krazykat Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 If he progresses like we and they project, it is a steal. 724234[/snapback] And if not it's a lot of money to waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 And if not it's a lot of money to waste. 724554[/snapback] No, it's about three million a year to waste, not a lot in today's NFL at all. They should surely know in three years from now if he is going to be worth it. His play is probably worth that already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 If that's the case, it is a very good deal for the Bills. Not a huge layout, not a huge risk, you could cut him after three years and not get killed at all. If he progresses like we and they project, it is a steal. 724234[/snapback] Exactly, this is one of Marv's best moves since he became GM, that and cutting Williams and Anderson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Exactly, this is one of Marv's best moves since he became GM, that and cutting Williams and Anderson. 724600[/snapback] Agreed, and it isn't easy. I liken this to TD extending the contract of Schobel. OTs and DEs are tough to get, simply because few humans have the qualities needed to play these positions in the NFL. The thing is, the player has to want to extend. I don't know if Clements has a wife and children, but the thought of turning down a long term deal which would provide lifetime security for his family (again, if he has one) fascinates me. Schobel lost millions by signing early. Peters potentially lost more, but they did gain the luxury of never having to worry about their financial futures, if they do things right. I could never take a chance at losing it all to injury if I was a player. I am NOT knocking Nate, nor any other player who goes the UFA route. It seems to work for many of them. I just hope for his sake that Nate doesn't blow out his knee and live his life in regret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 18, 2006 Author Share Posted July 18, 2006 And if not it's a lot of money to waste. DOOOMED! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Agreed, and it isn't easy. I liken this to TD extending the contract of Schobel. OTs and DEs are tough to get, simply because few humans have the qualities needed to play these positions in the NFL. The thing is, the player has to want to extend. I don't know if Clements has a wife and children, but the thought of turning down a long term deal which would provide lifetime security for his family (again, if he has one) fascinates me. Schobel lost millions by signing early. Peters potentially lost more, but they did gain the luxury of never having to worry about their financial futures, if they do things right. I could never take a chance at losing it all to injury if I was a player. I am NOT knocking Nate, nor any other player who goes the UFA route. It seems to work for many of them. I just hope for his sake that Nate doesn't blow out his knee and live his life in regret. 724602[/snapback] Long term deals are nice but they aren't guaranteed apart from the signing bonus. He makes 4.2 in the first two years but that goes way up to 6.35 in the last two. No guarantee however that he will ever see that money. From the player's perspective, there really isn't anything long term about these contracts. The long term aspect of it is in the team's favor, they don't have to worry about free agency for the life of the contract so, if they want him that long, they have the player sewed up. The player however can be cut at anytime no matter if it was a 5 year or 10 year deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 it is a nice deal....and very cap friendly.beats the heck out of the ridiculous deal they signed Peerless Price to. that one is gonna be a killer to swallow when he gets cut. 724491[/snapback] Nor to mention the ridiculous deal given to Josh Reed....Why would someone give him 2.5M signing bonus, when he could have been available for Vet Minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Long term deals are nice but they aren't guaranteed apart from the signing bonus. He makes 4.2 in the first two years but that goes way up to 6.35 in the last two. No guarantee however that he will ever see that money. From the player's perspective, there really isn't anything long term about these contracts. The long term aspect of it is in the team's favor, they don't have to worry about free agency for the life of the contract so, if they want him that long, they have the player sewed up. The player however can be cut at anytime no matter if it was a 5 year or 10 year deal. 724639[/snapback] The 4.2 figure doesn't take his signing bonus (which is probably bigger than many here think) into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 The 4.2 figure doesn't take his signing bonus (which is probably bigger than many here think) into account. 724651[/snapback] Also, I definitely think he has some good chunk roster bonus in his 2nd and 3rd seasons, just to make sure that he does get more money if he does become a star..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Also, I definitely think he has some good chunk roster bonus in his 2nd and3rd seasons, just to make sure that he does get more money if he does become a star..... 724665[/snapback] Good point, AND..... if he turns out to be a stud LT, this contract will likely be torn up and renegotiated for the HUGE bucks that these guys make. In all, I think it was a good move by Peters and a great one for the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Nor to mention the ridiculous deal given to Josh Reed....Why would someone give him 2.5M signing bonus, when he could have been available for Vet Minimum. 724645[/snapback] While I like most folks were surprised at the large (by the standards of us mere mortals) deal Reed got, the idea that he could be gotten for the vet minimum does not seem to be either a realistic judgment of what the market would provide him ore realistic in terms of the actual amount he got. In order to believe that he would have gotten the vet minimum, one would not only have to believe that the recently promoted Overdorf and the Bills misread the market (unlikely as the problem with this team has been performance and not contracting in numerous recent deals where the Bills appear to have gotten players for less than the market offered) and assess his play as being vet minimum valuable. In terms of play assessment: 1. Reed disappointed big time in his failure in 2003 to play at the quality level of a #2 WR as folks hoped and actually reasonably expected given his performance as a rookie in the #3 WR slot and his rep based in his Biletnikoff award winner in college as the best college reciever. However, not being good enough to be a #2 WR does not mean that a player sucks and is worth little more than the vet minimum. #3 WRs typically get far more than this and Reed did perform well enough at this level here in the real world as a rookie. 2. The question is what level can he reasonably be expected to perform at. #2 quality WR is really unlikely (though even that is possible and cannot reasonably totally ignored or disregarded). Him performing at a #3 level may still be unlikely (though not quite unlikely) but he has done this job in the real world once before. The things which mitigate against it would be poor performance on his part. but his poor performance in 2003 was reflected in him having a horrible case of the droppsies. He has seemed to solve this problem to a great extent in 04 and particularly with a few clutch catches in our dysfunctional O of O5. One caould easily see the braintrust making the judgment that 3 years of experience has solved the performance issues and allow him to be a viable #3 if things break properly. The other factor which actually mitigates against him being the#3 would be his competitors on the team being better than him. It is easily conceivable that if the not guaranteed happens and PP returns to his past #2 achievements, OR the equally well-regarded and shiftier Parrish plays at #3 levels, OR the wildcard Davis fulfills his promise and plays at #3 (or even #2) levels all these things would have to occur to then force Reed into a competition for #5 WR with Aiken and Fast Freddy. Its really omly if Reed is at best a #5 or #6 WR that we are taling vet minimum and maybe you predict that PP. Parrish and Davis are all going to work out and Reed will not, but if so you are about the only person saying this. If so, i hope you are right. 3. Instead, what seems more likely is that Reed is judged to be of value to the Bills because: A. He performed well on an ST squad which is the leading performer on this team. Particularly with a greatly incread cap (which appears likeit wil go up again next year) the take simply needs to be distributed to the workers by rule under a CBA which sees 59.5% of all the total assets going to the players. I think that Overdorf simply has a better since of what the true NFL vet minimum is going to have to be under the new CBA and thus the ratcheting effect it is going to have on player contracts. This ain't your grandma's NFL anymore and the days of getting anything other than a UDFA for $300K are gone. B. The Bills seem committed to installing a high flying St. L type O and their will be unprecedented for the Bills WR opportunities and needs. The new O is likely to emphasize making catches in tight spaces off the line and getting RAC after that. Reed's past successful work as a #3, his college RAC chops, and his improving at the very least if not solving his sophomore droppsie issues give him a reasonable shot at making the #$ slot, and a possibility of even being the #3. In our new O if this comes to fruition he will be worth the money. Overall, i think the Bills paid Reed the big bucks: A. They believe he will compete for and have a credible shot at winning potentially the 3 an at least the augmented value of the #4 role. While i was surprised at the value the Bills place on this also, it is well above the vet minimum. b. If in fact the new O scheme is going to be critical to our success, then we do not and cannot risk it getting sidetracked due to injury. Having a #4 WR in our O who can at least perform adequately is more important to us than having a pass catching talent at #3 TE (we barely have one at #2 TE now) or having much at FB at all (I think we would rather go with a single runner in the backfield than not have a quality #4 WR. Overall, the Bills have signed for keeps and risked signing bonus for 5 WRs (Evans, PP, Parrish, Reed and Aiken) and even if an injury occurs we will still be able to operate 4 WR sets. In addition we have a large salary little signing bonus guy to try out in Davis at WR. The vet minimum for Reed I do not think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stussy109 Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Jim Overdorf handles the contracts and the cap. He had this role for Donahoe as well and he is quite astute. Everything must be cleared through Marv and Ralph but I would think Marv defers to Overdorf on these things. 724538[/snapback] Agreed, you all are forgettingt hat they are trying to get "Play maker" to sign a long term deal soon. Got them 22's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 The 4.2 figure doesn't take his signing bonus (which is probably bigger than many here think) into account. 724651[/snapback] Yeah, but that money has been paid. I don't see it as part of the "long term" aspect of the contract. I just don't see much advantage to the player for these long term deals. What matters is the bonus and the first year or two which they are likely to realize even if they don't play well since it would cost the team too much to let them go that soon. The later years of the contract are not guaranteed in terms of getting paid and they could be cut at anytime. The advantage to the player is that he gets the deal now rather than a year from now or later when the situation may change drastically. Maybe he gets hurt, maybe he just starts playing poorly. The risk is that he misses the opportunity for a big pay day if he should have a breakout year. So called "Long term contracts" are good for teams, not for players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 While I like most folks were surprised at the large (by the standards of us mere mortals) deal Reed got, the idea that he could be gotten for the vet minimum does not seem to be either a realistic judgment of what the market would provide him ore realistic in terms of the actual amount he got. In order to believe that he would have gotten the vet minimum, one would not only have to believe that the recently promoted Overdorf and the Bills misread the market (unlikely as the problem with this team has been performance and not contracting in numerous recent deals where the Bills appear to have gotten players for less than the market offered) and assess his play as being vet minimum valuable. In terms of play assessment: 1. Reed disappointed big time in his failure in 2003 to play at the quality level of a #2 WR as folks hoped and actually reasonably expected given his performance as a rookie in the #3 WR slot and his rep based in his Biletnikoff award winner in college as the best college reciever. However, not being good enough to be a #2 WR does not mean that a player sucks and is worth little more than the vet minimum. #3 WRs typically get far more than this and Reed did perform well enough at this level here in the real world as a rookie. 2. The question is what level can he reasonably be expected to perform at. #2 quality WR is really unlikely (though even that is possible and cannot reasonably totally ignored or disregarded). Him performing at a #3 level may still be unlikely (though not quite unlikely) but he has done this job in the real world once before. The things which mitigate against it would be poor performance on his part. but his poor performance in 2003 was reflected in him having a horrible case of the droppsies. He has seemed to solve this problem to a great extent in 04 and particularly with a few clutch catches in our dysfunctional O of O5. One caould easily see the braintrust making the judgment that 3 years of experience has solved the performance issues and allow him to be a viable #3 if things break properly. The other factor which actually mitigates against him being the#3 would be his competitors on the team being better than him. It is easily conceivable that if the not guaranteed happens and PP returns to his past #2 achievements, OR the equally well-regarded and shiftier Parrish plays at #3 levels, OR the wildcard Davis fulfills his promise and plays at #3 (or even #2) levels all these things would have to occur to then force Reed into a competition for #5 WR with Aiken and Fast Freddy. Its really omly if Reed is at best a #5 or #6 WR that we are taling vet minimum and maybe you predict that PP. Parrish and Davis are all going to work out and Reed will not, but if so you are about the only person saying this. If so, i hope you are right. 3. Instead, what seems more likely is that Reed is judged to be of value to the Bills because: A. He performed well on an ST squad which is the leading performer on this team. Particularly with a greatly incread cap (which appears likeit wil go up again next year) the take simply needs to be distributed to the workers by rule under a CBA which sees 59.5% of all the total assets going to the players. I think that Overdorf simply has a better since of what the true NFL vet minimum is going to have to be under the new CBA and thus the ratcheting effect it is going to have on player contracts. This ain't your grandma's NFL anymore and the days of getting anything other than a UDFA for $300K are gone. B. The Bills seem committed to installing a high flying St. L type O and their will be unprecedented for the Bills WR opportunities and needs. The new O is likely to emphasize making catches in tight spaces off the line and getting RAC after that. Reed's past successful work as a #3, his college RAC chops, and his improving at the very least if not solving his sophomore droppsie issues give him a reasonable shot at making the #$ slot, and a possibility of even being the #3. In our new O if this comes to fruition he will be worth the money. Overall, i think the Bills paid Reed the big bucks: A. They believe he will compete for and have a credible shot at winning potentially the 3 an at least the augmented value of the #4 role. While i was surprised at the value the Bills place on this also, it is well above the vet minimum. b. If in fact the new O scheme is going to be critical to our success, then we do not and cannot risk it getting sidetracked due to injury. Having a #4 WR in our O who can at least perform adequately is more important to us than having a pass catching talent at #3 TE (we barely have one at #2 TE now) or having much at FB at all (I think we would rather go with a single runner in the backfield than not have a quality #4 WR. Overall, the Bills have signed for keeps and risked signing bonus for 5 WRs (Evans, PP, Parrish, Reed and Aiken) and even if an injury occurs we will still be able to operate 4 WR sets. In addition we have a large salary little signing bonus guy to try out in Davis at WR. The vet minimum for Reed I do not think so. 724755[/snapback] 1. The Vet Minimum is more like 750K not 300K which is the minimum for people who don't have 4yrs in the NFL 2. Andre Davis, who you think is fighting for the #2 spot, is signed to I think a 1 year 1.1 M dollar contract and probably made Vet Minimum when traded by the Patriots. 3. Reed dropped quite a few passes during 2005 campaign too and in 2004 when he was given a chance to be the #2 WR, he failed...especially in a 9-7 campaign 4. I don't think there are any NFL team that pays 2.5M signing bonus and a 10M dollar contract for a 4th WR on the team.......especially the bonus.... 5. Ideally the bills should have let Reed test the FA market and then give him an offer that is on Par for a 3rd or 4th WR on the team. 6. I don't doubt what Overdorf does. That is his professional job....but that does not prevent me from criticizing his moves. We don't have to look at everything from the bills view point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Yeah, but that money has been paid. I don't see it as part of the "long term" aspect of the contract. I just don't see much advantage to the player for these long term deals. What matters is the bonus and the first year or two which they are likely to realize even if they don't play well since it would cost the team too much to let them go that soon. The later years of the contract are not guaranteed in terms of getting paid and they could be cut at anytime. The advantage to the player is that he gets the deal now rather than a year from now or later when the situation may change drastically. Maybe he gets hurt, maybe he just starts playing poorly. The risk is that he misses the opportunity for a big pay day if he should have a breakout year. So called "Long term contracts" are good for teams, not for players. 724829[/snapback] long term deals DO benefit the players tho. Lets look at 2 contracts with an average salary of 4 million per season (after SB). 3 yrs 16 mil, probably a 4 mil SB, then salaries of 3, 4, 5 mil. The player gets 4 million before they play a down, 7 mil after 1 season, and 11 mil after 2 seasons. 7 yrs 40 mil, with a 12 mil SB, and salaries of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 mil. The player gets 12 mil before they play, 13 after 1 year, and 15 after 2 years. The player is making more money with the longer contract, and also, if they start playing poorly, its much easier to cut a player on a short contract than a long one. If the player sucks after 2 years, his cap number would be roughly 6.33 mil in the short term deal, but only 3.4 mil in the long term. thus the team is more likely to keep the player on another year or 2 in hopes they improve. Also, a bigger SB means the team might not be able to afford such a big cap hit of cutting a player on a long term deal. In the above cases, cutting the player after year 2 costs the team 1.33 mil dead cap on the short contract, while it costs the team roughly 9.2 mildead cap on the long term deal. another reason for the team to keep the player and pay him his 3 mil salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Yeah, but that money has been paid. I don't see it as part of the "long term" aspect of the contract. I just don't see much advantage to the player for these long term deals. What matters is the bonus and the first year or two which they are likely to realize even if they don't play well since it would cost the team too much to let them go that soon. The later years of the contract are not guaranteed in terms of getting paid and they could be cut at anytime. The advantage to the player is that he gets the deal now rather than a year from now or later when the situation may change drastically. Maybe he gets hurt, maybe he just starts playing poorly. The risk is that he misses the opportunity for a big pay day if he should have a breakout year. So called "Long term contracts" are good for teams, not for players. 724829[/snapback] But Bro, this is exactly the point I am trying to get across. If Peters got a 10 million dollar signing bonus (a distinct possibility) and blows out his knee beyond repair, HE wins. This would turn into a bad deal for the Bills. Otoh, if Clements stays healthy and has a good season, he will break the bank in 07. If one has a family, this is a big risk to take, assuming that a big contract is ready for him to sign as we speak. I am looking at the risk/reward thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 All I know is solid or above solid tackles are really fricken expensive in the NFL.... Peters was a solid OT last year....and if he continues to progress from that this could very well be one of the best Bills deals of all time.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 But Bro, this is exactly the point I am trying to get across. If Peters got a 10 million dollar signing bonus (a distinct possibility) and blows out his knee beyond repair, HE wins. This would turn into a bad deal for the Bills. Otoh, if Clements stays healthy and has a good season, he will break the bank in 07. If one has a family, this is a big risk to take, assuming that a big contract is ready for him to sign as we speak. I am looking at the risk/reward thing. 724880[/snapback] I agree that a deal now can carry less risk, and less reward, then a deal next year or the year after. What I didn't get was the "long term" aspect and how that is an advantage to a player that he should consider in deciding, as Peters did, to sign an extension now rather than to play out his current contract and the see what he can get as a free agent. I wonder how much the players and their agents worry about injuries? Clements, as you point out, is taking a risk to get past that franchise designation to have a shot on the market after this season. He must have decided that the risk of injury, or a bad season, was low enough in comparison to what he will gain if he gets to the market (as part of his deal this year the Bills agreed not to franchise him next year so he knows he only has to get past one year without any troubles). Can you imagine having to advise a player on that kind of thing? Pretty difficult call to make and if you are wrong, the consequences are just awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts