JonCJG
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,175
- Reaction score
- 162
POSTED 12:13 p.m. EDT; UPDATED 5:03 p.m. EDT, July 4, 2006
SULLIVAN RESPONDS TO OUR TAKE ON VASHER
As further evidence of the fact that people around the league actually read this here e-rag, we've heard from agent Mike Sullivan in response to our recent critique of Ron Borges' Sunday morning slurp job of Bears cornerback Nathan Vasher, who is represented by Sullivan. Among other things, Borges trumpeted Sullivan's contention that Vasher deserves a raise because there are 130 corners who will make more money than the 2005 Pro Bowler in the coming campaign. As we explained, however, the fact that rookie deals routinely provide for payment of minimum salaries in addition to the slot-driven signing bonus means that Vasher's circumstance is hardly unusual.
In an e-mail sent to us on Monday afternoon, Sullivan raised several points. First, he argued that the four-year term of Vasher's rookie deal was not negotiable. "The Bears made it clear in their first discussion with me that they were absolutely going to require a four-year deal for Nate as they did for their fourth-round pick the year before and as they have done each year since," Sullivan wrote. "So your contention that 'his agent could have insisted on a three-year deal' is simply not correct."
Fair enough, but there are other options. For example, Sullivan could have had Vasher sign the one-year tender for the rookie minimum in 2004, the one-year tender for the second-year minimum in 2005, and the one-year tender for the third-year minimum in 2006. Under this approach, Vasher would have been eligible for restricted free agency in March 2007, and would have made back all of the signing bonus that he wouldn't have gotten in 2004 and more, even if the Bears had tendered him at only the first-round level and no one else made him a long-term offer.
Of course, this approach would have required Vasher to sacrifice his signing bonus -- and to assume 100 percent of the risk that he'd suck or get hurt (see Guss Scott).
Also, and as one league insider reminded us, Vasher signed his "four years or else" deal in May 2004, more than two months before training camp opened. (We confirmed this via a Google search that led right to our own archives.) Said the source, "Why not at least fight until June or July? By capitulating in May, how hard did he really fight for the [three-year deal]? Probably the kid needed money and [Sullivan] wouldn't loan it to him."
Second, Sullivan explained that Vasher isn't trying to force a long-term deal, and Sullivan explained that he has made a proposal for a one-year extension. The extension wouldn't change the salaries in years three or four of Vasher's current deal, but the extra money to be paid in 2008 would move his average to No. 44 on the cornerback pay scale.
Said a league source in response, "He's still forgetting about the $97,500 from the signing bonus that applies to this year and next year." (He's also forgetting about the Performance Based Pay system, which funnels extra money to key contributors who aren't being highly compensated.) "Besides," said the source, "why would the Bears want to do a one-year extension? They already have the right to do so when the time comes.
It's called the franchise tag."
Third, Sullivan acknowledged that "it takes extraordinary accomplishments to justify opening a contract up with two years remaining." But Sullivan believes that Vasher qualifies. "Since the 2000 draft, Nate is the only fourth-round pick to make the Pro Bowl on the original ballot. That is out of 217 fourth-round draft picks and that includes each player's entire career to this point." Sullivan also pointed out that Vasher is only the third position player since 2000 not selected on the first day of the draft to make the Pro Bowl on the original ballot in his first or second season. The other two? Tom Brady and Antonio Gates. "There is a lot of similarity between Gates and Nate," Sullivan wrote, "both in terms of team and individual performance."
Others around the league disagree. "Comparing him to Gates? Come on," said one league insider. "Gates is an impact player who led the league in receptions. Just because Vasher makes the Pro Bowl does not make him a great player. Also, [Vasher] is a product of the best defense in the NFC, at a time when there are few other high-level cornerbacks in the conference."
And regardless of what Sullivan, Borges, or anyone else thinks, Vasher's situation is a direct result of a system that ties a player's income over the first phase of his career directly to the spot at which he was drafted, regardless of how he later performs. "Rookie deals are rookie deals," said another league source. "When a player sucks, the player doesn't give back his bonus money. Sure, the team can cut the player, but the player still keeps the signing bonus. The agents and players forget about the signing bonus, but that's where much of the money comes from. The base salaries [for the rookie deals] are always low."
So what can Vasher do? Not much. He's signed for the next two years, and he likely would be jeopardizing $195,000 in paid but unearned bonus money if he breaches his contract by holding out.
Is it fair to Vasher? No. But under the current system fairness doesn't matter. If it did, guys like Ryan Leaf and Akili Smith and Johnathan Sullivan and Joey Harrington and David Terrell would be required to surrender most if not all of their signing bonuses.
SULLIVAN RESPONDS TO OUR TAKE ON VASHER
As further evidence of the fact that people around the league actually read this here e-rag, we've heard from agent Mike Sullivan in response to our recent critique of Ron Borges' Sunday morning slurp job of Bears cornerback Nathan Vasher, who is represented by Sullivan. Among other things, Borges trumpeted Sullivan's contention that Vasher deserves a raise because there are 130 corners who will make more money than the 2005 Pro Bowler in the coming campaign. As we explained, however, the fact that rookie deals routinely provide for payment of minimum salaries in addition to the slot-driven signing bonus means that Vasher's circumstance is hardly unusual.
In an e-mail sent to us on Monday afternoon, Sullivan raised several points. First, he argued that the four-year term of Vasher's rookie deal was not negotiable. "The Bears made it clear in their first discussion with me that they were absolutely going to require a four-year deal for Nate as they did for their fourth-round pick the year before and as they have done each year since," Sullivan wrote. "So your contention that 'his agent could have insisted on a three-year deal' is simply not correct."
Fair enough, but there are other options. For example, Sullivan could have had Vasher sign the one-year tender for the rookie minimum in 2004, the one-year tender for the second-year minimum in 2005, and the one-year tender for the third-year minimum in 2006. Under this approach, Vasher would have been eligible for restricted free agency in March 2007, and would have made back all of the signing bonus that he wouldn't have gotten in 2004 and more, even if the Bears had tendered him at only the first-round level and no one else made him a long-term offer.
Of course, this approach would have required Vasher to sacrifice his signing bonus -- and to assume 100 percent of the risk that he'd suck or get hurt (see Guss Scott).
Also, and as one league insider reminded us, Vasher signed his "four years or else" deal in May 2004, more than two months before training camp opened. (We confirmed this via a Google search that led right to our own archives.) Said the source, "Why not at least fight until June or July? By capitulating in May, how hard did he really fight for the [three-year deal]? Probably the kid needed money and [Sullivan] wouldn't loan it to him."
Second, Sullivan explained that Vasher isn't trying to force a long-term deal, and Sullivan explained that he has made a proposal for a one-year extension. The extension wouldn't change the salaries in years three or four of Vasher's current deal, but the extra money to be paid in 2008 would move his average to No. 44 on the cornerback pay scale.
Said a league source in response, "He's still forgetting about the $97,500 from the signing bonus that applies to this year and next year." (He's also forgetting about the Performance Based Pay system, which funnels extra money to key contributors who aren't being highly compensated.) "Besides," said the source, "why would the Bears want to do a one-year extension? They already have the right to do so when the time comes.
It's called the franchise tag."
Third, Sullivan acknowledged that "it takes extraordinary accomplishments to justify opening a contract up with two years remaining." But Sullivan believes that Vasher qualifies. "Since the 2000 draft, Nate is the only fourth-round pick to make the Pro Bowl on the original ballot. That is out of 217 fourth-round draft picks and that includes each player's entire career to this point." Sullivan also pointed out that Vasher is only the third position player since 2000 not selected on the first day of the draft to make the Pro Bowl on the original ballot in his first or second season. The other two? Tom Brady and Antonio Gates. "There is a lot of similarity between Gates and Nate," Sullivan wrote, "both in terms of team and individual performance."
Others around the league disagree. "Comparing him to Gates? Come on," said one league insider. "Gates is an impact player who led the league in receptions. Just because Vasher makes the Pro Bowl does not make him a great player. Also, [Vasher] is a product of the best defense in the NFC, at a time when there are few other high-level cornerbacks in the conference."
And regardless of what Sullivan, Borges, or anyone else thinks, Vasher's situation is a direct result of a system that ties a player's income over the first phase of his career directly to the spot at which he was drafted, regardless of how he later performs. "Rookie deals are rookie deals," said another league source. "When a player sucks, the player doesn't give back his bonus money. Sure, the team can cut the player, but the player still keeps the signing bonus. The agents and players forget about the signing bonus, but that's where much of the money comes from. The base salaries [for the rookie deals] are always low."
So what can Vasher do? Not much. He's signed for the next two years, and he likely would be jeopardizing $195,000 in paid but unearned bonus money if he breaches his contract by holding out.
Is it fair to Vasher? No. But under the current system fairness doesn't matter. If it did, guys like Ryan Leaf and Akili Smith and Johnathan Sullivan and Joey Harrington and David Terrell would be required to surrender most if not all of their signing bonuses.
TUESDAY AFTERNOON ONE-LINERS
Commanders S Sean Taylor has been sued by the guy he allegedly beat up in June 2005; Taylor pleaded no contest to misdemeanor assault charges arising from the incident in order to avoid more serious charges that he pulled a gun on three people at or about the same time.
The father of former Vikings tackle Korey Stringer has died at age 57; nearly five years ago Stringer succumbed to heat exhaustion after a training camp practice.
Cowboys receivers coach Todd Haley talks about the time that the Tuna gave him a "love tap."
Former NFL QB Jim Miller will handle color commentary for Michigan State radio broadcasts.
Since it's kind of slow, let's pause for a moment to enjoy video of Star Jones taking a football to the face.
POSTED 11:21 a.m. EDT, July 4, 2006
BEAR MARKET EXPECTED FOR BRIGGS
Regarding the ongoing contract squabble between the Bears and linebacker Lance Briggs, a league source believes that one of the reasons for the team's decision to be patient regarding an extension traces to Briggs' pre-draft reputation.
Briggs was selected by the Bears in the third round of the 2003 draft. Some teams, we're told, had removed Briggs from their boards, and there was an expectation that he'd be selected in the latter portion of day two, in which rounds four through seven unfold. Though we can't find any hard evidence that would qualify him for membership on the All-Turd Team, the source says that multiple teams regarded Briggs as a "bad dude" coming out of Arizona.
There's also a recognition in league circles that Briggs is benefiting from the "Tampa 2" defensive system that coach Lovie Smith installed two years ago.
As a result, our source thinks that the Bears are betting on a low financial demand for Briggs if/when he hits the open market.
Meanwhile, Briggs' decision to turn down a deal that reportedly included $12 million in guarantees and a $5.5 million annual average means that he now bears the risk of having his value dramatically reduced by a catastrophic injury in 2006. In this regard, Briggs might want to have a chat with Ian Gold, who lost his shot at a huge payday when his ACL went kerflooey in October of his contract year.
