DMN: Writer calls Dan Bailey's new deal 'Worst Contract of the Year'

[Blast From The Past]

Well, JJ has inked some horrific deals but to say this is one of them is kind of ignorant. Bailey has been money for what....3 seasons? I like the deal at this point.

The only way this ever could be a bad deal is if Bailey gets injured or has a psyche problem and starts to miss a lot. And no one has any insight now that either will be the case within the next 5 years. Bailey didn't, at least to my knowledge try to be the highest paid kicker; He settled if you will to be the 5th highest paid and that in my opinion is a win-win for all parties involved. Writers gonna write, haters gonna hate no matter what Jerry Jones does contract wise with his players.

 

[dogberry]

If kicker salaries are adjusted for state taxes where would Bailey rank?

 

[Future]

I don't care if you have the greatest kicker of all time. 3+ mill a year is way too high.

Say he attempts 30 FGs again next year but misses 2 more. 26/30 is like 87%. That would still be a really good year, but you're now paying that much for a guy who is in the bottom half of the league in terms of accuracy. The difference between great kickers and solid kickers is really, really small. So why spend the extra couple million?

For comparison, Blair Walsh was 26/30 last year and made like $390k, granted, its his rookie deal. But would you be giving him $3 mil? I sure wouldn't, and the 7 point difference between the two wouldn't have had any impact on the playoffs.

I don't think its the worst contract of the year by any means, I just think giving that much to a kicker is silly.

 

[DallasEast]

The NFL offseason has not officially started and Bill Baldwin has already identified the worst contract made this year.

My Baldwin offseason predictions:

A. Jerry Jones will author another player's contract, which Baldwin will proclaim as a contract worse than Dan Bailey's.

B. Another team will hand out a contract worse than Bailey's and Baldwin will not print anything pertaining to it.

I don't own a crystal ball, but I am leaning heavily towards B.

 

[Idgit]

I don't care if you have the greatest kicker of all time. 3+ mill a year is way too high.

Say he attempts 30 FGs again next year but misses 2 more. 26/30 is like 87%. That would still be a really good year, but you're now paying that much for a guy who is in the bottom half of the league in terms of accuracy. The difference between great kickers and solid kickers is really, really small. So why spend the extra couple million?

For comparison, Blair Walsh was 26/30 last year and made like $390k, granted, its his rookie deal. But would you be giving him $3 mil? I sure wouldn't, and the 7 point difference between the two wouldn't have had any impact on the playoffs.

I don't think its the worst contract of the year by any means, I just think giving that much to a kicker is silly.

I think this is a good argument, but I still don't agree with your take here. Those two misses could very well end up costing you two football games, and two football games can cost you the playoffs or a home playoff game. They matter.

I imagine the kicker salary distribution graph has 5-6 guys at the top making a significant premium to the mean kicker salary, and then another 30-35 guys below that who all are making something similar per game. If you have a top guy, you hold on to him. If you don't have a top guy, you have a bottom guy or a journeyman, basically, and you just pay them as much as you have to until you can try to develop a top guy.

When Bailey wasn't nailing kickoffs, I'd agree with you probably that you can't spend a premium on the guy. But he's money on FGs and he's money on kickoffs, and those are both really valuable traits right now. I haven't seen the stats in some time, but scoring differential on drives that start on the 20 as opposed to drives that start outside the 40 at least used to be a significant differential. And the win-likelihood in games where you get a ST touchdown shoots through the roof.

No, Bailey's a weapon, and, if you can get him for a long term deal that only puts him in the top 5 or so in terms of compensation for his position, you do that every day, be happy about it, and never look back. It's only because it's Dallas that it's even a topic.

 

[Future]

I think this is a good argument, but I still don't agree with your take here. Those two misses could very well end up costing you two football games, and two football games can cost you the playoffs or a home playoff game. They matter.

I imagine the kicker salary distribution graph has 5-6 guys at the top making a significant premium to the mean kicker salary, and then another 30-35 guys below that who all are making something similar per game. If you have a top guy, you hold on to him. If you don't have a top guy, you have a bottom guy or a journeyman, basically, and you just pay them as much as you have to until you can try to develop a top guy.

When Bailey wasn't nailing kickoffs, I'd agree with you probably that you can't spend a premium on the guy. But he's money on FGs and he's money on kickoffs, and those are both really valuable traits right now. I haven't seen the stats in some time, but scoring differential on drives that start on the 20 as opposed to drives that start outside the 40 at least used to be a significant differential. And the win-likelihood in games where you get a ST touchdown shoots through the roof.

No, Bailey's a weapon, and, if you can get him for a long term deal that only puts him in the top 5 or so in terms of compensation for his position, you do that every day, be happy about it, and never look back. It's only because it's Dallas that it's even a topic.

We just have a fundamental disagreement then. My point is that the "top guys" aren't really that much better than the average guys. We're talking about a couple of kicks, and chances are, they don't cost you a trip to the playoffs. If you're playoff hopes are dependent on a good kicking game, then you are in a world of trouble anyways.

I think the whole idea of a guy being "money" on kickoffs is a serious exaggeration, since most guys put the ball into the endzone consistently. And even being "money" on FGs is the difference of just a couple kicks. I don't think 2 or 3 field goals is worth 2.5 million more per year or w/e. Plus, kickers are really fickle, and you never know when they might just lose it (i.e. Nick Folk).

Instead of spending that $3m on Bailey, you could use it on, say, Richard Seymour, who could have helped us this year. I just can't get behind the idea of spending that much on a guy who plays like 6 snaps a game, even if he is the best in the game (which he isn't)

 

[Idgit]

We just have a fundamental disagreement then. My point is that the "top guys" aren't really that much better than the average guys. We're talking about a couple of kicks, and chances are, they don't cost you a trip to the playoffs. If you're playoff hopes are dependent on a good kicking game, then you are in a world of trouble anyways.

I think the whole idea of a guy being "money" on kickoffs is a serious exaggeration, since most guys put the ball into the endzone consistently. And even being "money" on FGs is the difference of just a couple kicks. I don't think 2 or 3 field goals is worth 2.5 million more per year or w/e. Plus, kickers are really fickle, and you never know when they might just lose it (i.e. Nick Folk).

Instead of spending that $3m on Bailey, you could use it on, say, Richard Seymour, who could have helped us this year. I just can't get behind the idea of spending that much on a guy who plays like 6 snaps a game, even if he is the best in the game (which he isn't)

You're right that it's a small percentage difference between a really good kicker and a really average one. Where we disagree is on the importance of that small percentage difference. I'm saying that if it costs you a game or two, you might as well be missing the kicks by a mile.

As to the kickoff thing, my only point there was that there was a time when Bailey was not able to consistently kick to the back or through the end zone. As a rookie, he struggled even getting it there most of the time and almost everything he kicked was returnable. If that were still the case, I'd not have wanted to see the long term extension for him. I'm not arguing that he's better at getting touchbacks than other kickers, necessarily.

I agree with you completely on kickers being fickle. And we've even seen money change a kicker. That's where the real risk comes in in the Bailey extension, as far as I'm concerned. And that risk is real, but it's one I'd happily take on this particular guy. Honestly, I'd be really disappointed in the decision making of this team if we let him walk at the end of next year. Especially given how close the NFCE is likely to be for the foreseeable future. You can just bet the Eagles or Giants would scoop him up and beat us with him for the next 6 or 7 years, and we'd get to hear about how stupid Jerry was every time it happened.

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

Another mediot whose drivel I am not likely to read again....I don't mind varying opinions, but my God, look at the whole picture....

Okay lets look at the whole picture...Kickers are making record breaking kicks, 61, 64, 65 a 67 was attempted to win the Pro Bowl yesterday. By the end of Baily's contract Kickers will be kicking almost 70 yards...Dans longest Field Goal is 54 yards.

Jerry has no vision as a GM, his contracts of late certainly help support that notion. Baily is an accurate kicker with mediocre leg strength, not optimal in todays NFL but given an optimal contract. ....PAR.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Any contract for more than 5 years make me nervous. But the beer and nutella hep.

 

[perrykemp]

But the beer and nutella hep.

Need to try the beer flavored nutella.

URL: http://www.thatsnerdalicious.com/beer/a-sweet-spreadable-beer-you-can-put-on-anything/#!tyvxQ

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Need to try the beer flavored nutella.

URL: http://www.thatsnerdalicious.com/beer/a-sweet-spreadable-beer-you-can-put-on-anything/#!tyvxQ

Thanks! It's Bro heping Bro that I most admire about this here Forum. What a great world this is sometimes.

 

[Next Years Champ]

Since when have we been helped by free agency anyway? I mean, how many free agents have we brought in that have significantly improved our team? There have been some who've made us better, but haven't helped turn us into a perennial playoff team. One of "these types of contracts" could apply to Brandon Carr. Has he been worth near the money Jerry paid him? Same goes for pretty much every team. You hit on one occasionally, but for every Michael Bennett and Wes Welker, there are 5-10 Albert Haynesworths and Nhamdi Asomughas. We signed a bunch of FA's year before last, and what did it get us? Carr, Orton, Connor, Livings, Bernadeau, etc. We picked up Durant and Allen this year. A couple bigger names, with a bunch of middle of the road players who were supposed to provide veteran leadership and depth. What has that done for us? Free agency can help your team, but by and large it is fool's gold.

Good post.

And very true.

We have not reaped the benefits you would like to see.

To me..its back to drafting young, fast and injury free.

And that is the other thing this team must stop doing..

..it has to stop drafting players that drop in the 1st and 2nd RDS. becuz there is perceived value.

We have to take players at positions of need with solid programs in their pasts and 4 years of production at the college levels.

..not 2 years..not 1..

no more Sean Lees or DeMarco Murrays..

..that required a couple of years to get them healthy and then we get one good season out of them..

..and then they are gone in FA or have to be resigned at big deals based on their potential.

Forget that.

Draft well..be conservative and build a base of talent that is going to develop.

Then if we are 1 or two players away from really being dominant..

….go out and get a Charles Haley or Bigg.

Not before.

 

[chicago JK]

Outside of Ware, Romo and maybe a few others, you can make a living disagreeing with Jerry on the extensions he has given. Most never either recapture their top play or do not reach the hoped expectations. I mean how can you not sign Brandon Carr because now you have the secondary locked down for the future. How can you not resign Doug Free as he will be our LT for the foreseeable future. You need to sign Ratliff despite his age because he is a pro bowl nose tackle, so now we can draft more secondary players. etc.

Bailely's contract is obviously not that bad. Although, Kickers today are really good (especially inside 40 yards...almost automatic) and it seems like most teams have excellent kickers. Kicking in a semi dome at least 8 games is also an advantage for a kicker. The length of a contract is also screwy. Who knows though...it is not a huge dollar ammount. Although on average, I tend to bet against Jerry's free agent decisions.

 

[DeaconMoss]

Signing the best player on Offense and paying him a decent wage is fine by me!

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Writer calls Dan Bailey's new deal 'Worst Contract of the Year'

Dallas Cowboys fans probably were relieved to see the team give reliable kicker Dan Bailey a contract extension.



Bailey, who received a seven-year, $22.5 million deal, was a bright spot for Dallas in its third straight 8-8 season.

But let's just say Grantland's NFL writer Bill Barnwell was not so enthusiastic about the deal, calling it the "Worst Contract of the Year."


http://www.***BANNED-URL***/sports/...ley-s-new-deal-worst-contract-of-the-year.ece

in about 3 years it will be one of the best. but writers aren't paid to have any logic. they are paid to create interest and sell clicks..

 

[Nightman]

We just have a fundamental disagreement then. My point is that the "top guys" aren't really that much better than the average guys. We're talking about a couple of kicks, and chances are, they don't cost you a trip to the playoffs. If you're playoff hopes are dependent on a good kicking game, then you are in a world of trouble anyways.

I think the whole idea of a guy being "money" on kickoffs is a serious exaggeration, since most guys put the ball into the endzone consistently. And even being "money" on FGs is the difference of just a couple kicks. I don't think 2 or 3 field goals is worth 2.5 million more per year or w/e. Plus, kickers are really fickle, and you never know when they might just lose it (i.e. Nick Folk).

Instead of spending that $3m on Bailey, you could use it on, say, Richard Seymour, who could have helped us this year. I just can't get behind the idea of spending that much on a guy who plays like 6 snaps a game, even if he is the best in the game (which he isn't)

Bailey's brand new deal is still only 8th in the league right now. A 1.7m cap hit is tiny. You keep saying big money, but it's barely more than the vet minimum. Next year it will be 2.5m, but that is still less than 2% of the cap. Locking up a top guy, with the ability to get out after a couple years is just smart.

And every team relies on the kicker to win close games that mean going to playoffs, getting a higher seed and actually winning some playoff games. It is not a sign of weakness as a team to win close games. Why roll the dice. year after year, and maybe lose some of those games, when all it costs is a little more money?

 

[HappyOnions]

Bailey has already kicked more game winners for the Cowboys than any other Cowboys kicker in their entire history. It only seems like a bad contract because there's so many bad contracts on this team already.

 

[arglebargle]

Okay lets look at the whole picture...Kickers are making record breaking kicks, 61, 64, 65 a 67 was attempted to win the Pro Bowl yesterday. By the end of Baily's contract Kickers will be kicking almost 70 yards...Dans longest Field Goal is 54 yards.

Jerry has no vision as a GM, his contracts of late certainly help support that notion. Baily is an accurate kicker with mediocre leg strength, not optimal in todays NFL but given an optimal contract. ....PAR.

That argument is about as big a stretch as that 67 yard field goal.

 

[speedkilz88]

Bailey has pretty good leg strength. Luckily he isn't given many long distance kicks, accuracy goes downhill the farther out--for all kickers

 

[TwoDeep3]

I tend to believe to pass judgment on this contract, we all need to wait and see how the off-season pans out. If Jerry and Stephen can manage to get players to rework contracts, find serviceable players in FA and the draft, and make some headway on the cap, then this might not be a bad contract at all.

I am concerned this is another contract by Jerry where he pays for past performance. But the kid is young and this might turn out to be a great move.

But it has to be judged within the parameters of the entire off season, the cap, and the team this franchise comes to camp with on the other side.

However, having said all of that, one has to wonder if this team was not in Cap Hell, what the GM would have done about Bailey. Perhaps this cap situation is a blessing in disguise. Jerry could have given him something shocking if he had the dough.

After all, wasn't it Jerry who claimed after coming out of the war room that the 2009 draft was a special teams draft? So he's liable to do and say anything.