Broaddus/Sturm/Vela Draft Twitter Convo

[DFWJC]

Players taken in the second round and on get straight-up four year deals; teams are granted a fifth-year option for players taken in the first round.

This means that teams can choose to keep the player around for a fifth year, if they want.


The catch, is that the team has to decide on whether or not they’re going to keep that first round pick after the third year of the contract, and before the start of the fourth year.


If they don’t exercise that option by then, the player is free to hit free agency after that fourth year.

If the team exercises their option for the fifth year, the player’s fifth year salary is guaranteed.

.

Thanks.
I thought there was some way to get a 5th year without a new contract on 1st rounders. But I forgot that it was an option and not an outright contract.

 

[Picksix]

Players taken in the second round and on get straight-up four year deals; teams are granted a fifth-year option for players taken in the first round.

This means that teams can choose to keep the player around for a fifth year, if they want.


The catch, is that the team has to decide on whether or not they’re going to keep that first round pick after the third year of the contract, and before the start of the fourth year.


If they don’t exercise that option by then, the player is free to hit free agency after that fourth year.

If the team exercises their option for the fifth year, the player’s fifth year salary is guaranteed.


The amount of money you make on that fifth year salary depends on your draft position.


If you’re drafted in the top 10, your fifth year salary will be the average of the salaries of the top 10 players in the league at your position.


If you’re drafted 11th-32nd in the first round, your fifth year salary will be the average of the third to 25th highest paid players in the NFL at your position.

Thank you. I knew there was some form of option for the 5th year.

 

[SportsGuru80]

I think both guards will be there at 18...

 

[Mr_Bill]

I understand the point that you're trying to make. I said most of their value in the their initial contract. There is some value in having the option to re-sign a player that you might not have the option to sign if he had been drafted by another team; however, if a team wants to pay the price, they can normally find a quality Free Agent; although there might not be a quality player at ever position every year. The exception to my "rule" is that the most elite players, especially at QB, are never going to make it to Free Agency.

Brandon Carr was not a reject. The team that drafted him didn't want to pay top dollar to 2 CBs. Carl Nicks was one of if not the top rated Guard in the NFL when he was a Free Agent last year. Andy Levitre is a top 10, maybe to 5 Guard this year.

If Mike Jenkins had turned out to be a great draft pick, then he would cost as much as Brandon Carr. The Cowboys drafted Jenkins but signed Carr. It is basically a wash.

The point that I am trying to make here is that free agency is not a good way to build a team. Every successful team in the NFL has built through the draft. I don't believe there has been an exception since the heyday of George Allen. Free agency is useful to fill holes in your lineup caused by draft failures, injury, retirement, etc. It is not an effective method of compiling a winning roster.

I hope you are not advocating that a team could be successful letting all but a couple of superstars go at the end of their first contracts and replacing them with free agents. Free agency is useful when needed, but it should never be a team's primary team-building strategy.

Nor do I ever want my team to rationalize its draft blunders by saying, "Oh, well! We can just replace that bum with a free agent." They will probably have to resort to that remedy on occasion, but it's a bad habit to get into.

Continuity is good. Disruption is bad.

 

[Mr_Bill]

The point that I am trying to make here is that free agency is not a good way to build a team. Every successful team in the NFL has built through the draft. I don't believe there has been an exception since the heyday of George Allen. Free agency is useful to fill holes in your lineup caused by draft failures, injury, retirement, etc. It is not an effective method of compiling a winning roster.

I hope you are not advocating that a team could be successful letting all but a couple of superstars go at the end of their first contracts and replacing them with free agents. Free agency is useful when needed, but it should never be a team's primary team-building strategy.

Nor do I ever want my team to rationalize its draft blunders by saying, "Oh, well! We can just replace that bum with a free agent." They will probably have to resort to that remedy on occasion, but it's a bad habit to get into.

Continuity is good. Disruption is bad.

Another point here.

You mentioned Carr. The reason we needed to sign Carr was because Newman was in steep decline and Jenkins was inconsistent. Had Mike Jenkins been more reliable, we would have given him a nice contract to stay. I believe that is a point you have been making -- that it would be similar to the one we gave Carr. Here's the problem. I think we made a wise choice with Carr. But the jury is still out on that. One season is not enough to evaluate that signing. He was good, but he didn't make me forget Deion Sanders or even a younger Terence Newman. It will take more time to determine whether that really was a wise signing or not.

 

[gimmesix]

I think both guards will be there at 18...

Be funny if Fluker as a tackle ends up going before both of the highly regarded guards.

 

[honyock]

Be funny if Fluker as a tackle ends up going before both of the highly regarded guards.

There's a chance that will happen. San Diego at #11 really needs a tackle and there's some buzz that they're interested in Fluker there.