Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by Fredd, Mar 24, 2013.
taking these in bites as opposed to entire post....
It takes two to write a contract. Romo doesn't sign that deal. MAYBE if every cent of the 55 mil is guaranteed he does but that buys you exactly nothing over writing up a 5 year contract with the same 55m guaranteed.
In fact you'd at least own Romo's rights in year 4 if you structure the deal for 5. And you'd split his cap hits more thinly.
No, it doesn't. Romo won't sign any deals without large guaranteed money and that means multiple years locked in. If you want Romo to earn his money you gotta let him play this season out like Flacco did.And thats means drafting a QB THIS year.
This is poor GMship. Either you rate Spencer worthy of extension or you do not. In fact I'd be more like to either extend both (thinking of winning now) or let both go and rebuild. 1 or the other makes zero sense.
Finally one we 100% agree on
Presumably you mean from either Spencer or Romo extensions. If so you gotta also factor in about half that for the draft class. So you really have 5 mil. That's why Dallas is bringing in Will Allen and those of his ilk. A couple 1.75m deals is really where they are. 3/4m in FA's with a little wiggle room after the draft because you may need to sign a vet or 3 after week 1.
NFL teams would love to sign all draft picks to 10 year deals.
The extra length benefits the clubs alone.
Deals aren't guaranteed so the player is who loses with longer term deals.
Players would LOVE all deals to be capped at 3 years. They tried to get that in the CBA for rookies.
addressed issues here above so will ignore them now.
* Signings - these are the guys I target BEFORE the draft
Winston has serious health concerns. He is on his 3rd team in 3 years for a reason. 15m guaranteed is too rich for that.
Not a bad deal. Basically a Nate livings deal.
I can see doing this as well but if you add Moore and Barber you are adding really one year rentals.
That's not really true. It is true for rookies because it means a shorter period to UFA. It certainly is not the case for a 28 year old player hitting FA for the first time. That guy wants a 5 year deal that allows a giant SB and big salaries at the end that leverage restructuring and extension.
Actually it is true. It would be closer to having all deals guaranteed. And it is a trade-off players would take 9 times out of 10.
Maybe AGENTS like the fake money at the end but players? Nope. They like real dollars and paid now.
ONLY rookies have locked in figures so the faster they get beyond that the better. Getting 3 deals in by 30 (at 23. 26. 29) is the road to real riches.
Only the stars get those fancy restructures.
Actually the players do like the fake money at the end as it gives them considerable leverage - just look at the leverage Romo has right now due to that fake end-of-contract money.
Romo doesn't have fake money. Not even close to it. He has a 10m base and he'll likely triple that in SB alone.
Romo is getting his money which makes it very real. He is getting a RAISE. Over even his total cap hit of this season. He is a 17-18m per year player. REAL MONEY. The TEAM wants to lower his cap hit and spread him over years where he'll be gone but he (specifically his agent, Condon)only cares about the money he actually makes.
Brady is getting his money which is why they guaranteed it. Nothing fake there.
Vick had fake money a couple times now and ask him how that has worked out? Fake money lands you in bankruptcy court.
Fake money inflates totals and makes agents look good but players are finally wise to that nonsense. They see the Albert Haynesworth's of the world. They like guaranteed money, period. It can be year 2 or year 3 just so long as it is guaranteed them.
That is the new trend. More push for guaranteed totals in exchange for reasonable overall salary. Gives both sides financial certainty.
If Romo had performed like Vick and Haynesworth, that money would be fake. It is only real because he played at a high level. That big old cap number is what is driving his new deal. We are crippled without the ability to rework that deal.
You ask any player signing a new deal if they'd prefer some bloated back end or a shorter term deal without it and they'd far prefer being in a situation where their team is forced to given them a larger deal or just stick with the bloated money.
bro, sorry but your example here is just terrible. completely a wrong use.
romo would LOVE to be a free agent. his agent would be over the moon right now. he'd have a 1000x more leverage then this 16m cap cost.
he doesnt have any bloated fake money.
he has a 10m base. that's chump change for an elite QB.
he'd make a minimum of 40-50m guaranteed if he were simply a free agent.
representing that he'd prefer to just make 10m this year is just illogical. he would cost 21m if we franchised him as a free agent. yet he wants less than half that???
players want whatever pays them the most REAL money.
fake money that forces restructures or releases doesnt always or even nearly always benefit them. in fact it often murders them. the team holds the players rights so they hold the cards.
we've seen guys get released 1 year after signing those long-term deals.
guys like laurent robinson, perhaps nnamdi and others.
players want lots of money in a location where they can settle and build a life. they dont want o wait on a teams negotiations and tactics to lead them elsewhere. they want lots of guaranteed money and stability. same as every other human.
Yes. Romo would prefer to be a free agent to his current position where he has the team over a barrel. He doesn't need teams bidding for his services. He holds the cards in that we can't get any FA signings done without the cap space he is eating up. He holds the cards in this case and you know that.
And I never said he would prefer to make 10 mill this year. I said that his deal is structured in a manner that FORCES something to happen. That's the case with most longer deals. Those big base salaries aren't just hanging out there to allow agents to thump their chests about how great a deal they got.
Your Laurent Robinson argument is similarly off-base. Robinson made $14 mill in one year. He got that much because the bonus could be spread over the length of the deal. He didn't perform up to the deal and was released. Just like would have happened if he had a three year deal
any player of importance will have fake money at the end of their contract. It has to suck for the players to KNOW that the last year in a 4-year deal is window dressing and that is whay they want more guaranteed (obviously)...thus, my 3-year program is designed to put real money out there in most cases (although there would be examples of the 3rd year being a toss-away/restructure year)...
...and to the guy that asked about the 3-year plan being a hard/fast rule...for the most part, yes, but certainly with ways around it either for UT players or guys on the cusp of being UT such as Lee (I wouldn't go crazy with more than 3 years yet until he can stay on the field/healthy)...
Nothing you stated is at all accurate.
The Cowboys can extend Spencer, cut Free and operate just FINE with TR on his last year deal. The money TR makes is actually a bargain for elite level QBs. What you are spouting is simply inaccurate in every way.
a)It isn't fake money
b)It isn't holding Dallas hostage
c)It isn't even BIG money; it is a GREAT DEAL FOR DALLAS
Yes, Laurent Robinson made 14m. He'd much rather have made more in TOTAL. He was coming off an elite level season in which a 3 year deal with more guaranteed money would have suited him far better. 14m for 1 year is a great sum to be sure but now he is out of work with 0 guaranteed income and rumors he has a debilitating brain issue that insures he won't see big money again as a player. Compare that to Spencer who has made much more than 14m the past 2 seasons(GUARANTEED--which is why he signed his franchise tenders ASAP). LR would have been better off with a VERY REASONABLE 3 year 15m deal all guaranteed. He would have made 15m instead of 14m. That is the trade off and why non-guaranteed money is fools gold. EVERY player faces major injury risks every game.
Any argument players would rather longer term deals with fake money over shorter term deals that are guaranteed flies in the face of simple things like math and logic.
A lot of these so called forced restructures result in players being cut. That happens when they underperform and leaves them with little in the way of leverage anywhere to find work. They have to take whatever is offered in any part of the country they can get work. It is FAR less than ideal.
You aren't making salient points you are just arguing to argue. And using terrible examples from which to base those ludicrous arguments. So I'll leave off here as we have more than highjacked Fredd's thread.