Eagles extend Patterson. Why?

[AbeBeta]

The Eagles just announced a 7 year $32 million extension with Mike Patterson - locking him up until ...... 2016. 9 million in new, guaranteed $.

Patterson was a 2005 -- that's not a typo -- draft pick. He would not reach FA until 2010.

Am I missing something or does it sound stupid to lock up guys after a season and a half?

 

[Jon88]

I don't know who he is but they were probably afraid after what TO did to them.

 

[stealth]

nah it sounds like they like him and want to hold on to him, and probably if he turns out like they think he will it may turn out to be a bargain. Course it could go the other way.

 

[Stash]

Is this the same Mike Patterson who just got run over last Sunday?

Curious move.

But $9 million guaranteed on a 7-year deal is peanuts. If he plays well, they have great leverage in terms of contract.

Still seems odd to make the move after just 1 season.....

 

[superpunk]

They did the same thing with Andrews, I think.

They lock up the young talent, which is good. But it's also potentially awful. (a) These players are anything but proven for good, and (b) It's just BEGGING them to hold out when they outperform these contracts.

 

[AbeBeta]

But $9 million guaranteed on a 7-year deal is peanuts. If he plays well, they have great leverage in terms of contract.

It is peanuts if the deal begins today. But not when those 7 years run 2010 to 2017. He's got to play 3 and a half more seasons until that deal even starts. So the Eagles are giving him 9 million for a contract that is 3.5 years in the future. That's a pretty huge gamble.

 

[AbeBeta]

They did the same thing with Andrews, I think.

They lock up the young talent, which is good. But it's also potentially awful. (a) These players are anything but proven for good, and (b) It's just BEGGING them to hold out when they outperform these contracts.

And outperforming the contract won't be difficult with a rising salary cap

 

[theogt]

Is it a 7 year extension beyond his rookie contract or just seven years from this year, which would be, what, a 3-4 extention?

 

[AbeBeta]

Is it a 7 year extension beyond his rookie contract or just seven years from this year, which would be, what, a 3-4 extention?

7 beyond the rookie deal.

 

[theogt]

7 beyond the rookie deal.

Well, it appears to be a better deal to the franchise than to the player at least. If he turns out average, he got an average K. If he turns out a bust, cutting him at the end of his rookie K won't cost the Eagles much. If he turns out to be a good player, the Eagles got quite a deal.

 

[AbeBeta]

Well, it appears to be a better deal to the franchise than to the player at least. If he turns out average, he got an average K. If he turns out a bust, cutting him at the end of his rookie K won't cost the Eagles much. If he turns out to be a good player, the Eagles got quite a deal.

Or if he turns out average, he ends up with more $ than he would have received if the Eagles waited. If he turns out a bust the team kicked him 9 million more than they needed to. If he turns out to be a good player then the Eagles might have quite a hold out on their hands.

 

[theogt]

Or if he turns out average, he ends up with more $ than he would have received if the Eagles waited. If he turns out a bust the team kicked him 9 million more than they needed to. If he turns out to be a good player then the Eagles might have quite a hold out on their hands.

By 2010 and beyond that will be a pretty average contract. The Eagles have always had so much cap room that eating the remainder of the 9 MM that hasn't been amortized by then wouldn't really affect them at all. He may hold out, but that's a risk in every contract signed. They don't seem to care much about players threatening holdout as it is.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Eagles = Commander starter kit. Cut your own throat with contracts.

 

[theogt]

Eagles = Commander starter kit. Cut your own throat with contracts.

Actually, the Eagles are the polar opposite of the Commanders when it comes to free agency and contracts. The Eagles have a reputation of being incredibly stingy.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Actually, the Eagles are the polar opposite of the Commanders when it comes to free agency and contracts. The Eagles have a reputation of being incredibly stingy.

Thats why I said starter kit. They are starting it with these types of contracts.

 

[theogt]

Thats why I said starter kit. They are starting it with these types of contracts.

Ah...I'm kind of dense. Please, ignore me.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

It's a risky proposition in some senses because if a player gets hurt or outright sucks, then they wind up taking a decent hit. Then again, if a player gets or sucks you're probably taking a decent hit anyway.

The bigger issue lies when a player starts to clearly out-perform his contract and the Eagles don't want to pay him what he's asking for. There could be a situation arises where say Patterson is a borderline Pro Bowler getting paid one of the lowest salaries for a starting DT. The next time he wants a contract, the Eagles may not be able to afford him.

But for the player, it's probably as close as a guaranteed contract as you will see in the league, even though it could very well screw them down the road. Unless your a DE, CB, Offensive Tackle, or QB....I probably wouldn't get my hopes too high on getting a contract from the Eagles that pays you for what you are worth.


YAKUZA

 

[cowboy4eva]

The Eagles do this a lot, and it tends to pay off... They show the young players the money early, and have them locked in a great contract when they're in their prime.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

They must really like him...