F/A JENKINS UPDATE

[Patler]

It was designed that way, and Sherman admitted as much after the singing. Both parties knew what it meant.

1a. I prefer multiple roster bonuses and high salaries to one huge roster bonus down the road. That is how GB got into trouble with Wahle. The one bonus was a killer, but as I wrote many times before, I'm sure his agent wanted it that way. It guaranteed a huge payday for Wahle in 2005, one way or another.

What Sherman intially said he would do, but never did, was work on a new contract early. For Wahle's situation, I thought it was good at the time, because the Packers were almost certain to lose him back then even. What aggravated the heck out of me was that Sherman never took the second step a year or two later to renegotiate out from under the huge roster bonus that was due in 2005. Some expected it as early as the next off-season. Even Wahle mentioned once about signing a cheap deal to help out the team, and then never hearing from them again about renegotiating. The time to keep Wahle was in 2003 or 2004.

[the_idle_threat]

One and done??? When it comes to young talent with upside - you lock 'em up early, and save money against the cap.

It's a trade off for both the club and the player. The player is taking a slightly undervalued contract on the back end as a hedge against injury, and being paid early; and, the club is locking up a young player with upside at a discounted rate.

On a one year deal, if the player plays well, it will cost you more in the long run if you resign him, or you simply lose him outright to UFA after one year.

Being proactive, and signing the player to the discounted contract is the best way to go, IMO.

The problem is that "locking -up" a player early doesn't really work anymore. The minute the player feels he is undervalued, the whinning starts, Then, you lose them like Walker or McKenzie, or have to redo their deals like Harris and Driver. In the long run, I don't think the teams really save anything anymore, and infact it may cost them more because they paid more than they had to initially, or they pay more than he is worth later on. Teams don't get away with paying a lot less than a player is worth other than SOMETIMES in their rookie contracts.

A few years ago I felt the same way, sign them early and get a good deal. But, players' agents have caught on. Now, I am more in favor of saving when you can now.

This isn't new. A decade ago, Leroy Butler went to Ron wolf and had his deal redone when the market went up and he was outplaying his deal. I remember how it went down at the time.

Because of new deals signed by other players in free agency, there were constant stories in the paper about how Butler was underpaid. The reporters would ask him about it and he kept saying he'd honor his contract. But the talk didn't stop; every time a reporter got within 10 feet of Butler the reporter would stir up shit about him being underpaid, until finally Butler changed his mind and met with Wolf to get his deal sweetened. I remember being pissed at the reporters at the time because it seemed to be a non-story (both Butler and the team were happy with Butler's existing deal) that became one because the reporters thought Butler should feel he was being underpaid and disrespected, and they kept on him about it until they convinced him to request more money.

In any case, when players are signed to a team-friendly deal and the deal is later sweetened, the new deal still ends up being pretty team-friendly from what I've seen. They can throw in a few million extra, like they did with Driver or with Harris this year, and the guy is still not breaking the bank like he would if he had an unrestricted free-agent type deal.

[Patler]

But that's just it, you don't save any money because you have to "sweeten" it. I'm mostly only talking about RFAs or rookies with a couple years left. Your options seem to be:

1. pay a lower contract now, and then a higher one next year; or
2. negotiate a contract higher this year than option 1, but maybe less next year than option 1. Then, have to sweeten it in year 3 or 4.

The long and short is do what works for this player now, but don't go into option 2 thinking that somehow signing a player early will save you money. Less and less is that the case.

[the_idle_threat]

But that's just it, you don't save any money because you have to "sweeten" it. I'm mostly only talking about RFAs or rookies with a couple years left. Your options seem to be:

1. pay a lower contract now, and then a higher one next year; or
2. negotiate a contract higher this year than option 1, but maybe less next year than option 1. Then, have to sweeten it in year 3 or 4.

The long and short is do what works for this player now, but don't go into option 2 thinking that somehow signing a player early will save you money. Less and less is that the case.

IMO, your logic is flawed in this case, Patler, because you're not looking at the whole picture. For a RFA (who would be an ascending player entering his prime) option 2 is very likely to save a team money over option 1. Let's look at those two options again.

Option 1) Give the restricted free agent the one-year tender, and negotiate the long-term contract during or after that year as the player is just about to become an unrestricted free agent. Assuming the player plays well in that season and the team still wants him, the team pays a low contract (the tender) in year one, and then a very high contract in years 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. because the player has the leverage of unrestricted free agency to jack up the terms of the long-term contract.

Option 2) Lock the player into a long-term deal asap, assuming the sides can agree on a reasonable deal, which is presumably much lower than the long-term deal in Option 1 above. The player is paid more in year 1 than under Option 1, but is paid less in years 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. because the deal was negotiated without the immediate threat of unrestricted free-agency. If the player outperforms the deal, the team can sweeten the deal, but it has leverage because the player is under contract, so the sweetened deal will not have to break the bank. When Driver and Harris got their extensions, neither was given an outlandish amount, and in fact I would argue that both are still relatively underpaid compared to other receivers and corners, respectively, with similar production. Yet both players are happy with their extensions. Everybody wins.

The idea is to get the player locked in at a reasonable rate before he gets close enough to the madness that is unrestricted free agency that he can use it as a bargaining tool. Sweetening a deal after the fact does not cost as much as letting a player negotiate a long-term deal on the eve of free agency, especially now when teams are flush with cash and the market is bare because even ordinary players are getting the Franchise tag.

[Patler]

You said the same exact thing as I did. The only difference between us is that you think the difference in the two contracts will be much greater than I think they will be. The bigger the difference for year two in option 1 and option 2, the sooner the team has to sweeten the deal and the more "sugar" will have to be added.

Harris is a great example. He played ONE season under his new contract before he started to complain (signed during the season in 2004, played during 2005 and started whinning in the off-season between 2005 amd 2006). So the Packers paid more in 2004 because his deal was increased for 2005 and got two seasons of "lower' pay according to your scenario. Plus, I'm not sure McKenzie is all that "cheap" compared to what he would have signed for if allowed to hit free agency. He is only useful to a team that lets him play as the Packers do. He would be a horrible mismatch for a team that plays a softer, less physical coverage.

[pbmax]

That's what I remember as well. But Sherman was too close to the cap to make it a short term friendly contract reorg or extension. We didn't have enough room to front load any roster bonuses to make it more palatable in the long run. And all parties knew what was destined to happen.

If Sherman had retained his GM position, Wahle might have gotten a huge signing bonus on a long contract, but that would have pushed the day of reckoning even further back.

While it doesn't work in Favre's immediate favor, I prefer TT's approach. But I understand why Sherman was more short term.

What I have always wondered, was if the public pressure from Favre (retire/not retire) kept Sherman in this mode or if he boxed himself into it without being pushed.

It was designed that way, and Sherman admitted as much after the singing. Both parties knew what it meant.

1a. I prefer multiple roster bonuses and high salaries to one huge roster bonus down the road. That is how GB got into trouble with Wahle. The one bonus was a killer, but as I wrote many times before, I'm sure his agent wanted it that way. It guaranteed a huge payday for Wahle in 2005, one way or another.

What Sherman intially said he would do, but never did, was work on a new contract early. For Wahle's situation, I thought it was good at the time, because the Packers were almost certain to lose him back then even. What aggravated the heck out of me was that Sherman never took the second step a year or two later to renegotiate out from under the huge roster bonus that was due in 2005. Some expected it as early as the next off-season. Even Wahle mentioned once about signing a cheap deal to help out the team, and then never hearing from them again about renegotiating. The time to keep Wahle was in 2003 or 2004.

[pbmax]

I think you can still sign early and save. The plurality of players will never need to be redone and will be replaced. The good ones (Walker pre-injury, Driver, Harris, Seymour, Brady) can more easily be accomodated since they have demonstrated value even after their second contract. If there were regrets (like after Walker's snit and injury) then you let them walk.

One and done??? When it comes to young talent with upside - you lock 'em up early, and save money against the cap.

It's a trade off for both the club and the player. The player is taking a slightly undervalued contract on the back end as a hedge against injury, and being paid early; and, the club is locking up a young player with upside at a discounted rate.

On a one year deal, if the player plays well, it will cost you more in the long run if you resign him, or you simply lose him outright to UFA after one year.

Being proactive, and signing the player to the discounted contract is the best way to go, IMO.

The problem is that "locking -up" a player early doesn't really work anymore. The minute the player feels he is undervalued, the whinning starts, Then, you lose them like Walker or McKenzie, or have to redo their deals like Harris and Driver. In the long run, I don't think the teams really save anything anymore, and infact it may cost them more because they paid more than they had to initially, or they pay more than he is worth later on. Teams don't get away with paying a lot less than a player is worth other than SOMETIMES in their rookie contracts.

A few years ago I felt the same way, sign them early and get a good deal. But, players' agents have caught on. Now, I am more in favor of saving when you can now.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Jenkins salary was $425K last year. That was his highest paid year.

The 7 million guaranteed is over 16 years worth of his previous salary.

The 16 million over 4 years is full value of his contract is worth over 37 times last season's salary or an annual increase of over 941%.

At DE Strahan makes 7.2 mil(single season sack record, pro bowl etc.) KGB's cap # is 5.4 million.
At DT Pickett's cap # including incentives is 4.9 million
Rod Coleman in Atlanta is 4.4 million

Compare with Pro Bowl player Aaron Kampmann's 4 year 21 million deal last year with almost 11 million guaranteed at this link.
www.jsonline.com/story...?id=407991

Tell your boss that you don't want 9.4 times the salary you were paid last year.

[BooHoo]

9.4 times my salary sounds good to me.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Jenkins salary was $425K last year. That was his highest paid year.

The 7 million guaranteed is over 16 years worth of his previous salary.

The 16 million over 4 years is full value of his contract is worth over 37 times last season's salary or an annual increase of over 941%.

At DE Strahan makes 7.2 mil(single season sack record, pro bowl etc.) KGB's cap # is 5.4 million.
At DT Pickett's cap # including incentives is 4.9 million
Rod Coleman in Atlanta is 4.4 million

Compare with Pro Bowl player Aaron Kampmann's 4 year 21 million deal last year with almost 11 million guaranteed at this link.
www.jsonline.com/story...?id=407991

Tell your boss that you don't want 9.4 times the salary you were paid last year.

So what? Old numbers. He's going to get what the market leads him to get.

Let's say you and two co-workers (who were no better than you) all had your contracts up. The company was really doing well and made a huge profit. You were happy to negotiate a salary double what you made before. Then, you found out that one co-worker tripled his salary and the other quadrupled his salary. You probably wouldn't be real happy. His agent is there to make sure he gets fair market value.

[cpk1994]

Re: Cash

What makes this choice difficult is we all still feel the sting of the KGB debacle. How can you put fair value on a guy that only had 4 solid games? I think the safest way is to make him prove how good he is this season BEFORE handing him a lot of cash. I'd rather pay more for a sure thing then a lot for may-be's and could be's.

Remember, though, that the big reason for KGB's big contract was because Mike Sherman put too low of a tender on him and the Eagles jumped in with a rediculous contract offer which he matched. They had to give him the money because of Shermans boneheaded move.