ESPN Watkins: Jay Ratliff looking at Vince Wilfork Contract

[big dog cowboy]

True. How many players get a good payday and then stop performing (Marion Barber)......

That isn't a fair comment. He has been hurt you know. Or I suppose that is his fault?

 

[AbeBeta]

I understand that ..... but the unfair and meager contract he has right now pays him $20.5 million dollars with a $8 million dollar signing bonus.

Its not like he is working for the vet min or anything

Let me repeat

5 years for $20.5 million dollars with a $8 million dollar signing bonus.

That isn't the point. Guys playing at his level earn much more. It doesn't matter that he gets paid a ton relative to an ordinary Joe. He's underpaid for the level of play he brings.

 

[aikemirv]

Ratliff is 28. By the time his contract is done he will be 31. Not the time you want to be playing big dollars for a player IMO. So you have a decision to make. You either try to redo so you have him until age 33 or so or you leave the contract as it is and deal with him then and bite the bullet either way.

Jerry would easily have to put up another 20 million to extend his contract past that point and from a business point of view that would be a tough decision.

 

[AbeBeta]

Ratliff is 28. By the time his contract is done he will be 31. Not the time you want to be playing big dollars for a player IMO. So you have a decision to make. You either try to redo so you have him until age 33 or so or you leave the contract as it is and deal with him then and bite the bullet either way.

Jerry would easily have to put up another 20 million to extend his contract past that point and from a business point of view that would be a tough decision.

This is the time to do it. Teams should have no problems paying top players top salaries. Keep in mind that a guy goes south and a team can cut them without having to honor future salaries -- we are pretty much the only sport where you can do that which is why players want new deals whenever they have leverage.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Because Haynesworth already got more money last year and it wasn't an issue then. This is how rumors get started.

Even then, they were comparing Ware's potential contract to Haynesworth.

It's not unrealistic for his agent and him to note what other nose tackles in the game are making.

 

[Screw The Hall]

This is the time to do it. Teams should have no problems paying top players top salaries. Keep in mind that a guy goes south and a team can cut them without having to honor future salaries -- we are pretty much the only sport where you can do that which is why players want new deals whenever they have leverage.

They still are out the signing bonus which count as dead money on their cap if they cut said player and affect every decision they can make on the roster as far as paying other guys who do deserve more money.

Your point is of course a valid one but I always find it interesting that no one ever brings up my point when discussing the problems associated with cutting an underachieving player. It's as if there is no downside for ownership doing so and that just isn't the case.

 

[Idgit]

That isn't a fair comment. He has been hurt you know. Or I suppose that is his fault?

He also hasn't stopped performing.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

We still net to draft a NT.

 

[AbeBeta]

They still are out the signing bonus which count as dead money on their cap if they cut said player and affect every decision they can make on the roster as far as paying other guys who do deserve more money.

Your point is of course a valid one but I always find it interesting that no one ever brings up my point when discussing the problems associated with cutting an underachieving player. It's as if there is no downside for ownership doing so and that just isn't the case.

there is downside... however, for most contracts the break even point is at about 3 years ... that is when the cap hit and cap savings usually converge -- so realistically in the NFL most deals are pretty much thought to be three year contracts

 

[sonnyboy]

They still are out the signing bonus which count as dead money on their cap if they cut said player and affect every decision they can make on the roster as far as paying other guys who do deserve more money.

Your point is of course a valid one but I always find it interesting that no one ever brings up my point when discussing the problems associated with cutting an underachieving player. It's as if there is no downside for ownership doing so and that just isn't the case.

It really depends on the deal. How much SB has been banked already and how high remaining bonuses and salaries are pending.

I think smart owners who put winning ahead of profit might want to use this uncapped year as best they can to minimized the furture cap impact of certain players........assuming there is a cap in 2011 and beyond.

I've suggested this before, but I think we should taken our indispensible players, the guys we have 100% confidence in going forward 3-4 years, and rework their deals.

Here's my list: Romo, Austin, F. Jones, Witten, Ratliff, Ware, Spencer, Jenkins, Scandrick, James and Sensabaugh.

You can split hairs with the list......How good are Scandrick, James and Sensabaugh? Can all of these players be trusted to play 100% beyond the big pay day?

What you can't argue is that these 11 players are the part of the future of the Cowboys that we can clearly see.

They range in skill from ALL-Pro to above averge starter, but all almost certainly figure into the furture plans for the next 4-8 years.

The goal here is to find a way within the rules, to maximize the cash and cap hit for these guys in 2010, while minimizing that hit for years 2011 forward.

You take a guy like Romo who you trust to play at a high level and remain your starting QB for say the next 6 yrs and rip up his deal.

He signed a deal in 2007 with a big SB. That SB was paid in 2007 yet is being prorated to his cap # for 08 through I believe 2012 when the deal ends.

Why not rip up that deal and effectively accelerate all that remaining SB to be prorated into 2010.
Give him a new 6yr deal without a SB that starts in 2010. Guarantee the first 2-3 three years to effective make that a SB.

Now his new deal could look like this:

2010...2011...2012...2013...2014....2015
15.0....10.5....7.35...5.15....3.6......2.52

For those counting, this is a 6yr 44.12 mil dollar extension that decreases 30% a year(within the rules).
What we've effective done here is minimized the furture cap hit for a great player and given ourselves a competitve advantage going forward in a hard cap sysytem.
You'd have to make it clear to Romo and his agent what your doing and that this is it. No new deals going forward and that if you're playing in the NFL, it's at these salary figures.
Now I admit that with a player like Romo, the whole deal might be a little light, perhaps another 10 mil or so should be in the deal. But it's the concept I was trying to explain.

Some of the not so obvious benefits......
1) We could cut him after the guaranteed years with no cap hit.
2) Since his cap# is so low going forward, he'd have a lot of trade value.
3) If he losses his starting job, we could afford to keep him as a back-up.

 

[Avery]

I was ranked in top 10% of employees at my company and got a 5% raise.

These players are spoiled beyond words.

 

[WG5516]

I say just add more money to his current deal. Don't extended the number of years.

 

[AbeBeta]

I was ranked in top 10% of employees at my company and got a 5% raise.

These players are spoiled beyond words.

Don't watch it if you don't like it.

BTW -- does your job pretty much make you a cripple at 40?

 

[lockster]

He signed a contract and he needs to honor it. That's what an honest individual does. If he was too dumb to sign a lower contract than what he should have gotten, well shame on him and his agent. That's called the learning curve. If he want's too much money, trade him, no one and I mean no one is indispensible.

 

[BigDFan5]

he wont be getting a new deal anytime before the end of the 2011 season

Jerry does not extend players with more than a year left on the deal nor should he

 

[Chuck 54]

the title said Ratliff looking at Wilfork's contract...yet I don't see a quote from Ratliff in the article anywhere!

I agree, and who cares what he's paid. That's the problem...he signed a contract...he belongs to the Cowboys for two more seasons if we don't pay him a dime, and then we still have his rights and can sign him to a better contract if it's warranted...there's absolutely no reason to rework his contract.

 

[zrinkill]

Don't watch it if you don't like it.

BTW -- does your job pretty much make you a cripple at 40?

That does not happen anymore.

Dancing with the Stars would have no contestants if it did.

 

[Doomsday101]

With 3 years remaining on his contract I would not look to redo his contract at this time. I have no issue with redoing a contract of a player in his final year of the contract