Over The Cap-Russell Wilson's Next Contract

[pbmax]

This one is for Patler.

http://overthecap.com/russell-wilsons-upcoming-contract-negotiations/

It grabbed my attention by pointing out that Peter King's assessment of Aaron Rodgers contract as a percent of the salary cap was flawed.

King mentions that at $22 million per year, that means that Rodgers’ year on cap hit was 17.8% in year one

It seems King was guilty of using a rounded number for the average salary, but also overestimating the overall value and structure of the contract. The author points to his work that shows that Rodgers never exceeds 13.27% of the Packer's salary cap in a given year.

So later in his piece (http://mmqb.si.com/2015/06/08/russel...-contract-nfl/) when King starts to estimate what Wilson's ask will be, he is starting with a very inflated QB percentage of future team salary caps (caps that are again regularly increasing).

Suppose Wilson signed a deal averaging $22 million per. This year the cap is $143.3 million. Rodgers’ deal, in year one, was for 17.8 percent of the Packers’ cap. Wilson’s $22 million average deal, if that’s anything near what he wants, would be for 15.4 percent of the Seahawks’ 2015 cap.

The large error here is the use of average salary. King calculates it (confusing, using OTC numbers) at slightly under $22 million. However, when they break it down by year, Rodgers never exceeds $22 million in cap hit in any year, and has several well below it.

[pbmax]

[Fritz]

jay cutler - BAHABAHABAHA!

I have a colleague who is a Bears fan. She is convinced the Bears will suck as long as Jay Cutler is the QB of the Bears.

[Patler]

I have argued for years that most contract discussions are flawed. Total value doesn't matter, average value is often completely meaningless, even the guarantees don't matter a lot. For the players, actual guarantees are part of it, but the most important should be how much will they get in the first two or three years, whether actually guaranteed or not. It used to be that a player was nearly certain to get the first three years of a big contract, but that is less certain now. Two years are quite certain, however.

For teams, two things are important:

1. How much does it cost against the cap in any given year to keep him.
2. How much does it cost against the cap in any given year (or two) to get rid of him.

If you can manage to keep both of those at tolerable levels, you've done a good job.

Some teams have been good at handling it, others have not. For the most part, under Wolf and TT the Packers have been very good at managing those issues. Sherman was not very good at it, which manifested itself in the KGB, Sharper and Wahle situations.

By and large, the Packers have avoided situations where they were required to keep a player because they couldn't afford to cut him, and situations where they had to release players just because they couldn't afford to keep them. They have sometimes kept players who were seemingly overpaid, but they didn't really have to, and they have released players they didn't want to pay, but they could have kept them. In short, their decisions have been roster based, not contract based when cutdown time comes around.

[Fritz]

I am curious if a new Wilson deal will hamstring the team in the way Matt Staff's contract has hamstrung the Lions (when seen in conjunction with their other dumb cap moves).

You can have an expensive quarterback but only if you manage the rest of the team's cap well.

[3irty1]

I don't know if Matt Stafford is the greatest example of a hamstringing since he was never really a bargain being a #1 overall pick in the old CBA era. In a case like Wilson that team is going to have find room for a whole elite QB salary.

[Guiness]

Bradford's number *smh*

Getting rid of the old rookie salary structure was a very smart move in a league focused on parity. Having a top 3 pick was a ridiculous burden. It hasn't been that long, but already you look back at it and wonder how it got to that point.

[Striker]

I am curious if a new Wilson deal will hamstring the team in the way Matt Staff's contract has hamstrung the Lions (when seen in conjunction with their other dumb cap moves).

You can have an expensive quarterback but only if you manage the rest of the team's cap well.

They've added a good number of larger contracts on the past year. Trading for Jimmy Graham and extending Lynch and Richard Sherman.

Plus they have to worry about Okung, Irvin, and Wagner. Doesn't seem like they'll have much room for Wilson.

[Guiness]

So much conjecture about this contract situation.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/26/agent-doesnt-deny-notion-that-russell-wilson-wants-to-be-nfls-highest-paid-player/

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/26/russell-wilson-leaving-seattle-in-2016-is-a-real-possibility/#comment-4337050

No one has any real idea what's going on, so they just keep throwing shit at the wall, I guess in hopes that when it all falls out, they can point to something and say "see, I told you so". I've even seen a comment that RW is not well liked in the I don't think either camp has said a thing, even Wilson's agent has been (relatively) tight lipped. The only hard fact I've seen is that RW took out an insurance policy against getting hurt next year.

I've even seen a comment that he might not be well liked in the change room.

Even without a market-value contract, reports periodically arise of Wilson facing resentment within the locker room. If/when he becomes the highest-paid player in the NFL, it won’t get any better

[Cheesehead Craig]

Whether it's a huge cap hit contract or Wilson leaving the Hawks, whatever works to take them down to the 49ers level is fine with me.

[Guiness]

Whether it's a huge cap hit contract or Wilson leaving the Hawks, whatever works to take them down to the 49ers level is fine with me.

If you believe the press, it's looking quite likely that the Hawks are going to ride out the last year of his rookie contract. I think if that happens, he's gone unless he's franchised because there's no way he isn't mad and insulted as hell at being paid that (everything is relative) little money.

[pbmax]

John Schneider is clever enough to pull that off. Question is can he find someone with same skill set or better before next year?

[Patler]

If you believe the press, it's looking quite likely that the Hawks are going to ride out the last year of his rookie contract. I think if that happens, he's gone unless he's franchised because there's no way he isn't mad and insulted as hell at being paid that (everything is relative) little money.

At most, he will have just one year to be upset about, because nothing could have been done before this off season even if they wanted to. If they can't work out a career deal without the pressure of an expired contract, its not a reason to hold a grudge.

[gbgary]

STOP CALLING THEM THE HAWKS!


i hate that!




lol

[Guiness]

At most, he will have just one year to be upset about, because nothing could have been done before this off season even if they wanted to. If they can't work out a career deal without the pressure of an expired contract, its not a reason to hold a grudge.

It isn't? I'd say it's a very, very good reason to hold a grudge. If they force him to play for $1.5M, they're treating him like a rented mule for as far as any of us can see, no good reason. Any other QB in a contract year that went to the SB two consecutive years would be renegotiated, the only reason he is not it because of the size of the salary jump. Absolute bare minimum, they should renegotiate the last year of his contract for a 10x raise.

I fully reserve the right to change my position if it turns out he's being a tool, which is maybe not out of the question.