, the pats have crable,mckenzie,mayo,thomas.......do you still want to go on with your comparison to 2002?

2002 has nothing in common with the current moment.

 

[mgteich]

A simple contract would be
$10M, $5M, $6M, $7M with a $4M bonus.
The first year's salary would be guaranteed.
The total would be 4 years, $32M, with$14m guaranteed.
There could still be the usual incentives and workout bonuses.

Obviously we have no clue what either side would sign for.

Unfortunately the NFL designates them at DT's. It's a gray area as there are only 11 starting NT's at any given time. That is a small pool to factor the average of the top 5. Of those 11 he is definitely in the top 3, he is probably the best fit for us, Shaun Rodgers had a great year in 2008, was injured this year and Rubin filled in very well for him. So well in fact they are thinking about moving Rodgers to DE. So I'm not sure if his drop of production was a product of him being a mental ***** and pouting over Eric's hiring or if it was due to injury. Hampton and Williams are old. Ian Scott seems Ok. Pouha was a stud this year, but needs another year or two of production to prove he is consistent. Raji looks like he has a lot of potential as well. Putting 1-gap and 2-gap aside I see the top 3 in no particular order like this:

Wilfork
Rodgers: in 2008 signed a six year 42 million extension with 20 guaranteed.
Ratliff: in 2007 signed a 5 year 20 million extension with 8 mil in bonus money.

Pouha gets an honorable mention, he was a beast this season especially in the playoffs. As does Franklin.

Last year's DT figure was 6 millon, (couldn't find this year's tag number, not sure if it was announced). Haynesworth's contract shouldn't bump that up much, unless bonus money is included in the tag, which I don't think is the case. Haynesworth's salary was 6 million in 2009. He did receive 21 million in bonus money.


And with all do respect to Wilfork, not only was Haynesworth deal ridiculous, but he is a much more dynamic player - when motivated of course.

A reasonable contract IMO would be in this range

4 years 28-32 million with 14-16 mil guaranteed. If he performs well and stays healthy he can still see one more decent payday and he gets fair market value 7-8 million.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

Vince need to get a friggin clue. The Franchise tag pays you the average of the Top 5 salaries at your position. Thinking that means you are only "OK" is a friggin insult to the team

Agreed - the same CBA that allows him free agency also allows the team to Franchise him for a hefty payday. Personally I'd like to see us trade him to one of the teams that needs a NT for a #1 this year and a usable player as I think we can get more value for the money than a dominant 2 down player.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

These threads crack me up. It's always the same.

One of these will happen :

- He'll sign long term with the Patriots.

- He'll be Franchised and traded.

- He'll be Franchised and will play for the Patriots in 2010, most likely with a promise not to be Franchised again (like Samuel).

That's it. All that matters is we'll get the player next year or significant value in draft choices. All the chat about holdouts and hissy fits and not playing hard is just silly.

only because you say so......because no player has ever done these things before.....right?

he is not holding out if he decides to sign his franchise tender 4 weeks into the season and then starts to play. either way, the last thing the defense needs is to have its starting NT be an unknown while they are trying to replace most of the bodies around him

either he will be playing or he won't........and I won't blame him for holding out or making demands to be gone

 

[mgcolby]

A simple contract would be
$10M, $5M, $6M, $7M with a $4M bonus.
The first year's salary would be guaranteed.
The total would be 4 years, $32M, with$14m guaranteed.
There could still be the usual incentives and workout bonuses.

Obviously we have no clue what either side would sign for.

Right. But its fun to play. I would be surprised if the Pats went over 4 years and shocked if they go over 5. It is hard to guess because it is not just the money, but the years and how that money is doled out. We will see how this plays out starting in a week or so.

 

[Rob0729]

There is no franchise tags for NT's. The tag is for all DT's. A top 3-4 NT is worth more than a top 3-4 DT.

Yet, the only 3-4 NTs in the top 5 salaries that will affect the franchise tender famount or Wilfork are Shaun Rogers as the third highest salary at $6.57 million (on a contract he signed when he was with Detriot as a 4-3 DT) and Casey Hampton as the fifth highest salary at $6.45 million. So even if a 3-4 NT, they are not compensated as well as 4-3 DTs. It is in part that stats drive salaries in the NFL many times and 3-4 NTs don't get stats.

The other three DTs who affect the franchise tender for DTs are Tommie Harris at $8.59 million, Albert Haynesworth at $7 million, and Jonathan Babineaux at $6.5 million. The franchise tender is estimated at $7.02 million which would have made Wilfork the second highest paid DT in the league last year.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

only because you say so......because no player has ever done these things before.....right?

he is not holding out if he decides to sign his franchise tender 4 weeks into the season and then starts to play.

Go back and look at the past and check out the number of players who whined about being Franchised then look at the number of them who weren't on the field Week 1.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Agreed - the same CBA that allows him free agency also allows the team to Franchise him for a hefty payday. Personally I'd like to see us trade him to one of the teams that needs a NT for a #1 this year and a usable player as I think we can get more value for the money than a dominant 2 down player.

he has the right to want the security of a long term deal....he has earned it.......he has also earned the right to go by the book and sing the franchise tender a few weeks into the season, get the year into the books and move on next year. in fact, with the way the pats have handled other players, he is within his rights to do whatever he thinks is right.

 

[mgcolby]

Go back and look at the past and check out the number of players who whined about being Franchised then look at the number of them who weren't on the field Week 1.

You're wasting your time.... I mean everyone knows that every pissed off tagged player holds out until week 10. Don't they?


:bricks:

 

[Frezo]

I'm not saying that you give WIlfork whatever he wants, that's what negotiations are for. I just think the franchise tag is a crummy way to do business with someone who has contributed so much to the team AND been happy playing here (unlike AD).

And the 1 year deal for franchise tag is a GOOD deal, BUT a football player's career can end in 1 play, so I can see why he is looking for a LONG term deal.

The tag was negotiated into the CBA. The owners capitulated to player demands for free agency and in turn the players gave the franchise tag. It's nothing more than a tool a team can use to retain a good player. This is strictly business. Don't fall for Vince playing on public sentiment. Right now he just wants as much money as he can get and a long term contract. Also, what's a team supposed to do? Franchise a disgruntled player that sucks? The tag will always be used for good players and good players are generally fan favorites.

Any player getting franchised now faces the possibility of being out of work in 2011 and any team signing that long term contract faces having to pay a large 2nd year salary and no football. This is a tough situation and both players and teams have to be careful. A lot of teams will use the tag this year and a lot of players will act like they just got shot. It's all business. Just sit back and enjoy the ride. It's going to be a doozy.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

he has the right to want the security of a long term deal

Well, I've already told you the possibilities, these threads are ALWAYS the same. Yes he has the right to want security (as if $7M+ for one year isn't) but if he doesn't show up you can chop off about half a million from that each week. He has the right to want security, he has the right to not show up but he doesn't have the right to not show and and still get paid . . . so he'll be there, playing for a contract.

 

[tobias funke]

I'd wager a lot of money that Wilfork won't miss any games this season.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably high and should send me some because I'm totally dry.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Go back and look at the past and check out the number of players who whined about being Franchised then look at the number of them who weren't on the field Week 1.

sure.....and none of them was named wilfork.........so he's going to be there week 1 because those other guys were there week 1?

you dont think there is any realization of exactly how badly the pats actually need him to be there? you think the middle of august is going to roll around and wilfork is waiting by the gates as brace is getting pushed aournd the field is going to have BB say 'uhhhh......we can only worry about who is here'

I still say I would believe wilfork long before I would believe BB and the front office

 

[mgcolby]

he has the right to want the security of a long term deal....he has earned it.......he has also earned the right to go by the book and sing the franchise tender a few weeks into the season, get the year into the books and move on next year. in fact, with the way the pats have handled other players, he is within his rights to do whatever he thinks is right.

Name one player they "mistreated". Just one and then tell me which player saw greener pastures both financially and professionally after being "treated properly" by another team?

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

sure.....and none of them was named wilfork.........so he's going to be there week 1 because those other guys were there week 1?

We'll see in September. Barring injury he'll be playing Week 1. Guaranteed. For someone.

you dont think there is any realization of exactly how badly the pats actually need him to be there?

Numerous team (SD, NYJ, CLE) lost top NT this year and were fine. In fact the Browns run defense got a lot better after Rogers got hurt. Whether it's Brace, Pryor, Wright, Richard or someone else, if Wilfork is traded we'll get a competent NT.

 

[mgcolby]

I'd wager a lot of money that Wilfork won't miss any games this season.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably high and should send me some because I'm totally dry.

Yup, because the best way to secure your future and to take care of your family is to forfeit 435 thousand a week, just to prove you are a "man of principle"!

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Well, I've already told you the possibilities, these threads are ALWAYS the same. Yes he has the right to want security (as if $7M+ for one year isn't) but if he doesn't show up you can chop off about half a million from that each week. He has the right to want security, he has the right to not show up but he doesn't have the right to not show and and still get paid . . . so he'll be there, playing for a contract.

wilfork doesn't have to play for a contract.......he'll get one for 2011 regardless of whether he sits the first part of the season or not.

but in the meantime, even if wilfork does show up week 1.......it creates problems in trying to integrate new players (RDE for one, LB's for others) if your NT is waiting around for the season to start.

whatever......some of you obviously think the front office is always right in these matters. I do not.

 

[tobias funke]

sure.....and none of them was named wilfork.........so he's going to be there week 1 because those other guys were there week 1?

you dont think there is any realization of exactly how badly the pats actually need him to be there? you think the middle of august is going to roll around and wilfork is waiting by the gates as brace is getting pushed aournd the field is going to have BB say 'uhhhh......we can only worry about who is here'

I still say I would believe wilfork long before I would believe BB and the front office

Serious question:

Why are you pounding the 'Wilfork won't show up for 6 weeks' drum so hard?

It seems like a pretty odd thing to latch onto, considering the lack of evidence to suggest this course of action.

Do you have inside information you're not revealing, or have you really just created this point of contention out of thin air?

I'm not really trying to troll you, just wondering, because not only has it not added any substance to the discussions in this thread, it just doesn't make any logical sense.

 

[dhamz]

You're wasting your time.... I mean everyone knows that every pissed off tagged player holds out until week 10. Don't they?


:bricks:

It never happens and with the prospects of either a shortened 2011 or no 2011 season on the horizon it is even less likely a player is going to do it and miss out on millions in 2010.